Jump to content



Yingluck declines to commit when to return to Thailand


webfact

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Whatever your opinion of Thaksin may be one thing is for sure,he certainly shook the established corridors of power and changed the feeling of ''entitlement to wealth'', albeit for his own benefit since he himself felt ''entitled''. If he has one positive legacy it is that he changed the conception that the poor must always be poor and the establishment has a right to their ill gotten gains.Unfortunately for him, his own behaviour stopped him from having true greatness.He has left behind him division but that comes with change. Had he been a more humble man and truly concerned for the people he represented i think he could have done great things.

Well. He didn't, did he? And that has been obvious for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you who are stuck in a rut about the land deal and Thaksin's conviction, here's a few legal points for you to consider. Not taking any sided in this, just pointing out the legalities.

1) Thaksin was found guilty of abuse of power by helping his wife buy the land. HOWEVER, the land was offered in an OPEN AUCTION, and his wife submitted the highest bid. Matter of public record. So, please tell me where the abuse of power comes in?

2) The courts later ruled the sale was "NULL & VOID". She had to return the land, she got her money back, with interest.

3) In civilized countries, which leaves Thailand open for debate, a ruling by the court of Null & Void means the event NEVER HAPPENED. What the Thai court ruled was that the event never happened. Therefore, under "null & void" rulings, ALL events leading up to the event NEVER HAPPENED. Which, legally, means that she never bought the land, and any "influence" or "abuse of power" he might have exerted, which never existed in the first place, NEVER HAPPENED. Therefore, his conviction for "abuse of power" should, legally, also be vacated, since he court ruled the event never happened.

Like I said, no way I'm taking sides, but merely pointing out the legalities of the whole deal.

Make of it what you will.

You claim you are not taking sides. Not the way I see it. Pretty obvious whose side you have taken. Just more of the same old pis weak Shinawatra defense jargon.

He's got loads of waffles. What one has to do when there are only incredible excuses; make up nonsense.

Bottom line is if you did nothing wrong, you show up (like their opponents did even when Pheau Thai was in) or you escape because you did wrong and don't wanna face the consequences.

This low life swindling family will surely get theirs. Run away, but one can't escape the karma inevitably.

Lets`s leave aside the question of any political influence over this case. If you were falsely charged with a crime that carried jail time in Thailand, would you stay to fight the charges or flee the country? Looking at the state of the justice system in Thailand, I know what I would do.

And BTW how many court hearings did Suthep miss over the past year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever your opinion of Thaksin may be one thing is for sure,he certainly shook the established corridors of power and changed the feeling of ''entitlement to wealth'', albeit for his own benefit since he himself felt ''entitled''. If he has one positive legacy it is that he changed the conception that the poor must always be poor and the establishment has a right to their ill gotten gains.Unfortunately for him, his own behaviour stopped him from having true greatness.He has left behind him division but that comes with change. Had he been a more humble man and truly concerned for the people he represented i think he could have done great things.

Well. He didn't, did he? And that has been obvious for years.

No he didn't,which is what i said with my post but he has made changes on a national scale and he has left a legacy which will be felt for decades to come,whether one agrees with it or not. My dispassionate opinion is that he has,with one tottering step,started a process of leading this country away from a feudal system to one more appropriate of a democratic system whether that was his true intention or not is neither here nor there.I think history will be kinder to him than we realize today, with or without justification. We little mortals on the other hand have had no such impact on the world stage,we are like extras on a film set, to revile or praise as the case may be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think she has thought ahead of the times foreseeing the situation in her homeland and I think her brother is guiding her through her troubled times.

Anything can happen - meaning she might come back or she might not come back. Everyone can only predict in these conditions that are prevailing today in her home country.

It entirely depends on her and her brother's thought process as to what can happen as he has also been though the same state of affairs.

I would not be surprised if she decides not to come back and stay outside her country, but she would be a brave woman to take things head on if she comes back foreseeing the situation in Thailand at the movement and the odds she is facing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you who are stuck in a rut about the land deal and Thaksin's conviction, here's a few legal points for you to consider. Not taking any sided in this, just pointing out the legalities.

1) Thaksin was found guilty of abuse of power by helping his wife buy the land. HOWEVER, the land was offered in an OPEN AUCTION, and his wife submitted the highest bid. Matter of public record. So, please tell me where the abuse of power comes in?

2) The courts later ruled the sale was "NULL & VOID". She had to return the land, she got her money back, with interest.

3) In civilized countries, which leaves Thailand open for debate, a ruling by the court of Null & Void means the event NEVER HAPPENED. What the Thai court ruled was that the event never happened. Therefore, under "null & void" rulings, ALL events leading up to the event NEVER HAPPENED. Which, legally, means that she never bought the land, and any "influence" or "abuse of power" he might have exerted, which never existed in the first place, NEVER HAPPENED. Therefore, his conviction for "abuse of power" should, legally, also be vacated, since he court ruled the event never happened.

Like I said, no way I'm taking sides, but merely pointing out the legalities of the whole deal.

Make of it what you will.

You claim you are not taking sides. Not the way I see it. Pretty obvious whose side you have taken. Just more of the same old pis weak Shinawatra defense jargon.

He's got loads of waffles. What one has to do when there are only incredible excuses; make up nonsense.

Bottom line is if you did nothing wrong, you show up (like their opponents did even when Pheau Thai was in) or you escape because you did wrong and don't wanna face the consequences.

This low life swindling family will surely get theirs. Run away, but one can't escape the karma inevitably.

Lets`s leave aside the question of any political influence over this case. If you were falsely charged with a crime that carried jail time in Thailand, would you stay to fight the charges or flee the country? Looking at the state of the justice system in Thailand, I know what I would do.

And BTW how many court hearings did Suthep miss over the past year?

falsely charged ???

Nooby troll has to be looking for a bite, for sure ! clap2.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think she has thought ahead of the times foreseeing the situation in her homeland and I think her brother is guiding her through her troubled times.

Anything can happen - meaning she might come back or she might not come back. Everyone can only predict in these conditions that are prevailing today in her home country.

It entirely depends on her and her brother's thought process as to what can happen as he has also been though the same state of affairs.

I would not be surprised if she decides not to come back and stay outside her country, but she would be a brave woman to take things head on if she comes back foreseeing the situation in Thailand at the movement and the odds she is facing.

You reap what you sow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you who are stuck in a rut about the land deal and Thaksin's conviction, here's a few legal points for you to consider. Not taking any sided in this, just pointing out the legalities.

1) Thaksin was found guilty of abuse of power by helping his wife buy the land. HOWEVER, the land was offered in an OPEN AUCTION, and his wife submitted the highest bid. Matter of public record. So, please tell me where the abuse of power comes in?

2) The courts later ruled the sale was "NULL & VOID". She had to return the land, she got her money back, with interest.

3) In civilized countries, which leaves Thailand open for debate, a ruling by the court of Null & Void means the event NEVER HAPPENED. What the Thai court ruled was that the event never happened. Therefore, under "null & void" rulings, ALL events leading up to the event NEVER HAPPENED. Which, legally, means that she never bought the land, and any "influence" or "abuse of power" he might have exerted, which never existed in the first place, NEVER HAPPENED. Therefore, his conviction for "abuse of power" should, legally, also be vacated, since he court ruled the event never happened.

Like I said, no way I'm taking sides, but merely pointing out the legalities of the whole deal.

Make of it what you will.

You claim you are not taking sides. Not the way I see it. Pretty obvious whose side you have taken. Just more of the same old pis weak Shinawatra defense jargon.

Wad the FIDF under the direct control of the PM? If so he is plainly guilty of a conflict of interest. if not there's still plenty of information to demonstrate the unethical behaviour of the Shinawats,.see this link http://siampolitics.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/thaksin-ratchada-deal/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly. Be it 11 or 15 suitcases. For a 3 week vacation, who can take that seriously?

Suitcases were empty. She is going shopping

Why would she take empty suitcases, much easier to purchase new ones as needed - money is no object and there is some very nice and very expensive luggage available when you have the necessary folding stuff and the need,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you who are stuck in a rut about the land deal and Thaksin's conviction, here's a few legal points for you to consider. Not taking any sided in this, just pointing out the legalities.

1) Thaksin was found guilty of abuse of power by helping his wife buy the land. HOWEVER, the land was offered in an OPEN AUCTION, and his wife submitted the highest bid. Matter of public record. So, please tell me where the abuse of power comes in?

2) The courts later ruled the sale was "NULL & VOID". She had to return the land, she got her money back, with interest.

3) In civilized countries, which leaves Thailand open for debate, a ruling by the court of Null & Void means the event NEVER HAPPENED. What the Thai court ruled was that the event never happened. Therefore, under "null & void" rulings, ALL events leading up to the event NEVER HAPPENED. Which, legally, means that she never bought the land, and any "influence" or "abuse of power" he might have exerted, which never existed in the first place, NEVER HAPPENED. Therefore, his conviction for "abuse of power" should, legally, also be vacated, since he court ruled the event never happened.

Like I said, no way I'm taking sides, but merely pointing out the legalities of the whole deal.

Make of it what you will.

You claim you are not taking sides. Not the way I see it. Pretty obvious whose side you have taken. Just more of the same old pis weak Shinawatra defense jargon.

Wad the FIDF under the direct control of the PM? If so he is plainly guilty of a conflict of interest. if not there's still plenty of information to demonstrate the unethical behaviour of the Shinawats,.see this link http://siampolitics.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/thaksin-ratchada-deal/

Yeah the real problem facing Thailand is the unethical behaviour of the Shin family.Wake up you genius .

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly. Be it 11 or 15 suitcases. For a 3 week vacation, who can take that seriously?

Suitcases were empty. She is going shopping

Why would she take empty suitcases, much easier to purchase new ones as needed - money is no object and there is some very nice and very expensive luggage available when you have the necessary folding stuff and the need,

Maybe she took "necessary folding stuff".

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wad the FIDF under the direct control of the PM? If so he is plainly guilty of a conflict of interest. if not there's still plenty of information to demonstrate the unethical behaviour of the Shinawats,.see this link http://siampolitics.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/thaksin-ratchada-deal/

Yeah the real problem facing Thailand is the unethical behaviour of the Shin family.Wake up you genius .

The real problem facing Thailand is the unethical behaviour of a family which tries to position itself as 'for democracy and Thai people' especially since two (three if extended family is taking into consideration) have been PM. Real 'classy' examples of how to behave correctly in Thai society.

Anyway Ms. Yingluck declined to comment and I must admit to understand that. More important is to wait and see if Ms. Yingluck is made of sterner stuff than her brother

The Shinawatra family is not Thailand's greatest problem.Its greatest problem is an an entrenched elite that refuses to adapt.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the opening post to remind some people of what this thread is about:

BANGKOK: -- Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra Wednesday night declined to commit when she would return to Thailand.

Yingluck met an army of reporters at the Suvarnabhumi International Airport at 10 pm when she arrived to check in for her flight to Paris. Her TG 930 flight of the Thai Airways International left for Paris at five minutes after midnight.

"I want to take a vacation. Let's talk after I've come back," Yingluck replied when reports shouted to her, asking when she would return.

Continued off topic posts will be removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wad the FIDF under the direct control of the PM? If so he is plainly guilty of a conflict of interest. if not there's still plenty of information to demonstrate the unethical behaviour of the Shinawats,.see this link http://siampolitics.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/thaksin-ratchada-deal/

Yeah the real problem facing Thailand is the unethical behaviour of the Shin family.Wake up you genius .

The real problem facing Thailand is the unethical behaviour of a family which tries to position itself as 'for democracy and Thai people' especially since two (three if extended family is taking into consideration) have been PM. Real 'classy' examples of how to behave correctly in Thai society.

Anyway Ms. Yingluck declined to comment and I must admit to understand that. More important is to wait and see if Ms. Yingluck is made of sterner stuff than her brother

The Shinawatra family is not Thailand's greatest problem.Its greatest problem is an an entrenched elite that refuses to adapt.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Now that YL's gone, perhaps to join her brother in what will prove to be state fugitive, you're quite right, they're not. ...until the next one pops up anyway. But I would say the PTP elite aren't quite so well "entrenched" these days...

BTW, with respect to the boneheaded notion that because an illegal agreement is declared null & void those involved are automatically immune to any criminal liability, such a determination in no way absolves the actors of any criminal liability which may have been involved (if any). It merely renders the agreement unenforceable. (Perfect example of a little knowledge - in this case hardly more than a scintilla - being a dangerous thing...) {See the early pages of this topic if you're wondering what I'm talking about.}

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hOEbx13.jpg

Yingluck was in London today at the London Eye. Apparently planning to send her son Nong Pipe to school in the UK according to the Thai press.

Wonder if she is going to buy the ride for her son as a personal toy and move it to one of the Shinawatra properties in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hOEbx13.jpg

Yingluck was in London today at the London Eye. Apparently planning to send her son Nong Pipe to school in the UK according to the Thai press.

At last,a punishment to fit the crime, having to live in the UK, i wouldn't wish that on anyone

Having billions softens the experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.