Prawit back PM's insistence that Thaksin return home to face justice first
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha is right to insist that fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra return to Thailand to face the justice system, Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan and Deputy Defence Minister Udomdej Sitabutr said yesterday.

"The PM had said that talks and reconciliation were different issues. We have to separate reconciliation from court cases. Thaksin must face the justice system because we have to abide by the rule of law,'' Prawit said.

With a host of corruption charges against him, Thaksin had reportedly said he was ready to talk in response to National Reform Council member Wanchai Sornsiri's suggestion that Thaksin and Prayut go to the negotiating table to find a way to bring about reconciliation.

Udomdej said he wanted everyone to do things within the legal framework, otherwise it meant resisting the justice procedures.

"Everyone is free to offer proposals, but in some cases we must follow the due process first, otherwise we cannot talk," Udomdej said.

Prayut also got support from politicians outside the military. Deputy Democrat Party leader Nipit Intrasombat said he breathed a sigh of relief upon learning that Prayut rejected Thaksin's offer for talks and admired the PM for his decision.

Prayut yesterday reaffirmed his stance on Thaksin's offer to discuss national reconciliation solutions, saying he would let the justice system run its course.

Anyone who causes trouble for the country must be held responsible, he said.

Prayut said he could not talk with Thaksin because prime ministers and state officials were forbidden by law to speak with fugitives from justice.

Issues created by others

"I already have many problems, like farmers' low incomes and other issues created by others. Why should I reconcile with anyone? I am not anyone's enemy. I have taken control to solve the country's problems by using the justice procedures,'' he said.

"Whoever wants to propose anything they can, but do not create conflict and do not drag me into it,'' the PM added.

Prayut said he intended to move the country forward in line with the justice system. "If anyone refuses to [accept] the justice procedures, how can we reach any understanding through talks?'' Prayut said.

"Whoever causes trouble for the country must be held accountable. They [will have] failed to follow the law. Everyone and every party now must prove themselves in court. I cannot decide for them,'' he said.

Political temperatures have risen since former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Thaksin's sister, was impeached last month by the National Legislative Assembly over her failure to stop corruption and massive losses in the rice pledging-scheme, resulting in her being banned from politics for five years.

Public prosecutors have also decided to indict her for criminal offences in connection with the rice-pledging scheme. The Thaksin family has reportedly turned to allies in the West for support to pressure the Prayut administration.

Prayut had said a general election could be held at the end of the year at the earliest, or early next year.

Thaksin was sentenced in absentia to two years' imprisonment over a corrupt land deal in October, 2008, in a ruling that made him the first Thai politician to be convicted of corruption committed while serving as prime minister.

He was found to have violated rules regarding conflict of interest in helping his then wife Potjaman na Pombejra buy land from a state agency at a reduced price. The conviction was the first against Thaksin since his government was overthrown by a military coup in 2006.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Prawit-back-PMs-insistence-that-Thaksin-return-hom-30254329.html


-- The Nation 2015-02-18

But ... but ... surely some people deserve to be above the law, in their own minds at least, because they were elected ?

Isn't there a law saying that, somewhere, smirk three times & say thank-you ?

They'll huff and the Reds will they'll puff, until they get their own way, or else ! Not that that's threat, of course !

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

Doing well not talking about the Shins in the press by order of the Junta arnt they ?

Perhaps the Junta should have a word with themselves about doing just that.

city post # 3

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

You might well consider the fact that the current administration has received approval to run the country hence they are not illegal. the accusation you make concerning ''treason '' indeed far off of target. You need to consider very carefully the blanket statement you made concerning ''treason.''.

You might do well to remember that the buying of votes and the intimidation of canvassers in certain areas in the North in previous elections could also be regarded as illegal activities, which of course equates to a ''grab of power also serious attempts at subverting the then current system .

Treason noun

1.

the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

2.

a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.

3.

the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Doesn't alter the fact that they seized power by a military coup, having done their level best to ensure that the election called according to the constitution and promulgated by royal decree was prevented by a violent minority. Things become so much easier to understand when you leave out inconvenient facts don't rhey?

Edited February 18, 201511 yr by JAG

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

"that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule"

Except that, as we all recall, Thaksin was convicted while his own PPP-led coalition-government was in power, so not "under military rule" at all !

Edited February 18, 201511 yr by Ricardo

city post # 3

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

You might well consider the fact that the current administration has received approval to run the country hence they are not illegal. the accusation you make concerning ''treason '' indeed far off of target. You need to consider very carefully the blanket statement you made concerning ''treason.''.

You might do well to remember that the buying of votes and the intimidation of canvassers in certain areas in the North in previous elections could also be regarded as illegal activities, which of course equates to a ''grab of power also serious attempts at subverting the then current system .

Treason noun

1.

the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

2.

a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.

3.

the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

So errr. the thousands of troops that were deployed, martial law and attitude adjustments just to name a few obvious things, were/are necessary since, the Junta got permission? There may be some serious holes in the logic if any perhaps under-pinning that reasoning.

But ... but ... surely some people deserve to be above the law, in their own minds at least, because they were elected ?

Isn't there a law saying that, somewhere, smirk three times & say thank-you ?

They'll huff and the Reds will they'll puff, until they get their own way, or else ! Not that that's threat, of course !

surely some people deserve to be above the law,

and others just are above the law... but certainly not because they were elected...

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

"that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule"

Except that, as we all recall, Thaksin was convicted while his own PPP-led coalition-government was in power, so not "under military rule" at all !

which is just a red herring.

He was indicted by the junta's AEC and convicted under the same royalist courts that side with the military...

The "government in power" had precious little say in all of that...

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

"that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule"

Except that, as we all recall, Thaksin was convicted while his own PPP-led coalition-government was in power, so not "under military rule" at all !

which is just a red herring.

He was indicted by the junta's AEC and convicted under the same royalist courts that side with the military...

The "government in power" had precious little say in all of that...

"which is just a red herring"

I disagree, city was wrong when he said "whilst under military rule", I know it's inconvenient but the military were not in-charge when Thaksin was convicted, something which seriously damages his case for claiming that everything was political.

Why did Thaksin did what he did?

"Why should I reconcile with anyone?"

In short, that sums up the whole conflict and points to no end in sight...

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

"that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule"

Except that, as we all recall, Thaksin was convicted while his own PPP-led coalition-government was in power, so not "under military rule" at all !

which is just a red herring.

He was indicted by the junta's AEC and convicted under the same royalist courts that side with the military...

The "government in power" had precious little say in all of that...

convicted under the same royalist courts that side with the military...

You mean the same court that let him slide when he won the election in 2001?

When elected to parliament or appointed a deputy prime minister, a Thai politician must sign a declaration of assets. When he was appointed a deputy prime minister in the mid 90's, Thaksin did not list most of his shares in his various companies. Instead, he claimed he had transferred most of his shares to his housekeeper, cook, gardener, driver and security. Had this truly happened, those minimum-wage workers would have been among the richest people in Thailand. After his election and before he was sworn in as prime minister, this case came to trial. The court was truly afraid of convicting Thaksin, who had just won by a landslide of those voting. He even reminded them in testimony of his victory - leaving no doubt of the consequences of overturning his election. Thus, the court voted narrowly to clear him

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/20601-more-dishonesty-about-thailands-upheaval-from-the-international-new-york-times#14242216594301&action=collapse_widget&id=5632573

This article lists many more facts of the Thaksin government and his three puppet governments.

You have no problem changing the loyalty of the courts when it suits you. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Stop lying!

Edited February 18, 201511 yr by rametindallas

"Prayut said he could not talk with Thaksin because prime ministers and state officials were forbidden by law to speak with fugitives from justice."

If this is indeed a true statement of law, isn't it further grounds for impeachment of Yingluck, and perhaps an additional criminal prosecution?

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

Who was the Thai citizen convicted under military rule?

Certainly not Thaksin.

Check your facts rather than posting any old lie that furthers the Thaksin Shin clan cause.

"Prayut said he could not talk with Thaksin because prime ministers and state officials were forbidden by law to speak with fugitives from justice."

If this is indeed a true statement of law, isn't it further grounds for impeachment of Yingluck, and perhaps an additional criminal prosecution?

It would seem so. And not just her. All those MP's, Ministers, civil servants and senior police officers who used to go off for briefings and instructions from the boss.

If this is the law, those who openly flouted it should be charged accordingly - and not simply moved to an inactive post.

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

"that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule"

Except that, as we all recall, Thaksin was convicted while his own PPP-led coalition-government was in power, so not "under military rule" at all !

which is just a red herring.

He was indicted by the junta's AEC and convicted under the same royalist courts that side with the military...

The "government in power" had precious little say in all of that...

So you admit stating "whilst under military rule" was a lie then? Or just an honest mistake maybe?

He was indicted because he broke the law and got caught. One of Thaksin's weaknesses is his arrogance in believing he's above the law, they don't apply to him. His reaction is usually to then remind everyone what the consequences will be of a decision he doesn't like and / or dish out the pastry boxes.

Nothing to do with the courts being biased - all to do with a crook who got away with so much he really started believing his own bullshit.

Doesn't alter the fact that they seized power by a military coup, having done their level best to ensure that the election called according to the constitution and promulgated by royal decree was prevented by a violent minority. Things become so much easier to understand when you leave out inconvenient facts don't rhey?

Hello JAG .... Just checked on the definition of your pen-name.. Prick with a sharp object.... how appropriate..!

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

Why doesn't the director general let himself be judged by his peers first to set the example.

If the DG wants to remove all the Shins from Thailand he will have to amputate everyones legs at the knees.

Don't know why TV bothers with an article. Just headline "Thaksin!", then cut and paste all the repetitive vitriolic comments. Done.

Seems to me that people wanting Thaksin in the talks of reunification is an open admission that he is a big cause of it.

Think about the future. What kind of a government would it be if a convicted criminal on the run from the law with multiple charges

of corruption hanging over his head was to be allowed to sit in on the discussion of how to reunify a country he has tore apart.

It might prove expedient but will not produce long lasting results. Best to leave him out of it and his hired help speak for them selves. I

have no proof yet I believe that he no longer enjoys the support he thinks he has. Even before the Coup there were segments of the

red shirts calling for his exclusion from politics.

The fact is that legal or illegal what ever makes no difference. We have a government in power that for the most part is excepted.

The people not necessary the posters On Thai Visa are relatively happy with it. It is open and willing to do what is best for Thailand.

The PM has made some mistakes and admitted to them. That should show his dedication to a better Thailand.

Every country has a turning point in there history. I believe Thailand is at one of those points. They are trying to set up a government

which will not allow the old time corrupt politicians and newer ones to gain power.

Just my opinion and yes my hope.

I realize that there are Thai Visa posters who for financial reasons do not want to see corruption lessened.

It will never be eliminated that is an impossability in any country in the world. But it can be defiantly lessened.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Doesn't alter the fact that they seized power by a military coup, having done their level best to ensure that the election called according to the constitution and promulgated by royal decree was prevented by a violent minority. Things become so much easier to understand when you leave out inconvenient facts don't rhey?

No doubt you will choose to ignore the obscene amounts of money that have been pilfered during the "reign" off the Shin dynasty, the well documented hundreds of billions of baht lost to the economy that will take generations to recover (if ever)

While you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, your questioning other posters desires to "leave out inconvenient facts" are fairly typical of your side of the fence.

I personally do not favor any particular political party, I am merely a grateful guest in this country I now regard as home, but it amazes me to see the myopic and dismissive way some people view how this country was previously being ran.

This country was heading for a financial precipice under the previous administration, their snouts were so far into the public trough that they were blind to where we were headed (that was if they cared at all?) There was no more time to stand back and wait for the promised redistribution of wealth that was never going to eventuate, something had to be done and thankfully it was!

The process used to instigate change may not have been ideal but it was necessary, just look at some of the changes that have already been enacted. There has been more change since the present administration arrived than in several years of the previously corrupt and inept Shin rule, no matter how tinted your rose colored glasses are even you cannot deny this?

Doesn't alter the fact that they seized power by a military coup, having done their level best to ensure that the election called according to the constitution and promulgated by royal decree was prevented by a violent minority. Things become so much easier to understand when you leave out inconvenient facts don't rhey?

And your last sentance, YOU just did that---what a biased post. typical of the minority on TVF. I wonder why a military take over ?? do you now see what was going on with the PTP regime ?? isn't it ironic that they had to be booted out.

Now you want elections to get democracy ?? you had them 3 years ago and what did you get-----A Shin backed corrupt mob.

But ... but ... surely some people deserve to be above the law, in their own minds at least, because they were elected ?

Isn't there a law saying that, somewhere, smirk three times & say thank-you ?

They'll huff and the Reds will they'll puff, until they get their own way, or else ! Not that that's threat, of course !

surely some people deserve to be above the law,

and others just are above the law... but certainly not because they were elected...

and some think they are above the law because they are elected.

Which brings us to the topic of Thaksin having to face the music first.

Doesn't alter the fact that they seized power by a military coup, having done their level best to ensure that the election called according to the constitution and promulgated by royal decree was prevented by a violent minority. Things become so much easier to understand when you leave out inconvenient facts don't rhey?

Well the democratically elected government which called those anti-government upon itself by trying to push through a blanket amnesty bill which included both the criminal fugitive and their own first two years in office, seemed to think they were above the law because they were elected. "we have a mandate, thanks for voting, please go home now".

How easy it is to corrupt democracy in a country where democracy doesn't mean a bloody thing to a larger part of the population.

Prawit would back any insistence the PM dreams up. He's the new Chalerm, with better shirts and better connections, and no ear wax medicine.

I'd swear they are reading my posts on TVF

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/800975-thaksin-ready-for-talk-but-not-prayut/?p=9082582

Why did Thaksin did what he did?

Google him telling the joke about a scorpion.

"It is his nature"

Prawit would back any insistence the PM dreams up. He's the new Chalerm, with better shirts and better connections, and no ear wax medicine.

so you don't think the convicted Thaksin should come back ? - just demand talks while on the run ?

What exactly has this criminal got to bargain with ? is he saying - you can see how much trouble I can buy in Thailand and if you don't meet my demands I will start it up again - because that is my interpretation and is nothing short of pure terrorism

Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal

The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group.