(Note: This letter is a response to Vanina Sucharitkul’s letter to President Barack Obama. During the past few weeks, her letter was widely shared among the Thai users of social media. The content of Vanina’s letter can be found here or here. The content of Chan’s letter here is a shortened version of the full version that can be accessed here.)
Picture: Vanina Sucharitkul reading her letter on a PDRC stage.
Dear Vanina Sucharitkul,
I am writing this open letter in response to your own letter to President Barack Obama, dated January 17, 2014, regarding Congressman Michael R.Turner’s purported misunderstanding of the Thai political situation. It may well be true that non-Thais may find it more challenging to fully appreciate the current crisis, not having had the chance to grasp our complex history and socio-political structures. However, this is no excuse for blatant deceit and the shameless presentation of logical fallacies as fact. With all due respect, please keep in mind that you were writing to the President of the United States, not to one of the millions whistling here in Bangkok that may be easily swayed by your meaningless rhetoric.
You, my fellow citizen, are a disgrace not only to the legal profession but to humanity’s intellectual capacity. Allow me to walk you through your own key assertions.
1. “The movement is not to rid Thailand of democracy.”
I am assuming this “movement” of yours refers to the hilariously misnamed PDRC and their brainwashed supporters. Someone may claim that the PDRC are not trying to “get rid” of democracy, but no one, including you, can claim that they are not trying to suspend it (for an as yet unspecified length of time). Where would the proposed unelected “People’s Council” draw its democratic legitimacy from? Not the (referendum-approved) constitution. Not the electorate. From the righteousness (or lack thereof) of Mr. SuthepThaugsuban and his henchmen, perhaps?
2. “The Thaksin authoritarian government, elected through vote-rigging, proved to be the most corrupt and the gravest human rights violator.”
On the “vote-rigging”, I am not so sure what exactly you are referring to. If you mean actual stuffing of ballot boxes or “lights out” ballot box switching like in decades past, you clearly have not noticed the myriad of observers from all across the political spectrum who cram polling stations making sure these shenanigans do not occur. Either that or you’re again doing what you seem to do best – lying.
On the other hand, if you mean vote-buying, then I would like to give you some bad news – it doesn’t work that way. Very few serious political observers still believe that vote-buying can win an election in Thailand. Sure, it exists in pockets, sometimes as part of vain attempts by candidates to get points and other times as simply a tradition of patronage payments during election season. Crucially, vote-buying is not unique to Thaksin-leaning parties. In fact, several MP-elects from the Democrat Party were found guilty of electoral fraud and vote-buying even in the most recent election. I am not implying that any of this is acceptable, but I am merely pointing out that vote-buying is not the reason why Thaksin-leaning parties keep getting elected. Several former Thai Rak Thai MPs who had defected to smaller parties outspent the People’s Power Party several times over but still lost resoundingly in 2007. Even senior Democrat Party leaders such as Korn Chatikavanij and Alongkorn Ponlaboot have gone on record saying that money is no longer determinative of electoral success. A lengthier analysis can be found here.
3. “Thaksin aided his wife to purchase government land at a reduced rate of 1/3 in violation of the law prohibiting political leaders from engaging in business dealings with the government. Thaksin was consequently sentenced to two years in prison but fled the country and never served his sentence.”
For lack of a better word, what you are talking about is nothing short of a complete joke. The so-called Ratchadaphisek Land “controversy” is not so much a controversy as it is a result of a disgusting witch-hunt after the 2006 coup. The case was pushed forward by the military-appointed Assets Examination Committee (Read: Anti-Thaksin Committee). This was despite prior confirmation from the central Bank of Thailand, which supervised the land sale, that the deal was conducted properly. Thaksin’s wife Potjaman Shinawatra purchased the land in question from the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF) via a public auction, as allowed under the law. The purchase price was 772 million baht, which was actually higher than the Land Department’s appraisal price at the time of approximately 700 million baht.
The “reduced rate” you are suggesting is with reference to the FIDF’s own purchase price for the land of 2 billion baht in 1995 from Erawan Trust Finance and Securities. The intentionally overpriced purchase occurred during a property market boom and went through as a mechanism to effectively bail out Erawan, which was facing liquidity issues. Perhaps someone should investigate the properness of that deal, rather than trying to put the blame on Thaksin?
Again, the purchase was legal. How idiotic would Potjaman have to be to make those bids if the law prohibited spouses of political leaders from participating? To be specific, the charges against Thaksin were based on Section 100 of the National Counter Corruption Act (NCCA), which specifies that “government officials and their spouses are prohibited from entering into or having interests in contracts made with state agencies under their authorization.” However, Section 4 of the Act indicates that “persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party”, in this case, the FIDF. At the time, Bank of Thailand Governor Pridiyathorn Devakula was the direct supervisor of the FIDF, not Thaksin. Furthermore, Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 specifically stated that the Prime Minister “did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF” and that “those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight, and regulations governing the agency.”
Even with such clear logical facts in their faces, the Supreme Court (which, by the way, lacks any democratic legitimacy) still had the nerve to claim that Thaksin was a “de facto” supervisor of the fund and sentence him to two years of imprisonment. One has to wonder what the point of having Section 4 of the NCCA is, if the court is to look at “de facto” supervision. Of course, this allegation of “de facto” supervision does not even hold water in this case, precisely due to Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942, as explained in the previous paragraph.
Following this conviction and his subsequent self-exile, Thaksin has claimed that this case was politically motivated. Given the information above, wouldn’t you agree?
4. “During his tenure as prime minister, Thaksin sold his stakes in telecoms giant Shin Crop to Temasek holding, evading taxes worth US$16.3 million.”
No taxes were evaded. The share sales to Temasek Holdings were conducted properly under Thai law and as per Revenue Department and Stock Exchange of Thailand regulations. Individuals (members of the Shinawatra and Damapong families, in this case) who conduct their transactions through the stock exchange are exempt from capital gains taxes. This was subsequently confirmed in a legal investigation conducted by the Thai Securities and Exchange Commission. It is also interesting to note that an almost identical legal structure was used in the sale of the country’s second largest operator, Total Access Communication (DTAC), to Norwegian firm Telenor, likewise tax-free but this time without any significant criticism. Again, it seems here that you are more interested in stirring up irrational nationalistic fervor and hate rather than providing a fundamentally sound account of what transpired. Rest assured; the US Embassy in Bangkok knows exactly what happened and will inform your President accordingly.
5. “Thaksin’s countless measures to benefit his telecommunications business prompted the Supreme Court to unanimously find him guilty of 4 counts of policy corruption and order [the] seizure of US$ 1.4 billion of his frozen US$ 2.3 billion fortune.”
I’m not sure which is more disturbingly amusing, these “policy corruption” allegations, or the Ratchadaphisek fiasco. To start off, “policy corruption” was simply invented by junta-supporters and their cronies after the 2006 coup because they couldn’t find a truly solid case that would be able to cripple Thaksin financially. It is a vague mixture of conflict of interest and moral accusations, all of which had no pre-coup legal basis whatsoever. Well-known social critic Bangkok Pundit tried to have a serious go at analyzing it here, but the absurdity quickly showed.
In particular, the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) drew its the authority to freeze Thaksin’s assets from citing Announcement No. 30 of the military junta. The “policy corruption” allegations against Thaksin depended almost entirely on wild extrapolations by the judiciary with regards to Thaksin’s “bad intentions,” and the usage of ex post facto, or retroactive, laws. Being the legal expert, you may wish to provide me with your own opinion on whether this should be allowed in any civilized society (except perhaps in cases of horrid crimes against humanity or genocide, such as during World War II). For reference, such laws are expressly forbidden in the United States by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which states: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
The facts are so obvious that even conservative newspaper The Nation described “policy corruption” as “a new, sophisticated form of official graft that works to shield the wrongdoers from prosecution due to its legality.” In essence, we must differentiate between what is illegal, and what is, for some, “undesirable.” Cases should be decided by courts of law, not courts of justice. Sure, one could argue that Thailand needed stricter laws regarding lobbying, conflicts of interest, blind management of politicians’ assets, and regulations to ensure a veil of ignorance for office holders. I for one will join you in calling for such measures to be implemented so that we can have a more transparent and accountable democracy. However, I will not join you in selectively punishing people whose actions (however unscrupulous) were legal at the time of occurrence. That would defeat the purpose of having laws altogether. We might as well have a “Council of Elders” of sorts and let them decide every case based on what they feel is just.
Now that we have gotten the legal technicalities out of the way, a natural question to ask, for our peace of mind, would be – “How did Thaksin’s telecommunications businesses actually fare during his tenure, given all the ‘countless measures’ that he allegedly used to benefit them?” The numbers speak for themselves here. As you noted, the Supreme Court chose to confiscate around US$ 1.4 billion of his fortune (the difference between the shares’ values on the day he took office and the values when they were sold to Temasek). However, the Courts failed to take into account that Shin shares gained 121% over the period, which was actually less than the benchmark Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) index gain of 128%. Some other blue-chip companies made even larger gains, such as Siam Cement (coincidentally 30% owned by the Crown Property Bureau), which gained 717% over the same period. You do the math.
6. “In a ploy to control both the parliament and the senate, Thaksin’s current government attempted to amend the senate structure and bar appointed senators who are professionals from all sectors. Eliminating this system would result in Thaksin’s party controlling the legislative branch without any checks and balances. The Amnesty Bill or any other laws to enable Thaksin’s corruption can then easily pass. Although the Constitutional Court struck down the senate-restructuring measure, Thaksin’s government openly declared that it would defy the court’s decision.”
As non-Thai readers (or, for that matter, some Thai readers) may not be so familiar with our “unique” political system, I will give a quick overview of the Senate’s composition. The Senate, or Upper House of the National Assembly, is comprised of 150 senators. As per the current constitution, 77 are directly elected using the first-past-the-post electoral system, with one representative from each of the 76 provinces plus Bangkok. This part is similar to the US Senate, where two representatives are directly elected from each state. However, the remaining 73 senators are not elected, but are appointed exclusively by a “Senators Selection Committee,” which consists of only seven individuals.
Candidates are selected from five categories of profession: the academic sector, the public sector, the private sector, the professional sector, and “other” sectors. All of the committee members are unelected officials from independent agencies and the judiciary. As such, they have no democratic legitimacy whatsoever. Moreover, many of these officials are appointed or nominated by the Senate itself. For example, both ombudsmen and election commissioners are appointed by the King upon the advice of the Senate. This creates a cyclical and self-perpetuating power structure, whereby senators appoint the appointers of their successors (and vice versa). The set up is inherently exposed to conflicts of interest, legitimizing a ruling bureaucracy of sorts that is not subject to any right of recall and is not accountable to the public.
This undemocratic nature of the Senate’s composition was an intensely debated topic during the Constitutional Referendum in 2007. Future Democrat Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva even went on record saying that he did not like this constitution precisely due to the inclusion of unelected senators, but that this could “easily be amended” at a later stage. Thaksin backers, meanwhile, campaigned unsuccessfully against the 2007 Constitution, predicting that any amendments in the future would be met with opposition. Today, they have been proven correct.
Given the backdrop as described above, it should not come as a surprise that any government even half-committed to democracy would seek to amend the Senate composition. This is not to, as you contend, “bar appointed senators who are professionals from all sectors,” but it is to bring democratic legitimacy to one of only two legislative bodies in our political system. The “appointed senators who are professionals” would still be free to participate in Senate elections in their respective provinces after the amendments are made.
Alas, the Constitutional Court “struck down” the senate-restructuring measure. This ridiculous verdict cited Section 68 of the Constitution, claiming that the efforts to change the Senate composition amounted to an attempt to “overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.” Perhaps the Constitutional Court judges need to be reminded that in the 1997 Constitution, which was in use for almost a decade, the entire Senate body was in fact directly elected. Correct me if I’m wrong, but during that time we were also living under a “democratic regime of government with the (same) King as Head of State.”
To make matters worse, the second paragraph of Section 68 also specifies that “In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Attorney-General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act…” It is crystal clear that any complaints must be submitted to the Attorney-General first, who would then investigate the facts before (if suitable) submitting a motion to the Constitutional Court. This is a good example of your favorite “checks and balances,” giving the Attorney-General the authority to screen cases pertaining to the broad-reaching Section 68 before they can be heard by the Constitutional Court. However, in this particular case the Constitutional Court decided to overstep its authority and violate the Constitution by allowing a group of people led by some appointed senators to bypass the Office of the Attorney-General and submit the motion directly. Simply put, it is not Thaksin that is threatening the checks and balances here; it is the Constitutional Court itself. Now you may start to understand why many people, not only those in the government, have openly declared their disgust at the clearly biased and improper conduct of the Court.
It is this blatant systematic policy of double standards and abuse of power solely for the benefit of the entrenched ruling elite and aristocracy that has urged Thai citizens to stand up and say, “Enough is enough.” The voters want reform. But first, undemocratic and extra-constitutional interference must be eradicated. After decades upon decades of coups and oppression, one thing is clear. Our current (semi)-democratic system has failed us. It has allowed for unelected forces to usurp power repeatedly and, on countless occasions, strip the people of their freedom and democratic rights. The citizens are calling for change. A true democracy with transparency, accountability, and most importantly, balance of power at all levels of government. We want democracy. And it is through elections that we will improve and maintain it.
Sincerely,
Chan Nilgianskul
Citizen of the Kingdom of Thailand
Chan Nilgianskul is a graduate of the London School of Economics and Political Science and the University of Chicago. He is currently a businessman and investor based in Thailand.
Great dissection of that letter.
So many good points to it but I’ll just comment on one.
Whenever the opponents of the Constitutional amendment which would make it fully elected defend their ideas, they never mention that the idea was to make the senate fully elected. Of course not, that would be embarrassing.They hide this fact by saying vaguely it will erode checks and balances. Some of those evil BBC/CNN reporters should ask Abhisit if he prefers an elected senate or an appointed senate. Great article, Chan.
0
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfDtbidjYlM
In the first 10 seconds.. lol
0
0
At long last, a well argued and truthful expose of Thai contemporary socio-political reality.
If the “ammart” do not understand, then blood will flow. This is not about the Shinawatra family. This is about righting the wrongs of several hundred years of elitist domination.
Beware “ammart”, you are in grave danger of losing everything!
0
0
Interesting and incredible smart or stupid “Ammart” – they are fighting for living or dead, but what they are doing seems make themselves sinking
0
0
> Beware “ammart”, you are in grave danger of losing everything!
Ah, if it were only that simple. Big capital never loses. There might be a few old aristocrats not wielding power as they used to, and a some businessmen worth a few billion less… but rest assured, whoever is running the gov’t, none of the “ammart” will ever be wondering where their next bowl of rice is coming from, as 50% of the Thai populace do.
Let’s face it. Thaksin is not exactly a great social reformer, nor a committed corruption fighter. His opponents are obviously even less so. It’s a lose-or-lose-more situation for the people, and there’s nothing that can be done about it (in the short term).
0
0
I don’t doubt that they know that, which is why they are fighting so hard and so unscrupulously.
0
0
Thank you very much, Chan, for this concise expose.
I have argued many times, the very same points, but with much less finesse.
Shinawatr has many faults, but the above stated misdeeds, I agree, are misused, and an abuse of institutional powers that would only lead to the erosion of trust that could only be bad for Thailand’s democratic progress in the longer run.
0
0
The ammart is hydra-headed. And this administration is just the latest manifestation. No loss, Jim. Just a slightly uncomfortable transformation, with a few unfortunately lost lives of lost souls along the way. Tomorrow, the current government will (of course) completely slime its way out of any responsibility for its term of criminality and incompetence. They always do. (Yet more proof that academe and analysis just doesn’t cut it in in the big bad real world.)Suthep will of course have worked OT for no good reason. Wrong man for the job. He really should have known better. Well, what do you really expect of the party that burdened Thailand with a populist despot through its own flat-out complacent politics?
Chan’s response is not that impressive really. Just another attempt by an obvious insider to fool the public into accepting far less than a properly-functioning system by piling on the “impossible to ever shift” stuff. Chan has identified some hometruths. But nothing that is really much more honest & incisive than the Vanina letter. Both have a fairly obvious insider agenda. Both seem content to act as apologists for the delusional(but conflicting)aspirations of the various local establishment factions – none of which are ever likely to free any of their cheap labor slaves. Life is far too cushy at the lazy-arse top in this country.
Business will always worry about its long-term prospects in such a sour environment. But business has done a fine job of just sweeping the problem under the carpet for decades. Chan’s response is not going to have any appreciable impact on the various shady dealings of the local succession-hungry factions. His claim, that this is a semi-democracy, rings particularly hollow.
How does the LSE & Chicago man propose to make this (or the next) election work any better than all the other ‘pretend democracy’ elections here since the end of absolute monarchy? Indeed, why isn’t he running for parliament? At a rough guess, it’s because he knows all too well that politics here is so inextricably linked with kleptocracy, nepotism, cross-border illegal trade and a whole host of other criminal stuff. So much so, that he and other like-minded reformers stand zero chance of ever being elected.
Enjoy your vacuous victory, while it lasts!
0
0
Not going to get into a protracted argument with you right now as I would rather be following the ongoing election, but just wanted to clarify a few points so that we can both get on with our little lives:
1. The objective of my post was not (contrary to what some people may think) to defend Thaksin Shinawatra. It was simply to show how misleading Ms. Vanina’s letter was as its contents were being widely shared across the Internet as actual truth.
2. I am absolutely NOT a government-aligned business “insider.” In fact, most of my friends and many of my relatives disagree passionately with my position. I know and keep in touch with politically-active people from both sides of the conflict.
3. I have absolutely NO financial interests that rely on the patronage or support of Thaksin Shinawatra or any of his allies. Moreover, most of my investments are not even made within the borders of Thailand.
4. If you can disprove either 2. or 3. I will donate 1 million baht to a secular charity of your choosing.
5. “Indeed, why isn’t he running for parliament?”
I am not eligible to run for office as I am 24 years old (the minimum age is 25). You can start with revealing your real name first, and if you’re Thai, we can run against each other in the next election.
0
0
You do not have to apologize/clarify for taking any position in the current Thailand political quagmire K. Chan. Why do you feel that you have to? Anyway
On #2 you did not refute the very unconscionable human rights abuses of the Thaksin regime which by itself would be impeachable in other democracies, but never mind. On vote-rigging, wasn’t the Thai Rak Thai Party outlawed for just that? Vote-buying of course were huge during the Thaksin campaigns and Thaksin himself had not denied that he was buying votes, only that it was ‘expected’. Problem is with Thaksin he always raises the bar with such election cheating tactics like vote-buying. And remember the Snoh revelations? The baroque Thaksin system of under-the-table commissions on nearly every government project was to finance (or recoup) his vote-buying sprees plus extras.
On #3 re the Rachadipisek land controversy, again the ‘unethical’ bent of the Thaksin/Potjaman duo emerges shamelessly. Your contention that the price paid by Potjaman “… was actually higher than the Land Department’s appraisal price ” does not hold water for the simple reason that if you had ever dealt with property in Bangkok, you would realize the the Land Dept.’s guideline appraisal rice is for tax assessment use only, and way way below market prices. It behooves any sitting Thai PM to avoid any suggestion of exerting “undue influence” particularly in business matters carried out by known relatives or friends or associates. ” How idiotic would Potjaman have to be to make those bids if the law prohibited spouses of political leaders from participating? ” You tell me K. Chan, was that idiocy or just typical brazen Shinawatra arrogance? On hindsight it appears to be arrogance that bordered on idiocy doesn’t it?
Just contribute the Baht 1.0 million you owe to Suthep Thaugsuban’s ‘Uproot Movement’ with your, not my, compliments.
Take my advice: if you are going to run for public office do NOT apologize for taking either Thaksin’s or his opponents position.
0
0
Obviously (or not so obviously, it now seems) I was referring to 2. and 3. in my most recent comment. You seem to be talking about 2. and 3. in my letter. =_= So no, I do not owe you (or Suthep) a single cent.
In any case, for your concerns on #2 regarding human rights, please see my full letter (the link is provided on the top of the page). On vote-buying, I’ve already made my point but there is also a link to a lengthier analysis by Bangkok Pundit that is provided. Please have a read before spewing out more rhetoric.
For your concerns on #3, I will have to disagree. While it is true that market prices can at times be above the Land Department’s appraisal prices, since the appraisal prices are not adjusted very often, it is also possible for (real) transactions to occur at prices that are lower than appraisal prices (I have seen a few of these in practice myself). The land was also bought by Potjaman in an open auction with other participants.
Even the FIDF itself was confused as to what “price” it should value the land at after the AEC insisted they had somehow made a “loss” in the sale to Potjaman. See your trusted “The Nation” here:
http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/01/24/politics/politics_30024938.php
Whatever the market price was, it certainly was NOT anywhere near the 2 billion baht (the original purchase price in the bailout of Erawan) that Vanina was claiming. It also does not change the fact that Thaksin could not, under any law, be found guilty in this case. I have even quoted the actual laws for your reference, but they seem not to be important to you. You have to make a distinction between Thaksin’s legal liability, and what you think of the act “ethically.” If you don’t like him, don’t vote for him, but that’s not the same as saying he should be convicted.
On your advice, I am apologizing for nothing. I just wanted to make clear what I was doing as Gray Area was making his own (false) assumptions. Just because I may agree with some things that Thaksin supporters say does not mean I am taking his position, regardless of what you may think. I always have my OWN position. I encourage you to do the same.
0
0
In reading the excellent post by “Jim,” I believe he predates me here. In the future I’ll ID myself as Jim #2.
0
0
Vast areas of the Thai administration have been corrupted by royal patronage. We see this now, as the Election Commission conspires with the Constitutional Court and the street thugs to bungle and annul the election. This sea of corruption also floods the education system, notably the universities and their alumni, with their vile supremacist values. Key positions are deliberately stacked with mediocrities whose only qualification is that they owe their position to royal patronage. Merit is not tolerated because merit is a qualification outside the control of patronage, and gives the holder an unacceptable degree of independence. Centralised royal patronage is the core of absolutism, and the reason for Lord Acton’s famous dictum, “All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Solidly linked to the royal patronage system, with its lies, its thuggery, and its militarism is ethnic Thai supremacism, and the oppression of other cultures within the Thailand’s borders. Together these make Thai monarchism a true fascist movement. Thailand’s other cultures have links with Laos and Cambodia, Malaysia, and increasingly Burma. Oppression of those cultures by Thai ethnic supremacists endangers the peace, not only of Thailand but of the whole region.
0
0
Perhaps only points #4 and #6 of Vanina’s letter could be debatable.
On #4, the tax evasion of the Shin sale to Temasek should be probably be better termed as ‘tax avoidance’ and thus legal. But even if legal, any ‘tax avoidance’ of such magnitutude by a sitting Prime Minister would certainly rouse the ire and distrust of every Thai taxpayer. In any other democracy, such tax avoidance by a sitting PM should be enough to get him the boot for unethical conduct.
On#6, I don’t like any unelected senator sitting in parliament either. Maybe on a technicality, the manner by which the Yingluck/Thaksin-servants-pretending-to-be-lawmakers could indeed have committed constitutional transgresion … by not seeking a referendum rather than the parliamentary route.
But that is my opinion. It is now up to the Thai courts to decide many judicial issues against Yingluck and her cohorts. The betting is that the Thai courts could decide to indict Yingluck and many of her corrupt ministers/lawmakers for very serious constitutional offenses.
0
0
Indeed, tax avoidance would have been a powerful point to hold against him in an election.
However, to win such an election you also have to make *credible* proposals for improving voter’s lives more than the other side, and push forward leaders who can implement such proposals (not those with a history of major corruption like Suthep).
In other words, in times of economic growth, you can’t win with a purely negative campaign.
0
0
One point which was not mentioned in Chan’s excellent letter was that the testimony given to the Court by the then Bank of Thailand Governor confirming that it was he, and not the Prime Minister, who was the direct supervisor of the FIDF was given in secret. This testimony was not subsequently divulged by the Court to Thaksin’s legal team.
As regards the auction price, when seeking to realise security for non performing loans, the prime responsibility for any bank or financial institution is to achieve a price that will be sufficient to clear the debt from their books. If the purchaser gets a bargain, that’s their good luck. It happens frequently in auctions of this nature.
In any event, it was the conflict of interest issue which the Court highlighted in its judgement, and the then Central Bank Governor’s testimony seemed to call that into question.
I do think however that Thaksin and his wife were reckless in pursuing this purchase. Why on earth did they need more wealth? I think it was one of several incidences where Thaksin displayed arrogance and poor judgement, and thus gave his enemies an opening to attack him.
0
0
What an insight, now everything is clear as the truth being revealed! The people of Thailand has enlightern to the truth, that they the people has the right to choose the governmdnt they want and not being led by the small self interest elites. Power to the people.
0
0
Anyone able to say what the family relationship between Wanina Sucharitkun and the mother of Chuan Likphai’s son Surabot is?
0
0
“We can’t beat the Thaksin regime at the ballot box with a platform that protects our own old guard interests, so we protest against elections and instead are in the streets rallying support for forming a government led by elites we appoint.”
That is not democracy.
If you want to maintain democracy and vote out the Thaksin regime, you have to outflank it. Once you have given up your old guard interests, it is easy to do.
1. Create a platform that deals with income inequality in a meaningful way.
2. Create a platform that stimulates the microeconomies in the North.
3. Create a platform that has a 21st century vision to clean tech and ease of pollution and overcrowding in Bangkok.
4. Create a platform that includes city and regional planning for both rapid and sustainable growth of economic zones outside of Bangkok.
“Thaksin is corrupt” is an old song. Get hip.
0
0
Thanks Chan for your fine work and thank you for wanting every Thai person to have a fair chance in the democratic process. I have thought of writing a letter opposing the views of Vanina’s letter but chose not to, because I realized that her reasoning about how democracy should work in Thailand was so ludicrous and self-serving that anyone with the basic knowledge of democracy can infer that she has a hidden agenda. Given that Mr. Obama used to live in this part of the world, he knows how the majority of people here are being marginalized and utilized as pawns in order to fight for the elites. As a President of the US, he would have been brief about Thailand’s situation since he first came to office. What perplexes me the most was her lack of sympathy/empathy for people who have opposing views. Not one word was mentioned about these people. She chose to talk instead about Thaksin. I wondered if she thought that Mr. Obama can easily be manipulated.
0
0
As Thai people’s friend for so long, I’ve been growing up sadly accustomed to this kind of political turmoil every once in a while sparkled from elections or not…the same utter question of why and how the state of this kind of the crisis can be so far reaching for over a half of the century. All the struggles don’t seem of class or ideology in nature, but rather between two plutocratic governing body equally polarized on both sides which have too often all failed the entire Thai people…This one like any precedent ones doesn’t seem to converge on any consensus building likely, if it does, that will only be a quick fix to quench the dangerous fire, then the vicious circle will once again bounce back and fro so tragically as we all know it…
0
0
Excellent, detailed review of things I have suspected were the case but didn’t have the ability to dig into the detail the way you did. Thanks Chan.
0
0
Simply brilliant piece of writing from a razor-sharp legal mind. Thank-you.
0
0
[…] http://www.newmandala.org/2014/02/01/a-response-to-vanina-sucharitkul/?utm_source=rss… […]
0
0