PM brushes aside planned protest by ex- Pheu Thai MPs over Shinawatra calendar seizure

[EnglishJohn]

Thaksin is a polarizing figure for sure. But love him or hate him, and whether you think he is innocent, or guilty; would you be confident that anybody, accused of any crime in Thailand, could actually return to this country and receive a 'fair' trial under the Thai justice system? The entire society is so riddled with cronyism, nepotism, corruption, acts of revenge, etc., only the most naive would place any trust in it.

Point taken but don't forget he did get a fair trial in regard to his conviction and 2 year jail sentence for serious abuse of authority. The evidence was well displayed that he had broken the law, and the case heard and his conviction happened when he was in the PM seat.

Plus there has been plenty of details floating around which seem to be pretty solid in regard to many of the charges for corruption / massive corruption. But of course innocent until proved guilty.

And don't forget the 18 year jail terms handed down recently to the KT bank seniors for corruption, the paymaster was clearly the mastermind of this 'event'.

Thaksin got a fair trial? Really? Read this: 'A letter from Chan Nilgianskul, Citizen of the Kingdom of Thailand'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

yes, you are correct, and it is obvious that this particular conviction was political.

But if you hate the man, then it is so much easier to just call him a fugitive criminal and pretend that the court judgement was worth the paper it was written on...

That argument is so slanted with bias all the way through, I don't trust a word of it. I expect an unbiased legal expert would pull it to pieces.

... so why didn't he come back to clear his name and also face all the other charges while Pheu-Thai were in power instead of railroading that utterly disgusting amnesty bill ?.

Or doesn't that fit in with your brainwashing so you choose to ignore it ?.

The answer is crystal clear to me. And I suspect it is to you - but you will never admit it. See my signature line if you need any more explanation.

[Squeegee]

That argument is so slanted with bias all the way through, I don't trust a word of it. I expect an unbiased legal expert would pull it to pieces.

... so why didn't he come back to clear his name and also face all the other charges while Pheu-Thai were in power instead of railroading that utterly disgusting amnesty bill ?.

Or doesn't that fit in with your brainwashing so you choose to ignore it ?.

The answer is crystal clear to me. And I suspect it is to you - but you will never admit it. See my signature line if you need any more explanation.

Yes, we all laugh at your signature and you. A "disgusting" amnesty bill that would have included amnesty for multiple persuasions as opposed what you conveniently want to ignore where your generals granted themselves amnesty and only themselves, and too stupid and short-sighted to see their own behaviour makes all their parasitic so-called laws can be wiped out overnight by a sudden change in the wind.

"I expect an unbiased legal expert..."

No, you dream on and fantasize as that's all you have left to cling to.

[candide]

Point taken but don't forget he did get a fair trial in regard to his conviction and 2 year jail sentence for serious abuse of authority. The evidence was well displayed that he had broken the law, and the case heard and his conviction happened when he was in the PM seat.

Plus there has been plenty of details floating around which seem to be pretty solid in regard to many of the charges for corruption / massive corruption. But of course innocent until proved guilty.

And don't forget the 18 year jail terms handed down recently to the KT bank seniors for corruption, the paymaster was clearly the mastermind of this 'event'.

Thaksin got a fair trial? Really? Read this: 'A letter from Chan Nilgianskul, Citizen of the Kingdom of Thailand'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

yes, you are correct, and it is obvious that this particular conviction was political.

But if you hate the man, then it is so much easier to just call him a fugitive criminal and pretend that the court judgement was worth the paper it was written on...

That argument is so slanted with bias all the way through, I don't trust a word of it. I expect an unbiased legal expert would pull it to pieces.

... so why didn't he come back to clear his name and also face all the other charges while Pheu-Thai were in power instead of railroading that utterly disgusting amnesty bill ?.

Or doesn't that fit in with your brainwashing so you choose to ignore it ?.

The answer is crystal clear to me. And I suspect it is to you - but you will never admit it. See my signature line if you need any more explanation.

What is reported by tbthailand about the verdict for "conflict of interest" is congruent with what is reported elswhere, for example in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potjaman_Na_Pombejra#Ratchadaphisek_land_purchase_controversy

A few quotes from wikipedia with wikipedia sources:

"The charge was based on alleged violation of Section 100 of the National Counter Corruption Act, which specifies that government officials and their spouses are prohibited from entering into or having interests in contracts made with state agencies under their authorisation. However, Section 4 of the Act indicates that persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party - in this case, the FIDF. At the time, Bank of Thailand Governor Pridiyathorn Devakula directly supervised the FIDF, not Thaksin.^[13] Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF, because those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight and regulations governing the agency.^[14] Pridiyathorn's testimony to the court occurred in secret - Thaksin's legal team was not allowed in the room. The FIDF later noted that the land was sold to the Shinawatras at a price greater than its appraised value.^[15] The case went to the Supreme Court 10 July 2007.^[16]"

^"As Thaksin and wife defended themselves that the FIDF was not an administrative agency or state enterprise, and Thaksin, as the Prime Minister, had no powers and duties to supervise, scrutinise or monitor the Fund, resulting that the land purchasing case was not a conflict of interest.

The Court: By unanimous resolution, holding that the Fund was the administrative agency under Section 100, Subsection (1), of the National Counter Corruption Organic Act, BE 2542 (1997). By 6:3, holding that Thaksin was a de facto supervisor of the Fund. By 7:2, holding that Potjaman was not a holder of political position or public authority prohibited under Section 122 of the Organic Act. And by unanimous resolution, holding that the purchased land and all other proprieties gained in this case could not be seized under Section 33, Subsection 1 and Subsection 2 of the Criminal Code."

13 The Nation, FIDF to sue ousted premier, Pojaman, 16 January 2007

14 The Nation, Pridiyathorn speaks up for Pojaman, 19 April 2007

15 The Nation, Fund 'was not aware' it sold land plot for loss, 24 January 2007

16 Asia-Pacific, BBC News, Thai court will open ex-PM case, 10 July 2007

If Thaksin was as corrupt as some people say, this was probably one of the few cases in which no corruption occured.

I remember I found on the web the full translation of the verdict but I cannot find it again (link welcomed).

[tbthailand]

Thaksin got a fair trial? Really? Read this: 'A letter from Chan Nilgianskul, Citizen of the Kingdom of Thailand'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

yes, you are correct, and it is obvious that this particular conviction was political.

But if you hate the man, then it is so much easier to just call him a fugitive criminal and pretend that the court judgement was worth the paper it was written on...

That argument is so slanted with bias all the way through, I don't trust a word of it. I expect an unbiased legal expert would pull it to pieces.

... so why didn't he come back to clear his name and also face all the other charges while Pheu-Thai were in power instead of railroading that utterly disgusting amnesty bill ?.

Or doesn't that fit in with your brainwashing so you choose to ignore it ?.

The answer is crystal clear to me. And I suspect it is to you - but you will never admit it. See my signature line if you need any more explanation.

What is reported by tbthailand about the verdict for "conflict of interest" is congruent with what is reported elswhere, for example in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potjaman_Na_Pombejra#Ratchadaphisek_land_purchase_controversy

A few quotes from wikipedia with wikipedia sources:

"The charge was based on alleged violation of Section 100 of the National Counter Corruption Act, which specifies that government officials and their spouses are prohibited from entering into or having interests in contracts made with state agencies under their authorisation. However, Section 4 of the Act indicates that persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party - in this case, the FIDF. At the time, Bank of Thailand Governor Pridiyathorn Devakula directly supervised the FIDF, not Thaksin.^[13] Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF, because those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight and regulations governing the agency.^[14] Pridiyathorn's testimony to the court occurred in secret - Thaksin's legal team was not allowed in the room. The FIDF later noted that the land was sold to the Shinawatras at a price greater than its appraised value.^[15] The case went to the Supreme Court 10 July 2007.^[16]"

^"As Thaksin and wife defended themselves that the FIDF was not an administrative agency or state enterprise, and Thaksin, as the Prime Minister, had no powers and duties to supervise, scrutinise or monitor the Fund, resulting that the land purchasing case was not a conflict of interest.

The Court: By unanimous resolution, holding that the Fund was the administrative agency under Section 100, Subsection (1), of the National Counter Corruption Organic Act, BE 2542 (1997). By 6:3, holding that Thaksin was a de facto supervisor of the Fund. By 7:2, holding that Potjaman was not a holder of political position or public authority prohibited under Section 122 of the Organic Act. And by unanimous resolution, holding that the purchased land and all other proprieties gained in this case could not be seized under Section 33, Subsection 1 and Subsection 2 of the Criminal Code."

13 The Nation, FIDF to sue ousted premier, Pojaman, 16 January 2007

14 The Nation, Pridiyathorn speaks up for Pojaman, 19 April 2007

15 The Nation, Fund 'was not aware' it sold land plot for loss, 24 January 2007

16 Asia-Pacific, BBC News, Thai court will open ex-PM case, 10 July 2007

If Thaksin was as corrupt as some people say, this was probably one of the few cases in which no corruption occured.

I remember I found on the web the full translation of the verdict but I cannot find it again (link welcomed).

If Thaksin was as corrupt as some people say, this was probably one of the few cases in which no corruption occured.

right-o...

Thaksin had and still has no integrity and he is clearly interested only in Number 1. As a politician, he managed to create a winning political party and he managed to do more for Thais than his opponents among the royalist elites were ever willing to do. But that doesn't make the guy a saint.

And it doesn't mean that this case was anything less than a political setup... It stinks of it. And surely, if the generals had been smart last time, they would have run him up the flag pole for a real crime... (of course the generals and their rich buddies aren't any smarter this time, either...)

As for EJ and his "legal experts", well of course the rest of the world has taken the view that it was a political conviction. As for not "coming back to clear his name", ... well, EJ must live in a fantasy world, because in the real world, no one, much less Thaksin, could get an actual fair trial in Thailand... The PTB make sure of that.

[candide]

Thaksin got a fair trial? Really? Read this: 'A letter from Chan Nilgianskul, Citizen of the Kingdom of Thailand'.

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

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

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

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

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

Following this conviction and his subsequent self-exile, Thaksin has claimed that this case was politically motivated. Given the information above, wouldnt you agree?

yes, you are correct, and it is obvious that this particular conviction was political.

But if you hate the man, then it is so much easier to just call him a fugitive criminal and pretend that the court judgement was worth the paper it was written on...

That argument is so slanted with bias all the way through, I don't trust a word of it. I expect an unbiased legal expert would pull it to pieces.

... so why didn't he come back to clear his name and also face all the other charges while Pheu-Thai were in power instead of railroading that utterly disgusting amnesty bill ?.

Or doesn't that fit in with your brainwashing so you choose to ignore it ?.

The answer is crystal clear to me. And I suspect it is to you - but you will never admit it. See my signature line if you need any more explanation.

What is reported by tbthailand about the verdict for "conflict of interest" is congruent with what is reported elswhere, for example in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potjaman_Na_Pombejra#Ratchadaphisek_land_purchase_controversy

A few quotes from wikipedia with wikipedia sources:

"The charge was based on alleged violation of Section 100 of the National Counter Corruption Act, which specifies that government officials and their spouses are prohibited from entering into or having interests in contracts made with state agencies under their authorisation. However, Section 4 of the Act indicates that persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party - in this case, the FIDF. At the time, Bank of Thailand Governor Pridiyathorn Devakula directly supervised the FIDF, not Thaksin.^[13] Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF, because those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight and regulations governing the agency.^[14] Pridiyathorn's testimony to the court occurred in secret - Thaksin's legal team was not allowed in the room. The FIDF later noted that the land was sold to the Shinawatras at a price greater than its appraised value.^[15] The case went to the Supreme Court 10 July 2007.^[16]"

^"As Thaksin and wife defended themselves that the FIDF was not an administrative agency or state enterprise, and Thaksin, as the Prime Minister, had no powers and duties to supervise, scrutinise or monitor the Fund, resulting that the land purchasing case was not a conflict of interest.

The Court: By unanimous resolution, holding that the Fund was the administrative agency under Section 100, Subsection (1), of the National Counter Corruption Organic Act, BE 2542 (1997). By 6:3, holding that Thaksin was a de facto supervisor of the Fund. By 7:2, holding that Potjaman was not a holder of political position or public authority prohibited under Section 122 of the Organic Act. And by unanimous resolution, holding that the purchased land and all other proprieties gained in this case could not be seized under Section 33, Subsection 1 and Subsection 2 of the Criminal Code."

13 The Nation, FIDF to sue ousted premier, Pojaman, 16 January 2007

14 The Nation, Pridiyathorn speaks up for Pojaman, 19 April 2007

15 The Nation, Fund 'was not aware' it sold land plot for loss, 24 January 2007

16 Asia-Pacific, BBC News, Thai court will open ex-PM case, 10 July 2007

If Thaksin was as corrupt as some people say, this was probably one of the few cases in which no corruption occured.

I remember I found on the web the full translation of the verdict but I cannot find it again (link welcomed).

If Thaksin was as corrupt as some people say, this was probably one of the few cases in which no corruption occured.

right-o...

Thaksin had and still has no integrity and he is clearly interested only in Number 1. As a politician, he managed to create a winning political party and he managed to do more for Thais than his opponents among the royalist elites were ever willing to do. But that doesn't make the guy a saint.

And it doesn't mean that this case was anything less than a political setup... It stinks of it. And surely, if the generals had been smart last time, they would have run him up the flag pole for a real crime... (of course the generals and their rich buddies aren't any smarter this time, either...)

As for EJ and his "legal experts", well of course the rest of the world has taken the view that it was a political conviction. As for not "coming back to clear his name", ... well, EJ must live in a fantasy world, because in the real world, no one, much less Thaksin, could get an actual fair trial in Thailand... The PTB make sure of that.

My guess is that it was a question of timing. They needed to get him quickly out of the political scene so they preferred an early contestable case to a late more convincing case.

[englishoak]

On the other side of the political balance scales is Chitpas Kridakorn, up on sedition charges for her role in the PRDC protests, who is allowed to openly distribute her calendars with no comment from the NCPO.

CX2JChBUkAA_eMy.jpg

Has she been found guilty of anything yet?

As opposed to a criminal fugitive and his disgraced sister.

Id have her with les Majeste,clearly attempting to appear regal.

[Plutojames88]

Thaksin is a polarizing figure for sure. But love him or hate him, and whether you think he is innocent, or guilty; would you be confident that anybody, accused of any crime in Thailand, could actually return to this country and receive a 'fair' trial under the Thai justice system? The entire society is so riddled with cronyism, nepotism, corruption, acts of revenge, etc., only the most naive would place any trust in it.

Point taken but don't forget he did get a fair trial in regard to his conviction and 2 year jail sentence for serious abuse of authority. The evidence was well displayed that he had broken the law, and the case heard and his conviction happened when he was in the PM seat.

Plus there has been plenty of details floating around which seem to be pretty solid in regard to many of the charges for corruption / massive corruption. But of course innocent until proved guilty.

And don't forget the 18 year jail terms handed down recently to the KT bank seniors for corruption, the paymaster was clearly the mastermind of this 'event'.

It's amusing to hear your score card on the long gone TS.

How about the juntas?

Is their armed seizing and overthrow of an elected democracy a crime ?

What of the arrests of people on Facebook ?

Some for simply ""liking a post"

The attitude adjustment camps

Jail sentences

Fear & and oppression.

Where's your"little scorecard "" on those eh?

You know cowards exist in all sections of society but the public front of some here are hard to watch.

Gutless people propping up a force that allows elite companies to bully children .

Rob freedoms .

Make people subjected to fear and demand servitude .

Shallow little men .

Some with avatars of boys .

Haunt sites promoting human rights abusers.

Shame

Another pathetic and misinformed/twisted view..

You seem to have forgotten that the last Government was running rampant with blatant corruption and shoddy management. You talk about gutless people propping up a force that allows elite companies to bully Children.....who were the gutless people who lobbed grenades into a crowd that Killed children.

If there was a list of people who should attend attitude adjustment camps, you would be on top of that list

Attitude adjustment ?

Me?

The curious and disgraceful fact you appear to condone them says a lot about who you are.

You get jollies at third world citizens being subjected by a dictatorship to punishments for free expression ?

Where I come from these creeps are not allowed in the country ( Australia )

They are by act of overthrow criminals and unlawful and forbidden to enter Australai.

Deemed corrupt.

Sure trade use them up.

But as individuals no they are crooks.

They grant themselves amnesty ( that won't save them)

They can arrest kids all they like .

Claim to silly girlie men like you who support them that 93% of Thais do too.

But reality is very different .

They are by international law not permitted to stay.

And only the most shallow twits still think of them as righteous completely against all available evidence.

[jayboy]

That argument is so slanted with bias all the way through, I don't trust a word of it. I expect an unbiased legal expert would pull it to pieces.

... so why didn't he come back to clear his name and also face all the other charges while Pheu-Thai were in power instead of railroading that utterly disgusting amnesty bill ?.

Or doesn't that fit in with your brainwashing so you choose to ignore it ?.

The answer is crystal clear to me. And I suspect it is to you - but you will never admit it. See my signature line if you need any more explanation.

Yes, we all laugh at your signature and you. A "disgusting" amnesty bill that would have included amnesty for multiple persuasions as opposed what you conveniently want to ignore where your generals granted themselves amnesty and only themselves, and too stupid and short-sighted to see their own behaviour makes all their parasitic so-called laws can be wiped out overnight by a sudden change in the wind.

"I expect an unbiased legal expert..."

No, you dream on and fantasize as that's all you have left to cling to.

Actually rather surprisingly former FM Kasit has recently been suggesting a very broad amnesty.The devil is in the detail but I welcome the willingness of some to look for a compromise.Both sides to date have generally been unwilling to find common ground.The eventual solution will require all parties to accept components they thoroughly dislike.That is shout a negotiated settlement involves.

The deranged views of a few semi educated foreign zealots and trolls are neither here nor there.

[rubl]

And of course you're not threatening here. you're just distracting a bit more in order to make reconciliation Thaksin style more palatable.

PS may I suggest you read up on Sri Lanka and it's Tamil Tigers?

Distractions - how appalling! Who would have thought that anyone would stoop so low as to try and cause a distraction on a thread discussing the pettiness of the Juntas reaction to a calender "Rubl"?

Absolutely! I must admit I'm also very much surprised with Wilsonandson's posts.

The pettiness seems in certain posters who like Thaksin try to stay in the 'picture'. Propaganda, thy name is Thaksin.

[rubl]

Thaksin is a polarizing figure for sure. But love him or hate him, and whether you think he is innocent, or guilty; would you be confident that anybody, accused of any crime in Thailand, could actually return to this country and receive a 'fair' trial under the Thai justice system? The entire society is so riddled with cronyism, nepotism, corruption, acts of revenge, etc., only the most naive would place any trust in it.

Point taken but don't forget he did get a fair trial in regard to his conviction and 2 year jail sentence for serious abuse of authority. The evidence was well displayed that he had broken the law, and the case heard and his conviction happened when he was in the PM seat.

Plus there has been plenty of details floating around which seem to be pretty solid in regard to many of the charges for corruption / massive corruption. But of course innocent until proved guilty.

And don't forget the 18 year jail terms handed down recently to the KT bank seniors for corruption, the paymaster was clearly the mastermind of this 'event'.

Thaksin got a fair trial? Really? Read this: 'A letter from Chan Nilgianskul, Citizen of the Kingdom of Thailand'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The quote is from

Chan Nilgianskul

Citizen of the Kingdom of Thailand

https://web.facebook.com/notes/chan-nilgianskul/dear-vanina-sucharitkul/10151878873626463/

A personal opinion.

Anyway, let's brush that aside, just like the calendars.

A criminal fugitive playing games again, propaganda and provocation by a person who's getting older and needs to fear people forget him if he doesn't try to stay in the news. One may pity the old chap.

[MorristheRunt]

Pretty sad when the PM of a country gets upset over a calendar.

If Prayut is so concerned over Thaksin, simply issue an international arrest warrant to INTERPOL.

Get Thaksin back to a Thailand Jail....simple.

It would never surprise me in the two parties are in constant dialogue at all times and a "deal" arranged for mutual benefits.

[JAG]

Pretty sad when the PM of a country gets upset over a calendar.

If Prayut is so concerned over Thaksin, simply issue an international arrest warrant to INTERPOL.

Get Thaksin back to a Thailand Jail....simple.

It would never surprise me in the two parties are in constant dialogue at all times and a "deal" arranged for mutual benefits.

The idea of an international arrest warrant and Interpol is floated here regularly. Why don't they do it? Well, let us try and imagine the paperwork explaining why they want him arrested and sent to Thailand.....

" Dear foreign government, could you please detain one Thaksin Shinawatra, and send him back to us. He used to be the (twice elected) Prime Minister of Thailand. When it looked very much like he would win election a third time we staged a coup and took over. He was convicted of abuse of power (his wife bought a piece of land in a sealed bid auction, and she actually paid over the official valuation to win the auction). Guilty of this heinous crime he left the country. At the subsequent elections his party won, but over a year or so we managed to engineer the dismissal of that government and install one we preferred. At the next election Thaksin's party again won convincingly, and his younger sister became Prime Minister. We obviously couldn't have that, apart from anything else she was a mere woman(!) so we managed to force her dismissal. It took some doing but eventually we managed it. As it looked very much as if she (and Thaksin's party) would win the election which our then constitution required be held, some understanding acquaintances blocked it. Obviously as the countries military we were powerless to step in to ensure that the constitutional democratic process was followed, so we staged another coup. To avoid the embarrassment of breaking the constitution (which we had introduced a few years previously) we tore it up, and now rule by decree.

Please ignore reports of people in detention mysteriously contracting sudden fatal blood disorders, or people being prosecuted for "liking" posts on facebook. We certainly would not do a "Benigno Aquino Job" on Thaksin if you send him back to us (not in public anyway).

If you want to discuss anything don't hesitate to call. It may take a while before we answer, we're busy tracking down some calendars with his picture on them right now,

we managed to put a stop to the jars of jam with his face on them last year but this is proving a bit more difficult!

Yours ever

The Thai Junta"

[dominique355]

That's what they call Reconciliation

[tbthailand]

Pretty sad when the PM of a country gets upset over a calendar.

If Prayut is so concerned over Thaksin, simply issue an international arrest warrant to INTERPOL.

Get Thaksin back to a Thailand Jail....simple.

It would never surprise me in the two parties are in constant dialogue at all times and a "deal" arranged for mutual benefits.

The idea of an international arrest warrant and Interpol is floated here regularly. Why don't they do it? Well, let us try and imagine the paperwork explaining why they want him arrested and sent to Thailand.....

" Dear foreign government, could you please detain one Thaksin Shinawatra, and send him back to us. He used to be the (twice elected) Prime Minister of Thailand. When it looked very much like he would win election a third time we staged a coup and took over. He was convicted of abuse of power (his wife bought a piece of land in a sealed bid auction, and she actually paid over the official valuation to win the auction). Guilty of this heinous crime he left the country. At the subsequent elections his party won, but over a year or so we managed to engineer the dismissal of that government and install one we preferred. At the next election Thaksin's party again won convincingly, and his younger sister became Prime Minister. We obviously couldn't have that, apart from anything else she was a mere woman(!) so we managed to force her dismissal. It took some doing but eventually we managed it. As it looked very much as if she (and Thaksin's party) would win the election which our then constitution required be held, some understanding acquaintances blocked it. Obviously as the countries military we were powerless to step in to ensure that the constitutional democratic process was followed, so we staged another coup. To avoid the embarrassment of breaking the constitution (which we had introduced a few years previously) we tore it up, and now rule by decree.

Please ignore reports of people in detention mysteriously contracting sudden fatal blood disorders, or people being prosecuted for "liking" posts on facebook. We certainly would not do a "Benigno Aquino Job" on Thaksin if you send him back to us (not in public anyway).

If you want to discuss anything don't hesitate to call. It may take a while before we answer, we're busy tracking down some calendars with his picture on them right now,

we managed to put a stop to the jars of jam with his face on them last year but this is proving a bit more difficult!

Yours ever

The Thai Junta"

Thank you JAG, ...

ps: the jam thing, I had forgotten ... and yes, wasn't that just as pathetic as calendars...

Edited January 10, 2016 by tbthailand

[FritsSikkink]

Return home to article 44 where a Facebook like or mocking a dog gets you jailed?

Thaksin will outlive this thug.

See you in The Hague sunshine your days are numbered

Pray tell, you have an appointment with PM Prayut in The Hague?

As for the rest, well Thaksin seems to like propaganda, even more so than the current government.

"Pray tell, you have an appointment with PM Prayut in The Hague?"

If he did, I'd take a bet on you saying that it wasn't an official invite, it was on the wrong type paper, didn't have a letterhead and was just from a private individual, all the while taking up pages of posts to do so.................

If Plutojames88 said he had an appointment with PM Prayut in the Hague I would be tempted to call him a liar.

Of course, most will understand that PJ88 was trying to insinuate that maybe someone should ask the ICC in the Hague to put PM Prayut on trial.

BTW awfully quiet about the request from the UDD filed by Amsterdam c.s. I know it was hardly five years ago on the 31st of January 2011 and the ICC is really busy with real cases. Do you think they lost the dossier?

The judiciary in the Hague most likely work to a similar timescale to those in Thailand, so I wouldn't celebrate just yet - another couple of decades and we might even see some prosecutions on the military side for their culpability in 2010.....................but who am I kidding?

Before that there is the killing of 2718 people in Thaksin's WOD. (War On Drugs)

and a lot of people killed had nothing to do with drugs

[rubl]

Pretty sad when the PM of a country gets upset over a calendar.

If Prayut is so concerned over Thaksin, simply issue an international arrest warrant to INTERPOL.

Get Thaksin back to a Thailand Jail....simple.

It would never surprise me in the two parties are in constant dialogue at all times and a "deal" arranged for mutual benefits.

The idea of an international arrest warrant and Interpol is floated here regularly. Why don't they do it? Well, let us try and imagine the paperwork explaining why they want him arrested and sent to Thailand.....

" Dear foreign government, could you please detain one Thaksin Shinawatra, and send him back to us. He used to be the (twice elected) Prime Minister of Thailand. When it looked very much like he would win election a third time we staged a coup and took over. He was convicted of abuse of power (his wife bought a piece of land in a sealed bid auction, and she actually paid over the official valuation to win the auction). Guilty of this heinous crime he left the country. At the subsequent elections his party won, but over a year or so we managed to engineer the dismissal of that government and install one we preferred. At the next election Thaksin's party again won convincingly, and his younger sister became Prime Minister. We obviously couldn't have that, apart from anything else she was a mere woman(!) so we managed to force her dismissal. It took some doing but eventually we managed it. As it looked very much as if she (and Thaksin's party) would win the election which our then constitution required be held, some understanding acquaintances blocked it. Obviously as the countries military we were powerless to step in to ensure that the constitutional democratic process was followed, so we staged another coup. To avoid the embarrassment of breaking the constitution (which we had introduced a few years previously) we tore it up, and now rule by decree.

Please ignore reports of people in detention mysteriously contracting sudden fatal blood disorders, or people being prosecuted for "liking" posts on facebook. We certainly would not do a "Benigno Aquino Job" on Thaksin if you send him back to us (not in public anyway).

If you want to discuss anything don't hesitate to call. It may take a while before we answer, we're busy tracking down some calendars with his picture on them right now,

we managed to put a stop to the jars of jam with his face on them last year but this is proving a bit more difficult!

Yours ever

The Thai Junta"

Thank you JAG, ...

ps: the jam thing, I had forgotten ... and yes, wasn't that just as pathetic as calendars...

Totally agree. Just as pathetic attempt at propaganda. We had some interesting discussions here about the 'facts' as some tried to make us see them.

All orchestrated by that criminal fugitive de facto leader of the red-shirts. The poor who fight for an Amply Rich family who misuse them for their own purpose. Just like when Ms. Yingluck paid respect to a passed away Pheu Thai member and UDD figure. Nothing to do with paying respect, all well orchestrated to suggest spontaneous support for the Shinawatra elite.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed as well as the replies.

[chainarong]

My sister gave me a family calendar for the new year and no gestapo came and confiscated it , although I admit she isn't in Thailand , on the face of it you could be inclined to think that the Shinawatra family are being victimized and you might be right , it seems frivolous action from an Administration that has more important things to do , like improving the water supply , solving or finding a solution for the southern border region, both problems need long term planning which has been lacking for some decades , having a fugitive on a calendar is different, but if these calendars are free who cares , you can always buy a set of darts................................... .

The junta and (their backers) can live with the southern insurrection and the drought (and it's consequences for the rural population) because neither directly affect them. The calendar, however trivial it may seem, is a direct manifestation of the fact that a significant proportion of the people, maybe a majority don't support them. Worse they support the government (elected) they have replaced. This they cannot live with, it directly affects them.

Quite obviously you don't believe the opinion polls ........................

[LostTourist]

Seize the trouble makers, e.g Yingy and co, put them in jail and feed them a bowl of rice and water once every two days.

The supporters of the proxy Thaksin Governments, will do what ever they can to disrupt Thailand and the Thai people, they have no problem killing in the streets and burning down shopping centers.

They are more subversive and violent than the junta will ever be!!!!!

"They are more subversive and violent than the junta will ever be!!!!!"

Ah, a blind fortune teller. Blind to what's going on today and a fortune teller because you know what the junta, with their increasingly paranoid mindset, will do in the future.

Bad combination....

Sounds like you have a nasty case of the north eastern hairy lasso, of the red strain. You Should get that checked out.

Also Red movement represents Communism, and that is exactly what TS was running, whats mine is mine and whats yours is mine too, I will keep members of my family and frends in government just like all the other communist governments e.g. N Korea and you are either with me or against me and you don't want to be against me!!!

Nice troll post

BTW, you should get your keyboard checked as the exclamation mark button seems to be stuck.

Truth hurts eh?

Too close to home?

Edited February 12, 2016 by LostTourist