Thaksin tells Al Jazeera 'we saw it coming'

[charmonman]

Simply put, in Thaksin and his sister times they were good for the economy as monies flowed like water everywhere

but it was bad for the country,

with the Payout government, it's bad for the economy but good for the country, ( in the long run )

now all that Thailand have to do is find a way to merge the two with out to spill more blood in the streets....

Is that merge so it is bad for the economy and county?

Seriously Thailand is a basket case that will not change until they can deal to the patronage system that they all partake in or accept, which is the main driver of the corruption levels in the country.

Why the hate for this man in particular. He ran the country as good as and sometimes better

than a lot of his predecessors. He was obviously corrupt, but no more than anyone before.

Its the way the country operated, in the past , now and prob for years to come.

And all the nonsense re the red shirts being the cause of the fighting in BKK,

As I saw it it was 6 'o' one and half a dozen of the other.

And what the hell has it got to do with the farrangs on this site anyway.

How would you feel if a guest in your home, interfered in a 'domestic', between you and your wife.

First of all, if you have followed a political story for many years and have a strong opinion on it you are perfectly justified in expressing that opinion on an internet forum if you feel like it, whether you are a citizen or not. People do it all the time with Putin, or Mugabe, or the Burmese junta, in their respective countries, why not Thailand? It has nothing in common with "interfering" in a 'domestic' or anything else.

The reason so many have a particularly strong negative opinion about Thaksin are many. The main three are probably

(1) while he certainly was not the first or the only corrupt politician in Thailand, then or since, his detractors believe that he raised it to unprecedented levels and that the benefactors of this corruption were primarily himself, his family, and a very small group of cronies.

(2) while Thailand has never really been a paragon of democracy, his detractors believe Thaksin was in the process of concentrating power in his own hands in a way that would have made many of Thailand's military dictators envious. They believe his treatment of the opposition was arrogant, oppressive, and sometimes violent.

(3) they disapprove of what they see as his gross hypocrisy, such as his "defense" of democracy, but only when he was the winner.

[mike324]

"The Bank of Thailand also confirmed that prior to transferring the land to Pojaman, the Bank had been in contact with the National Counter Corruption Committee (NCCC), and that the NCCC had replied that as Thaksin Shinawatra did not directly supervise the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF), who were the official seller, then there would be no problem with the NCCC Act Article 100."

So, he was convicted for a breach of Article 100, BUT the committee overseeing that legislation had themselves PRIOR TO TRANSFERRING THE LAND confirmed that there was no breach of Article 100.

That is like asking the police what the speed limit is; adhering to it & then being fined for doing so. Ludicrous!

Also, compare the other sales of land by FIDF around the same time;

18th August 2003

35 rai (56,000 sq m) of land directly next to the cultural centre was sold to the Ministry of Culture to expand the Thai cultural centre for:

538 Million baht. (38,500 baht sq wah)

18th December 2003

33 rai (53,000 sq m) of land near to the cultural centre was sold to Pojaman Shinawatra to use as a private residence for:

772 Million baht. (58,000 baht/ sq wah

25th June 2004

50 rai (80,000 sq m) of land adjacent to the cultural centre was sold to MCOT Corporation to expand their Ratchada offices for:

1.12 Billion baht. (55,500 baht sq wah)

SO, Potjaman paid the most per sq wah for land in the same area. Substantially more than a deal just 3 months earlier.

Anyone that takes the time to really look into the details of this case, will come to the conclusion that it was a politically motivated, trumped up charge, with the sole purpose of purging a political rival that couldn't be removed through democratic elections or an unbiased justice system.

FIDF is suppose to be indepedent where the PM has no power over it as stated in the law, but yet it is under the Bank of Thailand where they had to listen to the BOT. The PM has powers over BOT and that is where they see the problem where Thaksin could have influence the decision by FIDF to accept Pojamans bidding price, through orders coming down from BOT. This is where the court found Thaksin guilty. Again, its not a trump up charged as people claim.

Again goverment asses value is so low in Thailand even to date. Bidding the highest means nothing, FIDF is still taking a loss through the state.

[rixalex]

Anyone that takes the time to really look into the details of this case, will come to the conclusion that it was a politically motivated, trumped up charge, with the sole purpose of purging a political rival that couldn't be removed through democratic elections or an unbiased justice system.

The law is a very simple one that exists for very obvious reasons in most countries around the world. Government employees can not be involved in bidding for state owned property. Nothing complicated about it, and the fact that we had the attempted court bribe followed by the lack of an appeal, suggests that the guilty parties involved were aware of this.

If you are really determined to defend Thaksin and his wife on this, as you seem to be, the only thing you can say is that this is the sort of crime that leaders, politicians and other members of the elite, tend to commit without batting an eyelid, safe in the knowledge that they are above the law, and so there is no doubt that Thaksin was singled out. Personally though that isn't something i lose sleep about. A start has been made, and that is better than no start at all.

Although I agree with several of your points, and yes there is a need to keep poly's in check, What I would like to know was Thaksin involved in the purchase of state owned land, or was he implicated by signing a document of his wife's purchase of land that is required (I believe) by Thai law.

What document did he sign? and how it proves involvement? The actual rule he supposedly broke was a conflict of interest rule, which has metastasized into an "abuse of power" charge, now that's some serious evolution there man, Darwin would be proud.

This wasn't some distant cousin or long lost relative buying the land, this was his wife. Thaksin surely didn't need the massive legal team that was at his disposal, to tell him that if he was not allowed to bid on state owned land, then his wife wasn't either?

[mike324]

LOVE YA WORK MATE

Now as I said, All the Thaksin "convicted criminal"l haters have shut up YET AGIAN when FACTS have been put to them.

YOU lot make me laugh with your same ol drivel that is proven INCORRECT and politically motivated charges that so many have been stating.

So now fella's what ya got now??? oh yeah war on drugs, ok come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave direct orders to kill people involved in the drug trade, REALLY really think ya can't so get over that one also, Next Thaksin boogieman claptrap?????

I also believe that in LOS if a wife buy's land then her husband must sign paperwork as required by Thai law.

You don't read anything and just yap away like the red shirts who see Thaksin can do no wrong.

If you want to know about Thaksins War on Drugs, just search on google. "Thaksin War on Drugs Shoot to Kill Policy", "Thaksin War on Drugs Human Right", "Thaksin War on Drugs Amnesty International"

You will get a lot of results, over 2500 deaths in three months time and countless records of how police shot people without verifying anything. There were people added to their "black list" who were there for no reason, wrongly added and such. I guess you think 2500 lives means nothing because they are not red shirts. Did you forget that Thaksin told UN "You are not my father" when UN told Thaksin that his War on Drugs is a big no no. But no need to say more, I know Thaksin is your hero and no need to debate, just a waste of time. You are just trolling the board bringing no substance.

[robblok]

LOVE YA WORK MATE

Now as I said, All the Thaksin "convicted criminal"l haters have shut up YET AGIAN when FACTS have been put to them.

YOU lot make me laugh with your same ol drivel that is proven INCORRECT and politically motivated charges that so many have been stating.

So now fella's what ya got now??? oh yeah war on drugs, ok come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave direct orders to kill people involved in the drug trade, REALLY really think ya can't so get over that one also, Next Thaksin boogieman claptrap?????

I also believe that in LOS if a wife buy's land then her husband must sign paperwork as required by Thai law.

You don't read anything and just yap away like the red shirts who see Thaksin can do no wrong.

If you want to know about Thaksins War on Drugs, just search on google. "Thaksin War on Drugs Shoot to Kill Policy", "Thaksin War on Drugs Human Right", "Thaksin War on Drugs Amnesty International"

You will get a lot of results, over 2500 deaths in three months time and countless records of how police shot people without verifying anything. There were people added to their "black list" who were there for no reason, wrongly added and such. I guess you think 2500 lives means nothing because they are not red shirts. Did you forget that Thaksin told UN "You are not my father" when UN told Thaksin that his War on Drugs is a big no no. But no need to say more, I know Thaksin is your hero and no need to debate, just a waste of time. You are just trolling the board bringing no substance.

And angel Thaksin and the bribing of judges with a box full of money.. innocent too.. the red supporters are so crazy.. so many cases waiting for him when he comes back he would do serious time. But no he is innocent...

Just explain sending a cake box full of money

[JAG]

Anyone that takes the time to really look into the details of this case, will come to the conclusion that it was a politically motivated, trumped up charge, with the sole purpose of purging a political rival that couldn't be removed through democratic elections or an unbiased justice system.

The law is a very simple one that exists for very obvious reasons in most countries around the world. Government employees can not be involved in bidding for state owned property. Nothing complicated about it, and the fact that we had the attempted court bribe followed by the lack of an appeal, suggests that the guilty parties involved were aware of this.

If you are really determined to defend Thaksin and his wife on this, as you seem to be, the only thing you can say is that this is the sort of crime that leaders, politicians and other members of the elite, tend to commit without batting an eyelid, safe in the knowledge that they are above the law, and so there is no doubt that Thaksin was singled out. Personally though that isn't something i lose sleep about. A start has been made, and that is better than no start at all.

Although I agree with several of your points, and yes there is a need to keep poly's in check, What I would like to know was Thaksin involved in the purchase of state owned land, or was he implicated by signing a document of his wife's purchase of land that is required (I believe) by Thai law.

What document did he sign? and how it proves involvement? The actual rule he supposedly broke was a conflict of interest rule, which has metastasized into an "abuse of power" charge, now that's some serious evolution there man, Darwin would be proud.

It's obviously one of those " irregular verbs" which bedevil English teachers:

My chap may have "infringed the conflict of interest rules",

Your chap is guilty of " serious abuse of power ".

With apologies to " Yes Minister".

[mike324]

Why the hate for this man in particular. He ran the country as good as and sometimes better

than a lot of his predecessors. He was obviously corrupt, but no more than anyone before.

Its the way the country operated, in the past , now and prob for years to come.

And all the nonsense re the red shirts being the cause of the fighting in BKK,

As I saw it it was 6 'o' one and half a dozen of the other.

And what the hell has it got to do with the farrangs on this site anyway.

How would you feel if a guest in your home, interfered in a 'domestic', between you and your wife.

I have to say Thaksin was truely a hero back then when he first stepped into politics. He did help the poor where past governments only ignored. And he did introduce many laws and came up with initiatves that help the country. He was so well liked that he even got 49% of votes from Bangkok folks. So its a misconception that when pro-thaksins supporters say the rich hates him and what not. Just as many rich folks love him! I use to be a big fan of his as well !

But that is where it ends, no matter how much you do, you can't flaunt your powers and show the I'm untouchable attitude. Ever since Thaksin took office, he awarded numerous government contracts to his own company. He openly flaunt his power and silience media critics by threatening to take away their licenses through law in the 97 charter where government can revoke licenses. The schemes that he brought in were failure and unsustanable that many people can't stand to see him continue with it. The police force had such great power and influence and it was getting out of hand. What many people don't know is that Thaksin got rich because his friend in the military gave him a monopoly in the mid 1980s to operate on GSM 900 mobile frequency. So for folks to complain that army is bad, etc etc, they totallly ignore that Thaksins own ties with the military. What made him more dangerous was that he had the police on his side too.

In the 2000s more people were into politics because of him, and at the same time people want whats good for the country and want to move forward. Thaksin started off with good intentions but got too greedy, that was his downfall. People are so sick of him abusing his position. Many supporter keeps on arguing that all the past polticians were corrupted too? Thats an invalid argument, why can't people ask for a less corrupt politician even in the 2000s? Is that too much to ask for?

[mike324]

"The Bank of Thailand also confirmed that prior to transferring the land to Pojaman, the Bank had been in contact with the National Counter Corruption Committee (NCCC), and that the NCCC had replied that as Thaksin Shinawatra did not directly supervise the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF), who were the official seller, then there would be no problem with the NCCC Act Article 100."

So, he was convicted for a breach of Article 100, BUT the committee overseeing that legislation had themselves PRIOR TO TRANSFERRING THE LAND confirmed that there was no breach of Article 100.

That is like asking the police what the speed limit is; adhering to it & then being fined for doing so. Ludicrous!

Also, compare the other sales of land by FIDF around the same time;

18th August 2003

35 rai (56,000 sq m) of land directly next to the cultural centre was sold to the Ministry of Culture to expand the Thai cultural centre for:

538 Million baht. (38,500 baht sq wah)

18th December 2003

33 rai (53,000 sq m) of land near to the cultural centre was sold to Pojaman Shinawatra to use as a private residence for:

772 Million baht. (58,000 baht/ sq wah

25th June 2004

50 rai (80,000 sq m) of land adjacent to the cultural centre was sold to MCOT Corporation to expand their Ratchada offices for:

1.12 Billion baht. (55,500 baht sq wah)

SO, Potjaman paid the most per sq wah for land in the same area. Substantially more than a deal just 3 months earlier.

Anyone that takes the time to really look into the details of this case, will come to the conclusion that it was a politically motivated, trumped up charge, with the sole purpose of purging a political rival that couldn't be removed through democratic elections or an unbiased justice system.

FIDF is suppose to be indepedent where the PM has no power over it as stated in the law, but yet it is under the Bank of Thailand where they had to listen to the BOT. The PM has powers over BOT and that is where they see the problem where Thaksin could have influence the decision by FIDF to accept Pojamans bidding price, through orders coming down from BOT. This is where the court found Thaksin guilty. Again, its not a trump up charged as people claim.

Again goverment asses value is so low in Thailand even to date. Bidding the highest means nothing, FIDF is still taking a loss through the state.

You may ask why and how, according to Bank of Thailand act.

Here is a translated copy http://www.thailawforum.com/database1/bank-of-thailand.html

If go skip to page 4, its about FIDF. You can see how BOT can influence the decision of the FIDF. I've listed the sections below where its most important, a lot of the management committee members are under the PM's authority. The law is clear that FIDF is independent to do its thing, yet you can see how there is also a conflict of interest in the land case, its not a seal shut case where nothing could have influence the acceptance of the bidding - again many of the management committee are all under the PM's authority.

Section 29 novem There shall be a committee called the “Fund Management Committee” consisting of the Governor as Chairman, the Permanent Secretary for Finance as Deputy Chairman and not less than five, but not more than nine, other committee members appointed by the Minister. The Manager shall be the Secretary of the Fund Management Committee.

Section 29 tredecim The Fund Management Committee shall have the authority and duty to lay down policies and take general control and superintendence of the affairs of the Fund. Such authorities and responsibilities shall include: (1) issuing regulations of the purpose of complying with Section 29 ter, Section 29 quinque and Section 29 octo; (2) issuing regulations concerning meetings and operations of the Fund Management Committee; (3) issuing regulations governing the performance of duties of the Manager; and (4) considering any other matters assigned by the BOT.

[scorecard]

You keep getting into the same thing mate, Why is it that you blame the coup on Thaksin due to an amnesty bill and not enacted or put into law?

YET you "could not care less" if the coup leaders are punished for the same thing (that would be amnesty) you carry on about.

Now as far as the Thaksin criminal fan-boys, He was charged with "abuse of power" and just what was that "abuse of power"?

He was found to have violated conflict of interest rules (were they LAWS or rules?) in helping his wife buy land from a state agency at a reduced price.

Questions, What state agency was it? was the land available to other potential buyers? who and why was the land price reduced? exactly what was the conflict of interest? each time I ask these questions all the Thaksin criminal haters shut up...

Abuse of power with his conflict of interest in the Ratchada Land case. Wife bidded on the land, but needed Thaksins signature to do so.

Section 100 of the National Counter Corruption Act:

Any State official shall not carry out the following acts:

being a party to or having interest in a contract made with a Government agency where such State official performs duties in the capacity as State official who has the power to conduct supervision, control, inspection or legal proceedings;…Court ruled that FIDF was a state agency and that Thaksin had oversight of it.

The bidding practice was also questionable, there were three bidders but the down payment for these particular plots was jacked up from 10,000 baht to 100 million to prevent any other party from joining.

State Agency: Financial Institutions Development Fund (some argue its not since its independent and PM does not oversea it, but since is under BOT, it technically also is)

Available to other buyers: Yes

Why was Land Price Reduce: There was lots of irregularities when the land was sold, if they waited just couple weeks they could have sold it for 20% higher as government was re assessing the value of land. They also sold it when transfer fee was low. FIDF bought the land for 2.14 Billion, but they decide to accept Thaksins Wifes bid because that was the highest and nobody wanted to pay more. FIDF said they want to sell it since its been in the portfolio for so long. Some argue that Pojaman pay higher than government assessed value of the land, if you own land in Thailand, you will know government asses value is always lower than real market value. People have been complaining government asses value are wrong and that is why the rich owns so many land because taxes paid are so little.

"The Bank of Thailand also confirmed that prior to transferring the land to Pojaman, the Bank had been in contact with the National Counter Corruption Committee (NCCC), and that the NCCC had replied that as Thaksin Shinawatra did not directly supervise the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF), who were the official seller, then there would be no problem with the NCCC Act Article 100."

So, he was convicted for a breach of Article 100, BUT the committee overseeing that legislation had themselves PRIOR TO TRANSFERRING THE LAND confirmed that there was no breach of Article 100.

That is like asking the police what the speed limit is; adhering to it & then being fined for doing so. Ludicrous!

Also, compare the other sales of land by FIDF around the same time;

18th August 2003

35 rai (56,000 sq m) of land directly next to the cultural centre was sold to the Ministry of Culture to expand the Thai cultural centre for:

538 Million baht. (38,500 baht sq wah)

18th December 2003

33 rai (53,000 sq m) of land near to the cultural centre was sold to Pojaman Shinawatra to use as a private residence for:

772 Million baht. (58,000 baht/ sq wah

25th June 2004

50 rai (80,000 sq m) of land adjacent to the cultural centre was sold to MCOT Corporation to expand their Ratchada offices for:

1.12 Billion baht. (55,500 baht sq wah)

SO, Potjaman paid the most per sq wah for land in the same area. Substantially more than a deal just 3 months earlier.

Anyone that takes the time to really look into the details of this case, will come to the conclusion that it was a politically motivated, trumped up charge, with the sole purpose of purging a political rival that couldn't be removed through democratic elections or an unbiased justice system.

LOVE YA WORK MATE

Now as I said, All the Thaksin "convicted criminal"l haters have shut up YET AGIAN when FACTS have been put to them.

YOU lot make me laugh with your same ol drivel that is proven INCORRECT and politically motivated charges that so many have been stating.

So now fella's what ya got now??? oh yeah war on drugs, ok come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave direct orders to kill people involved in the drug trade, REALLY really think ya can't so get over that one also, Next Thaksin boogieman claptrap?????

I also believe that in LOS if a wife buy's land then her husband must sign paperwork as required by Thai law.

You can quote the other 'articles' as much as you like, you can quote how much pojaman paid as much as you like, the bottom line in this case is very straight forward:

- He was not convicted of any corruption charge.

- The oft held belief that he just signed as the husband to allow his wife to buy is a total red herring. This is a common practice in some areas but is not a law.

- The much toted stuff about fair price is irrelevant.

- He did break a very specific and serious law, the law about abuse of authority. Such laws exist in 99% of the countries in the world and for very good reasons, to stop elected officials from allowing family members to buy up state assets / to buy up the assets owned by all Thai citizens.

Such laws should exist, when people accept government positions, ministerial positions, etc., they know full well that these laws exist and know full well these laws exist for good reasons - to protect the property / assets of the whole community of the whole country. If they don't like these laws then they have an option, don't accept the high positions, and nobody is forcing them to accept these high positions.

If these serious laws are / were not applied this would create a very very undesirable precedent.

- Also sidestepped is that the paymaster knew well that he was breaking a serious law as did his then wife (these people are not naive folks with no at least working knowledge of the law and both of them had lawyers at their immediate disposal pretty much 24 hours a day).

- When the signing event happened (paymaster signing on behalf of Thailand to sell land owned by every Thai citizen to a family member) there was a photo op which appeared in all the media along with big paymaster smiles. It was said at the time that the ministry officials in the photo op knew full well this was breaking the abuse of authority law but they were too frightened to speak up. Would you blame them?

- Also worth remembering, the case was heard when the paymasters party was the sitting government. Given that fact the judges were brave enough to follow the law. Was there any immediate outcry of 'unfair' or similar from anybody at the time the decision and penalty were handed down? Not really.

- He fled just before the verdict was handed down. If he believed he had not broken any laws then why did he flee? IMHO he knew well that he was guilty of breaking the serious laws about abuse of authority and had no defense, so he fled.

- He had the opportunity to appeal, he didn't. The fact that he had fled / removed himself from Thai soil is not / cannot be claimed by the paymaster as a valid reason to not appeal.

- Here's a question to the other foreign posters who originate (like me) from other countries. Would you object / object seriously if the PM / president of your country signed documents to sell the common wealth assets of your country to their wife / husband?

Edited March 2, 2016 by scorecard

[tbthailand]

Anyone that takes the time to really look into the details of this case, will come to the conclusion that it was a politically motivated, trumped up charge, with the sole purpose of purging a political rival that couldn't be removed through democratic elections or an unbiased justice system.

The law is a very simple one that exists for very obvious reasons in most countries around the world. Government employees can not be involved in bidding for state owned property. Nothing complicated about it, and the fact that we had the attempted court bribe followed by the lack of an appeal, suggests that the guilty parties involved were aware of this.

If you are really determined to defend Thaksin and his wife on this, as you seem to be, the only thing you can say is that this is the sort of crime that leaders, politicians and other members of the elite, tend to commit without batting an eyelid, safe in the knowledge that they are above the law, and so there is no doubt that Thaksin was singled out. Personally though that isn't something i lose sleep about. A start has been made, and that is better than no start at all.

the point is that it was a political conviction where the facts were made up to go along with the verdict.

There is no defending anyone in this, it is calling a spade a spade .

I really don't like Thaksin, but even I can see that.

[rixalex]

Anyone that takes the time to really look into the details of this case, will come to the conclusion that it was a politically motivated, trumped up charge, with the sole purpose of purging a political rival that couldn't be removed through democratic elections or an unbiased justice system.

The law is a very simple one that exists for very obvious reasons in most countries around the world. Government employees can not be involved in bidding for state owned property. Nothing complicated about it, and the fact that we had the attempted court bribe followed by the lack of an appeal, suggests that the guilty parties involved were aware of this.

If you are really determined to defend Thaksin and his wife on this, as you seem to be, the only thing you can say is that this is the sort of crime that leaders, politicians and other members of the elite, tend to commit without batting an eyelid, safe in the knowledge that they are above the law, and so there is no doubt that Thaksin was singled out. Personally though that isn't something i lose sleep about. A start has been made, and that is better than no start at all.

the point is that it was a political conviction where the facts were made up to go along with the verdict.

There is no defending anyone in this, it is calling a spade a spade .

I really don't like Thaksin, but even I can see that.

I've stated the facts. Government workers can not be involved in bidding on state-owned property. Being Prime Minister and having your wife bid on state-owned property, is clearly being involved. The only way he could argue that he wasn't, would be to say his wife bid without his knowledge, but since his signature is on the documents, he can't. So please tell me, what facts from the above are made up?

As for your comment about not liking Thaksin, your posts speaker louder on that matter and they beg to differ.

[aussieinthailand]

LOVE YA WORK MATE

Now as I said, All the Thaksin "convicted criminal"l haters have shut up YET AGIAN when FACTS have been put to them.

YOU lot make me laugh with your same ol drivel that is proven INCORRECT and politically motivated charges that so many have been stating.

So now fella's what ya got now??? oh yeah war on drugs, ok come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave direct orders to kill people involved in the drug trade, REALLY really think ya can't so get over that one also, Next Thaksin boogieman claptrap?????

I also believe that in LOS if a wife buy's land then her husband must sign paperwork as required by Thai law.

You don't read anything and just yap away like the red shirts who see Thaksin can do no wrong.

If you want to know about Thaksins War on Drugs, just search on google. "Thaksin War on Drugs Shoot to Kill Policy", "Thaksin War on Drugs Human Right", "Thaksin War on Drugs Amnesty International"

You will get a lot of results, over 2500 deaths in three months time and countless records of how police shot people without verifying anything. There were people added to their "black list" who were there for no reason, wrongly added and such. I guess you think 2500 lives means nothing because they are not red shirts. Did you forget that Thaksin told UN "You are not my father" when UN told Thaksin that his War on Drugs is a big no no. But no need to say more, I know Thaksin is your hero and no need to debate, just a waste of time. You are just trolling the board bringing no substance.

The "shoot to kill" is an allegation, and neither YOU or anyone else has come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave that order, and That's crux of it man, you don't have the proof and it get's up ya nose, TO BAD.

Also I have little (not none at all) sympathy for smack whippa & ice users and dealers, They have done this to themselves by jabbing fit's filled with poison And dealers making money off them, then dope heads go out lie cheat and steal from family friends and others who work for their money.

And yeah I know how it works as I grew up with it all around me as a young boy until now.

Also Thaksin is not my hero, but he is to millions in Thailand, so once again TO BAD...

NCCC told the BOT there was NO breach before land transfer, that should have ended it, but you come out with he had influence over BOT so he could have influenced by proxy the sale of land to his wife, Now if she was precluded from buying the land why oh why did the NCCC say something before the transfer???

BTW were they forced to sell the land? or could they have just said no thanks, no sale. Gee wiz no reserve price huh???

[scorecard]

LOVE YA WORK MATE

Now as I said, All the Thaksin "convicted criminal"l haters have shut up YET AGIAN when FACTS have been put to them.

YOU lot make me laugh with your same ol drivel that is proven INCORRECT and politically motivated charges that so many have been stating.

So now fella's what ya got now??? oh yeah war on drugs, ok come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave direct orders to kill people involved in the drug trade, REALLY really think ya can't so get over that one also, Next Thaksin boogieman claptrap?????

I also believe that in LOS if a wife buy's land then her husband must sign paperwork as required by Thai law.

You don't read anything and just yap away like the red shirts who see Thaksin can do no wrong.

If you want to know about Thaksins War on Drugs, just search on google. "Thaksin War on Drugs Shoot to Kill Policy", "Thaksin War on Drugs Human Right", "Thaksin War on Drugs Amnesty International"

You will get a lot of results, over 2500 deaths in three months time and countless records of how police shot people without verifying anything. There were people added to their "black list" who were there for no reason, wrongly added and such. I guess you think 2500 lives means nothing because they are not red shirts. Did you forget that Thaksin told UN "You are not my father" when UN told Thaksin that his War on Drugs is a big no no. But no need to say more, I know Thaksin is your hero and no need to debate, just a waste of time. You are just trolling the board bringing no substance.

The "shoot to kill" is an allegation, and neither YOU or anyone else has come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave that order, and That's crux of it man, you don't have the proof and it get's up ya nose, TO BAD.

Also I have little (not none at all) sympathy for smack whippa & ice users and dealers, They have done this to themselves by jabbing fit's filled with poison And dealers making money off them, then dope heads go out lie cheat and steal from family friends and others who work for their money.

And yeah I know how it works as I grew up with it all around me as a young boy until now.

Also Thaksin is not my hero, but he is to millions in Thailand, so once again TO BAD...

NCCC told the BOT there was NO breach before land transfer, that should have ended it, but you come out with he had influence over BOT so he could have influenced by proxy the sale of land to his wife, Now if she was precluded from buying the land why oh why did the NCCC say something before the transfer???

BTW were they forced to sell the land? or could they have just said no thanks, no sale. Gee wiz no reserve price huh???

"The "shoot to kill" is an allegation, and neither YOU or anyone else has come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave that order...

Is it not possible (in fact very likely) the words uttered were different but the meaning was clear?

[scorecard]

Thaksin tells Aljezerra 'We saw it coming'.

Well what a revelation, wow and whacky doo.

Who didn't see it coming?

And is there not a case that many Thai folks were in fact pleased that the junta stepped in to put a halt to the violence, etc?

[Artisi]

This country doesn't need, and hasn't needed a coup for the past 20 years, what it needs is a revolution, level the playing field as many other countries have and start afresh with intelligent dedicated people at the helm. The ongoing re-positioning of the goal posts achieves nothing.

[mike324]

The "shoot to kill" is an allegation, and neither YOU or anyone else has come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave that order, and That's crux of it man, you don't have the proof and it get's up ya nose, TO BAD.

Also I have little (not none at all) sympathy for smack whippa & ice users and dealers, They have done this to themselves by jabbing fit's filled with poison And dealers making money off them, then dope heads go out lie cheat and steal from family friends and others who work for their money.

And yeah I know how it works as I grew up with it all around me as a young boy until now.

Also Thaksin is not my hero, but he is to millions in Thailand, so once again TO BAD...

If you done your research "Thaksin announces that Thai security forces will “shoot to kill” when they encounter Burmese drug traffickers on Thai soil." Must have been a lot of Burmese drug dealers on Thai soil!

If you need some more links, here is one of a short timeline of events from Human Rights Watch https://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2004/07/07/thaila9014.htm

War on Drug had good intentions, but executed poorly. Please name me one leader in the 2000s that has been warned by the UN, Amnesty International, and Human Rights! Last I remember they were along the lines of Kim Jong Un, Mugabe, Hun Sen, etc

Nothing wrong with being hero of millions for what he did, but sad the millions can't see past his corruption for the society to progress. That is whats sad! that is why Thai politcis is stuck in a limbo.

The "shoot to kill" is an allegation, and neither YOU or anyone else has come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave that order, and That's crux of it man, you don't have the proof and it get's up ya nose, TO BAD.

Also I have little (not none at all) sympathy for smack whippa & ice users and dealers, They have done this to themselves by jabbing fit's filled with poison And dealers making money off them, then dope heads go out lie cheat and steal from family friends and others who work for their money.

And yeah I know how it works as I grew up with it all around me as a young boy until now.

Also Thaksin is not my hero, but he is to millions in Thailand, so once again TO BAD...

NCCC told the BOT there was NO breach before land transfer, that should have ended it, but you come out with he had influence over BOT so he could have influenced by proxy the sale of land to his wife, Now if she was precluded from buying the land why oh why did the NCCC say something before the transfer???

BTW were they forced to sell the land? or could they have just said no thanks, no sale. Gee wiz no reserve price huh???

NCCC at the time was head by Sawat Orrungroj. He said that the case of Pojaman was about "someone offering the highest bid" in a land auction and therefore should be legal. But according to Preecha Suwannathat,a NCCC law drafter said the deal was a "contract" and thus a legal violation. As a head of NCCC who has good relations with Thaksin, yes he said no problem. Thaksin thought he could get away with it due to his influence.

But the law outline in the NCCC Article 100 of the National Counter Corruption Commission Act, which bans state officials and their spouses from having an interest in contracts made with state agencies under their supervision. Its pretty clear and simple, what more proof do you need? Court rule that FIDF was a state agency, and management committee were state officials and many were in fact appointmented by the PM and his cabient. So its a clear cut case, the sale should not have been allowed. And in every develop country in the world, there are the same laws!

They were not force to sell the land. The land was frozen due to the trial and Pojaman had to return it to the FIDF, FIDF actually payed Pojaman back the money plus interest since she was not found guilty of the land case.

FIDF were not force to sell the land. Yes no reserve price how surprising right! Given that they are taking a loss of over 1 billion baht, don't you find that shady?

If you actually believe in what the NCCC said, then you should also believe that YIngluck and her TRT could have sold all the rice they bought for 15,000 baht and the Rice Scheme would never have collapsed due to corruption and insufficient funds.

[Kiwiken]

Thaksin and those who oppose him a two sides of the same coin. The difference is he let a trickle got to the poor masses. That he did wrong is not in dispute. But Thailand has suffered coup after coup since 1932. The coup was unneccessary but coming since the PT won the election. The Rice scheme a bungled attempt to manipulate a commodity price and profiteer. But not enough to remove an elected Government. How many of Our Govts would be removed if Our militaries be haved this way. The problem is the dumbing down of Thai Society. No level of corruption is acceptable. But democracy should give transparent Government. Not closed door deal. In my own Country we are dumbed down so back door deals are done. Thailand just needs to breath and grow. There are a great many good people there. They just need a voice

[mike324]

Thaksin and those who oppose him a two sides of the same coin. The difference is he let a trickle got to the poor masses. That he did wrong is not in dispute. But Thailand has suffered coup after coup since 1932. The coup was unneccessary but coming since the PT won the election. The Rice scheme a bungled attempt to manipulate a commodity price and profiteer. But not enough to remove an elected Government. How many of Our Govts would be removed if Our militaries be haved this way. The problem is the dumbing down of Thai Society. No level of corruption is acceptable. But democracy should give transparent Government. Not closed door deal. In my own Country we are dumbed down so back door deals are done. Thailand just needs to breath and grow. There are a great many good people there. They just need a voice

True that everyone is two sides of the same coin.

But I wouldn't say the Rice Scheme was not enough to remove an elected government, history has repeated itself, absolutely no transparency for 2 years regarding to this scheme, continue lies to the public with massive losses. Please name a developed country that repeated the same corrupted, loss ridden scheme twice? It would be interesting to compare the two. Subsidies don't have to be sustainable, but it shouldn't be this outrageous. In any developed country, the PM should have stepped down or be charged already!

Coup happen not because of the Rice Scheme though, it was due to contant violence and unrest in the city by both parties. So I think its misleading to think coup happened because they were against a populist policy.

http://www.cityu.edu.hk/searc/Resources/Paper/WP36_02_PasukBaker.pdf

This is also a good read for those that are so anti coup yet pro Thaksin. General Sunthorn Kongsompong head of the 1991 Coup was one the main reasons for Thaksin sucess in his telecommunication business.

Edited March 2, 2016 by mike324

[Kiwiken]

In NZ for years we ran a subsidised minimum lamb price. I artificially inflated the price of meat and very nearly Bankrupted our Country. No one has ever been held to account for this or many other hair brained actions that have pushed us toward 3rd world status.

Thaksin and those who oppose him a two sides of the same coin. The difference is he let a trickle got to the poor masses. That he did wrong is not in dispute. But Thailand has suffered coup after coup since 1932. The coup was unneccessary but coming since the PT won the election. The Rice scheme a bungled attempt to manipulate a commodity price and profiteer. But not enough to remove an elected Government. How many of Our Govts would be removed if Our militaries be haved this way. The problem is the dumbing down of Thai Society. No level of corruption is acceptable. But democracy should give transparent Government. Not closed door deal. In my own Country we are dumbed down so back door deals are done. Thailand just needs to breath and grow. There are a great many good people there. They just need a voice

True that everyone is two sides of the same coin.

But I wouldn't say the Rice Scheme was not enough to remove an elected government, history has repeated itself, absolutely no transparency for 2 years regarding to this scheme, continue lies to the public with massive losses. Please name a developed country that repeated the same corrupted, loss ridden scheme twice? It would be interesting to compare the two. Subsidies don't have to be sustainable, but it shouldn't be this outrageous. In any developed country, the PM should have stepped down or be charged already!

Coup happen not because of the Rice Scheme though, it was due to contant violence and unrest in the city by both parties. So I think its misleading to think coup happened because they were against a populist policy.

http://www.cityu.edu.hk/searc/Resources/Paper/WP36_02_PasukBaker.pdf

This is also a good read for those that are so anti coup yet pro Thaksin. General Sunthorn Kongsompong head of the 1991 Coup was one the main reasons for Thaksin sucess in his telecommunication business.

[rubl]

"Former Prime Minister and Billionare, Thaksin Shinawatra claimed he had seen the coup against his sister’s government coming as soon as demonstrators hit the streets in 2014."

He may have been a bit distracted by his blanket amnesty bill, but the protesters already hit the streets end of October 2013.

[candide]

The "shoot to kill" is an allegation, and neither YOU or anyone else has come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave that order, and That's crux of it man, you don't have the proof and it get's up ya nose, TO BAD.

Also I have little (not none at all) sympathy for smack whippa & ice users and dealers, They have done this to themselves by jabbing fit's filled with poison And dealers making money off them, then dope heads go out lie cheat and steal from family friends and others who work for their money.

And yeah I know how it works as I grew up with it all around me as a young boy until now.

Also Thaksin is not my hero, but he is to millions in Thailand, so once again TO BAD...

If you done your research "Thaksin announces that Thai security forces will “shoot to kill” when they encounter Burmese drug traffickers on Thai soil." Must have been a lot of Burmese drug dealers on Thai soil!

If you need some more links, here is one of a short timeline of events from Human Rights Watch https://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2004/07/07/thaila9014.htm

War on Drug had good intentions, but executed poorly. Please name me one leader in the 2000s that has been warned by the UN, Amnesty International, and Human Rights! Last I remember they were along the lines of Kim Jong Un, Mugabe, Hun Sen, etc

Nothing wrong with being hero of millions for what he did, but sad the millions can't see past his corruption for the society to progress. That is whats sad! that is why Thai politcis is stuck in a limbo.

The "shoot to kill" is an allegation, and neither YOU or anyone else has come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave that order, and That's crux of it man, you don't have the proof and it get's up ya nose, TO BAD.

Also I have little (not none at all) sympathy for smack whippa & ice users and dealers, They have done this to themselves by jabbing fit's filled with poison And dealers making money off them, then dope heads go out lie cheat and steal from family friends and others who work for their money.

And yeah I know how it works as I grew up with it all around me as a young boy until now.

Also Thaksin is not my hero, but he is to millions in Thailand, so once again TO BAD...

NCCC told the BOT there was NO breach before land transfer, that should have ended it, but you come out with he had influence over BOT so he could have influenced by proxy the sale of land to his wife, Now if she was precluded from buying the land why oh why did the NCCC say something before the transfer???

BTW were they forced to sell the land? or could they have just said no thanks, no sale. Gee wiz no reserve price huh???

NCCC at the time was head by Sawat Orrungroj. He said that the case of Pojaman was about "someone offering the highest bid" in a land auction and therefore should be legal. But according to Preecha Suwannathat,a NCCC law drafter said the deal was a "contract" and thus a legal violation. As a head of NCCC who has good relations with Thaksin, yes he said no problem. Thaksin thought he could get away with it due to his influence.

But the law outline in the NCCC Article 100 of the National Counter Corruption Commission Act, which bans state officials and their spouses from having an interest in contracts made with state agencies under their supervision. Its pretty clear and simple, what more proof do you need? Court rule that FIDF was a state agency, and management committee were state officials and many were in fact appointmented by the PM and his cabient. So its a clear cut case, the sale should not have been allowed. And in every develop country in the world, there are the same laws!

They were not force to sell the land. The land was frozen due to the trial and Pojaman had to return it to the FIDF, FIDF actually payed Pojaman back the money plus interest since she was not found guilty of the land case.

FIDF were not force to sell the land. Yes no reserve price how surprising right! Given that they are taking a loss of over 1 billion baht, don't you find that shady?

If you actually believe in what the NCCC said, then you should also believe that YIngluck and her TRT could have sold all the rice they bought for 15,000 baht and the Rice Scheme would never have collapsed due to corruption and insufficient funds.

It's far to be clear cut and the case can be subject to different interpretation.

Again, 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.

Moreover, the way you present information in a way that may be misleading (NCCC at the time was head by Sawat Orrungroj. He said that the case of Pojaman was about "someone offering the highest bid" in a land auction and therefore should be legal. But according to Preecha Suwannathat,a NCCC law drafter said the deal was a "contract" and thus a legal violation. As a head of NCCC who has good relations with Thaksin, yes he said no problem. Thaksin thought he could get away with it due to his influence.). It may be understood as Sawat Orrungroj not listening to Preecha Suwannathat before the NCCC informed the BOT that it could make the sale as there was no problem with article 100. Preecha's comments occured 5 month after the sales. (http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.fr/2009/06/2004-censure-debate.html)

So to summarise: article 29 of BOT act and NCCC approval on the one hand, other legal experts on the other hand. Clearly a case in which the law could have been interpreted in one way or in the other way.

I don't know if the NCCC had good relations with Thaksin at this particular time (it had indicted him and his wife in 2001 for another issue), but it could also be mentioned that Preecha Suwannathat was a Democrat MP.

Edited March 2, 2016 by candide

[scorecard]

The "shoot to kill" is an allegation, and neither YOU or anyone else has come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave that order, and That's crux of it man, you don't have the proof and it get's up ya nose, TO BAD.

Also I have little (not none at all) sympathy for smack whippa & ice users and dealers, They have done this to themselves by jabbing fit's filled with poison And dealers making money off them, then dope heads go out lie cheat and steal from family friends and others who work for their money.

And yeah I know how it works as I grew up with it all around me as a young boy until now.

Also Thaksin is not my hero, but he is to millions in Thailand, so once again TO BAD...

If you done your research "Thaksin announces that Thai security forces will “shoot to kill” when they encounter Burmese drug traffickers on Thai soil." Must have been a lot of Burmese drug dealers on Thai soil!

If you need some more links, here is one of a short timeline of events from Human Rights Watch https://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2004/07/07/thaila9014.htm

War on Drug had good intentions, but executed poorly. Please name me one leader in the 2000s that has been warned by the UN, Amnesty International, and Human Rights! Last I remember they were along the lines of Kim Jong Un, Mugabe, Hun Sen, etc

Nothing wrong with being hero of millions for what he did, but sad the millions can't see past his corruption for the society to progress. That is whats sad! that is why Thai politcis is stuck in a limbo.

The "shoot to kill" is an allegation, and neither YOU or anyone else has come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave that order, and That's crux of it man, you don't have the proof and it get's up ya nose, TO BAD.

Also I have little (not none at all) sympathy for smack whippa & ice users and dealers, They have done this to themselves by jabbing fit's filled with poison And dealers making money off them, then dope heads go out lie cheat and steal from family friends and others who work for their money.

And yeah I know how it works as I grew up with it all around me as a young boy until now.

Also Thaksin is not my hero, but he is to millions in Thailand, so once again TO BAD...

NCCC told the BOT there was NO breach before land transfer, that should have ended it, but you come out with he had influence over BOT so he could have influenced by proxy the sale of land to his wife, Now if she was precluded from buying the land why oh why did the NCCC say something before the transfer???

BTW were they forced to sell the land? or could they have just said no thanks, no sale. Gee wiz no reserve price huh???

NCCC at the time was head by Sawat Orrungroj. He said that the case of Pojaman was about "someone offering the highest bid" in a land auction and therefore should be legal. But according to Preecha Suwannathat,a NCCC law drafter said the deal was a "contract" and thus a legal violation. As a head of NCCC who has good relations with Thaksin, yes he said no problem. Thaksin thought he could get away with it due to his influence.

But the law outline in the NCCC Article 100 of the National Counter Corruption Commission Act, which bans state officials and their spouses from having an interest in contracts made with state agencies under their supervision. Its pretty clear and simple, what more proof do you need? Court rule that FIDF was a state agency, and management committee were state officials and many were in fact appointmented by the PM and his cabient. So its a clear cut case, the sale should not have been allowed. And in every develop country in the world, there are the same laws!

They were not force to sell the land. The land was frozen due to the trial and Pojaman had to return it to the FIDF, FIDF actually payed Pojaman back the money plus interest since she was not found guilty of the land case.

FIDF were not force to sell the land. Yes no reserve price how surprising right! Given that they are taking a loss of over 1 billion baht, don't you find that shady?

If you actually believe in what the NCCC said, then you should also believe that YIngluck and her TRT could have sold all the rice they bought for 15,000 baht and the Rice Scheme would never have collapsed due to corruption and insufficient funds.

It's far to be clear cut and the case can be subject to different interpretation.

Again, 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.

Moreover, the way you present information in a way that may be misleading (NCCC at the time was head by Sawat Orrungroj. He said that the case of Pojaman was about "someone offering the highest bid" in a land auction and therefore should be legal. But according to Preecha Suwannathat,a NCCC law drafter said the deal was a "contract" and thus a legal violation. As a head of NCCC who has good relations with Thaksin, yes he said no problem. Thaksin thought he could get away with it due to his influence.). It may be understood as Sawat Orrungroj not listening to Preecha Suwannathat before the NCCC informed the BOT that it could make the sale as there was no problem with article 100. Preecha's comments occured 5 month after the sales. (http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.fr/2009/06/2004-censure-debate.html)

So to summarise: article 29 of BOT act and NCCC approval on the one hand, other legal experts on the other hand. Clearly a case in which the law could have been interpreted in one way or in the other way.

I don't know if the NCCC had good relations with Thaksin at this particular time (it had indicted him and his wife in 2001 for another issue), but it could also be mentioned that Preecha Suwannathat was a Democrat MP.

And as always you try to divert to a different subject.

[aussieinthailand]

LOVE YA WORK MATE

Now as I said, All the Thaksin "convicted criminal"l haters have shut up YET AGIAN when FACTS have been put to them.

YOU lot make me laugh with your same ol drivel that is proven INCORRECT and politically motivated charges that so many have been stating.

So now fella's what ya got now??? oh yeah war on drugs, ok come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave direct orders to kill people involved in the drug trade, REALLY really think ya can't so get over that one also, Next Thaksin boogieman claptrap?????

I also believe that in LOS if a wife buy's land then her husband must sign paperwork as required by Thai law.

You don't read anything and just yap away like the red shirts who see Thaksin can do no wrong.

If you want to know about Thaksins War on Drugs, just search on google. "Thaksin War on Drugs Shoot to Kill Policy", "Thaksin War on Drugs Human Right", "Thaksin War on Drugs Amnesty International"

You will get a lot of results, over 2500 deaths in three months time and countless records of how police shot people without verifying anything. There were people added to their "black list" who were there for no reason, wrongly added and such. I guess you think 2500 lives means nothing because they are not red shirts. Did you forget that Thaksin told UN "You are not my father" when UN told Thaksin that his War on Drugs is a big no no. But no need to say more, I know Thaksin is your hero and no need to debate, just a waste of time. You are just trolling the board bringing no substance.

The "shoot to kill" is an allegation, and neither YOU or anyone else has come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave that order, and That's crux of it man, you don't have the proof and it get's up ya nose, TO BAD.

Also I have little (not none at all) sympathy for smack whippa & ice users and dealers, They have done this to themselves by jabbing fit's filled with poison And dealers making money off them, then dope heads go out lie cheat and steal from family friends and others who work for their money.

And yeah I know how it works as I grew up with it all around me as a young boy until now.

Also Thaksin is not my hero, but he is to millions in Thailand, so once again TO BAD...

NCCC told the BOT there was NO breach before land transfer, that should have ended it, but you come out with he had influence over BOT so he could have influenced by proxy the sale of land to his wife, Now if she was precluded from buying the land why oh why did the NCCC say something before the transfer???

BTW were they forced to sell the land? or could they have just said no thanks, no sale. Gee wiz no reserve price huh???

"The "shoot to kill" is an allegation, and neither YOU or anyone else has come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave that order...

Is it not possible (in fact very likely) the words uttered were different but the meaning was clear?

Yu'p get what you are saying, unfortunately law has a different take on things, that would be fact and evidence, not hear say, interpretation etc,,,

So yet again to the Thaksin haters "kill on sight" tossers, bring the evidence or shut up, that simple really.

[candide]

And as always you try to divert to a different subject.

It's not me who started to divert the thread to other subjects than the original one ("we saw it coming"). It started at the beginning of the thread by posters shooting at the messenger instead of discussing what he said.

[Rhys]

Mr. T tell AJ is he is hbz! News flash of worthy interest and sells more papers..

[mike324]

In NZ for years we ran a subsidised minimum lamb price. I artificially inflated the price of meat and very nearly Bankrupted our Country. No one has ever been held to account for this or many other hair brained actions that have pushed us toward 3rd world status.

We can all agree subsidies are not really the solution for farmers due to the problems it creates, especially in countries with lax laws and high corruption. I believe NZ subsidize the farmers but they still could sell the lamb/sheep on the market. Whereas in Thailand, the government paid farmers 40-50% above market prices, and they can't even sell the rice! So this form of subsidy is really the worse, the country is shafted from both ends.

In this age and time, its troubling to see that both government parties are not really sincere at helping farmers. Thailands yield per rai is very low compare to its neighboring competitive such as Vietnam. Rice growing isn't exactly rocket science anymore, its been done to death by other developed Asian countries.

[mike324]

It's far to be clear cut and the case can be subject to different interpretation.

Again, 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.

Moreover, the way you present information in a way that may be misleading (NCCC at the time was head by Sawat Orrungroj. He said that the case of Pojaman was about "someone offering the highest bid" in a land auction and therefore should be legal. But according to Preecha Suwannathat,a NCCC law drafter said the deal was a "contract" and thus a legal violation. As a head of NCCC who has good relations with Thaksin, yes he said no problem. Thaksin thought he could get away with it due to his influence.). It may be understood as Sawat Orrungroj not listening to Preecha Suwannathat before the NCCC informed the BOT that it could make the sale as there was no problem with article 100. Preecha's comments occured 5 month after the sales. (http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.fr/2009/06/2004-censure-debate.html)

So to summarise: article 29 of BOT act and NCCC approval on the one hand, other legal experts on the other hand. Clearly a case in which the law could have been interpreted in one way or in the other way.

I don't know if the NCCC had good relations with Thaksin at this particular time (it had indicted him and his wife in 2001 for another issue), but it could also be mentioned that Preecha Suwannathat was a Democrat MP.

I agree its far from clear cut and can be subject to different interpretation due to conflicting laws.

Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF

This simply means that PM can't tell FIDF how to run their business, PM has no power to interfere with their decisions. We can all agree on that.

We have to rewind a little here. Where Thaksin got nailed was that court said FIDF is a State Agency. While Thaksin argue that its not because according to law PM did not have jurisdiction, therefore its not consider as a State Agency.

But just because the FIDF is under the BOT, and BOT can give them instructions. 1.) It is still consider as a State Agency 2.) It is a Conflict of Interest. Therefore breaching the NCCC Article 100 Banning state officials and their spouse from having contracts with State Agencies.

Simple as that. I would like to hear you explain how it is not conflict of interest, how BOT management could not have been able to influence the decisions of the FIDF? And ultimately how FIDF is not a State Agency (which is what Thaksin is trying to argue to clear his charge).

[mike324]

"The "shoot to kill" is an allegation, and neither YOU or anyone else has come up with proof irrefutable that Thaksin gave that order...

Is it not possible (in fact very likely) the words uttered were different but the meaning was clear?

Yu'p get what you are saying, unfortunately law has a different take on things, that would be fact and evidence, not hear say, interpretation etc,,,

So yet again to the Thaksin haters "kill on sight" tossers, bring the evidence or shut up, that simple really.

Aussie - did you miss my post on top regarding "shoot to kill"? or just trying to ignore the evidence? or are links from Human Rights Watch not reliable enough? how about an Amnesty International source?

Here is a Press Release from Amnesty International

https://www.google.co.th/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiRiKHDtaLLAhXFCY4KHYU1CxcQFggnMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amnesty.org%2Fdownload%2FDocuments%2F108000%2Fasa390012003en.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHegwZ8IAck5o5cnO6Z2uE8f6JBuQ

Human Rights Article

https://www.hrw.org/bs/node/230107

Time Line of Events by Human Rights (same one I posted above if you bother to read it)

https://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2004/07/07/thaila9014.htm

Shut up or you still need more proof? or are you going to ignore these evidences again?

Edited March 2, 2016 by mike324

[candide]

It's far to be clear cut and the case can be subject to different interpretation.

Again, 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.

Moreover, the way you present information in a way that may be misleading (NCCC at the time was head by Sawat Orrungroj. He said that the case of Pojaman was about "someone offering the highest bid" in a land auction and therefore should be legal. But according to Preecha Suwannathat,a NCCC law drafter said the deal was a "contract" and thus a legal violation. As a head of NCCC who has good relations with Thaksin, yes he said no problem. Thaksin thought he could get away with it due to his influence.). It may be understood as Sawat Orrungroj not listening to Preecha Suwannathat before the NCCC informed the BOT that it could make the sale as there was no problem with article 100. Preecha's comments occured 5 month after the sales. (http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.fr/2009/06/2004-censure-debate.html)

So to summarise: article 29 of BOT act and NCCC approval on the one hand, other legal experts on the other hand. Clearly a case in which the law could have been interpreted in one way or in the other way.

I don't know if the NCCC had good relations with Thaksin at this particular time (it had indicted him and his wife in 2001 for another issue), but it could also be mentioned that Preecha Suwannathat was a Democrat MP.

I agree its far from clear cut and can be subject to different interpretation due to conflicting laws.

Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF

This simply means that PM can't tell FIDF how to run their business, PM has no power to interfere with their decisions. We can all agree on that.

We have to rewind a little here. Where Thaksin got nailed was that court said FIDF is a State Agency. While Thaksin argue that its not because according to law PM did not have jurisdiction, therefore its not consider as a State Agency.

But just because the FIDF is under the BOT, and BOT can give them instructions. 1.) It is still consider as a State Agency 2.) It is a Conflict of Interest. Therefore breaching the NCCC Article 100 Banning state officials and their spouse from having contracts with State Agencies.

Simple as that. I would like to hear you explain how it is not conflict of interest, how BOT management could not have been able to influence the decisions of the FIDF? And ultimately how FIDF is not a State Agency (which is what Thaksin is trying to argue to clear his charge).

You are quite right to stress that one of the key point is the status of FIDF.

I did a bit of research about the status of FIDF. Apparently, different courts don't seem to agree on its status. For example, I found a reference to Supreme Court Decision No. 4655/2533 which ruled that “FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic person, independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations and within the boundary of its objectives”

[mike324]

I agree its far from clear cut and can be subject to different interpretation due to conflicting laws.

Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF

This simply means that PM can't tell FIDF how to run their business, PM has no power to interfere with their decisions. We can all agree on that.

We have to rewind a little here. Where Thaksin got nailed was that court said FIDF is a State Agency. While Thaksin argue that its not because according to law PM did not have jurisdiction, therefore its not consider as a State Agency.

But just because the FIDF is under the BOT, and BOT can give them instructions. 1.) It is still consider as a State Agency 2.) It is a Conflict of Interest. Therefore breaching the NCCC Article 100 Banning state officials and their spouse from having contracts with State Agencies.

Simple as that. I would like to hear you explain how it is not conflict of interest, how BOT management could not have been able to influence the decisions of the FIDF? And ultimately how FIDF is not a State Agency (which is what Thaksin is trying to argue to clear his charge).

You are quite right to stress that one of the key point is the status of FIDF.

I did a bit of research about the status of FIDF. Apparently, different courts don't seem to agree on its status. For example, I found a reference to Supreme Court Decision No. 4655/2533 which ruled that “FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic person, independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations and within the boundary of its objectives”

Good Morning!

Can you please provide links to the different courts you are refering about?

Yes, I read that court decision as well. First of all the Supreme Court Decision No. 4655/2533 was issued in 1990 (4655 is the document number and 2533 is Thai Year). This court document has nothing to do with the trial, someone brought it up in order to try to mislead readers online. It states clearly that FIDF is a separate office set up by special decree to solve financial crisis in Thailand. FIDF is free to manage is own assets free from interference from the BOT (even though it is a branch under the BOT) and free from interference from the Prime Minister. The Court Decision does not say it is not a state agency - just that it is "Independent".

To further prove that FIDF is a State Agency. They own 55% stake in Krung Thai Bank.

Here is excerpt from another soruce:

"On 2 August 1989, Krungthai Bank was the first state enterprise to list its shares on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET).[6] Its major shareholder is the Ministry of Finance through a shareholding of 6,184 billion shares by the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF), accounting for 55.31 percent of total shares."

Note that again FIDF is under the umbrella of BOT and Ministry of Finance. If FIDF is not a State Agency, they clearly cannot hold majority stake in a state own bank.

I think with such clear cut evidence, Thaksin could not argue that FIDF was not a State Agency.

Edited March 3, 2016 by mike324