To Barack Obama: Mr President, some facts you should know about the Thai political crisis

[planetdweller]

surely it couldn't be the same person? They aren't THAT stupid are they?

https://twitter.com/princessvanina

Paulie Walnuts says :

Purgatory's different for everybody. You add up all your mortal sins and multiply that number by 50. Then you add up all your venial sins and multiply that by 25. You add that together and that's your sentence in Purgatory. I figure I'm gonna have to do 6,000 years before I get accepted into heaven and 6,000 years is nothin' in eternity terms. I can do that standing on my head. It's like a couple of days here.

[shiok]

I'm curious about the answers of some of the simplistic anti-Suthep pro Thaksin TV members

What about from the anti-Suthep and anti-Taksin TV posters.

As I can't imagine any westerner of sound mind actually supporting either. They're both corrupt.

Now if you had said pro-yellow shirt movement or pro-red shirt movement, that'd be different.

But whose the most corrupt!

[H1w4yR1da]

But whose the most corrupt!

Who's the most corrupt? No idea! How does one judge or quantify the amount of corruption? By how much was stolen? By how often corrupt practices occurred? By the amount of damage done to the nation? The Shinawatra clan do seem to have taken the largest amount of money but they did give a tiny fraction back to the poor, unlike Suthep and his Phuket pals.

Personally I think Thailand will be well rid of both of them.

Edited January 23, 2014 by H1w4yR1da

[diceq]

But whose the most corrupt!

Who's the most corrupt? No idea! How does one judge or quantify the amount of corruption? By how much was stolen? By how often corrupt practices occurred? By the amount of damage done to the nation? The Shinawatra clan do seem to have taken the largest amount of money but they did give a tiny fraction back to the poor, unlike Suthep and his Phuket pals.

Personally I think Thailand will be well rid of both of them.

According to Transparency International corruption was higher under Suthep than under Thaksin.

But the main problem isn't corruption, it's poverty. Or at least so think the majority of Thais.

[me313]

You lost my attention and respect at the beginning of your emotionally-based tirade when you wrote:

"The anti-government protesters are also pro-democracy. The movement is not to rid Thailand of democracy, but to rid Thailand of the most tyrannical and dictatorial leader in history."

Save that kind of rhetoric for uneducated protesters who have no knowledge of international politics or history.

[me313]

She cleverly forgets to mention the underlying situation of poverty and lack of education created by the people long time in power before Thaksin, which makes it possible in the first place for a self centred guy like him to become so popular. There was no real democracy before Thaksin either, the term democracy is just used in a war between clans and different interests, and judging by the low level of acceptance of other people's opinions in Thai society there wont be any soon. What Thailand needs is a deep and free dialogue about what has led to this situations without medieval law restrictions. The war oriented, patriotic and racist education of the last 50 years has done a great damage and left Thai society unable to articulate itself in a healthy manner.

A nice summation.

Both colors are not very great, just a power shift in Thai socioeconomic levels, a threat to the old regime, but the system will essentially remain the same except different groups will finally be allowed to have more power, such a threat to the old guard, but the new guard is going to be the same thing just different people--an opinion.

[Thai at Heart]

But whose the most corrupt!

Who's the most corrupt? No idea! How does one judge or quantify the amount of corruption? By how much was stolen? By how often corrupt practices occurred? By the amount of damage done to the nation? The Shinawatra clan do seem to have taken the largest amount of money but they did give a tiny fraction back to the poor, unlike Suthep and his Phuket pals.

Personally I think Thailand will be well rid of both of them.

According to Transparency International corruption was higher under Suthep than under Thaksin.

But the main problem isn't corruption, it's poverty. Or at least so think the majority of Thais.

Being supported by the middle class against the poor is the clincher to me...the rest of the world.has worked it out that it is the uber rich who are the threat.

Instead of.looking down to their threat they should be looking up to wonder why the rich don't pay more.

Inheritance tax or land reform anyone?

[ILOOKFORWORK]

Yeah... Nevermind the massive corruption within the opposition party and the judiciary itself. It's only Taksin who is so evil, so let's all support giving up our voting rights so that our "good people" can "reform" our government. I think the California BARR Assoc will not be happy to see this letter of hers.

[NHT]

But whose the most corrupt!

Who's the most corrupt? No idea! How does one judge or quantify the amount of corruption? By how much was stolen? By how often corrupt practices occurred? By the amount of damage done to the nation? The Shinawatra clan do seem to have taken the largest amount of money but they did give a tiny fraction back to the poor, unlike Suthep and his Phuket pals.

Personally I think Thailand will be well rid of both of them.

According to Transparency International corruption was higher under Suthep than under Thaksin.

But the main problem isn't corruption, it's poverty. Or at least so think the majority of Thais.

Being supported by the middle class against the poor is the clincher to me...the rest of the world.has worked it out that it is the uber rich who are the threat.

Instead of.looking down to their threat they should be looking up to wonder why the rich don't pay more.

Inheritance tax or land reform anyone?

If I was the US

If I was the EU

If I was China (hang on, there is actually something I can do)

If I was any other nation. I'd just simply forget Thailand exists.

Leave this arrogant land and people alone to themselves.

[tonbridgebrit]

To all those charges against Thaksin written on the article by the US/Thai lawyer : some of those charges MIGHT be true, but most of us know that the present demonstrations are NOT about removing Thaksin and replacing him with a new government that will allow the majority (the rural and urban poor) to have things their way.

These demonstrations in Bangkok right now, are about removing Thaksin (actually, his sister), and bringing in a new government that will represent the so-called 'middle-class' and 'elite'. The new government will act for a minority group, and not a group that makes up the majority.

In a democracy, the majority get things their way. And Thailand's rural and urban poor know that they have been better off under Thaksin during the past decade, and they will carry on being better off under Thaksin (okay, it's actually his sister).

We should also bear in mind that most Thais are NOT doctors, lawyers, senior police officers, big bussinss men, etc. Hence, Thais who do have these jobs and express their views are not actually expressing the views of the majority of Thais.

The vast bulk of Thais don't have those jobs. Actually, this means Thailand, in this aspect, is similar to the countries that most of us foreigners are from !!!

[pipkins]

Reuters and BBC reporting facts today.

Mobs closing stations!!! What was he telling them the other day?

Least Obaba can read up now on the situation in Thailand as it is in all the media there and not written by some the Thai Fascit party and their supporters.

Read it and weep suthep. You are being branded for what you are. Am enjoying seeing the media coming out against PDRC at long last. Quite open critisism of them today, a real change of gear.

[channil]

Dear Vanina Sucharitkul,

I am writing this open letter in response to your own letter to President Barack Obama, dated January 17, 2014, regarding Congressman Michael R. Turner’s purported misunderstanding of the Thai political situation. It may well be true that non-Thais may find it more challenging to fully appreciate the current crisis, having not had the chance to grasp our complex history and socio-political structures. However, this is no excuse for blatant deceit and the shameless presentation of logical fallacies as fact. With all due respect, please keep in mind that you were writing to the President of the United States, not to one of the millions whistling here in Bangkok that may be easily swayed by your meaningless rhetoric.

You, my fellow citizen, are a disgrace not only to the legal profession but to humanity’s intellectual capacity. Allow me to walk you through your own key assertions.

“The movement is not to rid Thailand of democracy.”

I am assuming this “movement” of yours refers to the hilariously misnamed People's Democratic Reform Committee and their brainwashed supporters. Someone may claim that the PDRC are not trying to “get rid” of democracy, but no one, including you, can claim that they are not trying to suspend it (for an as yet unspecified length of time). Where would the proposed unelected “People’s Council” draw its democratic legitimacy from? Not the (referendum-approved) constitution. Not the electorate. From the righteousness (or lack thereof) of Mr. Suthep Thaugsuban and his henchmen, perhaps?

“It is to rid Thailand of the most tyrannical and dictatorial regime in history.”

I hope you mean in the history of Thailand, so that we can skip Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Joseph Stalin. Even then, do you sincerely believe that the recent governments of Thaksin Shinawatra were more tyrannical and dictatorial than those of colorful individuals in our past like Sarit Thanarat (who banned all other political parties except his) and Thanom Kittikachorn (who had his son shoot protestors from a helicopter)? Making such extreme (but ridiculous) statements about Thaksin Shinawatra may be emotionally satisfying and excellent for rabblerousing, but it is nonetheless extremely irresponsible and dishonest.

“Throughout history, many dictators have been democratically elected. Saddam Hussein received 100% of the votes.”

I think you have to be careful with what you mean by “democratically elected.” To be precise, simply being “elected” does not necessarily equate to being “democratically elected.” Obviously, in the case of Saddam Hussein, he had Iraq under an iron fist and any signs of dissent were brutally crushed. The “elections” you are referring to did not allow other candidates to participate and were basically staged YES/NO referendums on the presidency.

This is definitely not the case in Thailand. The Thai general elections in 2007 and 2011 were seen by most observers, foreign and domestic, as free and fair. That is, the elections accurately reflected the choices and preferences of the electorate under a one-person-one-vote democratic system. Of course, this does not mean the results reflect YOUR values in particular. More importantly, the two elections were conducted as per the 2007 Constitution, which was drafted and pushed through by a military-endorsed Constitution Drafting Assembly following the 2006 coup. Both elections were also conducted while non-Thaksin-aligned groups were in power (the interim government in 2007, and the Abhisit coalition in 2011). Simply put, the comparisons with Hussein are preposterous.

“The Thaksin authoritarian government, elected through vote-rigging, proved to be the most corrupt and the gravest human rights violator.”

I see that Thaksin’s alleged corruption and human rights violations are brought up time and time again in your further accusations, so I will address these points later.

On the “vote-rigging”, I am not so sure what exactly you are referring to. If you mean actual stuffing of ballot boxes or “lights out” ballot box switching like in decades past, you clearly have not noticed the myriad of observers from all across the political spectrum who cram polling stations making sure these shenanigans do not occur. Either that or you’re again doing what you seem to do best – lying.

On the other hand, if you mean vote-buying, then I would like to give you some bad news – it doesn’t work that way. Very few serious political observers still believe that vote-buying can win an election in Thailand. Sure, it exists in pockets, sometimes as part of vain attempts by candidates to get points and other times as simply a tradition of patronage payments during election season. Crucially, vote-buying is not unique to Thaksin-leaning parties. In fact, several MP-elects from the Democrat Party were found guilty of electoral fraud and vote-buying even in the most recent election. I am not implying that any of this is acceptable, but I am merely pointing out that vote-buying is not the reason why Thaksin-leaning parties keep getting elected. Several former Thai Rak Thai MPs who had defected to smaller parties outspent the People’s Power Party several times over but still lost resoundingly in 2007. Even senior Democrat Party leaders such as Korn Chatikavanij and Alongkorn Ponlaboot have gone on record saying that money is no longer determinative of electoral success. A lengthier analysis can be found here:

http://asiancorrespondent.com/116697/vote-buying-thaksin-and-the-democrats/

“In February 2003, Thaksin launched a ‘war on drugs’ campaign resulting in 2,800 extrajudicial killings in the span of three months. In 2007, official investigations concluded that more than half of those executed had no connections with drugs. The UN Human Rights Committee raised serious concerns yet perpetrators were never prosecuted.”

Here, you are either being extremely naïve or extremely misleading. Firstly, the figure you are claiming as undeniable fact is but one approximation amongst many. Human Rights Watch estimated around 2,275 extrajudicial killings during that period.

Secondly, you are sneakily equating all of these extrajudicial killings to “killings by Thaksin-ordered personnel as a result of his policies.” This is simply not true. Despite the fact that his war on drugs clearly had an aggravating effect, drug-related deaths would have occurred with or without Thaksin. Most estimates had put the increase in the number of these extrajudicial killings at around 80-90%, or 1,000+ “extra” deaths from what would have been the norm.

Most importantly, a large portion of these deaths were a result of drug violence due to the increased pressure on the market from drug enforcement, rather than direct killings by the authorities themselves. The government claimed that the number of deaths at the hands of police was around 50. While this number may well be understated, a reasonable guess might be something in the range of several times the police estimate, which would still be well below 10% of the number that you were originally suggesting.

As a side note, if you want to look at how a real drug war is waged, you can check out the death toll for the Mexican Drug War, which the US government actively supports:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

I must make clear that I am actually in favor of drug legalization, but if prohibition is the policy that is being actively enforced, deaths and collateral damage are practically unavoidable. Whether that trade-off is “worthwhile” for society is a hotly debated topic worldwide. Some Thais clearly felt that it was in fact worthwhile. For example, His Majesty the King said himself in a 2003 speech, “Victory in the war on drugs is good. They may blame the crackdown for more than 2,500 deaths, but this is a small price to pay. If the Prime Minister failed to curb the drug trade, over the years the number of deaths would easily surpass this toll.” In Thai here:

http://kanchanapisek.or.th/speeches/2003/1204.th.html

The next question is, of course, how many of these few hundred deaths from police activity were actually wrongful killings? It is then crucial to remember that there have been many probes into the wrongdoings of authorities with regards to the drug war, initiated both by pro-Thaksin and anti-Thaksin regimes. These included investigations under the instruction of junta-nominated Surayud Chulanont and, separately later, the “democratically elected” Abhisit Vejjajiva. It is true that no prosecutions followed, but that was largely because of insufficient evidence, not because of some conspiracy involving Thaksin, as the tone of your letter seems to suggest.

“In 2004, Thaksin’s security forces shot, suffocated, or crushed to death 85 southern protestors in what is known as the Tak Bai massacre. Human Rights Watch has condemned this atrocity and urged independent criminal investigation but again, to no avail.”

The facts are pretty clear here so I will not delve long on this topic. The incident occurred on October 25, 2004, where a group of around 1,500 people gathered outside a police station in Tak Bai (in the province of Narathiwat) to protest the detention of six men. Several hours into the confrontation, the crowd decided to attempt to storm the police station. This prompted the usage of tear gas and water cannons by authorities, as per international protocol. Only after protestors started launching projectiles and trying to use their superior numbers to overwhelm police positions were live rounds used to fire into the air and the crowd, resulting in seven deaths.

Subsequently, almost 1,300 protestors were apprehended at the scene. They were then hastily, and one could say with gross negligence, transported to a military camp in an adjacent province. Many of the detainees were stacked atop one another in the trucks during this process, which led to 78 of them dying from suffocation or organ collapse.

An inquest in 2009 during the Abhisit administration found that security officials had performed their duty without wrongdoing. While this will forever be remembered as a dark moment in Thai modern history, it is a slap in the face of the deceased to use their deaths for political gain. Implying that security forces suffocated or crushed the victims personally is clearly misleading. Given how the situation transpired, from outnumbered police officers under pressure to rashly executed methods to clear the scene, it is very hard to believe that this could somehow have been the premeditated intention of an evil Prime Minister. Such claims are all but fantasy.

“According to Amnesty International, 18 human rights defenders were either assassinated or disappeared.”

Are you implying here that Thaksin arranged these assassinations and abductions? Which human rights defenders in particular are you referring to? As far as I am aware, there is no circumstantial or physical evidence linking the ex-premier to these deaths and disappearances. They may have indeed acted against Thaksin, but I’m also certain by virtue of their professions that they were all very likely to have had many other powerful enemies as well.

Murder and kidnapping are serious problems in developing countries, and Thailand is no exception. Red-shirt military advisor Khattiya Sawasdipol and Mohammad al-Ruwaili of the Blue Diamond Affair are famous examples of past victims. However, randomly assigning all the blame to someone as an excuse for overthrowing his democratically elected sister (puppet or not) will do nothing to change this somber state of affairs.

“Due to Thaksin’s censorship and intimidation of the press, human rights violations remained unreported and any dissent was silenced.”

While it is likely true that Thaksin’s government (as with any other government) tried to influence the direction of the press at times, it is definitely untrue that suspicions over his human rights record were not openly debated or that dissenters were not allowed to express themselves. There is no denying that these very public discussions contributed greatly to his fall in popularity during the 2005-2006 political crises. All Thais know in their hearts what particular topic is the most actively censored in our country. Quick hint – it isn’t Thaksin, and it isn’t pornography.

“In an attempt to circumvent conflict of interest laws, Thaksin illegally transferred billions of baht in assets to his maids and drivers, without their knowledge.”

I take here that you are referring to the assets-concealment allegations against Thaksin in 2001, shortly after he took office as Prime Minister. First off, I feel that it is rather irresponsible to leave out the fact that this case actually went through a full trial and that Thaksin was actually acquitted by the Constitutional Court, while you find it convenient to mention other court decisions against him when it suits your agenda.

If you are familiar with how Thais manage their wealth (which from your surname I assume you are), you will be aware that the use of friends, family, or close associates to cross-hold assets is standard practice. This is mainly for transaction convenience and privacy. Of course, such colloquial practice is unacceptable for a politician, which is why we now have laws demanding transparency and declaration of assets to prevent conflict of interest.

You will do well to remember that before he became Foreign Minister in 1994, Thaksin declared his wealth to the public even though there was no requirement to do so at the time. Later on in 1997, during his tenure as Deputy Prime Minister, Thaksin again listed his assets (this time as required by new laws), but inadvertently left out a small portion of assets that had remained under the names of his domestic workers. These assets amounted to a few billion baht, compared with his pre-Asian-financial-crisis net worth of over 60 billion baht.

Is it really so surprising that a serial entrepreneur with huge investments in countless asset classes would mistakably overlook a few percent of his portfolio? Thaksin had three to four years between that time and the time he took office as Prime Minister. If he really wanted to conceal assets for personal gain or corruption, wouldn’t you expect him to do a better job than to give exchange-listed shares (some of which he was already holding directly) to people who were serving him on a daily basis? Come on, my friend, let’s get real here.

“Thaksin aided his wife to purchase government land at a reduced rate of 1/3 in violation of the law prohibiting political leaders from engaging in business dealings with the government. Thaksin was consequently sentenced to two years in prison but fled the country and never served his sentence.”

For lack of a better word, what you are talking about is nothing short of a complete joke. The so-called Ratchadaphisek Land “controversy” is not so much a controversy as it is a result of a disgusting witch-hunt after the 2006 coup. The case was pushed forward by the military-appointed Assets Examination Committee (Read: Anti-Thaksin Committee). This was despite prior confirmation from the central Bank of Thailand, which supervised the land sale, that the deal was conducted properly. Thaksin’s wife Potjaman Shinawatra purchased the land in question from the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF) via a public auction, as allowed under the law. The purchase price was 772 million baht, which was actually higher than the Land Department’s appraisal price at the time of approximately 700 million baht.

The “reduced rate” you are suggesting is with reference to the FIDF’s own purchase price for the land of 2 billion baht in 1995 from Erawan Trust Finance and Securities. The intentionally overpriced purchase occurred during a property market boom and went through as a mechanism to effectively bail out Erawan, which was facing liquidity issues. Perhaps someone should investigate the properness of that deal, rather than trying to put the blame on Thaksin?

Again, the purchase was legal. How idiotic would Potjaman have to be to make those bids if the law prohibited spouses of political leaders from participating? To be specific, the charges against Thaksin were based on Section 100 of the National Counter Corruption Act (NCCA), which specifies that “government officials and their spouses are prohibited from entering into or having interests in contracts made with state agencies under their authorization.” However, Section 4 of the Act indicates that “persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party”, in this case, the FIDF. At the time, Bank of Thailand Governor Pridiyathorn Devakula was the direct supervisor of the FIDF, not Thaksin. Furthermore, Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 specifically stated that the Prime Minister “did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF” and that “those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight, and regulations governing the agency.”

Even with such clear logical facts in their faces, the Supreme Court (which, by the way, lacks any democratic legitimacy) still had the nerve to claim that Thaksin was a “de facto” supervisor of the fund and sentence him to two years of imprisonment. One has to wonder what the point of having Section 4 of the NCCA is, if the court is to look at “de facto” supervision. Of course, this allegation of “de facto” supervision does not even hold water in this case, precisely due to Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942, as explained in the previous paragraph.

Following this conviction and his subsequent self-exile, Thaksin has claimed that this case was politically motivated. Given the information above, wouldn’t you agree?

“Thaksin approved a US$ 127 million low-interest government loan to Myanmar’s military-run government to purchase satellite services from his telecommunications business.”

This is extremely misleading. You are right that the Thai government under Thaksin did indeed approve a loan of around 4 billion baht (or US$ 120+ million) by the Export-Import Bank of Thailand (EXIM Bank) to Myanmar in order to support improvements in its telecommunications. However, it is absolutely not true that this was specifically for the purchasing of satellite services from Thaksin’s own businesses. Even the Supreme Court acknowledged, but then ignored, the fact that 16 other independent companies also benefited from EXIM Bank’s loans. The portion of the loans that had been used to purchase ThaiCom/ShinSat services was not in any way disproportionate, amounting to only 376 million baht (or US$ 12+ million). In fact, the Court’s rationale for the guilty decision was that Thaksin had at some point approved a Burmese government request to increase the loans from around 3 billion baht to 4 billion baht, so “we know” that that entire amount would have eventually gone to ThaiCom. As a trained lawyer, why don’t you tell me if such reasoning would be accepted in US courts?

“During his tenure as prime minister, Thaksin sold his stakes in telecoms giant Shin Crop to Temasek holding, evading taxes worth US$ 16.3 million.”

No taxes were evaded. The share sales to Temasek Holdings were conducted properly under Thai law and as per Revenue Department and Stock Exchange of Thailand regulations. Individuals (members of the Shinawatra and Damapong families, in this case) who conduct their transactions through the stock exchange are exempt from capital gains taxes. This was subsequently confirmed in a legal investigation conducted by the Thai Securities and Exchange Commission. It is also interesting to note that an almost identical legal structure was used in the sale of the country’s second largest operator, Total Access Communication (DTAC), to Norwegian firm Telenor, likewise tax-free but this time without any significant criticism. Again, it seems here that you are more interested in stirring up irrational nationalistic fervor and hate rather than providing a fundamentally sound account of what transpired. Rest assured; the US Embassy in Bangkok knows exactly what happened and will inform your President accordingly.

“Thaksin’s countless measures to benefit his telecommunications business prompted the Supreme Court to unanimously find him guilty of 4 counts of policy corruption and order [the] seizure of US$ 1.4 billion of his frozen US$ 2.3 billion fortune.”

I’m not sure which is more disturbingly amusing, these “policy corruption” allegations, or the Ratchadaphisek fiasco. To start off, “policy corruption” was simply invented by junta-supporters and their cronies after the 2006 coup because they couldn’t find a truly solid case that would be able to cripple Thaksin financially. It is a vague mixture of conflict of interest and moral accusations, all of which had no pre-coup legal basis whatsoever. Well-known social critic Bangkok Pundit tried to have a serious go at analyzing it here, but the absurdity quickly showed:

http://asiancorrespondent.com/20285/freezing-of-thaksins-assets-and-policy-corruption-the-beautiful-term/

In particular, the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) drew its the authority to freeze Thaksin’s assets from citing Announcement No. 30 of the military junta. The “policy corruption” allegations against Thaksin depended almost entirely on wild extrapolations by the judiciary with regards to Thaksin’s “bad intentions,” and the usage of ex post facto, or retroactive, laws. Being the legal expert, you may wish to provide me with your own opinion on whether this should be allowed in any civilized society (except perhaps in cases of horrid crimes against humanity or genocide, such as during World War II). For reference, such laws are expressly forbidden in the United States by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which states: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

The facts are so obvious that even conservative newspaper The Nation described “policy corruption” as “a new, sophisticated form of official graft that works to shield the wrongdoers from prosecution due to its legality.” In essence, we must differentiate between what is illegal, and what is, for some, “undesirable.” Cases should be decided by courts of law, not courts of justice. Sure, one could argue that Thailand needed stricter laws regarding lobbying, conflicts of interest, blind management of politicians’ assets, and regulations to ensure a veil of ignorance for office holders. I for one will join you in calling for such measures to be implemented so that we can have a more transparent and accountable democracy. However, I will not join you in selectively punishing people whose actions (however unscrupulous) were legal at the time of occurrence. That would defeat the purpose of having laws altogether. We might as well have a “Council of Elders” of sorts and let them decide every case based on what they feel is just.

Now that we have gotten the legal technicalities out of the way, a natural question to ask, for our peace of mind, would be – “How did Thaksin’s telecommunications businesses actually fare during his tenure, given all the ‘countless measures’ that he allegedly used to benefit them?” The numbers speak for themselves here. As you noted, the Supreme Court chose to confiscate around US$ 1.4 billion of his fortune (the difference between the shares’ values on the day he took office and the values when they were sold to Temasek). However, the Courts failed to take into account that Shin shares gained 121% over the period, which was actually less than the benchmark Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) index gain of 128%. Some other blue-chip companies made even larger gains, such as Siam Cement (coincidentally 30% owned by the Crown Property Bureau), which gained 717% over the same period. You do the math.

“In a guised attempt to foster reconciliation, the current Thaksin regime passed the Amnesty Bill, designed to pardon protestors from all sides for engaging in political expression. At 4:25 AM on a Friday night, the Thaksin-controlled parliament passed the final version of the bill that would now pardon all politicians ever charged or convicted of corruption since the coup. The revised bill also provided for the return of assets seized. To state the obvious, this law was passed solely to pave way for Thaksin’s return as a free man with all his wealth restored.”

There is more to the Amnesty Bill than meets the eye. For you to say that it is obvious that “this law was passed solely to pave way for Thaksin’s return as a free man with all his wealth restored” shows nothing but shallowness. You have allowed your deeply enshrined political partisanship to blur your analysis. You claim to speak as a “US-trained lawyer,” while it is your prejudice that is doing the actual talking. Mr. Obama deserves better.

For all his weaknesses, Thaksin is not so strategically inept as to think that he could unilaterally push through the Amnesty Bill. Make no mistake; there was undoubtedly some sort of “deal” or at least an understanding in place between the Thaksin camp and key establishment figures before the bill was passed by the Lower House.

“To state the obvious”:

1) There were many enemies of Thaksin who would have benefited from and may have quietly welcomed the Amnesty Bill, but also wanted to appear to the public that they were ready to accept responsibility for their crimes. For example, the 2006 coup leaders (who under the annulled 1997 Constitution in force at the time would have been tried for treason) and several members of the Abhisit administration (who were facing murder charges for the excessively violent 2010 protest crackdowns), to name but a few.

2) Since the bill would still have to pass through the half-appointed and predominantly “anti-Thaksin” Senate before being presented for Royal Assent, it is unlikely that there had been no acknowledgement behind the scenes from those outside the Thaksin camp.

It is also interesting, although not necessarily relevant, to note that prisoners of conscience serving sentences for lese-majeste were for some unknown reasons not included in the amnesty plans, despite many of them being die-hard supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra.

The more logical explanation is that the conservatives, seeing massive popular reaction against the Amnesty Bill, saw the situation as an opportunity to abandon the reconciliation efforts and instead attempt to bring down Thaksin yet again by employing street politics.

“In a ploy to control both the parliament and the senate, Thaksin’s current government attempted to amend the senate structure and bar appointed senators who are professionals from all sectors. Eliminating this system would result in Thaksin’s party controlling the legislative branch without any checks and balances. The Amnesty Bill or any other laws to enable Thaksin’s corruption can then easily pass. Although the Constitutional Court struck down the senate-restructuring measure, Thaksin’s government openly declared that it would defy the court’s decision.”

As non-Thai readers (or, for that matter, some Thai readers) may not be so familiar with our “unique” political system, I will give a quick overview of the Senate’s composition. The Senate, or Upper House of the National Assembly, is comprised of 150 senators. As per the current constitution, 77 are directly elected using the first-past-the-post electoral system, with one representative from each of the 76 provinces plus Bangkok. This part is similar to the US Senate, where two representatives are directly elected from each state. However, the remaining 73 senators are not elected, but are appointed exclusively by a “Senators Selection Committee,” which consists of only seven individuals, as follows:

1) The President of the Constitutional Court

2) The Chairperson of the Election Commission

3) The President of the Ombudsmen

4) The Chairperson of the National Counter Corruption Commission

5) The Chairperson of the State Audit Commission

6) A judge of the Supreme Court of Justice who is assigned this duty by a general meeting of the Supreme Court of Justice

7) A judge of the Supreme Administrative Court who is assigned this duty by a general meeting of the Supreme Administrative Court

Candidates are selected from five categories of profession: the academic sector, the public sector, the private sector, the professional sector, and “other” sectors. All of the committee members are unelected officials from independent agencies and the judiciary. As such, they have no democratic legitimacy whatsoever. Moreover, many of these officials are appointed or nominated by the Senate itself. For example, both ombudsmen and election commissioners are appointed by the King upon the advice of the Senate. This creates a cyclical and self-perpetuating power structure, whereby senators appoint the appointers of their successors (and vice versa). The setup is inherently exposed to conflicts of interest, legitimizing a ruling bureaucracy of sorts that is not subject to any right of recall and is not accountable to the public.

This undemocratic nature of the Senate’s composition was an intensely debated topic during the Constitutional Referendum in 2007. Future Democrat Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva even went on record saying that he did not like this constitution precisely due to the inclusion of unelected senators, but that this could “easily be amended” at a later stage. Thaksin backers, meanwhile, campaigned unsuccessfully against the 2007 Constitution, predicting that any amendments in the future would be met with opposition. Today, they have been proven correct.

Given the backdrop as described above, it should not come as a surprise that any government even half-committed to democracy would seek to amend the Senate composition. This is not to, as you contend, “bar appointed senators who are professionals from all sectors,” but it is to bring democratic legitimacy to one of only two legislative bodies in our political system. The “appointed senators who are professionals” would still be free to participate in Senate elections in their respective provinces after the amendments are made.

Alas, the Constitutional Court “struck down” the senate-restructuring measure. This ridiculous verdict cited Section 68 of the Constitution, claiming that the efforts to change the Senate composition amounted to an attempt to “overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.” Perhaps the Constitutional Court judges need to be reminded that in the 1997 Constitution, which was in use for almost a decade, the entire Senate body was in fact directly elected. Correct me if I’m wrong, but during that time we were also living under a “democratic regime of government with the (same) King as Head of State.”

To make matters worse, the second paragraph of Section 68 also specifies that “In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Attorney-General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act…” It is crystal clear that any complaints must be submitted to the Attorney-General first, who would then investigate the facts before (if suitable) submitting a motion to the Constitutional Court. This is a good example of your favorite “checks and balances,” giving the Attorney-General the authority to screen cases pertaining to the broad-reaching Section 68 before they can be heard by the Constitutional Court. However, in this particular case the Constitutional Court decided to overstep its authority and violate the Constitution by allowing a group of people led by some appointed senators to bypass the Office of the Attorney-General and submit the motion directly. Simply put, it is not Thaksin that is threatening the checks and balances here; it is the Constitutional Court itself. Now you may start to understand why many people, not only those in the government, have openly declared their disgust at the clearly biased and improper conduct of the Court.

It is this blatant systematic policy of double standards and abuse of power solely for the benefit of the entrenched ruling elite and aristocracy that has urged Thai citizens to stand up and say, “Enough is enough.” The voters want reform. But first, undemocratic and extra-constitutional interference must be eradicated. After decades upon decades of coups and oppression, one thing is clear. Our current (semi)-democratic system has failed us. It has allowed for unelected forces to usurp power repeatedly and, on countless occasions, strip the people of their freedom and democratic rights. The citizens are calling for change. A true democracy with transparency, accountability, and most importantly, balance of power at all levels of government. We want democracy. And it is through elections that we will improve and maintain it.

Sincerely,

Chan Nilgianskul

Citizen of the Kingdom of Thailand

[hands22]

Thank you channil for your most thought-provoking post. I have used up all my likes for today but I like your post the best.

[Tedhead]

Democracy has failed us = we keep getting the wrong result.

Elected through vote rigging = fine when the Democrat party did - which it did for years - but not fine when someone is more successful than the Democrats at it. (Incidentally, do any of the dullards in the Democrat party really think they'd win an election if all vote rigging and buying were purged from the system?)

We want democracy = We've stopped pretending that we even want anything resembling democracy. The Democrats have lost every election for 2 decades and they'll lose every election for the next two decades.

The only good thing that's come out of this whole debacle is that the pretence that this has anything to do with democracy is being dropped. As ever, the old power elites don't like what the ballot boxes tell them again and again and again. Similarly the level of bile that's being spat at rural voters shows just the unvarnished attitude of the southern urbanites who've been pocketing the government's largesse for the first 50 years of the modern states existence.

They're trying to find different ways of saying it, but basically it boils down to "Dump democracy. Ban elections. Have the place run by unelected technocrats, acting as front men for army and palace." At least that would be honest.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Tedhead

[Maestro]

Removed an off-topic post about staves.

[philw]

Thank you Khun Chan and welcome to the forum.

I do very much hope you will continue to post.

Your post is the clearest and most transparent summation of the events leading to the current insanity that I have read.

Appreciated, thank you.

Philw.

[Loptr]

You expect a country with democracy embedded in its foundation, which actively builds nations on democratic basis, to listen to a nutjob who wants to undo parliamentary democracy to promote democracy?

I think that the USA's incursions into SE Asia have been significantly short of successful.

The long haul of diplomacy since 1945 has been and continues to be highly successful. The Trans Pacific Partnership is developing well while Beijing watches. The military Rebalancing to the Pacific is well underway.

The US has five critical treaty allies in the Asia-Pacific strategic region, to include Thailand which is the US's oldest Asia treaty ally and partner.

You just got taken to a crash course at school.

Odd that you would tout the TPP as an advantage to the US, considering that most view it as the final death knell for industrial production in the US. But that's ok, corporations having more sway that governments in legal matters is a good thing, right?

[Loptr]

http://nsnbc.me/2014/01/19/us-creeping-front-thailand/ this article seems to be more relevant to OP, I think...

Very informative. Unfortunately too many words for thaivisa shinaclan supporters.

You expect a country with democracy embedded in its foundation, which actively builds nations on democratic basis, to listen to a nutjob who wants to undo parliamentary democracy to promote democracy?

I think that the USA's incursions into SE Asia have been significantly short of successful.

He couldn't be talking about the US since it's not a democracy. The US is a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy. This is where the current POTUS, who is supposedly a Constitutional scholar, falls short since he believes he has free sway to do whatever he likes because he won an election. This would be true in a democracy, but not in a Constitutional Republic.

[inutil]

...please keep in mind that you were writing to the President of the United States, not to one of the millions whistling here in Bangkok that may be easily swayed by your meaningless rhetoric.

Oh come on. I havent even got beyond that line, but its so dripping in contempt for this myopic self-promoting loon that you know the rest is going to be epic. Even the scroll past suggests that the author was so utterly flummoxed by the original authors stupidity that they had to make sure every idiot point was rebutted. Sleep well my friend! youve done gods work.

Off to read the rest of it and have a giggle. This is going to be hilarious (i hope).

[tx22cb]

Mr Channil's post (#342) is the most illuminating one that I'd read for some time - so kudos to you, sir.

It is full of factual arguments and, more importantly, is written with masterly aplomb.

Of the Thai members of ThaiVisa, my perception is that most think they are part of the "elite" crowd, so it is nice to have views from other angles.

Personally, I think Thailand has a bright future if she has people of Khun Channil's calibre in the pipeline.

[blabth]

What a BS after all he is putting old wine in new bottles. Only complaining about Taksin is not enough. No explanation what will be done. No explanation how the democracy would be restored to the level of one person one vote. No comment how the process in the future should look like. No information what the future should bring. No comments made why an election at this stage is not democratic.

Only information on Thaksin which are only partly proven. Sorry that is not enough.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[tilac2]

Thank you channil for your most thought-provoking post. I have used up all my likes for today but I like your post the best.

I agree. This is a fabulous letter from Channil. I am going to print this out and study it carefully. I have thought for some time, based on piecemeal research, that Thaksin has been unfairly vilified. Here is a far more complete response to this issue than I/we have seen to date.

[Thai at Heart]

Thank you channil for your most thought-provoking post. I have used up all my likes for today but I like your post the best.

I agree. This is a fabulous letter from Channil. I am going to print this out and study it carefully. I have thought for some time, based on piecemeal research, that Thaksin has been unfairly vilified. Here is a far more complete response to this issue than I/we have seen to date.

He did wrong and he shook up the apple cart no doubt.

But the way that the laws and trials were conducted after the coup in order to convict him was very dodgy to say the least.

They were out to get him. Plain and simple.

[channil]

Thank you channil for your most thought-provoking post. I have used up all my likes for today but I like your post the best.

I agree. This is a fabulous letter from Channil. I am going to print this out and study it carefully. I have thought for some time, based on piecemeal research, that Thaksin has been unfairly vilified. Here is a far more complete response to this issue than I/we have seen to date.

He did wrong and he shook up the apple cart no doubt.

But the way that the laws and trials were conducted after the coup in order to convict him was very dodgy to say the least.

They were out to get him. Plain and simple.

I agree. Everyone accepts that Thaksin is no Mother Teresa, but there is little evidence showing that he was significantly "more corrupt" or "more inhumane" compared to other Thai politicians throughout history. His populist and liberal policies, for better or for worse, also resulted in an unprecedented "awakening" of the grassroots, who quickly realized how exercising their democratic rights could drastically change their lives. As you said, the establishment were "out to get him" from the day he won his landslide election (where he won 56% of the popular vote) in 2005. This is clearly a purge of someone who dared to challenge the upper echelons of the Thai power structure. While he may or may not have had altruistic intentions when he took office, many Thais now (some would say ironically) rally behind his leadership in the hope of ushering in a new era of a more direct, transparent, and accountable democracy. I am one of these people. While some may not agree with me, I would rather have an allegedly corrupt leader that I can openly criticize in public without risk of persecution and that I can vote against at the polls every few years, than a mysterious (and undefinable) group of supposedly just and righteous "protectors" that I must forever accept in blind faith.

[tx22cb]

Thank you channil for your most thought-provoking post. I have used up all my likes for today but I like your post the best.

I agree. This is a fabulous letter from Channil. I am going to print this out and study it carefully. I have thought for some time, based on piecemeal research, that Thaksin has been unfairly vilified. Here is a far more complete response to this issue than I/we have seen to date.

He did wrong and he shook up the apple cart no doubt.

But the way that the laws and trials were conducted after the coup in order to convict him was very dodgy to say the least.

They were out to get him. Plain and simple.

I agree. Everyone accepts that Thaksin is no Mother Teresa, but there is little evidence showing that he was significantly "more corrupt" or "more inhumane" compared to other Thai politicians throughout history. His populist and liberal policies, for better or for worse, also resulted in an unprecedented "awakening" of the grassroots, who quickly realized how exercising their democratic rights could drastically change their lives. As you said, the establishment were "out to get him" from the day he won his landslide election (where he won 56% of the popular vote) in 2005. This is clearly a purge of someone who dared to challenge the upper echelons of the Thai power structure. While he may or may not have had altruistic intentions when he took office, many Thais now (some would say ironically) rally behind his leadership in the hope of ushering in a new era of a more direct, transparent, and accountable democracy. I am one of these people. While some may not agree with me, I would rather have an allegedly corrupt leader that I can openly criticize in public without risk of persecution and that I can vote against at the polls every few years, than a mysterious (and undefinable) group of supposedly just and righteous "protectors" that I must forever accept in blind faith.

Holy cr@p - another profound post. I doff my hat to you, and more power to your E!

I wish some of those protesters who were born with a silver spoon (chopstick?) in their mouths would have an iota of your enlightened thinking.

[Thai at Heart]

Thank you channil for your most thought-provoking post. I have used up all my likes for today but I like your post the best.

I agree. This is a fabulous letter from Channil. I am going to print this out and study it carefully. I have thought for some time, based on piecemeal research, that Thaksin has been unfairly vilified. Here is a far more complete response to this issue than I/we have seen to date.

He did wrong and he shook up the apple cart no doubt.

But the way that the laws and trials were conducted after the coup in order to convict him was very dodgy to say the least.

They were out to get him. Plain and simple.

I agree. Everyone accepts that Thaksin is no Mother Teresa, but there is little evidence showing that he was significantly "more corrupt" or "more inhumane" compared to other Thai politicians throughout history. His populist and liberal policies, for better or for worse, also resulted in an unprecedented "awakening" of the grassroots, who quickly realized how exercising their democratic rights could drastically change their lives. As you said, the establishment were "out to get him" from the day he won his landslide election (where he won 56% of the popular vote) in 2005. This is clearly a purge of someone who dared to challenge the upper echelons of the Thai power structure. While he may or may not have had altruistic intentions when he took office, many Thais now (some would say ironically) rally behind his leadership in the hope of ushering in a new era of a more direct, transparent, and accountable democracy. I am one of these people. While some may not agree with me, I would rather have an allegedly corrupt leader that I can openly criticize in public without risk of persecution and that I can vote against at the polls every few years, than a mysterious (and undefinable) group of supposedly just and righteous "protectors" that I must forever accept in blind faith.

He outfoxed the establishment completely.

Thing is, he is damaging the country, but the democrats and the others appear to have given up. Imagine in the deep dark days of Neil Kinnock if blair had just given up or likewise Cameron.

You may not like them, but the democrats are completely bereft of ideas and no one wants to play with ptp. Thaksin has them whipped.

[LarryBird]

Just curious, is it illegal for Yingluck to talk with her brother?

[samuidave]

Dear Vanina Sucharitkul,

The citizens are calling for change. A true democracy with transparency, accountability, and most importantly, balance of power at all levels of government. We want democracy. And it is through elections that we will improve and maintain it.

Sincerely,

Chan Nilgianskul

Citizen of the Kingdom of Thailand

"If elections changed anything they would be illegal"

Power, politics and propaganda always merge and the people can be convinced of anything. Like you, for example, making excuses for Thaksin's horrific crimes.

Here's some history for you. Democracy was originally by lot. Everyone in the community was considered competent, and the heads of the Army, the people governing the water works, etc were simply pulled out of a hat.

Nowadays, the minds and ethics of people are corrupted by propaganda, paid for by the powerful, who put themselves and their proxies into government. I wonder how people are going to vote themselves clear of this reality when the only understandable, high-water mark of democracy is determined by those who think it must be evidenced at the ballot box, and the actual governance be damned?

[channil]

Dear Vanina Sucharitkul,

The citizens are calling for change. A true democracy with transparency, accountability, and most importantly, balance of power at all levels of government. We want democracy. And it is through elections that we will improve and maintain it.

Sincerely,

Chan Nilgianskul

Citizen of the Kingdom of Thailand

"If elections changed anything they would be illegal"

Power, politics and propaganda always merge and the people can be convinced of anything. Like you, for example, making excuses for Thaksin's horrific crimes.

Here's some history for you. Democracy was originally by lot. Everyone in the community was considered competent, and the heads of the Army, the people governing the water works, etc were simply pulled out of a hat.

Nowadays, the minds and ethics of people are corrupted by propaganda, paid for by the powerful, who put themselves and their proxies into government. I wonder how people are going to vote themselves clear of this reality when the only understandable, high-water mark of democracy is determined by those who think it must be evidenced at the ballot box, and the actual governance be damned?

Excuses? I am presenting facts. Where did I endorse Thaksin's actions as "moral" or "righteous"? All I am saying is that he should receive equal treatment under the law, not be lynched simply because of standing up to / challenging the status quo.

Your statements are all over the place, to the point that I do really understand the case you are trying to make. Perhaps I am not "educated" enough. That must be it.

I don't want to get into a protracted argument with you on a myriad of topics (you can pick one if you wish). However, this statement of yours stands out:

"I wonder how people are going to vote themselves clear of this reality when the only understandable, high-water mark of democracy is determined by those who think it must be evidenced at the ballot box, and the actual governance be damned?"

The tone of this statement is depressing. I find it hard to understand how seemingly learned people allow the truism "Democracy is not only about elections" to slip so easily into "Democracy does not require elections." As I said before, come protest for specific reforms or legislation that you believe will lead to more transparency and accountability. Obviously, this requires more patience than "shutting down Bangkok" and trying to take power by force. It also involves giving up powers that the opposition might enjoy should it win back office. Don't kid yourself, its not about "making Thailand a cleaner democracy." That would have been done in the 80s when Prem had almost total control if they really wanted it done. It's about taking BACK the power.

Edited January 28, 2014 by channil

[thefamilyjules]

As a US-trained lawyer, and citizen of the US and Thailand, I am pro-Democracy.

This statement has no logical basis and most of what Khun Wanina wrote is moot. Neither country's govermental system or election processes are close to the ideal of democracy; in the US, the electoral college voting system, gerrymandering, biased social aggrandizement, influence of lobbyists and special interest groups are just a few of the reasons. Khun Wanina does not acknowledge that her ancestors and she would have necessarily benefited in some way from the historical roots of corruption and slavery in the US and Thailand in order to reach that level of education and prestige. Also, she begs the question that democracy is the ideal governmental system for Thailand at this stage of its development, or for any nation for that matter. The references to other 'dictators' and the assumption that they were 'democratically elected' further weakens her argument.

Apologies if I repeated anything posted previously, I didn't take time to go through all of the past week's thread replies. No offense to the author or other Thais, but I'm loathe to write a Thai name with a 'v' when it's necessarily a 'w' sound.