Avoid reporting on Thaksin, PM tells media

[rubl]

Did you bother to to read baboon's post - and then perhaps wandered out into the street to get someone smarter to explain the finer points of it that elude you - before you responded? Your post seems to indicate not.

I know this is a quantum leap for you, but being convicted of anything in a court that does not rise to a globally acceptable burden of evidence is usually deemed - for want of a better phrase, but it will do - mickey mouse. Such was the nature of the court that you claim made him a "convicted criminal fugitive". If you are unable to differentiate then the judgement becomes worthless.

If I recall, the case was brought by the junta-created AEC and then the conviction came down from a junta-packed criminal court.

that's globally acceptable... or maybe not.

Having a PM have his wife do business with a government institution is a 'conflict of interest'. Now that's the case in most 'democratic' countries.

The military having extensive business holdings as well as dominating the boards of state enterprises is a massive conflict of interest. That is also the case in most democratic countries.

Could be, but that has nothing to do with the topic here.

[fab4]

If I recall, the case was brought by the junta-created AEC and then the conviction came down from a junta-packed criminal court.

that's globally acceptable... or maybe not.

Having a PM have his wife do business with a government institution is a 'conflict of interest'. Now that's the case in most 'democratic' countries.

The military having extensive business holdings as well as dominating the boards of state enterprises is a massive conflict of interest. That is also the case in most democratic countries.

Could be, but that has nothing to do with the topic here.

Yet talking about Thaksin's wife and an 11 year old land purchase is?

Good to see that you're still a major advocator of the Hypocritical Oath, rubl...................................

[rubl]

Having a PM have his wife do business with a government institution is a 'conflict of interest'. Now that's the case in most 'democratic' countries.

no it's not. And it wasn't against the law in Thailand.

Not only was it an open bid. Not only was Thaksin's wife the high bid. Not only was the bid above the estimated value of the land. It was also the case that Thaksin was not responsible for the agency selling the land. Which was technically correct.

And on top of that, it was brought by the junta-created AEC and the conviction came from a junta-packed criminal court. I repeat that part because you seem to have overlooked the facts of that event.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why they chose to hang him out to dry on that case. Surely they could have come up with an actual illegal activity - it"s not like Thaksin was an angel. Maybe they were just lazy since the result was pre-determined anyway?

Oh come on TB. It was against Section 9 of the "Organic Act on Criminal Procedure for Holders of Political Offices, B.E. 2542 (1999)"

It had nothing to do with 'open bid', nothing with price, only with the effect of publicly having the wife of the then PM bidding. As the wife needed her husbands written permission that means she acted with knowledge of the PM with a possible suggestion that he might be involved. Some call that 'conflict of interest', some might be more induced to call that 'subtle corruption of laws' or just plain greedy.

A PM who said to be too rich to need to be corrupt should also be able to refrain from personal business while in office. Just like in 'real democratic' countries.

Edited November 4, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

Could be, but that has nothing to do with the topic here.

Yet talking about Thaksin's wife and an 11 year old land purchase is?

Good to see that you're still a major advocator of the Hypocritical Oath, rubl...................................

Care to read the header of the topic and a few posts rather than coming with your usual accusation when things get tough ?

[rubl]

Some consider overthrowing a government and tearing up the constitution as unlawful. Just a thought...

Some consider a government condoning violence against anti-government protesters as unlawful. Just another thought.

Anyway, the topic is on how to avoid Thaksin when many so dearly like to write about him. Obviously keeping him out of the history books didn't help. Maybe for that we have to wait till he's history.

[rubl]

^^

Fear of those he could possibly drag down with him, tbthailand? For instance, it isn't like he shot those drug dealers himself or personally herded the suspected militants at Tak Bai into the trucks which became their graves..

Absolutely.

Just like that duo Abhisit/Suthep. Charge him with 'premeditated murder' but rather than as private person make it while being PM.

[tbthailand]

Having a PM have his wife do business with a government institution is a 'conflict of interest'. Now that's the case in most 'democratic' countries.

no it's not. And it wasn't against the law in Thailand.

Not only was it an open bid. Not only was Thaksin's wife the high bid. Not only was the bid above the estimated value of the land. It was also the case that Thaksin was not responsible for the agency selling the land. Which was technically correct.

And on top of that, it was brought by the junta-created AEC and the conviction came from a junta-packed criminal court. I repeat that part because you seem to have overlooked the facts of that event.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why they chose to hang him out to dry on that case. Surely they could have come up with an actual illegal activity - it"s not like Thaksin was an angel. Maybe they were just lazy since the result was pre-determined anyway?

Oh come on TB. It was against Section 9 of the "Organic Act on Criminal Procedure for Holders of Political Offices, B.E. 2542 (1999)"

It had nothing to do with 'open bid', nothing with price, only with the effect of publicly having the wife of the then PM bidding. As the wife needed her husbands written permission that means she acted with knowledge of the PM with a possible suggestion that he might be involved. Some call that 'conflict of interest', some might be more induced to call that 'subtle corruption of laws' or just plain greedy.

A PM who said to be too rich to need to be corrupt should also be able to refrain from personal business while in office. Just like in 'real democratic' countries.

It was against Section 9 of the "Organic Act on Criminal Procedure for Holders of Political Offices, B.E. 2542 (1999)"

I'll repeat.

That was the ruling.

If you understand that the law that the junta/AEC claimed that he broke wasn't really broken... Then you will begin to understand that it was rigged.

By the way, you realize that the only reason Thaksin was involved in that case was because according to Thai law he was obliged to co-sign for the purchase by his wife. You can imagine what a major transgression he must have committed, since logically, if they had just been partners he would not have been obliged to sign, and there would have been no case in the first place.

Please tell me you understand now. It's really simple.

Edited November 4, 2014 by tbthailand

[rubl]

Having a PM have his wife do business with a government institution is a 'conflict of interest'. Now that's the case in most 'democratic' countries.

no it's not. And it wasn't against the law in Thailand.

Not only was it an open bid. Not only was Thaksin's wife the high bid. Not only was the bid above the estimated value of the land. It was also the case that Thaksin was not responsible for the agency selling the land. Which was technically correct.

And on top of that, it was brought by the junta-created AEC and the conviction came from a junta-packed criminal court. I repeat that part because you seem to have overlooked the facts of that event.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why they chose to hang him out to dry on that case. Surely they could have come up with an actual illegal activity - it"s not like Thaksin was an angel. Maybe they were just lazy since the result was pre-determined anyway?

Oh come on TB. It was against Section 9 of the "Organic Act on Criminal Procedure for Holders of Political Offices, B.E. 2542 (1999)"

It had nothing to do with 'open bid', nothing with price, only with the effect of publicly having the wife of the then PM bidding. As the wife needed her husbands written permission that means she acted with knowledge of the PM with a possible suggestion that he might be involved. Some call that 'conflict of interest', some might be more induced to call that 'subtle corruption of laws' or just plain greedy.

A PM who said to be too rich to need to be corrupt should also be able to refrain from personal business while in office. Just like in 'real democratic' countries.

It was against Section 9 of the "Organic Act on Criminal Procedure for Holders of Political Offices, B.E. 2542 (1999)"

I'll repeat.

That was the ruling.

If you understand that the law that the junta/AEC claimed that he broke wasn't really broken... Then you will begin to understand that it was rigged.

By the way, you realize that the only reason Thaksin was involved in that case was because according to Thai law he was obliged to co-sign for the purchase by his wife. You can imagine what a major transgression he must have committed, since logically, if they had just been partners he would not have been obliged to sign, and there would have been no case in the first place.

Please tell me you understand now. It's really simple.

Logic not being your strongest point it would seem let me try to explain in simpler terms.

He broke the law. There is no such thing as 'not really broken'. When talking about 'rigged' it seems you break the law or at least 'slander' it.

Thaksin should have known (being PM, having legal advisors, etc.) that since by law he had to sign to agree for his wife to bid for a piece of land, he was implicitly guilty of 'conflict of interest'. Had no such law existed he would be explicitly guilty of more serious crimes.

Now there is no need to believe me. Still since you feel so strongly about this may I suggest you contact "Siam Legal"? They are a sponsor of this TVF. Ask them for a quotation on their professional, legal advise on this issue.

Cheers,

uncle rubl

PS don't forget to mention you're a TVF member, maybe they'll give you a discount

[tbthailand]

no it's not. And it wasn't against the law in Thailand.

Not only was it an open bid. Not only was Thaksin's wife the high bid. Not only was the bid above the estimated value of the land. It was also the case that Thaksin was not responsible for the agency selling the land. Which was technically correct.

And on top of that, it was brought by the junta-created AEC and the conviction came from a junta-packed criminal court. I repeat that part because you seem to have overlooked the facts of that event.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why they chose to hang him out to dry on that case. Surely they could have come up with an actual illegal activity - it"s not like Thaksin was an angel. Maybe they were just lazy since the result was pre-determined anyway?

Oh come on TB. It was against Section 9 of the "Organic Act on Criminal Procedure for Holders of Political Offices, B.E. 2542 (1999)"

It had nothing to do with 'open bid', nothing with price, only with the effect of publicly having the wife of the then PM bidding. As the wife needed her husbands written permission that means she acted with knowledge of the PM with a possible suggestion that he might be involved. Some call that 'conflict of interest', some might be more induced to call that 'subtle corruption of laws' or just plain greedy.

A PM who said to be too rich to need to be corrupt should also be able to refrain from personal business while in office. Just like in 'real democratic' countries.

It was against Section 9 of the "Organic Act on Criminal Procedure for Holders of Political Offices, B.E. 2542 (1999)"

I'll repeat.

That was the ruling.

If you understand that the law that the junta/AEC claimed that he broke wasn't really broken... Then you will begin to understand that it was rigged.

By the way, you realize that the only reason Thaksin was involved in that case was because according to Thai law he was obliged to co-sign for the purchase by his wife. You can imagine what a major transgression he must have committed, since logically, if they had just been partners he would not have been obliged to sign, and there would have been no case in the first place.

Please tell me you understand now. It's really simple.

Logic not being your strongest point it would seem let me try to explain in simpler terms.

He broke the law. There is no such thing as 'not really broken'. When talking about 'rigged' it seems you break the law or at least 'slander' it.

Thaksin should have known (being PM, having legal advisors, etc.) that since by law he had to sign to agree for his wife to bid for a piece of land, he was implicitly guilty of 'conflict of interest'. Had no such law existed he would be explicitly guilty of more serious crimes.

Now there is no need to believe me. Still since you feel so strongly about this may I suggest you contact "Siam Legal"? They are a sponsor of this TVF. Ask them for a quotation on their professional, legal advise on this issue.

Cheers,

uncle rubl

PS don't forget to mention you're a TVF member, maybe they'll give you a discount

jesus h christ - please don't talk to me about lack of logic, rubl. Anyone looking at the law - except you and other people who want him to be guilty - can understand that this was a political conviction.

he did not break the law for which he was convicted unless you believe some how that he was fairly tried. but as pointed out, the junta which overthrew his government was behind his conviction. That you don't understand that is not a surprise as you are a hopeless junta cheerleader.

you are a helpless troll and ignore most of the information that blows over your head but just one last time I'll mention that there must certainly have been a valid charge to bring against Thaksin since he was hardly an angel, but instead, this total fluff was brought to court and he was convicted. The junta created a political martyr for many Thais and also for the international community.

[tbthailand]

Some consider overthrowing a government and tearing up the constitution as unlawful. Just a thought...

Some consider a government condoning violence against anti-government protesters as unlawful. Just another thought.

Anyway, the topic is on how to avoid Thaksin when many so dearly like to write about him. Obviously keeping him out of the history books didn't help. Maybe for that we have to wait till he's history.

Some consider a government condoning violence against anti-government protesters as unlawful. Just another thought.

when was that Rubl? Obviously you are talking about 2014, but the government did not condone the violence.

on the other hand in 2010, the government/military was the active participant in violence against anti-'government' protestors. But I somehow don't think your were referring to reality but just to some fantasy in your little head.

[bendejo]

PM gets the Basil Fawlty Award of the day.

In one episode they were due to get some German tourists, and Basil keeps reminding the staff "don't mention the war."

Well, we know what he does as soon as they arrive.

[rubl]

Logic not being your strongest point it would seem let me try to explain in simpler terms.

He broke the law. There is no such thing as 'not really broken'. When talking about 'rigged' it seems you break the law or at least 'slander' it.

Thaksin should have known (being PM, having legal advisors, etc.) that since by law he had to sign to agree for his wife to bid for a piece of land, he was implicitly guilty of 'conflict of interest'. Had no such law existed he would be explicitly guilty of more serious crimes.

Now there is no need to believe me. Still since you feel so strongly about this may I suggest you contact "Siam Legal"? They are a sponsor of this TVF. Ask them for a quotation on their professional, legal advise on this issue.

Cheers,

uncle rubl

PS don't forget to mention you're a TVF member, maybe they'll give you a discount

jesus h christ - please don't talk to me about lack of logic, rubl. Anyone looking at the law - except you and other people who want him to be guilty - can understand that this was a political conviction.

he did not break the law for which he was convicted unless you believe some how that he was fairly tried. but as pointed out, the junta which overthrew his government was behind his conviction. That you don't understand that is not a surprise as you are a hopeless junta cheerleader.

you are a helpless troll and ignore most of the information that blows over your head but just one last time I'll mention that there must certainly have been a valid charge to bring against Thaksin since he was hardly an angel, but instead, this total fluff was brought to court and he was convicted. The junta created a political martyr for many Thais and also for the international community.

Well, first of all let me thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate that.

Breaking the law is breaking the law. Calling it a 'political conviction' doesn't alter that.

[rubl]

PM gets the Basil Fawlty Award of the day.

In one episode they were due to get some German tourists, and Basil keeps reminding the staff "don't mention the war."

Well, we know what he does as soon as they arrive.

Somehow I think we can mention Thaksin again the moment he arrives, be it as 'savior of the country' or in shackles

[brucec64]

Logic not being your strongest point it would seem let me try to explain in simpler terms.

He broke the law. There is no such thing as 'not really broken'. When talking about 'rigged' it seems you break the law or at least 'slander' it.

Thaksin should have known (being PM, having legal advisors, etc.) that since by law he had to sign to agree for his wife to bid for a piece of land, he was implicitly guilty of 'conflict of interest'. Had no such law existed he would be explicitly guilty of more serious crimes.

Now there is no need to believe me. Still since you feel so strongly about this may I suggest you contact "Siam Legal"? They are a sponsor of this TVF. Ask them for a quotation on their professional, legal advise on this issue.

Cheers,

uncle rubl

PS don't forget to mention you're a TVF member, maybe they'll give you a discount

jesus h christ - please don't talk to me about lack of logic, rubl. Anyone looking at the law - except you and other people who want him to be guilty - can understand that this was a political conviction.

he did not break the law for which he was convicted unless you believe some how that he was fairly tried. but as pointed out, the junta which overthrew his government was behind his conviction. That you don't understand that is not a surprise as you are a hopeless junta cheerleader.

you are a helpless troll and ignore most of the information that blows over your head but just one last time I'll mention that there must certainly have been a valid charge to bring against Thaksin since he was hardly an angel, but instead, this total fluff was brought to court and he was convicted. The junta created a political martyr for many Thais and also for the international community.

Well, first of all let me thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate that.

Breaking the law is breaking the law. Calling it a 'political conviction' doesn't alter that.

Unless of course you break the law and then put an amnesty clause in a constitution that you write yourself.

[rubl]

Logic not being your strongest point it would seem let me try to explain in simpler terms.

He broke the law. There is no such thing as 'not really broken'. When talking about 'rigged' it seems you break the law or at least 'slander' it.

Thaksin should have known (being PM, having legal advisors, etc.) that since by law he had to sign to agree for his wife to bid for a piece of land, he was implicitly guilty of 'conflict of interest'. Had no such law existed he would be explicitly guilty of more serious crimes.

Now there is no need to believe me. Still since you feel so strongly about this may I suggest you contact "Siam Legal"? They are a sponsor of this TVF. Ask them for a quotation on their professional, legal advise on this issue.

Cheers,

uncle rubl

PS don't forget to mention you're a TVF member, maybe they'll give you a discount

jesus h christ - please don't talk to me about lack of logic, rubl. Anyone looking at the law - except you and other people who want him to be guilty - can understand that this was a political conviction.

he did not break the law for which he was convicted unless you believe some how that he was fairly tried. but as pointed out, the junta which overthrew his government was behind his conviction. That you don't understand that is not a surprise as you are a hopeless junta cheerleader.

you are a helpless troll and ignore most of the information that blows over your head but just one last time I'll mention that there must certainly have been a valid charge to bring against Thaksin since he was hardly an angel, but instead, this total fluff was brought to court and he was convicted. The junta created a political martyr for many Thais and also for the international community.

Well, first of all let me thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate that.

Breaking the law is breaking the law. Calling it a 'political conviction' doesn't alter that.

Unless of course you break the law and then put an amnesty clause in a constitution that you write yourself.

Difficult indeed, that's why MP General Sonthi voted in favour of the 'blanket amnesty bill' in order to make double sure.

Mind you, after seven months of chaos called upon the nation by the Yingluck Government and even having the ex-MoFA asking the military to declare Martial Law there may be a legal justification this time round

[whybother]

jesus h christ - please don't talk to me about lack of logic, rubl. Anyone looking at the law - except you and other people who want him to be guilty - can understand that this was a political conviction.

he did not break the law for which he was convicted unless you believe some how that he was fairly tried. but as pointed out, the junta which overthrew his government was behind his conviction. That you don't understand that is not a surprise as you are a hopeless junta cheerleader.

you are a helpless troll and ignore most of the information that blows over your head but just one last time I'll mention that there must certainly have been a valid charge to bring against Thaksin since he was hardly an angel, but instead, this total fluff was brought to court and he was convicted. The junta created a political martyr for many Thais and also for the international community.

The only discussion to have about this is whether, as PM, he "performed duties in the capacity as State official who has the power to

conduct supervision, control, inspection or legal proceedings;".

The price doesn't matter. That he "had to sign the contract because it was his wife" doesn't matter. All that matters is whether he had "the power" over the FIDF. The FIDF was independent of the Finance Ministry, but that doesn't mean it was independent of the government. The fact that the government was able to shift a big chunk of debt into the FIDF shows that it wasn't independent of the government. He shouldn't have been involved in a contract with an entity controlled by the government.

He signed the sale contract. The law says he can't be involved. The law also says that his wife can't be involved. She should be in jail too.

[rubl]

'called upon' as in provoked the Thai population with the stupid blanket amnesty bill, Ms. Yingluck asking the anti-government protesters to go home as more work to be done and at the same time changing from 'democratic protest' to talking about terrorists, police harassing the protesters, but incapable of finding those who shoot at and drop grenades on those protesters.

Of course the protesters get a bit irritated and start defending themselves. And the circle of chaos is really getting off.

At the end both sides with general Prayut looking over their shoulders they still couldn't agree on anything, not even on which side to blame.

So, another reply in which I managed to avoid to name someone who's not even in the history books.

BTW I like replies, but two replies on the same post is a wee bit overdone I think. Why don't you put things together?

Yingluck asking protesters to go home (how monstrous!), police harassing protesters who broke the law and illegally occupied government property (didn't the police have better things to do than try to enforce the law?), the police incapable of finding those who were shooting and dropping grenades, perhaps because they had their hands full trying to contain illegal protests. Also, how often do the Thai police catch anyone doing anything?

Clearly you are of the opinion that everything the illegal protesters did was fine and everything the government did to contain the protests was wrong. I assume you are also of the opinion that it was correct for the military to stage a bloody street-clearing crackdown against protesters calling for elections in 2010, but the only way to deal with protesters obstructing elections in 2014 was a military coup.

Clearly I don't think all the anti-government protesters did was fine.

Anyway, although we should avoid reporting on Thaksin, may we try to explain why Thaksin can be made responsible for 2013/2014 and in a way his sister is almost innocent except for being unable to stand up for herself?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/world/asia/thaksin-shinawatra-of-thailand-wields-influence-from-afar.html?pagewanted=all

Edited November 5, 2014 by rubl

[tbthailand]

Logic not being your strongest point it would seem let me try to explain in simpler terms.

He broke the law. There is no such thing as 'not really broken'. When talking about 'rigged' it seems you break the law or at least 'slander' it.

Thaksin should have known (being PM, having legal advisors, etc.) that since by law he had to sign to agree for his wife to bid for a piece of land, he was implicitly guilty of 'conflict of interest'. Had no such law existed he would be explicitly guilty of more serious crimes.

Now there is no need to believe me. Still since you feel so strongly about this may I suggest you contact "Siam Legal"? They are a sponsor of this TVF. Ask them for a quotation on their professional, legal advise on this issue.

Cheers,

uncle rubl

PS don't forget to mention you're a TVF member, maybe they'll give you a discount

jesus h christ - please don't talk to me about lack of logic, rubl. Anyone looking at the law - except you and other people who want him to be guilty - can understand that this was a political conviction.

he did not break the law for which he was convicted unless you believe some how that he was fairly tried. but as pointed out, the junta which overthrew his government was behind his conviction. That you don't understand that is not a surprise as you are a hopeless junta cheerleader.

you are a helpless troll and ignore most of the information that blows over your head but just one last time I'll mention that there must certainly have been a valid charge to bring against Thaksin since he was hardly an angel, but instead, this total fluff was brought to court and he was convicted. The junta created a political martyr for many Thais and also for the international community.

Well, first of all let me thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate that.

Breaking the law is breaking the law. Calling it a 'political conviction' doesn't alter that.

you're not welcome,

see, that is the point. A political conviction does not signify that someone actually broke the law, it only signifies that someone was convicted.

I'd have thought you'd have figured that out by now

[chooka]

Sounds like the Shins are a personal vendetta for the general and he used a coup to attain his personal goal.

[metisdead]

Off topic deflection/diversion posts and replies have been removed.

[rubl]

Logic not being your strongest point it would seem let me try to explain in simpler terms.

He broke the law. There is no such thing as 'not really broken'. When talking about 'rigged' it seems you break the law or at least 'slander' it.

Thaksin should have known (being PM, having legal advisors, etc.) that since by law he had to sign to agree for his wife to bid for a piece of land, he was implicitly guilty of 'conflict of interest'. Had no such law existed he would be explicitly guilty of more serious crimes.

Now there is no need to believe me. Still since you feel so strongly about this may I suggest you contact "Siam Legal"? They are a sponsor of this TVF. Ask them for a quotation on their professional, legal advise on this issue.

Cheers,

uncle rubl

PS don't forget to mention you're a TVF member, maybe they'll give you a discount

jesus h christ - please don't talk to me about lack of logic, rubl. Anyone looking at the law - except you and other people who want him to be guilty - can understand that this was a political conviction.

he did not break the law for which he was convicted unless you believe some how that he was fairly tried. but as pointed out, the junta which overthrew his government was behind his conviction. That you don't understand that is not a surprise as you are a hopeless junta cheerleader.

you are a helpless troll and ignore most of the information that blows over your head but just one last time I'll mention that there must certainly have been a valid charge to bring against Thaksin since he was hardly an angel, but instead, this total fluff was brought to court and he was convicted. The junta created a political martyr for many Thais and also for the international community.

Well, first of all let me thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate that.

Breaking the law is breaking the law. Calling it a 'political conviction' doesn't alter that.

you're not welcome,

see, that is the point. A political conviction does not signify that someone actually broke the law, it only signifies that someone was convicted.

I'd have thought you'd have figured that out by now

The point is I'm not welcome?

Anyway the conviction seems correct, although one may wonder about the sentence. Two years seems about right for an ex-PM who was too rich to need to be corrupt but couldn't help himself doing private business through his legal wife while being PM. Sad really, in other countries he might have received psychiatric help.

[candide]

I found an interesting thread in Bangkok Post Forum (If I understand well, it's not allowed to post a link to BP). It's called If law is the law. by Ink on Sun Nov 02, 2008. If you google this you should be able to find it.

One of the key points is that:

- Thaksin was condemned according to article 100 for conflict of interest, his wife having bought a property from a state agency (FIDF), when Thaksin was holding a political position that could allow him to influence the deal. No influence or irregularity has been identified by the court, it was a competitive deal and his wife offered the highest price. So 2 years for just conflict of interest without any corruption charge seems to be a bit high to me

- More interesting: the poster cites a precedent with Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533, which states that FIDF is not a Government Agency .

So basically they changed the law (by deciding FIDF was a Governement Agency while the Supreme Court had decided before that it was not) and applied it retrospectively in order to nail him, which is contrary to one the most fundamental principles of law.

I acknowledge that some of the Thaksin deals look quite fishy to me, but in this particular case...... I cannot blame him for fleeing abroad when he knew that they were changing the law just to nail him.

[tomyummer]

So...no publishing of any Thai politcians?

[rubl]

I found an interesting thread in Bangkok Post Forum (If I understand well, it's not allowed to post a link to BP). It's called If law is the law. by Ink on Sun Nov 02, 2008. If you google this you should be able to find it.

One of the key points is that:

- Thaksin was condemned according to article 100 for conflict of interest, his wife having bought a property from a state agency (FIDF), when Thaksin was holding a political position that could allow him to influence the deal. No influence or irregularity has been identified by the court, it was a competitive deal and his wife offered the highest price. So 2 years for just conflict of interest without any corruption charge seems to be a bit high to me

- More interesting: the poster cites a precedent with Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533, which states that FIDF is not a Government Agency .

So basically they changed the law (by deciding FIDF was a Governement Agency while the Supreme Court had decided before that it was not) and applied it retrospectively in order to nail him, which is contrary to one the most fundamental principles of law.

I acknowledge that some of the Thaksin deals look quite fishy to me, but in this particular case...... I cannot blame him for fleeing abroad when he knew that they were changing the law just to nail him.

Well, the FIDF is under control of the government, 100%. In a way the Yingluck Government made this very clear by ordering the BoT to take care of the 1.14 trillion Baht 'assets' the FIDF still had leftover from the aftermath of 1997.

Personally I think then PM Thaksin should have advise his wife not to go for the land and simply refuse the sign the document that as legal husband he granted her permission to try this deal. He's right enough, his then wife is rich enough, they should have refrained from doing business. That's a sacrifice one might expect from a PM and his wife while he's PM.

The two years might be a bit overdone, but the conviction for 'conflict of interest' is correct.

[candide]

I found an interesting thread in Bangkok Post Forum (If I understand well, it's not allowed to post a link to BP). It's called If law is the law. by Ink on Sun Nov 02, 2008. If you google this you should be able to find it.

One of the key points is that:

- Thaksin was condemned according to article 100 for conflict of interest, his wife having bought a property from a state agency (FIDF), when Thaksin was holding a political position that could allow him to influence the deal. No influence or irregularity has been identified by the court, it was a competitive deal and his wife offered the highest price. So 2 years for just conflict of interest without any corruption charge seems to be a bit high to me

- More interesting: the poster cites a precedent with Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533, which states that FIDF is not a Government Agency .

So basically they changed the law (by deciding FIDF was a Governement Agency while the Supreme Court had decided before that it was not) and applied it retrospectively in order to nail him, which is contrary to one the most fundamental principles of law.

I acknowledge that some of the Thaksin deals look quite fishy to me, but in this particular case...... I cannot blame him for fleeing abroad when he knew that they were changing the law just to nail him.

Well, the FIDF is under control of the government, 100%. In a way the Yingluck Government made this very clear by ordering the BoT to take care of the 1.14 trillion Baht 'assets' the FIDF still had leftover from the aftermath of 1997.

Personally I think then PM Thaksin should have advise his wife not to go for the land and simply refuse the sign the document that as legal husband he granted her permission to try this deal. He's right enough, his then wife is rich enough, they should have refrained from doing business. That's a sacrifice one might expect from a PM and his wife while he's PM.

The two years might be a bit overdone, but the conviction for 'conflict of interest' is correct.

The problem is not what FIDF really is (or rather was) and what we may think of it. The problem is that at the time of the deal, and according to the supreme court, the legal status of FIDF was a non-government organisation.

(Quote:Prior to putting down his signature, it was confirmed that the office of the Prime Minister is neither the office in charge of, nor has the authority to direct or supervise the FIDF. This is supported by the Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533 which ruled that the FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations within the boundary of its objectives.)

It was an open and public deal, all bids and bidders have been examined by an official comittee, and Thaksin had to sign an authorisation for his wife, so when the comittee examined if his wife was allowed to bid, they knew she was his wife. And Thaksin also used an attorney to check everything.

Thaksin has not been negligent, he checked before if it was legal, and the FIDF also checked it. Then the Supreme Court of Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions decided that FIDF was a government organisation. They perfectly had the right to do so. What is not legal, is to apply a new law/regulation to a transaction that has happened before the new law was decided.

So he checked if everything was legal, and then they change the law and accuse him of being a criminal. When is the next plane to go abroad?

PS1 I cannot check the supreme court decision as it's written in Thai. The original poster provides a reference:The Supreme Court Decision number is 4655/2533.

If it still works (the post dates from Nov 2008)

To go http://www.supremecourt.or.th/webportal ... /index.php

Click on the link “Khon Deeka 2007” this will take you to the search page..

In the Decision No. field, Key in 4655/2533 and hit enter. That should take you straight to the document.

[rubl]

I found an interesting thread in Bangkok Post Forum (If I understand well, it's not allowed to post a link to BP). It's called If law is the law. by Ink on Sun Nov 02, 2008. If you google this you should be able to find it.

One of the key points is that:

- Thaksin was condemned according to article 100 for conflict of interest, his wife having bought a property from a state agency (FIDF), when Thaksin was holding a political position that could allow him to influence the deal. No influence or irregularity has been identified by the court, it was a competitive deal and his wife offered the highest price. So 2 years for just conflict of interest without any corruption charge seems to be a bit high to me

- More interesting: the poster cites a precedent with Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533, which states that FIDF is not a Government Agency .

So basically they changed the law (by deciding FIDF was a Governement Agency while the Supreme Court had decided before that it was not) and applied it retrospectively in order to nail him, which is contrary to one the most fundamental principles of law.

I acknowledge that some of the Thaksin deals look quite fishy to me, but in this particular case...... I cannot blame him for fleeing abroad when he knew that they were changing the law just to nail him.

Well, the FIDF is under control of the government, 100%. In a way the Yingluck Government made this very clear by ordering the BoT to take care of the 1.14 trillion Baht 'assets' the FIDF still had leftover from the aftermath of 1997.

Personally I think then PM Thaksin should have advise his wife not to go for the land and simply refuse the sign the document that as legal husband he granted her permission to try this deal. He's right enough, his then wife is rich enough, they should have refrained from doing business. That's a sacrifice one might expect from a PM and his wife while he's PM.

The two years might be a bit overdone, but the conviction for 'conflict of interest' is correct.

The problem is not what FIDF really is (or rather was) and what we may think of it. The problem is that at the time of the deal, and according to the supreme court, the legal status of FIDF was a non-government organisation.

(Quote:Prior to putting down his signature, it was confirmed that the office of the Prime Minister is neither the office in charge of, nor has the authority to direct or supervise the FIDF. This is supported by the Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533 which ruled that the FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations within the boundary of its objectives.)

It was an open and public deal, all bids and bidders have been examined by an official comittee, and Thaksin had to sign an authorisation for his wife, so when the comittee examined if his wife was allowed to bid, they knew she was his wife. And Thaksin also used an attorney to check everything.

Thaksin has not been negligent, he checked before if it was legal, and the FIDF also checked it. Then the Supreme Court of Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions decided that FIDF was a government organisation. They perfectly had the right to do so. What is not legal, is to apply a new law/regulation to a transaction that has happened before the new law was decided.

So he checked if everything was legal, and then they change the law and accuse him of being a criminal. When is the next plane to go abroad?

PS1 I cannot check the supreme court decision as it's written in Thai. The original poster provides a reference:The Supreme Court Decision number is 4655/2533.

If it still works (the post dates from Nov 2008)

To go http://www.supremecourt.or.th/webportal ... /index.php

Click on the link “Khon Deeka 2007” this will take you to the search page..

In the Decision No. field, Key in 4655/2533 and hit enter. That should take you straight to the document.

Interesting.

1. 1 I cannot check the supreme court decision as it's written in Thai.

2. The Supreme Court Decision number is 4655/2533. Other people know the year 2533 as 1990

3. FIDF already bailed out Thai governments regarding the 1997 crisis and following

4. theNation had an interesting discussion on this. Lots of obfuscation and unclear dates as well

http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/politics/2008/11/19/entry-1

Conclusion: No dice. Guilty as charged!

[tbthailand]

I found an interesting thread in Bangkok Post Forum (If I understand well, it's not allowed to post a link to BP). It's called If law is the law. by Ink on Sun Nov 02, 2008. If you google this you should be able to find it.

One of the key points is that:

- Thaksin was condemned according to article 100 for conflict of interest, his wife having bought a property from a state agency (FIDF), when Thaksin was holding a political position that could allow him to influence the deal. No influence or irregularity has been identified by the court, it was a competitive deal and his wife offered the highest price. So 2 years for just conflict of interest without any corruption charge seems to be a bit high to me

- More interesting: the poster cites a precedent with Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533, which states that FIDF is not a Government Agency .

So basically they changed the law (by deciding FIDF was a Governement Agency while the Supreme Court had decided before that it was not) and applied it retrospectively in order to nail him, which is contrary to one the most fundamental principles of law.

I acknowledge that some of the Thaksin deals look quite fishy to me, but in this particular case...... I cannot blame him for fleeing abroad when he knew that they were changing the law just to nail him.

what, you want to present information?

That is not how it works in this forum.

The correct way is

1. Thaksin = bad
2. Thaksin + Red Shirts = worse
3. Thaksin + Red Shirts + Yingluck = worst

Reasoning, facts, honest observation shall be punished with a flurry of yellow tinged showers on your posts.

Now, as for the post, you are of course right in pointing out the fact that at the time that Thaksin actually signed for the land deal, it was not illegal and he had checked it, too. IMO, you are also right that there are many other activities far more suspect than this one for which he was convicted. I've never understood why this case was the one that was used to hang him.

[candide]

I found an interesting thread in Bangkok Post Forum (If I understand well, it's not allowed to post a link to BP). It's called If law is the law. by Ink on Sun Nov 02, 2008. If you google this you should be able to find it.

One of the key points is that:

- Thaksin was condemned according to article 100 for conflict of interest, his wife having bought a property from a state agency (FIDF), when Thaksin was holding a political position that could allow him to influence the deal. No influence or irregularity has been identified by the court, it was a competitive deal and his wife offered the highest price. So 2 years for just conflict of interest without any corruption charge seems to be a bit high to me

- More interesting: the poster cites a precedent with Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533, which states that FIDF is not a Government Agency .

So basically they changed the law (by deciding FIDF was a Governement Agency while the Supreme Court had decided before that it was not) and applied it retrospectively in order to nail him, which is contrary to one the most fundamental principles of law.

I acknowledge that some of the Thaksin deals look quite fishy to me, but in this particular case...... I cannot blame him for fleeing abroad when he knew that they were changing the law just to nail him.

Well, the FIDF is under control of the government, 100%. In a way the Yingluck Government made this very clear by ordering the BoT to take care of the 1.14 trillion Baht 'assets' the FIDF still had leftover from the aftermath of 1997.

Personally I think then PM Thaksin should have advise his wife not to go for the land and simply refuse the sign the document that as legal husband he granted her permission to try this deal. He's right enough, his then wife is rich enough, they should have refrained from doing business. That's a sacrifice one might expect from a PM and his wife while he's PM.

The two years might be a bit overdone, but the conviction for 'conflict of interest' is correct.

The problem is not what FIDF really is (or rather was) and what we may think of it. The problem is that at the time of the deal, and according to the supreme court, the legal status of FIDF was a non-government organisation.

(Quote:Prior to putting down his signature, it was confirmed that the office of the Prime Minister is neither the office in charge of, nor has the authority to direct or supervise the FIDF. This is supported by the Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533 which ruled that the FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations within the boundary of its objectives.)

It was an open and public deal, all bids and bidders have been examined by an official comittee, and Thaksin had to sign an authorisation for his wife, so when the comittee examined if his wife was allowed to bid, they knew she was his wife. And Thaksin also used an attorney to check everything.

Thaksin has not been negligent, he checked before if it was legal, and the FIDF also checked it. Then the Supreme Court of Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions decided that FIDF was a government organisation. They perfectly had the right to do so. What is not legal, is to apply a new law/regulation to a transaction that has happened before the new law was decided.

So he checked if everything was legal, and then they change the law and accuse him of being a criminal. When is the next plane to go abroad?

PS1 I cannot check the supreme court decision as it's written in Thai. The original poster provides a reference:The Supreme Court Decision number is 4655/2533.

If it still works (the post dates from Nov 2008)

To go http://www.supremecourt.or.th/webportal ... /index.php

Click on the link “Khon Deeka 2007” this will take you to the search page..

In the Decision No. field, Key in 4655/2533 and hit enter. That should take you straight to the document.

Interesting.

1. 1 I cannot check the supreme court decision as it's written in Thai.

2. The Supreme Court Decision number is 4655/2533. Other people know the year 2533 as 1990

3. FIDF already bailed out Thai governments regarding the 1997 crisis and following

4. theNation had an interesting discussion on this. Lots of obfuscation and unclear dates as well

http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/politics/2008/11/19/entry-1

Conclusion: No dice. Guilty as charged!

rubl

Thanks for this very interesting reference. From what I understood, the difference in interpretations lies in the fact that, although the office of prime minister may not be in charge of and not supervising FIDF, the PM may be. From a legal point of view it may make sense. Obviously, Thaksin did not anticipate it.

Tbthailand.

I agree with you that there would have been better choices of more obvious corruption cases to nail him. Maybe they chose this one because of time considerations

[rubl]

I found an interesting thread in Bangkok Post Forum (If I understand well, it's not allowed to post a link to BP). It's called If law is the law. by Ink on Sun Nov 02, 2008. If you google this you should be able to find it.

One of the key points is that:

- Thaksin was condemned according to article 100 for conflict of interest, his wife having bought a property from a state agency (FIDF), when Thaksin was holding a political position that could allow him to influence the deal. No influence or irregularity has been identified by the court, it was a competitive deal and his wife offered the highest price. So 2 years for just conflict of interest without any corruption charge seems to be a bit high to me

- More interesting: the poster cites a precedent with Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533, which states that FIDF is not a Government Agency .

So basically they changed the law (by deciding FIDF was a Governement Agency while the Supreme Court had decided before that it was not) and applied it retrospectively in order to nail him, which is contrary to one the most fundamental principles of law.

I acknowledge that some of the Thaksin deals look quite fishy to me, but in this particular case...... I cannot blame him for fleeing abroad when he knew that they were changing the law just to nail him.

what, you want to present information?

That is not how it works in this forum.

The correct way is

1. Thaksin = bad
2. Thaksin + Red Shirts = worse
3. Thaksin + Red Shirts + Yingluck = worst

Reasoning, facts, honest observation shall be punished with a flurry of yellow tinged showers on your posts.

Now, as for the post, you are of course right in pointing out the fact that at the time that Thaksin actually signed for the land deal, it was not illegal and he had checked it, too. IMO, you are also right that there are many other activities far more suspect than this one for which he was convicted. I've never understood why this case was the one that was used to hang him.

Oh come on TB, showers? For your information, rainy season seems really finished by now.

What is left is your interpretation with an unfounded "fact" of "not illegal", but then I guess you didn't bother to check either candide's post or the Nation forum link from 2008 I provided. The link shows a discussion similar to what candide wrote with lots of additional 'facts'. Missing though seems a valid reference to 'three previous cases' and any changes since the 24 years old Supreme Court decision 4655/2533

BTW Thaksin wasn't hanged. If he was he might still be in the History books

[whybother]

I found an interesting thread in Bangkok Post Forum (If I understand well, it's not allowed to post a link to BP). It's called If law is the law. by Ink on Sun Nov 02, 2008. If you google this you should be able to find it.

One of the key points is that:

- Thaksin was condemned according to article 100 for conflict of interest, his wife having bought a property from a state agency (FIDF), when Thaksin was holding a political position that could allow him to influence the deal. No influence or irregularity has been identified by the court, it was a competitive deal and his wife offered the highest price. So 2 years for just conflict of interest without any corruption charge seems to be a bit high to me

- More interesting: the poster cites a precedent with Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533, which states that FIDF is not a Government Agency .

So basically they changed the law (by deciding FIDF was a Governement Agency while the Supreme Court had decided before that it was not) and applied it retrospectively in order to nail him, which is contrary to one the most fundamental principles of law.

I acknowledge that some of the Thaksin deals look quite fishy to me, but in this particular case...... I cannot blame him for fleeing abroad when he knew that they were changing the law just to nail him.

Actually, I thought the ruling was that "the FIDF was independent of the Finance Ministry". That the government shifted a huge chunk of its 1997 debt to the FIDF shows that it was under control of the government, and therefore the PM. Edited November 11, 2014 by whybother