Thaksin files defamation complaint against Rangsit University rector

[billd766]

18 hours ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

 

Return to serve a sentence that was politically motivated while there is a military junta running the country and systematically dismantling all checks and balances?

 

Let's think that through again. 

 

You do realise that he was found guilty by a court whilst his BIL Somchai Wongsawat and the PPP were running the country in Thaksin's name, don't you? Neither did he return when his sister, Yingluck was running the country with the PTP though he did try to get an amnesty rammed through parliament at 4.30 am one morning.

 

Sadly for him, that failed also.

 

He also has quite a few other outstanding charges against him just waiting for his return.

 

He applied to go overseas to watch the Olympics in China whilst promising to return but jumped his bail and fled.

 

Sure why don't YOU think it through again but do a little research first to get at least 2 facts correct.

[Winniedapu]

3 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

"Return to serve a sentence that was politically motivated while there is a military junta running the country and systematically dismantling all checks and balances?

 

Let's think that through again. "

 

Don't let the truth stand in your way, utter BS

 

 

Ah yes. If only facts could be whatever we want them to be, then life would be ever so easy to understand.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Winniedapu

[Winniedapu]

17 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

You do realise that he was found guilty by a court <snip>

 

 

Oops. A small inexactitude, here, I'll fix it for you...

 

"You do realise that he was found guilty by a Thai court "

 

Winnie

[debate101]

There still seems to be some confusion about this. Every Thai and everyone who has been here long enough knows that basically everyone in a position of power in Thailand is corrupt. There has never been a non-corrupt Thai government, and there will not be one in the forseeable future. Even Abhisit's government, which was supposed to be the "clean" (army-approved) alternative to the Pheu Thai, was implicated in an number of corruption scandals in their short 3-year tenure. To illustrate this, according to Wikipedia:

 

Democrat MPs saw their personal net worth increase by 4.3 billion baht while Abhisit was prime minister. Democrat financier Kalaya Sophonphanit's personal wealth increased by 422 million baht, while the wealth of MPs Wilat Chanpitak and Chalermlak Kebsap increased by 303 and 302 million baht respectively. Ten out of 10 MPs whose wealth increased the most during Abhisit's premiership were all Democrat MPs.

 

This has never been about corruption. In Thailand, and in most Asian countries, what you say is not important. How and why you say it--the context of the situation--carries the true meaning of the message.

 

Terminology also seems be a source of confusion for our literal, Western minds--at least at first. Maybe these definitions will clear things up.

 

Thai-style democracy: military authoritarianism with a display parliament

Thaksinism (Thaksin system): Thai-style democracy

corruption: social programs and redistribution of wealth

people of bad morals / influential figures: pro-democracy politicians

PAD / PDRC: military and royalist coalition for Thai-style democracy (see Thai-style democracy)

reform: gradual dismantling of Thailand's democratic institutions, including locally-responsive decentralized government bodies, free and independent media, rule of law, human rights protections, human rights commission, public television, and more

good people: unskilled, out of touch, unpopular authoritarians

populism: responding to the needs and wishes of the electorate by asking what government changes they would like to see, offering them as a platform, winning elections on that platform, and then implementing them

 

To argue Thaksin and his parties were not corrupt is as ridiculous as arguing that his opponents are doing a better job of governing than he did. It's beside the point. People are right to point out the country was doing better under his governments. It was. The rest of it is just a big smokescreen for anti-democratic forces to take, consolidate, and retain power.

 

Is that of any help?

 

 

[Misterwhisper]

 

"An obsessive whiner with paper thin skin? Who? Me? Noooo!"

Edited August 18, 2016 by Misterwhisper
typo correction

[daftdada]

19 hours ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

 

Return to serve a sentence that was politically motivated while there is a military junta running the country and systematically dismantling all checks and balances?

 

Let's think that through again. 

 

 

Really. And while we're at it let's think through how Thaksin, as a public servant, now has a net worth of USD 1.6 billion.

 

 

 

[Winniedapu]

24 minutes ago, daftdada said:

 

 

Really. And while we're at it let's think through how Thaksin, as a public servant, now has a net worth of USD 1.6 billion.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, he hasn't been a public servant for years. And he made a goodly profit when he sold Manchester City.

 

If you have evidence that he was corrupt, you should send it to the government. If you don't then you are just believing hearsay. People who believe and propagate hearsay are generally not that bright, so I'm sure that isn't you...

 

Winnie

[jcsmith]

1 hour ago, debate101 said:

To argue Thaksin and his parties were not corrupt is as ridiculous as arguing that his opponents are doing a better job of governing than he did. It's beside the point. People are right to point out the country was doing better under his governments. It was. The rest of it is just a big smokescreen for anti-democratic forces to take, consolidate, and retain power.

 

That's pretty much how I feel about it. Thaksin was in office when I first came here. I wasn't a fan, felt he was corrupt and welcomed his ouster. Many years later what I've learned is that they are all corrupt, none moreso the military junta who claims they need to keep seizing power to end corruption. The democrats, the shins, or the junta, it's corruption all around. But I see a huge difference between then and now in the country, for the worse. I don't care if its the reds or yellows in charge. But it should be a government elected by the people. Not elected by loophole that avoids them, or by a rigged system which the unelected government has imposed. And when someone does come into power, the scheduled shut downs of Bangkok until the other side steps down needs to go, as well.

 

Enforcement needs to be fair all around. You can't persecute people for shutting down the city, and then close your eyes when Suthep was the worst of the bunch but he happened to get you into power. No more pledges of ending corruption, only to try to intimidate the press or people when they ask questions about how your family earned their money, or when they start questioning your people. Until these things happen Thailand is stuck spinning their wheels in reverse.

[waitforusalso]

7 hours ago, than said:

2008 after Thaksin conviction

 

 

But now he owns property in England & spends a significant amount of time there. So they must have realised the charges were politically motivated bullshit.

Edited August 18, 2016 by waitforusalso

[billd766]

4 hours ago, Winniedapu said:

 

 

Oops. A small inexactitude, here, I'll fix it for you...

 

"You do realise that he was found guilty by a Thai court "

 

Winnie

 

Well I had thought that a guy as smart as you living in Thailand as I do, and Thaksin going to court, might have realised that the court was in Thailand. Where else would he be charged, sent to trial and convicted.

 

I understand that you don't like the courts or the justice system here in Thailand but that is what Thais have to live with.

 

Thaksin had his day when he was running the country but that time is over now and so is Thaksin.

 

I was here when he was first elected and he said that he was so rich, quote " that it is just impossible for me to keep track of my fortune.''

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/19/world/thai-prime-minister-denies-graft-charges.html

 

''I had no intention to conceal my assets,'' Mr. Thaksin said, his voice shaking. ''I simply did not understand the asset forms. It was purely an honest mistake.''

 

''How could he say that he didn't intend to conceal these shares?'' Mr. Klanarong said. ''These maids, drivers, security guards would not have enough money to buy millions of shares. The defendants are well-educated people, so they can't claim they did not know the law.''

 

As a police cadet -- before making his fortune as a telecommunications tycoon -- Mr. Thaksin said he had sworn an oath ''that I would die at knifepoint or spearpoint if I betrayed the country and the throne.''

 

Thaksin's words in the courts 15 years ago as reported by the NY Times.

 

 

[halloween]

2 hours ago, Winniedapu said:

 

 

Well, he hasn't been a public servant for years. And he made a goodly profit when he sold Manchester City.

 

If you have evidence that he was corrupt, you should send it to the government. If you don't then you are just believing hearsay. People who believe and propagate hearsay are generally not that bright, so I'm sure that isn't you...

 

Winnie

You think that was a good profit? How much did he make from the people of Thailand with his 20 year mobile phone monopoly?

[billd766]

4 hours ago, Winniedapu said:

 

 

Ah yes. If only facts could be whatever we want them to be, then life would be ever so easy to understand.

 

quote "

Lewis Carroll (1832–98)
QUOTATION:	“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
ATTRIBUTION:	LEWIS CARROLL (Charles L. Dodgson), Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.   http://www.bartleby.com/73/2019.html

[than]

12 minutes ago, waitforusalso said:

But now he owns property in England & spends a significant amount of time there. So they must have realised the charges were politically motivated bullshit.

 

Well a lot a European countries has take distance with him since he was convict,

the only invest I found on internet it a support of internet security start-up in UK 

Not sign of travel in Europa since more two years

[Winniedapu]

16 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Well I had thought that a guy as smart as you living in Thailand as I do, and Thaksin going to court, might have realised that the court was in Thailand. Where else would he be charged, sent to trial and convicted.

 

I understand that you don't like the courts or the justice system here in Thailand but that is what Thais have to live with.

 

Thaksin had his day when he was running the country but that time is over now and so is Thaksin.

 

I was here when he was first elected and he said that he was so rich, quote " that it is just impossible for me to keep track of my fortune.''

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/19/world/thai-prime-minister-denies-graft-charges.html

 

''I had no intention to conceal my assets,'' Mr. Thaksin said, his voice shaking. ''I simply did not understand the asset forms. It was purely an honest mistake.''

 

''How could he say that he didn't intend to conceal these shares?'' Mr. Klanarong said. ''These maids, drivers, security guards would not have enough money to buy millions of shares. The defendants are well-educated people, so they can't claim they did not know the law.''

 

As a police cadet -- before making his fortune as a telecommunications tycoon -- Mr. Thaksin said he had sworn an oath ''that I would die at knifepoint or spearpoint if I betrayed the country and the throne.''

 

Thaksin's words in the courts 15 years ago as reported by the NY Times.

 

 

 

I referred to the court being Thai to draw attention to the fact that the Thai courts are corrupt and not independent. But then you knew that already.

 

Nobody has said he was not corrupt - they're all corrupt, from the top to the bottom, it's the Thai disease.

 

But the powers that be wanted him gone, not because he was corrupt, but because he was too popular and was seen to be supplanting someone else in the people's affections, someone who ensured the continued wealth and influence of the feudal barons. Simple as that.

 

But you get the ninnies that continue to parrot the lies told about Thaksin. Sure he was a thief, they're all thieves. But he wasn't the antichist and he isn't responsible for Thailand's many problems. The Thai education system does that all on it's own. Exactly as planned and exactly as I have described in numerous posts on the subject of how and by whom and why Thailand has been a guided development.

 

Winnie

Edited August 18, 2016 by Winniedapu

[halloween]

4 minutes ago, Winniedapu said:

 

Nobody has said he was not corrupt - they're all corrupt, from the top to the bottom, it's the Thai disease.

 

But the powers that be wanted him gone, not because he was corrupt, but because he was too popular and was seen to be supplanting someone else in the people's affections, someone who ensured the continued wealth and influence of the feudal barons. Simple as that.

 

Winnie

So should he NOT be prosecuted for his blatant corruption because he was so very popular (with some)? Stop the diversionary tactics of WHY he was prosecuted, and give us one good reason why he shouldn't be.

[sujoop]

55 minutes ago, Winniedapu said:

But he wasn't the antichist and he isn't responsible for Thailand's many problems. The Thai education system does that all on it's own.

Thaksin backed Govt's have held power for approx 11 of the past 16 years. They/he could have reformed the education system if they felt that was as high a priority as say, a self-amnesty, or corruption laden rice scams, appointing family to run the police and army, Chalerm as 'Justice' Minister, etc, etc, etc. Bottom line, they had  'other' priorities (including a pattern of suing to silence others).

Edited August 18, 2016 by sujoop
to add

[Ricardo]

10 hours ago, waitforusalso said:

But now he owns property in England & spends a significant amount of time there. So they must have realised the charges were politically motivated bullshit.

 

 

Do you have a source, for the suggestion that he "spends a significant amount of time there" in the UK ?  My impression, based mainly on the Spiegel & Al-Jazeera & FT interviews, is that he is still based in Dubai but travels widely on business to Africa & Asia ?

 

The FT interview, on 11th March 2016  ,  merely says " Thaksin, who briefly owned the Premier League football club Manchester City, has houses in at least six countries and travels on a Montenegrin passport these days".  https://www.ft.com/content/59d81f90-e5e7-11e5-a09b-1f8b0d268c39

 

He was reported back then as having had his UK-visa revoked in late-2008  ...  "http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/72673/Thaksin-attacks-UK-over-his-exile  ...  and  ...  " when the couple travelled from London to China on business, the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, took the opportunity to revoke their visas under rules banning foreigners convicted of serious crimes"    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-office-bars-former-thai-pm-from-britain-1006620.html

 

It matters because of your claim, "they must have realised the charges were politically motivated bullshit", which would be placed in doubt if he isn't spending "a significant amount of time there".

[ldiablo72]

23 hours ago, farang62 said:

How can a convicted felon, on the run file a suit in a Thailand Court?

How is he allowed to even post on this forum?

He may be a convicted felon but only due to the simple fact that the charges were politically motivated and the courts are always on the side of the military, this is widely known. If the Junta truly believed that his conviction was not politically motivated they would do what any other country would have done and seek an extradition. But they know perfectly well  that no other country sees Thaksin as a felon due to the reason mentioned above. Dubai certainly doesn't,, nor do all the other countries he has traveled to.

[Ricardo]

58 minutes ago, ldiablo72 said:

He may be a convicted felon but only due to the simple fact that the charges were politically motivated and the courts are always on the side of the military, this is widely known. If the Junta truly believed that his conviction was not politically motivated they would do what any other country would have done and seek an extradition. But they know perfectly well  that no other country sees Thaksin as a felon due to the reason mentioned above. Dubai certainly doesn't,, nor do all the other countries he has traveled to.

 

"nor do all the other countries he has traveled to."

 

But from one of the links I gave, in the previous post, " the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, took the opportunity to revoke their visas under rules banning foreigners convicted of serious crimes. Her staff warned airlines not to let the Thaksins board flights to Britain. "

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-office-bars-former-thai-pm-from-britain-1006620.html

 

So the UK at least, did appear to accept the Thai conviction, would you therefor now accept ?

[Ricardo]

He also appears to be banned from Germany  ...

 

" Thailand's former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, is no longer welcome in Germany. A bureaucratic blunder had allowed him to reside legally in Bonn for half a year, despite his name being on a blacklist. "

 

http://www.dw.com/en/germany-revokes-residence-permit-for-thaksin/a-4318954

[billd766]

3 hours ago, ldiablo72 said:

He may be a convicted felon but only due to the simple fact that the charges were politically motivated and the courts are always on the side of the military, this is widely known. If the Junta truly believed that his conviction was not politically motivated they would do what any other country would have done and seek an extradition. But they know perfectly well  that no other country sees Thaksin as a felon due to the reason mentioned above. Dubai certainly doesn't,, nor do all the other countries he has traveled to.

 

2 hours ago, Ricardo said:

 

"nor do all the other countries he has traveled to."

 

But from one of the links I gave, in the previous post, " the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, took the opportunity to revoke their visas under rules banning foreigners convicted of serious crimes. Her staff warned airlines not to let the Thaksins board flights to Britain. "

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-office-bars-former-thai-pm-from-britain-1006620.html

 

So the UK at least, did appear to accept the Thai conviction, would you therefor now accept ?

 

1 hour ago, Ricardo said:

He also appears to be banned from Germany  ...

 

" Thailand's former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, is no longer welcome in Germany. A bureaucratic blunder had allowed him to reside legally in Bonn for half a year, despite his name being on a blacklist. "

 

http://www.dw.com/en/germany-revokes-residence-permit-for-thaksin/a-4318954

 

 

It appears that several European countries will not accept Thaksin and also don't accept that the crime that he was charged with and convicted was politically motivated. despite the claims of many posters here.

[thai3]

At least the bloke was elected- twice and did not have to lead an illegal coup. Corrupt, well they all are, but he did more good than harm.

[billd766]

19 minutes ago, thai3 said:

At least the bloke was elected- twice and did not have to lead an illegal coup. Corrupt, well they all are, but he did more good than harm.

 

Strangely enough the TRT and the PPP were both disbanded for election fraud.

 

Thaksin certainly did some good but far more harm.

 

IMHO if Thaksin had not been so greedy for power there was a good chance that he could have been in power and legally won a couple more elections.

[kingstonkid]

 

As has been stated this is a joke.

 

The simple solution and I welcome MR Thaksin to avail himself is for him to come to Thailand and tell the judge in his own words why and how he was defamed.

 

If he can not or will not do that then he should have no legal right to file any charges.

 

I know for a fact that my ex bad mouthed me all over the place back home.  Some of which was not nice BUT as I am not in Canada there is nothing I can do unless I want to go back.

 

Mr Thaksin should be in the same position.

 

BTW since he does not have status as a Thai ( no passport or legal documentation) how can he file charges.

 

 

 

 

[Eric Loh]

 

15 minutes ago, billd766 said:

IMHO if Thaksin had not been so greedy for power there was a good chance that he could have been in power and legally won a couple more elections.

 

He did won a couple more elections in 2007 and 2011. He is popular and that threatened the establishment hold on power. As posters have said, he is as corrupted as all politicians, civil servants and the uniforms.  Don't you get it!!!     

[Alive]

5 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

 

The simple solution and I welcome MR Thaksin to avail himself is for him to come to Thailand and tell the judge in his own words why and how he was defamed.

 

 

 

He might come if those who stole the government with military force leave. They have their abusive powers to do anything. Law, justice and fairness mean nothing to those in power. They can abuse him any way they want in Thailand. Too bad some people don't believe in truth and justice for all. This regime doesn't and many of its supporters don't either. They are all for their corruption.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

 

 

He did won a couple more elections in 2007 and 2011. He is popular and that threatened the establishment hold on power. As posters have said, he is as corrupted as all politicians, civil servants and the uniforms.  Don't you get it!!!     

 

I am sure that I am missing something here.

 

You have just said that Thaksin won a couple more elections in 2007 and 2011 but AFAIR his name was not on the ballot paper nor was he in Thailand at the time. IIRC NO convicted criminal can vote in a Thai election so he must have been using a stand in which in itself is illegal.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Alive said:

 

He might come if those who stole the government with military force leave. They have their abusive powers to do anything. Law, justice and fairness mean nothing to those in power. They can abuse him any way they want in Thailand. Too bad some people don't believe in truth and justice for all. This regime doesn't and many of its supporters don't either. They are all for their corruption.

 

 

Well he didn't come when the PPP under Samak and later Thaksin's BIL Somchai was in power, nor did he return when his sister was the PM and the PTP was in power.

 

When he does (if ever) return he faces the 2 years sentence originally imposed by the courts under his BIL Somchai plus a few more sitting and waiting for him.

 

Never mind, just keep dreaming about it. The reality is that Thaksin will only return after his death.

[lucky11]

On 8/17/2016 at 8:58 PM, candide said:

You see! It only took 12 mn!

 

 Wow!! You are amazing oh wise one - I hope you are proud of yourself with your prediction.

 

 Now who would have guessed that a politically contentious issue would attract comments on an open forum. What foresight you have, like the Thais do, I would go straight to a PTT station and buy a lottery ticket - you are bound to win!!

[halloween]

He's not the anti-christ, he's a very naughty boy!  Keep throwing up those strawman arguments Wimmie.