Thaksin Willing To Stand Trial

[sriracha john]

PM: Thaksin can return if court says so

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said Wednesday that ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra will be allowed to return to Thailand to fight corruption charges if the court orders him to. Gen Surayud said the government will not interfere if the court orders him to return to fight the charges. "I don't see any problem if everybody adheres to the rule of law, and if the court orders him to come back to face charges, then we must comply," he said.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=118774

======================================

For those less informed, this is not the first time the PM has alluded to this stance.

[Plus]

What is he personally going to be charged so far? Helping his wife to buy Ratchada land? All the tax cases do not involve him personally at all.

Nothing, so far.

Why then the coup?

Why ask a question when you already know the answer and you know it can't be discussed here?

Oldmanriver, was it a question to me?

Thaksin is not charged with anything personally because he transferred his assets into the names of his children, bought the land in the name of his wife etc. He doesn't have to stand trial for tax evasion himself, for example.

Does anyone really think that if his wife and kids are jailed Thaksin would remain a guiltless father suffering from injustice?

Almost orphan....

[ColPyat]

What is he personally going to be charged so far? Helping his wife to buy Ratchada land? All the tax cases do not involve him personally at all.

Nothing, so far.

Why then the coup?

Why ask a question when you already know the answer and you know it can't be discussed here?

Oldmanriver, was it a question to me?

Thaksin is not charged with anything personally because he transferred his assets into the names of his children, bought the land in the name of his wife etc. He doesn't have to stand trial for tax evasion himself, for example.

Does anyone really think that if his wife and kids are jailed Thaksin would remain a guiltless father suffering from injustice?

Almost orphan....

Good to know that Thailand had a military coup in order to jail the wife and children of its ousted Prime Minister, so he can feel guilty. Very reassuring, indeed.

[sriracha john]

In ancient combat, a shield was never damaged unless a soldier raised it up in front of himself.

[John K]

Let us assume he does go on trial and, whether or not he attends, is convicted.

When he is not allowed to attend his trial by the government, this would be a clear case for granting Thaksin political asylum in any western country. A conviction from such a trial in absentia will never be accepted by any western country.

This is an interesting twist. If you Take what Thaksin says at face value that he can come back anytime he want, it certainly makes it difficult to say he was kept away and how that would be viewed is another story all together.

[ColPyat]

In ancient combat, a shield was never damaged unless a soldier raised it up in front of himself.

Cosmic.

I am sure there must be discussion forums on ancient combat somewhere. There you could fully expound on how cavemen fought their adversaries.

[ColPyat]

Let us assume he does go on trial and, whether or not he attends, is convicted.

When he is not allowed to attend his trial by the government, this would be a clear case for granting Thaksin political asylum in any western country. A conviction from such a trial in absentia will never be accepted by any western country.

This is an interesting twist. If you Take what Thaksin says at face value that he can come back anytime he want, it certainly makes it difficult to say he was kept away and how that would be viewed is another story all together.

This is not a very interesting twist, it is rather obvious.

The interesting twists come if you would educate yourself about the less obvious facts, such as published in Giles Ungpakorn's book "A Coup for the rich", or the excellent anthropological study "Rituals of National Loyalty" by Katherine Bowie, and another book that has been quoted a few times in Ungpakorn.

[John K]

Let us assume he does go on trial and, whether or not he attends, is convicted.

When he is not allowed to attend his trial by the government, this would be a clear case for granting Thaksin political asylum in any western country. A conviction from such a trial in absentia will never be accepted by any western country.

This is an interesting twist. If you Take what Thaksin says at face value that he can come back anytime he want, it certainly makes it difficult to say he was kept away and how that would be viewed is another story all together.

This is not a very interesting twist, it is rather obvious.

The interesting twists come if you would educate yourself about the less obvious facts, such as published in Giles Ungpakorn's book "A Coup for the rich", or the excellent anthropological study "Rituals of National Loyalty" by Katherine Bowie, and another book that has been quoted a few times in Ungpakorn.

I think you are looking at this different than I am. The way I see it is Thaksin will need to somehow explain that he lied and deliberately spread the wrong information. How he does that would prove awkward for him and be interesting to watch. No doubt that would bring up other questions. Knowing Thaksin’s seeming inability to say anything truthful it is sure to put him deeper in trouble than he is, particularly if it is in court. Popcorn anyone?

[ColPyat]

I think you are looking at this different than I am. The way I see it is Thaksin will need to somehow explain that he lied and deliberately spread the wrong information. How he does that would prove awkward for him and be interesting to watch. No doubt that would bring up other questions. Knowing Thaksin’s seeming inability to say anything truthful it is sure to put him deeper in trouble than he is, particularly if it is in court. Popcorn anyone?

Yes, of course i do look at it different than you. I don't tend to base my arguments on performing long distance psychoanalysis while ignoring books and studies on history, anthropology, etc., and therefore consistently being in conflict with facts.

Edited May 16, 2007 by ColPyat

[John K]

I think you are looking at this different than I am. The way I see it is Thaksin will need to somehow explain that he lied and deliberately spread the wrong information. How he does that would prove awkward for him and be interesting to watch. No doubt that would bring up other questions. Knowing Thaksin’s seeming inability to say anything truthful it is sure to put him deeper in trouble than he is, particularly if it is in court. Popcorn anyone?

Yes, of course i do look at it different than you. I don't tend to base my arguments on performing long distance psychoanalysis while ignoring books and studies on history, anthropology, etc., and therefore consistently being in conflict with facts.

If I applied books and history as you suggest, then the verdict for Thaksin’s upcoming trial must already be published in them. All the judge needs to do is just check the book on how to rule.

The difference is I look at personalities and how they respond to stimuli. There is no book big enough to cover that for all the people in Thailand. Knowing what was in the past is good, knowing what will happen next is where the real challenge is. Can you honestly tell me Thaksin’s next move from your history books?

[ColPyat]

I think you are looking at this different than I am. The way I see it is Thaksin will need to somehow explain that he lied and deliberately spread the wrong information. How he does that would prove awkward for him and be interesting to watch. No doubt that would bring up other questions. Knowing Thaksin’s seeming inability to say anything truthful it is sure to put him deeper in trouble than he is, particularly if it is in court. Popcorn anyone?

Yes, of course i do look at it different than you. I don't tend to base my arguments on performing long distance psychoanalysis while ignoring books and studies on history, anthropology, etc., and therefore consistently being in conflict with facts.

If I applied books and history as you suggest, then the verdict for Thaksin’s upcoming trial must already be published in them. All the judge needs to do is just check the book on how to rule.

The difference is I look at personalities and how they respond to stimuli. There is no book big enough to cover that for all the people in Thailand. Knowing what was in the past is good, knowing what will happen next is where the real challenge is. Can you honestly tell me Thaksin’s next move from your history books?

If you read books (not "applied") then you would not have that fixation on Thaksin in the first place. Read them, and then you get a basic idea what is happening in Thailand, and in which direction the whole country might move, and stop making laughable "predictions" based on "I have not enough information, but..."

The courses i had to attend to in Psychology a long time ago termed such long distance "looks at personalities and their responses to stimuli" as amateur psychology and entirely unscientific, and only fit for Jerry Springer style shows. That was actually our first lesson.

Stay with your patients and don't extrapolate and apply a narrow science to fields where that science does not work. Psychology is the science that deals with mental processes and behavior, and not with political, anthropological and economical contexts. For these fields you have different fields of science.

If you want to analyze Thaksin, you have to get into contact with him in the first place, and then convince him to become your patient (good luck trying ). Anything else is unscientific waffle, and not exactly an advertisement for your services.

Edited May 16, 2007 by ColPyat

[John K]

I think you are looking at this different than I am. The way I see it is Thaksin will need to somehow explain that he lied and deliberately spread the wrong information. How he does that would prove awkward for him and be interesting to watch. No doubt that would bring up other questions. Knowing Thaksin’s seeming inability to say anything truthful it is sure to put him deeper in trouble than he is, particularly if it is in court. Popcorn anyone?

Yes, of course i do look at it different than you. I don't tend to base my arguments on performing long distance psychoanalysis while ignoring books and studies on history, anthropology, etc., and therefore consistently being in conflict with facts.

If I applied books and history as you suggest, then the verdict for Thaksin’s upcoming trial must already be published in them. All the judge needs to do is just check the book on how to rule.

The difference is I look at personalities and how they respond to stimuli. There is no book big enough to cover that for all the people in Thailand. Knowing what was in the past is good, knowing what will happen next is where the real challenge is. Can you honestly tell me Thaksin’s next move from your history books?

If you read books (not "applied") then you would not have that fixation on Thaksin in the first place. Read them, and then you get a basic idea what is happening in Thailand, and in which direction the whole country might move, and stop making laughable "predictions" based on "I have not enough information, but..."

The courses i had to attend to in Psychology a long time ago termed such long distance "looks at personalities and their responses to stimuli" as amateur psychology and entirely unscientific, and only fit for Jerry Springer style shows. That was actually our first lesson.

Stay with your patients and don't extrapolate and apply a narrow science to fields where that science does not work. Psychology is the science that deals with mental processes and behavior, and not with political, anthropological and economical contexts. For these fields you have different fields of science.

If you want to analyze Thaksin, you have to get into contact with him in the first place, and then convince him to become your patient (good luck trying ). Anything else is unscientific waffle, and not exactly an advertisement for your services.

So the short answer is no.

[ColPyat]

So the short answer is no.

Nobody can.

What you can understand from history though is the wider context in which the present situation is played out. Ignoring this will end up in a load of useless waffle.

I might give some importance to your opinions and "predictions" based on your "expertise" if Thaksin would be part of your client base. Which though for more than a few obvious reasons he isn't. Therefore, quid erat demonstrandum...

[blaze]

I think you are looking at this different than I am. The way I see it is Thaksin will need to somehow explain that he lied and deliberately spread the wrong information. How he does that would prove awkward for him and be interesting to watch. No doubt that would bring up other questions. Knowing Thaksin’s seeming inability to say anything truthful it is sure to put him deeper in trouble than he is, particularly if it is in court. Popcorn anyone?

Yes, of course i do look at it different than you. I don't tend to base my arguments on performing long distance psychoanalysis while ignoring books and studies on history, anthropology, etc., and therefore consistently being in conflict with facts.

If I applied books and history as you suggest, then the verdict for Thaksin’s upcoming trial must already be published in them. All the judge needs to do is just check the book on how to rule.

The difference is I look at personalities and how they respond to stimuli. There is no book big enough to cover that for all the people in Thailand. Knowing what was in the past is good, knowing what will happen next is where the real challenge is. Can you honestly tell me Thaksin’s next move from your history books?

You can safely start with the assumption that Thaksin is human and like all humans when threatened- seeks to survive- at all costs. He will analyze the current situation and on the basis of his analysis, will make his moves. For those of us who really don't fully understand the complexity of the context in which these events are occurring- or the aspects of Thai society that permitted and in fact abetted the rise of Thaksin as well as the popularity of the coup- for those of us who have limited kinowledge of the nature of the military's involvement in thai society and economy- and can't fully appreciate what the regime has to gain and what it has to lose by prosecuting- let alone convicting Thaksin- we have to rely on some kind of analysis of the forces -historical, social etc- that brought about and continue to prop up the regime- that requires.... reading. Thaksin probably has a much better understanding of the complex web of interests and hidden agendas at play than any one who has ever contributed to this forum.

If we're going to predict his next move- we should at the very least, know what he knows. Do you?

[Grover]

Psychology is the science that deals with mental processes and behavior, and not with political, anthropological and economical contexts.

wrong once again

The political context in which people find themselves can have an influence on how they perceive and relate to their environment (threatening, uncomfortable, safe, etc) - and subsequently their mental processes and behavior. It is not beyond the scope of psychology to consider these influences (political or otherwise), in fact I believe we have seen at least one act of self violence (suicide?) linked to the current political problems - a taxi driver.

Edited May 16, 2007 by Grover

[ColPyat]

Psychology is the science that deals with mental processes and behavior, and not with political, anthropological and economical contexts.

wrong once again

The political context in which people find themselves can have an influence on how they percive their environment (threatning, uncomfortable, safe, etc) and subsequently their mental processes and behavior. It is not beyond the scope of psychology to consider these influences (political or otherwise), in fact I believe we have seen at least one act of self violence (suicide?) linked to the current political problems - a taxi driver.

As we are not debating on how particular individuals are influenced by a given political situation (such as the taxi driver), but the political situation itself, psychology is not applicable, or only in a very minor role.

And when someone makes pseudo evaluations on one particular person he has never even met, that being on Thaksin, and extrapolating from that to the whole political situation as sole source, refusing to even consider reading up on history, etc. - than this is considered amateur psychology.

To understand the political contexts, psychology will be no use whatsoever, especially when history, anthropology, and political science are completely ignored.

[blaze]

Psychology is the science that deals with mental processes and behavior, and not with political, anthropological and economical contexts.

wrong once again

The political context in which people find themselves can have an influence on how they perceive and relate to their environment (threatening, uncomfortable, safe, etc) - and subsequently their mental processes and behavior. It is not beyond the scope of psychology to consider these influences (political or otherwise), in fact I believe we have seen at least one act of self violence (suicide?) linked to the current political problems - a taxi driver.

I'd go one step further- I'd say any psychologist wishing to predict Thaksin's next move MUST 'consider' the political environment. And here, 'consider' means understand. And understanding requires study.

[Grover]

So the short answer is no.

Nobody can.

What you can understand from history though is the wider context in which the present situation is played out. Ignoring this will end up in a load of useless waffle.

I might give some importance to your opinions and "predictions" based on your "expertise" if Thaksin would be part of your client base. Which though for more than a few obvious reasons he isn't. Therefore, quid erat demonstrandum...

If you are talking about Thaksins personal history, then yes, you might be able to get some possibilities and probabilities on his next moves. Examining his personal history to understand his next move would be more revealing and fruitful than turning to "national history", obvious stuff ....

[blaze]

Psychology is the science that deals with mental processes and behavior, and not with political, anthropological and economical contexts.

wrong once again

The political context in which people find themselves can have an influence on how they perceive and relate to their environment (threatening, uncomfortable, safe, etc) - and subsequently their mental processes and behavior. It is not beyond the scope of psychology to consider these influences (political or otherwise), in fact I believe we have seen at least one act of self violence (suicide?) linked to the current political problems - a taxi driver.

I'd go one step further- I'd say any psychologist wishing to predict Thaksin's next move MUST 'consider' the political environment. And here, 'consider' means understand. And understanding requires study.

sorry- double posted and don't know how to delete this one.

Edited May 16, 2007 by blaze

[Siripon]

I think you are looking at this different than I am. The way I see it is Thaksin will need to somehow explain that he lied and deliberately spread the wrong information. How he does that would prove awkward for him and be interesting to watch. No doubt that would bring up other questions. Knowing Thaksin’s seeming inability to say anything truthful it is sure to put him deeper in trouble than he is, particularly if it is in court. Popcorn anyone?

Yes, of course i do look at it different than you. I don't tend to base my arguments on performing long distance psychoanalysis while ignoring books and studies on history, anthropology, etc., and therefore consistently being in conflict with facts.

If I applied books and history as you suggest, then the verdict for Thaksin’s upcoming trial must already be published in them. All the judge needs to do is just check the book on how to rule.

The difference is I look at personalities and how they respond to stimuli. There is no book big enough to cover that for all the people in Thailand. Knowing what was in the past is good, knowing what will happen next is where the real challenge is. Can you honestly tell me Thaksin’s next move from your history books?

You can safely start with the assumption that Thaksin is human and like all humans when threatened- seeks to survive- at all costs. He will analyze the current situation and on the basis of his analysis, will make his moves. For those of us who really don't fully understand the complexity of the context in which these events are occurring- or the aspects of Thai society that permitted and in fact abetted the rise of Thaksin as well as the popularity of the coup- for those of us who have limited kinowledge of the nature of the military's involvement in thai society and economy- and can't fully appreciate what the regime has to gain and what it has to lose by prosecuting- let alone convicting Thaksin- we have to rely on some kind of analysis of the forces -historical, social etc- that brought about and continue to prop up the regime- that requires.... reading. Thaksin probably has a much better understanding of the complex web of interests and hidden agendas at play than any one who has ever contributed to this forum.

If we're going to predict his next move- we should at the very least, know what he knows. Do you?

I doubt Thaksin's understanding. He misread his dissolution of Parliament, the potential of the PAD, the coup, and of course the deep south where he dismissed the separatists as just a bunch of petty criminals.

And now he's buying a second rate football team with the hope of being a celebrity known in the West and an admired figure in Thailand. But what's he going to look like if they get relegated next year? A chump again.

Thaksin's never had to face the consequences of his actions in the past, money and political power saw to that.

His present impotence, ie Wichit his lawyer claiming he knows the results of the Constitutional Court regarding dissolution, a remark that he well knows is a crime regarding any other court, the pathetic attempts to get General Sonthi to resign for registering 2 marriages -surely better than most TRT MPs with their mia nois without legal status, suggest acts of desperation.

[John K]

Colpyat, for what it’s worth, I have been hitting about 70% correct on my predictions. The most recent was on the latest bomb.

[Grover]

And when someone makes pseudo evaluations on one particular person he has never even met, that being on Thaksin, and extrapolating from that to the whole political situation as sole source, refusing to even consider reading up on history, etc. - than this is considered amateur psychology.

meeting someone is not a prerequisite for understanding them.

[Grover]

I think if you were to understand "Thaksins next move" properly you would need an understanding of Psychology first, Law second. History would also be important but further down the list.

[ColPyat]

I think if you were to understand "Thaksins next move" properly you would need an understanding of Psychology first, Law second. History would also be important but further down the list.

The first lesson in psychology is that you can't make distance analyzes - that would be highly unprofessional.

Secondly, if you have not the historical facts, you cannot bring him into context.

Hence my advice to read certain books, and studies on him (Pasuk Pongpaichit/Baker, Mcargo, etc), studies on contemporary history and anthropology on Thai Society (Thonchai Winitchakul, Ungpakorn, and most important Katherine E. Bowie). The book that cannot be mentioned here would be also basic reading material.

Basically - there is vast material available, peer reviewed, and all the works, that lead to a greater understanding of the political situation in Thailand, and the role that Thaksin and many other integral people and power networks played in this very complex context.

Refusing to read this easily available material is laziness, and lowers the level of debate to that of a cheap rag. Which unfortunately many posters here seem to be content in having, and even worse, defend to the bone their right to such a simplistic debate consisting mainly of rants (and in one case of predictions seemingly based on reading tea leaves).

Have you read any of those books and papers? If you are too poor - then i offer you to go to the next university and copy you my books and give those copies to you free of charge. But only if you actually take the time and read them.

[ColPyat]

Colpyat, for what it’s worth, I have been hitting about 70% correct on my predictions. The most recent was on the latest bomb.

You are a true Cassandra...

...and with it about 99% of the population of Thailand that has expected a bomb sooner or later. So far, you have failed though to bring any evidence whatsoever linking Thaksin with that cracker. Or did the leaves tell you that?

[ColPyat]

And bringing the thread back to topic - reading the books and studies i recommended make it rather clear why it is so difficult and explosive to bring Thaksin to trial even for the things he might very possibly be guilty of.

[Plus]

Least not forget that books we are asked to "study" represent minority dissent, ideology driven leftist view of Thailand, sometimes downright illegal.

[ColPyat]

Least not forget that books we are asked to "study" represent minority dissent, ideology driven leftist view of Thailand, sometimes downright illegal.

Academia is always "minority".

Anyhow, after your recent blatantly antisemitic comment, and subsequent refusal to clarify the statement (such as an attempt of extremely ill considered humor), it appears rather obvious out of which political corner your disdain for academic books that dissent from a hierarchal status quo comes from.

I believe we can now ignore your comment, or see your negative view on those books as a particular recommendation to read them.

edit:

Here the link to your distasteful post, post no. 117:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...7885&st=105

Edited May 16, 2007 by ColPyat

[tettyan]

Least not forget that books we are asked to "study" represent minority dissent, ideology driven leftist view of Thailand, sometimes downright illegal.

Excuse me - are you saying that Chris Baker, Duncan McCargo and Paul Handley are leftist idealogues? Let me remind you that Handley was a long-time correspondent for the Far Easter Economic Review, which before it folded was published by Dow Jones, owners of the Wall Street Journal, the most conservative of America's national newspapers. Prof McCargo is a respected expert in Thai studies at the University of Leeds. Chris Baker was on the faculty at the Univeristy of Cambridge for many years before joining his wife Ajarn Pasuk, who's at Chula. Now, I'll grant it to you that Pasuk may be a little nutty, but word has it that Baker does much of the heavy lifting on their joint books, and judging from my one encounter with them, I'm not surprised.

None of these guys are hacks. Thaksin fans arn't crazy about these guys either, as you can see here. I often feel that talk in the ivory tower is too far removed from reality, but when you've got an academic being attacked from both sides, I think it's a sign that he's doing something right.

I will hand it to you that Gilles Ungpakorn is a Marxist (he's not ashamed of that label, btw), and that both Colpyat and I find his dogmatism annoying at times. But no one can deny that he's not afraid to speak his conscience. The issues he raises, uncomfortable though they may be, have to be talked about at some time or another. If you don't want Marxists to monopolize discourse on the problems with institutions, then non-Marxists should have the courage to offer reasoned rebuttals, not simply discredit the speaker just because he's a Marxist.

Edited May 16, 2007 by tettyan

[sriracha john]

I'd like to see the debate return to the debate on the topic, rather than the debate on the debaters, even though I'm sure that some of them are master debaters.

"Steven"

A fairly large amount of extraneous material has been removed. I would like to say that I appreciate various posters who attempted to help the thread get back on track, but who were thwarted along with me. As the topic is an important one, I have re-opened it. In regard to further commentary on the debaters rather than the topic, I will shoot first and ask questions later- you can certainly expect warnings and holidays.

"Steven"

Thank you for that, IJWT...

Returning to the topic...

This looks to be the test of Thaksin's sincerity expressed in the OP regarding his wllingness to stand trial as well as the CNS willingness to allow him to return:

Thaksin faces criminal charges

( The specifics of the charges are here:

Thaksin Linked To Wife's Suspect Land Deal Under Investigation )

Noppadon Pattama, the Shinawatra family's legal adviser, said once the court accepts the case, the deposed prime minister wants to return and fight the charges. Mr Noppadol called on the CNS to give Mr Thaksin the green light to return. ''Please give him a chance to fight this case. Thai law has no power to incarcerate Mr Thaksin and the CNS should consider this carefully,'' said Mr Noppadon.

- Bangkok Post

Returning to the topic AGAIN...

'No need for Thaksin' at his trial start

Deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra is not required to appear before the Supreme Court when the prosecutor files a political crime lawsuit over the Ratchadaphisek land deal against him and his wife, the head of the Assets Scrutiny Committee's land deal inquiry panel, Udom Fuangfung, said yesterday. He pointed out that the lawsuit will not be filed in the Criminal Court. Instead, Mr Udom said, it will go to the political crime section of the Supreme Court and the accused parties do not have to appear before the court for the first hearing. But if the court accepts the case, the accused would have to appear before the court after it issues a summons, said Mr Udom, a former president of the Supreme Court. If the court issues the summonses, neither the Surayud government nor the Council for National Security (CNS) may bar Mr Thaksin from returning to Thailand, he added. "Then it's up to Mr Thaksin himself as to when he wants to return to his home country," he said. PM Surayud said his government is willing to abide by the Supreme Court's order regarding Mr Thaksin's return.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/tops...s.php?id=118787

Edited May 17, 2007 by Totster
Removed uneccesary praise