Thaksin changes his tone, but not attitude

[candide]

5 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Did you read the bit about this being a long standing law that Thaksin knowing broke? Did you read about this case and how his lawyer tried to bribe the judges?

 

The facts of the case are that he did as was accused, got caught, convicted, fled, was sentenced and has remained on the run since. Oh yes, being on the run means he can avoid those 15 plus other serious charges, like the Krung Thai Bank fraud where co-defendants got 18 year sentences.

 

Thaksin has  PhD in Law, a former senior policeman and very experienced politician. He knew exactly what he was doing and gambled that with his party being in government he had enough political clout to be above the law, He didn't.

Actually he rather gambled on that:

"Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF, because those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight and regulations governing the agency"

http://www.pressreader.com/thailand/the-nation/20070419/281539401515157

 

A different interpretation has been chosen......

[Enoon]

13 hours ago, darksidedog said:

He appears to have little concept of the laws that cover corruption then.

 

Of course he knows what the laws of corruption are, as do individuals across the whole spectrum of what passes for politics in Thailand.

 

It wasn't his corrupt behaviour that got him prosecuted.  That was (and is) normal.  It's happening now.

 

He became "de-legitimised" for an entirely different reason.

 

A reason that forum rules prohibit members from discussing.

 

That's what makes discussion on TVF about his relative venality, vis a vis his fellow politicians and the law, utterly futile.

 

You can all "go home" now.

 

 

 

[scorecard]

1 minute ago, Enoon said:

 

Of course he knows what the laws of corruption are, as do individuals across the whole spectrum of what passes for politics in Thailand.

 

It wasn't his corrupt behaviour that got him prosecuted.  That was (and is) normal.  It's happening now.

 

He became "de-legitimised" for an entirely different reason.

 

A reason that forum rules prohibit members from discussing.

 

That's what makes discussion on TVF about his relative venality, vis a vis his fellow politicians and the law, utterly futile.

 

You can all "go home" now.

 

 

 

 

Not true, you think posters have a short memory?

[Moonmoon]

Becos of all these corrupted politicians from yellow, red or green. The supporters of either side will never respect each other. 

 

Time for Thailand to get rid of all of them n get somebody new. 

[HerbalEd]

8 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

You can get something on everyone. Thaksin was progressive at least. It was democracy, and the possibility of better democracy down the road.

TS was definitely corrupt, but no more so than the many PMs who proceeded him. The real reason he was taken out was because he actually gave some power and hope to the poor people of Thailand who have been oppressed by the elite class for literally centuries -- and the elite can't allow that, no sir, they can't have that at all. 

Edited April 17, 2017 by HerbalEd

[debate101]

7 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Did you read the bit about this being a long standing law that Thaksin knowing broke? Did you read about this case and how his lawyer tried to bribe the judges?

 

 

I did. I've read Pasuk and Baker's biography, which was actually rather harsh. He was wrong, and he deserves to face justice. It doesn't change the fact that the elite establishment were out to get him so they could have an excuse to subvert the democratic gains the Thai people had made over the past decades. If you read Thai history closely enough, it emerges that they have always fought democracy, representative government, fair elections, freedom of speech/press/thought, etc... tooth and nail. The damage done to the country by those who are its supposed protectors is not even close to worth getting Thaksin to serve his sentence. It's a side show to reassert their total supremacy, and it always was.

[debate101]

5 hours ago, shunter said:

If you were here at that time you would be well aware  the then government was under Thaksins control as it was comprised of members of the  Thai Rak Thai in a coalition government which  was no more than a Thaksin tame puppet show.

 

Note that the then government did not interfere in the judicial process concerning the verdict  and sentence passed on Thaksin either.

I was. The elected government has essentially no control over the constitutional court, which was set up and appointed at an opportune, coup-supported time. Thaksin fell out with the wrong person, and so being anti-Thaksin became the premier qualification for appointment to a so-called independent body, of which the CC was a significant one.

[Ricardo]

3 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

I've been visiting Thailand since before Thaksin came to power and noted a marked opening-up and westernisation during those years - not to mention impressive economic growth. It's no good trying to peddle the myth he was a dictator.

 

 

The impressive economic-growth during that time coincided with a world-wide boom, as the internet & mobile-communications & globalisation spread, Thaksin might fairly claim part of the glory for its local effects on Thailand, but global-influences were more important IMHO.

 

And you might recall, if your visits included the summer of 2006, just who it was that told the media not to bother asking questions of the rest of his Cabinet, since he was the one who made all of the decisions ?

 

You might also recall his saying in 2003, that democracy was not his goal, just a useful tool, or his retort to the United Nations after some mild criticism or other ?

 

It might be a stretch to say he was a dictator, but he was hardly a shining example of democracy either, by that stage.  Yet he still believes that he's never made any mistakes, never done anything wrong, well I'm sorry but even he is only human.

 

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in-between, IMO.

[Becker]

10 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

It was democracy in that elections were held. But criticizing and free speech weren't tolerated.

It was democracy in that elections were held, there was freedom of assembly and expression, a parliament with a very vocal opposition etc, etc, etc. Or are you saying that under the elected governments the yellows did not criticize, assemble whenever the heck they wanted or speak freely when they did so??

Sure there was intimidation (TIT, after all) but please don't try to equate the level of freedom under Thaksin or YL with what we see today - it's not even close and makes you sound foolish.

[starky]

18 hours ago, ezzra said:

What's the point pray tell, when you're a billioner few times over, a family man,

a person of vast influences and you live as a fugitive from justice, a pariah

in your own country like a common criminal with no clear future ahead of him...

 

Oh I don't know, ask old mate from Red Bull as well. Granted not being able to return " home" may hurt but a life as a billionaire on the lam seems alright to me. Is he a "pariah"  for most Thais? 

Edited April 17, 2017 by starky

[candide]

17 hours ago, plachon said:

I was living in Thailand in the decade before Thaksin came to power, and for various periods during and after the Thaksin years. The only time I felt more insecure and threatened was during the military coup and Suchinda era of 1991. Thaksin turned back democracy with his populist dictator style of governance, that  was not unlike the Field Marshall Sarit and Thanom era in terms of authoritarianism, where he centralised power upwards to himself (CEO of nation), while giving the appearance of decentralisation to villages (1 million baht village fund, etc). But he generated the most fear from his anti-drugs policy, where he gave the police carte blanche to send death squads into the countryside and take out drugs dealers. Trouble was, they extended their black list way beyond drugs dealers to exterminate a whole number of people they, Thaksin, his cronies, etc took a dislike too, as well as a significant number of innocent people killed accidentally (mistaken identity or being caught in the cross-fire), put down as "collateral damage". 

The economic growth you mention came at a terrible cost and left Thailand bloodied and bruised, as well as heavily in debt at the both state and private levels, through his opening up of easy credit to all policies, even when people clearly had few means of repayment. While this phenomenon is not unique to Thailand and the US and other states were just as guilty of handing out credit to uncreditworthy people, Thaksin turned it to his advantage through his telecom and other monopolies to personally profit from his own policies, thus partaking in policy corruption on a breathtaking scale - hence the eventual freezing of his family assets over the Ample Rich shell company scandal. He hated all instruments of conventional democracy, beyond the populist vote element, especially the rule of law and respect for human rights (remember "the UN is not my father"?).

Your argument of Thaksin's policy resulting in heavy debt is not confirmed by available statistics, which show the contrary. The debts increased but the GDP too, so Thailand did not get more indebted.