Bringing Thaksin To Account

[Plus]

There seems to an extremely naive minority who believe that the seasoned political parties that ran against Thaksin are incapable of paying for votes.

Not with their limited budgets. They couldn't afford it, not on a massive scale anyway. They couldn't match even general campaigning expenses of TRT - air time, printed ads, posters. Not to mention that TRT managed to use government resources for a lot of self-promotion.

A week long nationally televised junket at Muang Tong - no problemo, book it as "government talks to the people".

In the run up to 2005 elections TRT airtime was many times over all opposition parties combined.

Oh, and how about that Thaksin's Saturday morning talk? Visiting French parlamentarians were amazed how the opposition leaders had no right to a similar program at all.

[aaaaaa]

Human Rights Watch are also " investigating " so yes, Let,s get serious because they cannot be accused of political bais or of having a hidden agenda as you seem to be / are implying.

marshbags

many certainly won't agree with that !

first of all, the very concept of "Human Rights" is often contraversial:

Criticism of human rights

One of the arguments made against the concept of human rights is that it suffers from cultural imperialism... the concept of human rights ... is not necessarily taken as standard elsewhere... The cultural imperialism argument achieves even greater potency when it is made on the basis of religion....

A final set of debating points revolves around the question of who has the duty to uphold human rights....

so, it is often very arguable subject: some countries may acuse other in one kind of HR violations in particular situation, and in turn be accused for same or other. as I see it, the whole concept and term of HR is usually used more as a tool to give pressure and achive certain political goals in foreign relations, as was mentioned, in more or less Imperialistic style !

next, about HR Watch - you might be surprised that they ARE being accused of bias:

Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch is a United States-based international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on human rights.

Human Rights Watch produces research reports on violations of international human rights norms as set out by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other internationally-accepted human rights norms.

Criticisms

Human Rights Watch has been criticized for perceived anti-Western, anti-India, anti-China, and anti-Israel bias.

"the government often accuses human rights groups [including Human Rights Watch] of importing a Western agenda that offends local religious and cultural values."

expanded article Criticism of Human Rights Watch provides a lot more those interested read it all !

Human Rights Watch ... has been criticised in the form of commentaries from various organisations, journalists, and bloggers.

now, about their UDHR - apperently it is not so "Universal" !

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

It consists of 30 articles which outline the view of the United Nations General Assembly on the human rights guaranteed to all people....

again - read Criticism Section. also, from article "Human Rights":

in 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.

and lastly, in Asia, partricularly in Thailand, particularly this very time, related to the current events of new Constitution draft, this is what some people thing about Human Rights:

Next constitution of Thailand, Human_rights

The National Human Rights Commission requested to present suggestions on what human rights clauses would be enshrined in the new constitution, but the request was rejected by the drafters. CDC chairman Prasong Soonsiri claimed that the Commission had "no time to listen to everyone." CDC member Pairoj Phromsarn claimed "there will be no end" to deliberation if everyone were allowed to give suggestions

(The Nation, 'No time to listen to everyone', 14 February 2007)

so, these dudes "have no time to listen to everyone" - but somehow the case of HR violations by Thaksin is fussed about a lot by Thai media nowdays AND by so many members on this TV Forum !

I suggest to those oh so much concerned about Human Rights - why NOT discuss the Human Rights part in new Thai Constitution then , hmmm ?

otherwise, it is sort of duplicity ! certainly I can't tell those honourable judges who's written Constituion draft what to do - who am I after all? some farang... but I think if people here want to have a constructive converstation - they better discuss ALL aspects of the subject, instead of having only one-sided approach.

[jumnien]

There seems to an extremely naive minority who believe that the seasoned political parties that ran against Thaksin are incapable of paying for votes.

Not with their limited budgets. They couldn't afford it, not on a massive scale anyway. They couldn't match even general campaigning expenses of TRT - air time, printed ads, posters. Not to mention that TRT managed to use government resources for a lot of self-promotion.

A week long nationally televised junket at Muang Tong - no problemo, book it as "government talks to the people".

In the run up to 2005 elections TRT airtime was many times over all opposition parties combined.

Oh, and how about that Thaksin's Saturday morning talk? Visiting French parlamentarians were amazed how the opposition leaders had no right to a similar program at all.

Last time I looked the opposition (Army) owned a television station. This isn't exactly a secret! French parlamentarians would probably not be too happy if the French military took over their government and told them to go home. Anyway, to argue that the Bangkok elite who opposed Thaksin are too poor to afford either television time, fourteen tanks to overrun the government, or vote buying is naive.

[hammered]

Human Rights Watch are also " investigating " so yes, Let,s get serious because they cannot be accused of political bais or of having a hidden agenda as you seem to be / are implying.

marshbags

many certainly won't agree with that !

first of all, the very concept of "Human Rights" is often contraversial:

Criticism of human rights

One of the arguments made against the concept of human rights is that it suffers from cultural imperialism... the concept of human rights ... is not necessarily taken as standard elsewhere... The cultural imperialism argument achieves even greater potency when it is made on the basis of religion....

A final set of debating points revolves around the question of who has the duty to uphold human rights....

so, it is often very arguable subject: some countries may acuse other in one kind of HR violations in particular situation, and in turn be accused for same or other. as I see it, the whole concept and term of HR is usually used more as a tool to give pressure and achive certain political goals in foreign relations, as was mentioned, in more or less Imperialistic style !

next, about HR Watch - you might be surprised that they ARE being accused of bias:

Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch is a United States-based international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on human rights.

Human Rights Watch produces research reports on violations of international human rights norms as set out by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other internationally-accepted human rights norms.

Criticisms

Human Rights Watch has been criticized for perceived anti-Western, anti-India, anti-China, and anti-Israel bias.

"the government often accuses human rights groups [including Human Rights Watch] of importing a Western agenda that offends local religious and cultural values."

expanded article Criticism of Human Rights Watch provides a lot more those interested read it all !

Human Rights Watch ... has been criticised in the form of commentaries from various organisations, journalists, and bloggers.

now, about their UDHR - apperently it is not so "Universal" !

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

It consists of 30 articles which outline the view of the United Nations General Assembly on the human rights guaranteed to all people....

again - read Criticism Section. also, from article "Human Rights":

in 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.

and lastly, in Asia, partricularly in Thailand, particularly this very time, related to the current events of new Constitution draft, this is what some people thing about Human Rights:

Next constitution of Thailand, Human_rights

The National Human Rights Commission requested to present suggestions on what human rights clauses would be enshrined in the new constitution, but the request was rejected by the drafters. CDC chairman Prasong Soonsiri claimed that the Commission had "no time to listen to everyone." CDC member Pairoj Phromsarn claimed "there will be no end" to deliberation if everyone were allowed to give suggestions

(The Nation, 'No time to listen to everyone', 14 February 2007)

so, these dudes "have no time to listen to everyone" - but somehow the case of HR violations by Thaksin is fussed about a lot by Thai media nowdays AND by so many members on this TV Forum !

I suggest to those oh so much concerned about Human Rights - why NOT discuss the Human Rights part in new Thai Constitution then , hmmm ?

otherwise, it is sort of duplicity ! certainly I can't tell those honourable judges who's written Constituion draft what to do - who am I after all? some farang... but I think if people here want to have a constructive converstation - they better discuss ALL aspects of the subject, instead of having only one-sided approach.

It is a good idea to discuss all issues of human rights. Lets look at the new constitution draft and the 1997 one. The rights of individuals are strengthened in the 2007 document being enshrined in it while in 1997 the rights of people were left for politicians to decide on. Interestingly this one thing my Thai friends are quick to point out. That is not to say the 2007 draft doesnt include the weakening of the rights of the politicians. Is this a good thing or not? Well for the first time ever the Thai people wil get to actually vote on their own constitution. That is hard to criticise. If they choose to give up rights as we westerners see it, that is their choice, and after the referendum if passed the charter will be the first one that could be described accurately as a people's charter. No other one has beeen voted on. As for Mr. T and the drug war, I welcome the recently announced investigation into it and hope that it will not be interferred with. Surely any supporter of Mr. T will also welcome this as an opportunity for him to clear himself, which seems better than the usual well everyone breaks human rights and Mr. T was no worse reletive arguement we hear from apologists seeking to justify accusatuions of what is murder. Now they can move away from that highly tenuous stance and openly embrace an investigation that if their hero is innocent will clear him. Similarly the return of Mr. Samak to politics gives Thailand an opportunity to heal itself of another claim of mass human rights abuse. Lets all, whatever political sdtance we take, join in calling for a similar investigation into the 1976 massacre. I think most us can turn an eye to Mr. Samak's well documented book burning past, but his role in the events of 76 should be clarified and again if he is innocent of the accusation this would be a chance for him to clear himself. We should always give those accused of human rights abuses the opportunity to clear themselves through the direct challenge of a clear court case. After all if not cleared this way as poor Mr. Thaksin has seen these accusations will not go away. Personally, I also see human rights abuses that involve death or physical harm as meriting more urgent investigation. After all while many will debate what exactly human rights are, few will actvely deny that the right to not have your life taken without due process and outside of a declared war situation is actually a human right.

Edited August 3, 2007 by hammered

[ColPyat]

It is a good idea to discuss all issues of human rights. Lets look at the new constitution draft and the 1997 one. The rights of individuals are strengthened in the 2007 document being enshrined in it while in 1997 the rights of people were left for politicians to decide on. Interestingly this one thing my Thai friends are quick to point out. That is not to say the 2007 draft doesnt include the weakening of the rights of the politicians. Is this a good thing or not? Well for the first time ever the Thai people wil get to actually vote on their own constitution. That is hard to criticise. If they choose to give up rights as we westerners see it, that is their choice, and after the referendum if passed the charter will be the first one that could be described accurately as a people's charter. No other one has beeen voted on. As for Mr. T and the drug war, I welcome the recently announced investigation into it and hope that it will not be interferred with. Surely any supporter of Mr. T will also welcome this as an opportunity for him to clear himself, which seems better than the usual well everyone breaks human rights and Mr. T was no worse reletive arguement we hear from apologists seeking to justify accusatuions of what is murder. Now they can move away from that highly tenuous stance and openly embrace an investigation that if their hero is innocent will clear him. Similarly the return of Mr. Samak to politics gives Thailand an opportunity to heal itself of another claim of mass human rights abuse. Lets all, whatever political sdtance we take, join in calling for a similar investigation into the 1976 massacre. I think most us can turn an eye to Mr. Samak's well documented book burning past, but his role in the events of 76 should be clarified and again if he is innocent of the accusation this would be a chance for him to clear himself. We should always give those accused of human rights abuses the opportunity to clear themselves through the direct challenge of a clear court case. After all if not cleared this way as poor Mr. Thaksin has seen these accusations will not go away. Personally, I also see human rights abuses that involve death or physical harm as meriting more urgent investigation. After all while many will debate what exactly human rights are, few will actvely deny that the right to not have your life taken without due process and outside of a declared war situation is actually a human right.

Very idealistic.

Practically though - any substantial investigation into the multitude of Human Rights abuses will stop at a certain point, especially the ones you have mentioned.

As to the "voting process" - this is hardly what you call a fair vote. You accuse Thaksin and TRT as having subverted democracy in the election process, but the government pressure of accepting the new constitution is far beyond anything and far more systematically than TRT and Thaksin have ever done during elections. Even the drafting process of handpicked members closed chosen by the military is a bit of a joke as well.

What about ISOC? Is that any democratic?

[hammered]

It is a good idea to discuss all issues of human rights. Lets look at the new constitution draft and the 1997 one. The rights of individuals are strengthened in the 2007 document being enshrined in it while in 1997 the rights of people were left for politicians to decide on. Interestingly this one thing my Thai friends are quick to point out. That is not to say the 2007 draft doesnt include the weakening of the rights of the politicians. Is this a good thing or not? Well for the first time ever the Thai people wil get to actually vote on their own constitution. That is hard to criticise. If they choose to give up rights as we westerners see it, that is their choice, and after the referendum if passed the charter will be the first one that could be described accurately as a people's charter. No other one has beeen voted on. As for Mr. T and the drug war, I welcome the recently announced investigation into it and hope that it will not be interferred with. Surely any supporter of Mr. T will also welcome this as an opportunity for him to clear himself, which seems better than the usual well everyone breaks human rights and Mr. T was no worse reletive arguement we hear from apologists seeking to justify accusatuions of what is murder. Now they can move away from that highly tenuous stance and openly embrace an investigation that if their hero is innocent will clear him. Similarly the return of Mr. Samak to politics gives Thailand an opportunity to heal itself of another claim of mass human rights abuse. Lets all, whatever political sdtance we take, join in calling for a similar investigation into the 1976 massacre. I think most us can turn an eye to Mr. Samak's well documented book burning past, but his role in the events of 76 should be clarified and again if he is innocent of the accusation this would be a chance for him to clear himself. We should always give those accused of human rights abuses the opportunity to clear themselves through the direct challenge of a clear court case. After all if not cleared this way as poor Mr. Thaksin has seen these accusations will not go away. Personally, I also see human rights abuses that involve death or physical harm as meriting more urgent investigation. After all while many will debate what exactly human rights are, few will actvely deny that the right to not have your life taken without due process and outside of a declared war situation is actually a human right.

Very idealistic.

Practically though - any substantial investigation into the multitude of Human Rights abuses will stop at a certain point, especially the ones you have mentioned.

As to the "voting process" - this is hardly what you call a fair vote. You accuse Thaksin and TRT as having subverted democracy in the election process, but the government pressure of accepting the new constitution is far beyond anything and far more systematically than TRT and Thaksin have ever done during elections. Even the drafting process of handpicked members closed chosen by the military is a bit of a joke as well.

What about ISOC? Is that any democratic?

Having lived through a multitide of elections in Thailand and having viewed more than few at village level I cannot say the election process in Thailand has ever ben what would termed as free and fair by the standards claimed by the west. However, it is what Thailand has. Whoever is in power manipulates the process, and the more power you have the more manipulation can be done. Certainly on a countrywide basis the Junta has the power to manipulate. Similarly the TRT with its absolute majority also had a lot of power to manipulate. You have to go back to the weaker coalition governments to find a far less absolute power to manipulate. They could to some dgree manipulate the locales or regions they controlled but that was limited. Anyway whatever the state of the electoral process in Thailand the winners of any vote whether it be TRT on April 2 or the Junta maybe on Aug 19 will claim the majority vote. That is how it works. I have little doubt that if the Charter gets a popular mandate on Aug 19 the Junta will tout it as th first ever consttution chosen by the people just as how TRT claim 16 million votes at an election annulled for being undemocratic. We live in a world of numbers. Also being the first time a constitution has ever been voted on is powerful. The people did not choose 1997 or any previous one. Actually why wasnt 1997 put to the people back then? I cannot rememeber the arguements.

As to being idealistic on human rights or at elast the right not to be killed which most can agree is a human right. Well what else can you be? You cant play political games with things like this without getting into positions of hypocricy very rapidly. Either it is right or wrong for the state to kill people without due process. That leads to a position where investigation is the only option both for accuser and accused. To do anything less is either to condone or to leave the accused endlessly tarred by a vile accusation.

[ColPyat]

As to being idealistic on human rights or at elast the right not to be killed which most can agree is a human right. Well what else can you be? You cant play political games with things like this without getting into positions of hypocricy very rapidly. Either it is right or wrong for the state to kill people without due process. That leads to a position where investigation is the only option both for accuser and accused. To do anything less is either to condone or to leave the accused endlessly tarred by a vile accusation.

True, but anything less than a full investigation is not worth bothering with. It just leaves a foul after taste.

Constitution, well, i believe that such a referendum should not be organized under military dictatorship, while large areas of the country are still under martial law, such a constitution should not be drafted by a military appointed council. It sets a bad precedent, and that is just apart from several articles that empower the bureaucracy/military and ISOC.

And no constitution is worth its paper when the military can throw it into the bin whenever it pleases so. It just is irrelevant, a tool for propaganda that changes nothing. We will just come full circle sooner or later. Only when the established elites realize that political problems have to solved in the political arena - then we can make a step forward.

[hammered]

As to being idealistic on human rights or at elast the right not to be killed which most can agree is a human right. Well what else can you be? You cant play political games with things like this without getting into positions of hypocricy very rapidly. Either it is right or wrong for the state to kill people without due process. That leads to a position where investigation is the only option both for accuser and accused. To do anything less is either to condone or to leave the accused endlessly tarred by a vile accusation.

True, but anything less than a full investigation is not worth bothering with. It just leaves a foul after taste.

Constitution, well, i believe that such a referendum should not be organized under military dictatorship, while large areas of the country are still under martial law, such a constitution should not be drafted by a military appointed council. It sets a bad precedent, and that is just apart from several articles that empower the bureaucracy/military and ISOC.

And no constitution is worth its paper when the military can throw it into the bin whenever it pleases so. It just is irrelevant, a tool for propaganda that changes nothing. We will just come full circle sooner or later. Only when the established elites realize that political problems have to solved in the political arena - then we can make a step forward.

Agree on a full investigation

We still await several events to play out before any step forward can be made imho. The charter, election, Thaksin court cases are not the biggest of these.

[Plus]

There seems to an extremely naive minority who believe that the seasoned political parties that ran against Thaksin are incapable of paying for votes.

Not with their limited budgets....

Last time I looked the opposition (Army) owned a television station. This isn't exactly a secret! French parlamentarians would probably not be too happy if the French military took over their government and told them to go home. Anyway, to argue that the Bangkok elite who opposed Thaksin are too poor to afford either television time, fourteen tanks to overrun the government, or vote buying is naive.

I thought you were talking about seasoned political parties that ran against Thaksin?

The army was on his side up until very last moment (last few months). Bangok elite is not a party, AFAIK, they don't run ads on TV.

When Sondhi broke up with Thaksin he certainly had money to pay for ads but no TV station (apart from his own) would let him on air. Opposition parties had access but no resources.

And I think French would be pleasantly surprised how much criticism and even abuse is tolerated under Thailand's military government.

[marshbags]

From The Independent & The Independent on Sunday

3 August 2007 17:13

Premiership insist Thaksin is 'fit and proper person'

By Andy Hunter

Published: 01 August 2007

The Premier League has denied claims by a leading human rights group that Thaksin Shinawatra should have been prevented from taking control of Manchester City.

Thailand's military rulers have seized assets worth an estimated £1bn from the country's former prime minister since he was ousted in a coup last October while several corruption charges have been brought against the 58-year-old during his exile in London.

Amnesty International questioned Thaksin's human rights record during his five-years as the head of a democratically elected government and, in an investigation broadcast by BBC Radio Five Live last night, it was revealed that Human Rights Watch had questioned whether the businessman was a 'fit and proper person' to own an English club in a letter sent to the Premier League.

The letter drew attention to several alleged human rights violations but, in line with the view of the former City hierarchy prior to the takeover, the Premier League questioned the motivation behind the charges against Thaksin by Thailand's military rulers and insisted he remained free under English law to own the Premiership club.

To continually use the military situation as what can only be termed as " a vendetta " is just not true and is in fact a convenient excuse to justify their lack of integrity in accepting what happened, along with bringing Thaksin to account.

These crimes WHERE commited long before the present authorities started their investigations and it was only because Thaksin had total control, 100%, that they where not effectivly pursued before.

"We have very clear rules on the ownership of our clubs, which include the Fit and Proper Persons Test (FAPPT), which go beyond any requirement by UK company law and are, to our knowledge, some of the sternest in place in any UK industry," read a Premier League statement last night.

"The FAPPT means anyone convicted of a range of offences would not be permitted to become a director, or a shadow director, at a club. But what needs to be made clear is that in the first place we accept the primacy of UK and European law. This determines who may, and who may not, legally reside in the UK, own and acquire assets, and engage in commercial and other activities."

Unquote

ref url:-

http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/pr...icle2823041.ece

The Premier League, Man. City and any supporters who think Thaksin is innocent of these crimes until proved guilty are in complete denial.

You are using the law as a convenient way of avoiding the glaring truth that is well and truly documented in the media via television, radio and in press interviews that Thaksin himself used to forward his own self promulgating as a respected world leader and finished up as seen in truth as a ( " Dictator " )

Thanks to the above paragraph these despicable, vile crimes against Thailand and humanity ( and in recent times ) cannot be judged as alledged as it was well documented and is there for all to see.

It is no coincidence that the world stage he so yearned for has all but disappeared as far as his creditablity is concerned along with the support of his ex chummy world leaders.

The silence is deafening don,t you think ?

As for the alledged bias relating to the role of the HRW in these particular cases, please explain how and when this has been the situation and just you arrive at this conclusion.

We could go through history using past instances that have no hope, apart from in hel_l of being investigated while thanks again to Thaksin in these instances we have.

The Karma will be forthcoming to Man City and their supporters wether implicated personally or otherwise in the shape of protests from all sorts of areas once the football season starts.

I only hope it remains non violent and remains just a verbal protest, but i cannot but think realistically that there are many troubles ahead due to this situation that has been sanctioned by the football authorities.

There will also, i fear be possible serious situations that all the nutters of the world use as a platform for violence and unrest.

I do not subscribe to the violence or their evil and violent objectives in any shape or form and all they do is bring themselves down to the level of the likes of Thaksin.

IMHO of course.

Thaksin of course will get everything he deserves, eventually along with his day of reckoning, equal to his actions.

Least anyone get,s sidetracked or forgets, the main concern is about ALL the unfortunate victims and their families and situations like the above are obscene and offensive at the very least and ignore the importance of the issues.

The majority of posters on this thread are promoting the case of accountablity for the heanous crimes that where committed, nothing more and nothing less.

To continually try to undermine them with pathetic attempts to throw everthing off topic while seemingly supporting the actions of Thaksins regime and his involvement on a personal level is beyong words and comtemptible.

marshbags

Edited August 3, 2007 by marshbags

[Plus]

We are about to find out that the UK legal system is as ineffective against Thaksin as Thailand's.

English never miss a chance to lecture Thais on democracy and this and that - let's see if they can also walk the walk. So far their reaction is no different from Thailand's just before Thaksin's first elections.

In both cases there was an upcoming leader/saviour with a murky past and looming court cases that could really complicate legal matters. In Thailand population at large trusted that Thaksin would bring good fortunes and prove that his intentions are genuine, opposing voices were dismissed as a nuisance. English are just the same - they are walking into the same trap retracing exactly the same steps.

I hope Thaksin speeds things up this a little - fast forward to the end, we've seen this show already, it's boring.

[womble]

We are about to find out that the UK legal system is as ineffective against Thaksin as Thailand's.

English never miss a chance to lecture Thais on democracy and this and that - let's see if they can also walk the walk. So far their reaction is no different from Thailand's just before Thaksin's first elections.

In both cases there was an upcoming leader/saviour with a murky past and looming court cases that could really complicate legal matters. In Thailand population at large trusted that Thaksin would bring good fortunes and prove that his intentions are genuine, opposing voices were dismissed as a nuisance. English are just the same - they are walking into the same trap retracing exactly the same steps.

I hope Thaksin speeds things up this a little - fast forward to the end, we've seen this show already, it's boring.

If it's so boring why does this thread have 35 pages?

[Plus]

I meant Thaksin screwing Manchester City, not this topic.

First will be a year of struggles, then success, then excess, then complacency, then opposition, then the coup.

[ColPyat]

We are about to find out that the UK legal system is as ineffective against Thaksin as Thailand's.

English never miss a chance to lecture Thais on democracy and this and that - let's see if they can also walk the walk. So far their reaction is no different from Thailand's just before Thaksin's first elections.

Well, generally in the UK people get convicted by court according to evidence, and not by minority elitist public opinion according to ideology and military coups.

So, yes, in terms of democracy and the application of due process in their courts the UK is far more developed than Thailand.

[sibeymai]

The newly announced investigation into the extra-judicial killings is the most effective way for the Thai government to galvanize world opinion against Thaksin. Sling even a little bit of mud Thaksin's way and some will stick to tarnish his reputation and instill some doubt in the minds of his supporters. Even a little damage could be enough for Thaksin to fail the FAPPT and remove him from Man. City if only due to the court of public opinion. If the investigation uncovers solid evidence of Thaksin's complicity in murder then there will be few places Thaksin will be welcome...certainly not London, Europe or the US.

Why else would Thaksin have said recently that his preferred place of residence outside Thailand is China ? China is about the only country which would withstand the hue and cry against Thaksin if he is implicated in murder. Thaksin knows this very well and his Chinese friends have probably already told him he and his money are welcome.

[Plus]

"Generally" is not very important here - let's see how they handle Thaksin.

It looks like there's no chance at all that his drug war will cause him any troubles in the UK, for example, and it looks like all corruption cases won't bother him there either.

From UK's legal system point of view he is as clean as an angel, and always will be.

[A_Traveller]

From UK's legal system point of view he is as clean as an angel, and always will be.

Just to note that the original BBC report noted that once Thailand was seen to be back as a democracy, convictions brought under due process {transparent and subject to review} might well cause problems for him.

Thailand is ruled by a military-installed government that assumed power by overthrowing Thaksin in a coup in 2006.

Yet the situation could change if a democratically-elected government made the request <extradition> - and elections are scheduled for December this year in Thailand.

Regards

[sibeymai]

"Generally" is not very important here - let's see how they handle Thaksin.

It looks like there's no chance at all that his drug war will cause him any troubles in the UK, for example, and it looks like all corruption cases won't bother him there either.

From UK's legal system point of view he is as clean as an angel, and always will be.

That's why it's such a good strategy to nail Thaksin in the World Court. The UK will have to acknowledge this and may make it politically unconfortable for the British government to have Thaksin in the UK while the maqtter is being determined which could take years. If the UK, US and EU was made "off limits" to Thaksin during this period the Thai government would be quite pleased with the result.

Edited August 3, 2007 by sibeymai

[ColPyat]

"Generally" is not very important here - let's see how they handle Thaksin.

It looks like there's no chance at all that his drug war will cause him any troubles in the UK, for example, and it looks like all corruption cases won't bother him there either.

From UK's legal system point of view he is as clean as an angel, and always will be.

That's why it's such a good strategy to nail Thaksin in the World Court. The UK will have to acknowledge this and may make it politically unconfortable for the British government to have Thaksin in the UK while the maqtter is being determined which could take years. If the UK, US and EU was made "off limits" to Thaksin during this period the Thai government would be quite pleased with the result.

And before Thailand can send anyone to be tried at the court in The Hague, it has to first countersign the necessary international agreements. And this is not going to happen.

[Plus]

There's near zero chance of Thaksin being extradited from the UK, slightly better chance of him being convicted in absentia in Thailand, and then there's hope that the UK would recognize this verdict and do something about it.

The Brits might be proud that their courts rule strictly according to the law and presented evidence, but what is the point in that if they can't catch the criminals?

So Thaksin will weasel his way out through the holes in the UK's system just as easily as he abused Thailand's. Here he paid of judges, there he'll spend the same money on better lawyers - the result is the same.

In Thailand the public and the army nailed him in the end, though. Ulimately the justice is seen as being served.

UK's public opinion is not a big threat, it can be manipulated, it's not an impossible task. People there don't care about dead Thai drug dealers anymore than Thais themselves, they won't say a thing unless they read about it in the papers.

[sibeymai]

"Generally" is not very important here - let's see how they handle Thaksin.

It looks like there's no chance at all that his drug war will cause him any troubles in the UK, for example, and it looks like all corruption cases won't bother him there either.

From UK's legal system point of view he is as clean as an angel, and always will be.

That's why it's such a good strategy to nail Thaksin in the World Court. The UK will have to acknowledge this and may make it politically unconfortable for the British government to have Thaksin in the UK while the maqtter is being determined which could take years. If the UK, US and EU was made "off limits" to Thaksin during this period the Thai government would be quite pleased with the result.

And before Thailand can send anyone to be tried at the court in The Hague, it has to first countersign the necessary international agreements. And this is not going to happen.

You're probably right...but whatever the Thai investigation uncovers will be given plenty of consideration by Amnesty and HR Watch. Could still make things uncomfortable for the UK government.

[Siripon]

There's near zero chance of Thaksin being extradited from the UK, slightly better chance of him being convicted in absentia in Thailand, and then there's hope that the UK would recognize this verdict and do something about it.

The Brits might be proud that their courts rule strictly according to the law and presented evidence, but what is the point in that if they can't catch the criminals?

So Thaksin will weasel his way out through the holes in the UK's system just as easily as he abused Thailand's. Here he paid of judges, there he'll spend the same money on better lawyers - the result is the same.

In Thailand the public and the army nailed him in the end, though. Ulimately the justice is seen as being served.

UK's public opinion is not a big threat, it can be manipulated, it's not an impossible task. People there don't care about dead Thai drug dealers anymore than Thais themselves, they won't say a thing unless they read about it in the papers.

But according to my husband the football fans care about results and if Frank and his Swedish weasel don't produce the goods, or rather goals, the fans will then be suggesting Frankie goes to Hollywood to join Beckham,etc.

If the results of Man city are disappointing I suggest Sonthi Limthongkun buys a season ticket and teaches the fans' Thaksin- Ork pai !'

[Plus]

Both the Amnesty and the HRW have plenty of information on the drug war, no one bothers to consider it. In the past decade and after the Iraq war many people look at them, especially HRW, as US' propaganda tool.

Their reputatioin took quite a beating.

I've seen comments on BBC's story - Thaksin has nothing to be afraid of, people of England are right behind him.

Check out some of the quotes here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/F7884558?thread=4419407

Edited August 3, 2007 by Plus

[sibeymai]

Plus, thanks for the link....interesting. There seems to be a tone of reluctant inevitability in the comments rather than any sort of grudging acceptance. Discounting those comments posted by people who obviously have some knowledge or connection with Thailand and are vehemently negative, "sure, I'd prefer he wasn't taking over Man City, but I can't do anything about it" seems to be common.

[Plus]

I'm pretty sure that one day, and rather soon, Thaksin and Man City romance will fall apart, and what will happen then? They don't own the club, they sold it.

"We are confident that all charges against Thaksin will be refuted by the courts" or something like that - one day they will eat their own words.

[ColPyat]

In Thailand the public and the army nailed him in the end, though. Ulimately the justice is seen as being served.

This is a dangerous disregard for due process and the basics of democracy. I would have expected no less from you.

[nick2k]

I think the fact that the military and their coup-loving right wing supporters are indicting Thaksin and not the state officials and military who were involved in the killing speaks volumes. The issue is only being pursued by anyone in Thailand as an anti-Thaksin pro-coup strategic ploy. One day perhaps there will be an elected government that will investigate and prosecute illegal acts involving the drug war killings and the coup. The funny thing is that many in the anti-Thaksin brigade are going to howl when the military cuts a deal for an even bigger share of Thaksin's telecom earnings in exchange for dropping the investigation. Far better to wait to prosecute when there is a semblance of a free press and a hint of democracy. That may be a long, long time; especially if the anti-Thaksin brigade keeps propping up the Army.

Thaksin frequently boasted he had radically reformed the bureaucratic structure of Thailand, he was the CEO of Thailand, governors reported directly to him, bypassing the cumbersome bureaucracy.

So when 2,500 are killed in mysterious circumstances following fiery speeches by the CEO exhorting the police to use any measures necessary who should accept responsibility? The CEO surely?

Did Thaksin ever say sorry about one of these deaths?

Did he ever say sorry about any of the deaths in the South after he mistakenly called the southern violence ' a case of petty criminals'?

The press, by the way, is a lot freer than you may imagine.

people don't usually say "sorry" during time of war. this is the way it is. if you start saying you are sorry during time of war, you will lose. the muslim terrorist down south have "murdered" thousands, and I don't see anyone asking them to say sorry. when you think about it, for all we know, maybe you are one of those muslim terrorist using the media to win the war.

[nick2k]

oh I forgot... to the muslim terrorist, they are not "terrorist", they are freedom fighters. so, it is ok to murder others to reach their goal. right?

[Plus]

In Thailand the public and the army nailed him in the end, though. Ulimately the justice is seen as being served.

This is a dangerous disregard for due process and the basics of democracy. I would have expected no less from you.

He hasn't been harmed in any way, all he lost was his job. If he hadn't openly challenge the junta he would have had full freedom of movement abroad.

The main pro-coup argument is that "due process" has only been started after the coup, it didn't exist before that. Thaksin's rule has been so far from democracy that not many people cried and even less miss it.

Now the ball is in the UK's courts - will their due process accord Thaksin what is due? If it doesn't, then the same question again - what is this perfect system for in the first place if not punish criminals?

[ColPyat]

In Thailand the public and the army nailed him in the end, though. Ulimately the justice is seen as being served.

This is a dangerous disregard for due process and the basics of democracy. I would have expected no less from you.

He hasn't been harmed in any way, all he lost was his job. If he hadn't openly challenge the junta he would have had full freedom of movement abroad.

The main pro-coup argument is that "due process" has only been started after the coup, it didn't exist before that. Thaksin's rule has been so far from democracy that not many people cried and even less miss it.

Now the ball is in the UK's courts - will their due process accord Thaksin what is due? If it doesn't, then the same question again - what is this perfect system for in the first place if not punish criminals?

Sorry, let me correct myself - it is not disregard for due process - but complete ignorance for what due process stands for.

Nothing is in the hand of the courts of the UK. Thaksin has not committed any crime in the UK, he has not been convicted of any crime in Thailand. If Thailand charges Thaksin, he refuses to appear at court, then Thailand has the right to make a formal extradition demand, and only then it is in the hands of the UK court, which has to carefully look at the evidence presented, and rule accordingly if there is enough grounds to extradite him to Thailand, or grant him asylum.

And up to a possible conviction in a Thai court - he is presumed innocent in front of the law.

That is how due process works, in simplistic terms. What you advocate is the opposite of due process.