So a cranky over-the-hill “royal” with too much free time on his hands, cruises through Prachatai and other websites’ comments and tells the police to file LM complaints against the owners and administrators of websites he doesn’t like.
Then, regardless of the actual merits of his complaint, the absence of actual evidence of an LM offense, the absence of authorship of the supposed LM comment, the webnsite owner/administrator has to spend months dealing with the expenses of a trial, the threat of 15 years imprisonment, the possible denial of bail and spending months/years in a hardcore 3rd world Thai prison.
So much for the fairy-tale about the benevolent royal system. So much for the TAT “Land of Smiles” fantasy. So much for the Buddhist “Middle-Way” and “Karma System”. It’s just plain old dirty, spiteful and nasty.
“But this doesn’t mean he can criticize the King of Thailand and then expect to visit Thailand and not be charged with LM.”
=========================================
But he didn’t “criticize” the King of Thailand. While residing int he U.S., he posted a link on a blog to a Yale University Press book which if you take the trouble to read it, is a reasonably accurate history of Thai politics for the last 50 years or so and portrays the King as an intelligent, involved and engaged person.
Not to speak of the fact that the King himself announced some years ago that he is not above “criticism”.
The so-called LM “offense” of the book in question is simply that it portrays the King as being involved and engaged in the ongoing affairs of Thailand, rather than being “removed” and “not involved”
It might be a better policy for the LM mullahs in the Thai government to refuse entry to U.S. citizens it feels have committed an LM offense rather than allow them to enter Thailand solely for the purpose of arresting them, throwing them in multi-person prison cells with a toilet hole in the corner, refusing them bail for months or years before a “kangaroo-court” trial and parading them around in leg irons before the world’s media.
I sincerely hope that you are right and I am wrong, but can you identify any currently serving Thai MPs who are committed to LM reform? I can’t, but if you or anyone else can, I would love to be corrected.
The Bangkok Post claims to be “the newspaper you can trust”. After reading last Saturday’s edition, I’m not so sure.
Page 3 carried a report on a protest against an amnesty for Thaksin. The protesters displayed professionally printed posters bearing such demands as “Do not interfere with the king’s prerogatives!”, “Hands of Article 112!”, “Don’t let the guilty escape unpunished!” and “Those we respect and honour must not be violated!”
At the bottom of poster was the name of the protesting group: Khruea Khay Ratsadorn Asa Pok Pong Sathaban. The literal meaning of these words are: khruea khay (network) ratsadorn (citizens) asa (volunteer) pok pong (protect) sathaban (institution). Given their demands, that can only refer to the institution of the monarchy.
But according to the caption below the photograph, the protestors were “200 members of the Network of Citizen Volunteers to Protect the Land”. The accompanying article described them as members of the “Civil Network Against Thaksin’s Corruption Pardon” and reported that they had been joined by members of the ” Network of Citizen Volunteers to Protect the Land” who called for protection of the monarchy.
Whatever happened to honesty in translation? I suspect the Bangkok Post has been infiltrated by evil CSOC/ISOC agents as part of the infamous “Baffle the Farang” plot. As Billy Budd might say (and if he did, I’d agree with him), “I think we should be told …”
And finally, a footnote for Andrew M. Marshal: Why do these people call themselves “citizen volunteers”? Wasn’t the term of address “citizen/citoyen” first used by the evil French revolutionaries in 1789, the very people who went on to guillotine their king and queen and most of their aristocracy? Shouldn’t they call themselves “loyal subject volunteers”? Anything less reeks of lese majeste! Is this yet another cunningly concealed anti-monarchist plot?
you ommited the part about the Lert’s connection to heroin trafficing, the false charges Thaksin leveled against his business partner in order to steal the cable tv franchise…the list could go on and on.
Anyway, its nce to know they all are not elites but working class people, and are really committed to the welfare of the nation not just their own family.
Dear Robert
One thing that puzzles me about the Rachada case is why Thaksin did not lodge an appeal?
Even though he might not have expected justice, I would have thought he need not ppear in person and thus not face unjust imprisonment and the case could have exposed to ridicule the Thai Legal system.
Is it not true that such an exposure is in itself illegal and leads the exposers to proseution and jailing so no lawyer would dare to represent Thaksin?
Tarrin – 32
I was merely pointing out that you seemed to have got the wrong end of the stick in saying ‘If Thaksin should be found guilty for the purchase of the land…’, as of course that was not the case.
As to your question whether he could have influence over FIDF, I think the answer is ‘Yes’. I believe he was, ex officio, the chairman. Further, I would be interested to hear of any part of the government over which he, as PM, did not have influence!
While the Thais have a range of (sometimes contradictory) policies for managing issues in Mon, Karen, Karenni and Shan States I don’t have the impression they spend much time on Kachin issues.
As ever, proximity tends to determine priority. My best guess is that the Thai authorities are paying very little attention to the new war in Kachin State and are, somewhat justifiably, much more exercised by moves along the border closer to home.
Would have answered earlier, but work came in the way.
I think it’s good to dis-aggregate corruption. I agree with Killer that civil servants pay is a key component of a preventive measure against corruption. However, Malaysia has one of the most bloated civil services comparative to other countries, and the Public Service Department from what I know, still controls hiring and firing of civil servants. Which means that increasing civil servants pay is not going to happen in the short to medium term because of the giant cost it will exact on government finances. The immediately solution would be to sack redundancy, but as PSD still holds hiring and firing practices, that’s not likely to happen either. I can imagine that with consumer prices going up and with the new GST tax, inflation will exert a greater pressure on the rank-and-file of government to take and ask for bribes.
I personally favour a citizen’s watchdog database-organization that serves to monitor and collate reports on government dealings and to keep track of public accounts, highlighting wastage as needed. It needs to be wholly locally staffed, and receive backing from all major races to avoid it being stereotyped as a anti-Malay thing. I also think a PR strategy to consider would be to align it partially to the Malay-Muslim nationalist agenda –if you want regular everyday Malays to prosper under the government, you need to make sure its doing its job!
Fair enough. Yes, this man should have the right to defend himself against allegations as anyone should have. And yes, it is likely that he is a victim of an overzealous Thai government eager to make an example. Evidence should be shown and the Thai government should be held accountable.
Yvonne,
Joe Gordon can live and enjoy his rights in as a US citizen and he has every right to express his opinions. But this doesn’t mean he can criticize the King of Thailand and then expect to visit Thailand and not be charged with LM. (Assuming he’s guilty!)
We won’t be seeing Paul Handley in this part of the world anytime soon.
He will be judged, and should be judged, not as a US citizen, but as a dual citizen with all that this not only guarantees legally, but implies culturally.
@Maratjp asked:
what is “dual nationality” anyway? Thai when it’s convenient? American when it’s convenient? I’m a US citizen and I don’t look at this guy as a full fledged American. Sorry.
—–
Dual nationality means you obtain the nationality legitimately when the law allows you to do so. Also what is being a full fledged American is about? USA is, largely, a nation of immigrants, and I also assume that you are one of them (unless you are the native Indians/Aborigines whose ancestors have been living in USA before the Whites came, which I doubt it). As you are presumably an immigrant, and Mr Gordon is also an immigrant, what is it that differentiates him from you apart from the fact that you were born there, but he made his way there legitimately and obtained his citizenship in a way which the law allows?
The USA has a right to protect Mr Gordon as a citizen, and they should especially do so in this case. Mr Gordon simply exercises his right to freedom of expression under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. He did not kill anyone. He did not steal from anyone. He was deemed to be guilty (well, it is likely that he would be deemed guilty) because of this Thai law which ignores this Conventional Right. A law which has no place in a democratic society and should be abolished ASAP. And Mr Gordon suffers in jail under substandard conditions because of it, despite his blatant illness. This is more of a reason the US should intervene.
Whether he was born in the USA or not is irrelevant. He acquired his citizenship legitimately, and has been living in the US for years. Mr Gordon should be protected by the USA.
I found an interesting phrase in Moe Aung’s comment. It said “Rakhine, Mon and Shan (who actually are the largest minority group, not the Karen)”.
As much as I could remember, Karen were officially second largest minority with 4-7 million population (depend on what source you are relying on) in Burma until 1980s and dropped to third place afterward. Shan ethnic became second largest group then.
What caused this? Burmese-nization, genocide or official chess move? I still do not have any clear answer for that but be my guest if you have any clue.
@Jakkajee #33 said: “I believe that Thais are happy to maintain [lese majeste]. Please do not make a decision on the issue for them.”
What you believe isn’t necessarily true. I am a Thai myself and I find the law absolutely ridiculous. I have asked many people who support this law to tell me how can jailing people who say the truth for fifteen years (in an extremely inhumane condition) can be justified, and no one has ever given me a good reason to justify it.
Even suppose that what the person says about the Royal is false, jailing them for fifteen years in such inhumane conditions is disproportionate to the wrong committed.
But lese majeste is uglier. Even when one asks a legitimate question he can ask in a democratic society (for example, Ajarn Giles Ungpakorn asks the question “why did not the K defend democracy? He is a constitutional Monarch, so he must defend the constitution. He must stop the army for staging the coup”), he would be deemed guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty for pointing out the obvious that what the K did is inappropriate for his role as a Constitutional Monarch?
So this is the situation where what the Royal did is clearly wrong. Everyone (who is not brainwashed) knows it is wrong, but to say it is wrong means they go to jail for fifteen years. If this is not ridiculous I don’t know what is.
@Chris B #30
Name me any country (except Thailand of course) which will jail a person for conflict of interest in the commercial transaction. Cite me the law, I want to see it. I don’t know the law in many countries. But in the British Commonwealth, I certainly know that this will never be a criminal offence. At most it would be the civil wrong and the Court will deem the transaction invalid.
Oh, and in this case Thaksin also sought advice from an expert before entering into the transaction, right? Sorry to increase your task then. Now you would need to find a country which will jail a person where that person has sought legal advice from an expert prior into entering the commercial transaction which is later proven (well, assume that it is proven) that there has been a conflict of interest. Can you find even one country which does this? Find one and we’ll talk..about whether this law is justified, with reference to the case you may find (if any) from that country, based on the facts of the case, and the reasoning given by the Courts..
Re: the King and Prem’s involvement in the War on Drugs (Gunter c46, Darren 48, CT c49)…
PPT has today posted two BKK Post articles by Wassana Nanuam from Dec 2002 and 20o5 describing both Prem and the King’s instigation, enthusiasm and backing for the War on Drugs:
Thus, it would have been almost impossible, even in Thailand, to prosecute Thaksin for his role in War on Drugs, without involving Prem, the King, some Generals, etc.
Hence the dubious use of his wife’s purchase of the Ratchada land in an open auction to manufacture the Thaksin as “criminal” and “international fugitive” message and propaganda.
It is worth noting that neither Interpol nor many other countries took this so-called “conviction” as anything other than political persecution of a democratically-elected leader overthrown by a military coup.
Section 112 Whoever, defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years. (Thailand Penal Code)
I believe that Thais are happy to maintain the above section. Please do not make a decision on the issue for them.
This topic has been addressed by Ajarn Vorajade (he is a law prof at TU. in case you didn’t know) long time ago btw, long before chalerm even make the case.
You are right that the court found Thaksin to be guilty of using his position to purchase the land, but before that, the court have to find that Pojaman was “benefit” from her husband position “first” (meaning they have to find her and FIDF guilty first) then they should have case against Thaksin. However, Thaksin was found guilty before the case between FIDF and Pojaman even settle. Where is the “due process” in this?
Furthermore, can Thaksin as a PM have influence over FIDF, an organization under BOT?
Before you called me of having dodgy law skill, why dont you at least show what you really know about the case?
I am no legal expert, but I think that both you and Tarrin have missed the central issue of this case. You state that Thaksin was found guilty of using his position to help his then wife buy the land, your implication perhaps being that he used his influence as Prime Minister to ensure she won the bid.
Actually, as far as I am aware, he was prosecuted simply for adding his signature to the relevant paperwork in his capacity as husband of the purchaser. This he was obliged to do, as under Thai law I don’t think a married woman can enter into a legal contract without her husband’s approval. However, by doing so he was held to have contravened the conflict of interest laws covering dealings by government ministers with State agencies. It’s hardly seems like a heinous crime, more a technical infringement, and certainly not worthy of the standard “convicted criminal”, “convicted felon” and “guilty of corruption” or “abuse of power” tags which are regularly used by his opponents to describe his currrent status in relation to this conviction.
I am of course ready to be corrected by those more knowledgeable on these matters than I am, but there must be many public figures and politicians still active in the nation’s affairs who have committed far graver crimes than this sole misdemeanour for which Thaksin has been convicted, and so publicly and repeatedly excoriated.
Tarrin -28
I think your legal skills are as dodgy as Chalerm’s – (strangely the BP recently described him as a legal expert!).
Thaksin wasn’t found guilty of purchasing the land. He was found guilty of
using his position to help her buy it.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Royal complaint and Prachatai
So a cranky over-the-hill “royal” with too much free time on his hands, cruises through Prachatai and other websites’ comments and tells the police to file LM complaints against the owners and administrators of websites he doesn’t like.
Then, regardless of the actual merits of his complaint, the absence of actual evidence of an LM offense, the absence of authorship of the supposed LM comment, the webnsite owner/administrator has to spend months dealing with the expenses of a trial, the threat of 15 years imprisonment, the possible denial of bail and spending months/years in a hardcore 3rd world Thai prison.
So much for the fairy-tale about the benevolent royal system. So much for the TAT “Land of Smiles” fantasy. So much for the Buddhist “Middle-Way” and “Karma System”. It’s just plain old dirty, spiteful and nasty.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Maratjp, #146:
“But this doesn’t mean he can criticize the King of Thailand and then expect to visit Thailand and not be charged with LM.”
=========================================
But he didn’t “criticize” the King of Thailand. While residing int he U.S., he posted a link on a blog to a Yale University Press book which if you take the trouble to read it, is a reasonably accurate history of Thai politics for the last 50 years or so and portrays the King as an intelligent, involved and engaged person.
Not to speak of the fact that the King himself announced some years ago that he is not above “criticism”.
The so-called LM “offense” of the book in question is simply that it portrays the King as being involved and engaged in the ongoing affairs of Thailand, rather than being “removed” and “not involved”
It might be a better policy for the LM mullahs in the Thai government to refuse entry to U.S. citizens it feels have committed an LM offense rather than allow them to enter Thailand solely for the purpose of arresting them, throwing them in multi-person prison cells with a toilet hole in the corner, refusing them bail for months or years before a “kangaroo-court” trial and parading them around in leg irons before the world’s media.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Robin Grant #141
I sincerely hope that you are right and I am wrong, but can you identify any currently serving Thai MPs who are committed to LM reform? I can’t, but if you or anyone else can, I would love to be corrected.
Open letter to Yingluck on lese majeste
The Bangkok Post claims to be “the newspaper you can trust”. After reading last Saturday’s edition, I’m not so sure.
Page 3 carried a report on a protest against an amnesty for Thaksin. The protesters displayed professionally printed posters bearing such demands as “Do not interfere with the king’s prerogatives!”, “Hands of Article 112!”, “Don’t let the guilty escape unpunished!” and “Those we respect and honour must not be violated!”
At the bottom of poster was the name of the protesting group: Khruea Khay Ratsadorn Asa Pok Pong Sathaban. The literal meaning of these words are: khruea khay (network) ratsadorn (citizens) asa (volunteer) pok pong (protect) sathaban (institution). Given their demands, that can only refer to the institution of the monarchy.
But according to the caption below the photograph, the protestors were “200 members of the Network of Citizen Volunteers to Protect the Land”. The accompanying article described them as members of the “Civil Network Against Thaksin’s Corruption Pardon” and reported that they had been joined by members of the ” Network of Citizen Volunteers to Protect the Land” who called for protection of the monarchy.
Whatever happened to honesty in translation? I suspect the Bangkok Post has been infiltrated by evil CSOC/ISOC agents as part of the infamous “Baffle the Farang” plot. As Billy Budd might say (and if he did, I’d agree with him), “I think we should be told …”
And finally, a footnote for Andrew M. Marshal: Why do these people call themselves “citizen volunteers”? Wasn’t the term of address “citizen/citoyen” first used by the evil French revolutionaries in 1789, the very people who went on to guillotine their king and queen and most of their aristocracy? Shouldn’t they call themselves “loyal subject volunteers”? Anything less reeks of lese majeste! Is this yet another cunningly concealed anti-monarchist plot?
The Shinawatra family tree
you ommited the part about the Lert’s connection to heroin trafficing, the false charges Thaksin leveled against his business partner in order to steal the cable tv franchise…the list could go on and on.
Anyway, its nce to know they all are not elites but working class people, and are really committed to the welfare of the nation not just their own family.
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
Dear Robert
One thing that puzzles me about the Rachada case is why Thaksin did not lodge an appeal?
Even though he might not have expected justice, I would have thought he need not ppear in person and thus not face unjust imprisonment and the case could have exposed to ridicule the Thai Legal system.
Is it not true that such an exposure is in itself illegal and leads the exposers to proseution and jailing so no lawyer would dare to represent Thaksin?
Open letter to Yingluck on lese majeste
Tarrin – 32
I was merely pointing out that you seemed to have got the wrong end of the stick in saying ‘If Thaksin should be found guilty for the purchase of the land…’, as of course that was not the case.
As to your question whether he could have influence over FIDF, I think the answer is ‘Yes’. I believe he was, ex officio, the chairman. Further, I would be interested to hear of any part of the government over which he, as PM, did not have influence!
War continues in Kachin State
Thanks Eisel,
While the Thais have a range of (sometimes contradictory) policies for managing issues in Mon, Karen, Karenni and Shan States I don’t have the impression they spend much time on Kachin issues.
As ever, proximity tends to determine priority. My best guess is that the Thai authorities are paying very little attention to the new war in Kachin State and are, somewhat justifiably, much more exercised by moves along the border closer to home.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
As a postscript to my c51, I recommend reading what’s at:
https://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/prem-and-the-war-on-drugs/
Corruption in Malaysia and Singapore
Would have answered earlier, but work came in the way.
I think it’s good to dis-aggregate corruption. I agree with Killer that civil servants pay is a key component of a preventive measure against corruption. However, Malaysia has one of the most bloated civil services comparative to other countries, and the Public Service Department from what I know, still controls hiring and firing of civil servants. Which means that increasing civil servants pay is not going to happen in the short to medium term because of the giant cost it will exact on government finances. The immediately solution would be to sack redundancy, but as PSD still holds hiring and firing practices, that’s not likely to happen either. I can imagine that with consumer prices going up and with the new GST tax, inflation will exert a greater pressure on the rank-and-file of government to take and ask for bribes.
I personally favour a citizen’s watchdog database-organization that serves to monitor and collate reports on government dealings and to keep track of public accounts, highlighting wastage as needed. It needs to be wholly locally staffed, and receive backing from all major races to avoid it being stereotyped as a anti-Malay thing. I also think a PR strategy to consider would be to align it partially to the Malay-Muslim nationalist agenda –if you want regular everyday Malays to prosper under the government, you need to make sure its doing its job!
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Tarrin,
Fair enough. Yes, this man should have the right to defend himself against allegations as anyone should have. And yes, it is likely that he is a victim of an overzealous Thai government eager to make an example. Evidence should be shown and the Thai government should be held accountable.
Yvonne,
Joe Gordon can live and enjoy his rights in as a US citizen and he has every right to express his opinions. But this doesn’t mean he can criticize the King of Thailand and then expect to visit Thailand and not be charged with LM. (Assuming he’s guilty!)
We won’t be seeing Paul Handley in this part of the world anytime soon.
He will be judged, and should be judged, not as a US citizen, but as a dual citizen with all that this not only guarantees legally, but implies culturally.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
@Maratjp asked:
what is “dual nationality” anyway? Thai when it’s convenient? American when it’s convenient? I’m a US citizen and I don’t look at this guy as a full fledged American. Sorry.
—–
Dual nationality means you obtain the nationality legitimately when the law allows you to do so. Also what is being a full fledged American is about? USA is, largely, a nation of immigrants, and I also assume that you are one of them (unless you are the native Indians/Aborigines whose ancestors have been living in USA before the Whites came, which I doubt it). As you are presumably an immigrant, and Mr Gordon is also an immigrant, what is it that differentiates him from you apart from the fact that you were born there, but he made his way there legitimately and obtained his citizenship in a way which the law allows?
The USA has a right to protect Mr Gordon as a citizen, and they should especially do so in this case. Mr Gordon simply exercises his right to freedom of expression under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. He did not kill anyone. He did not steal from anyone. He was deemed to be guilty (well, it is likely that he would be deemed guilty) because of this Thai law which ignores this Conventional Right. A law which has no place in a democratic society and should be abolished ASAP. And Mr Gordon suffers in jail under substandard conditions because of it, despite his blatant illness. This is more of a reason the US should intervene.
Whether he was born in the USA or not is irrelevant. He acquired his citizenship legitimately, and has been living in the US for years. Mr Gordon should be protected by the USA.
Regina, Canada, Burma
I found an interesting phrase in Moe Aung’s comment. It said “Rakhine, Mon and Shan (who actually are the largest minority group, not the Karen)”.
As much as I could remember, Karen were officially second largest minority with 4-7 million population (depend on what source you are relying on) in Burma until 1980s and dropped to third place afterward. Shan ethnic became second largest group then.
What caused this? Burmese-nization, genocide or official chess move? I still do not have any clear answer for that but be my guest if you have any clue.
Open letter to Yingluck on lese majeste
@Jakkajee #33 said: “I believe that Thais are happy to maintain [lese majeste]. Please do not make a decision on the issue for them.”
What you believe isn’t necessarily true. I am a Thai myself and I find the law absolutely ridiculous. I have asked many people who support this law to tell me how can jailing people who say the truth for fifteen years (in an extremely inhumane condition) can be justified, and no one has ever given me a good reason to justify it.
Even suppose that what the person says about the Royal is false, jailing them for fifteen years in such inhumane conditions is disproportionate to the wrong committed.
But lese majeste is uglier. Even when one asks a legitimate question he can ask in a democratic society (for example, Ajarn Giles Ungpakorn asks the question “why did not the K defend democracy? He is a constitutional Monarch, so he must defend the constitution. He must stop the army for staging the coup”), he would be deemed guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty for pointing out the obvious that what the K did is inappropriate for his role as a Constitutional Monarch?
So this is the situation where what the Royal did is clearly wrong. Everyone (who is not brainwashed) knows it is wrong, but to say it is wrong means they go to jail for fifteen years. If this is not ridiculous I don’t know what is.
@Chris B #30
Name me any country (except Thailand of course) which will jail a person for conflict of interest in the commercial transaction. Cite me the law, I want to see it. I don’t know the law in many countries. But in the British Commonwealth, I certainly know that this will never be a criminal offence. At most it would be the civil wrong and the Court will deem the transaction invalid.
Oh, and in this case Thaksin also sought advice from an expert before entering into the transaction, right? Sorry to increase your task then. Now you would need to find a country which will jail a person where that person has sought legal advice from an expert prior into entering the commercial transaction which is later proven (well, assume that it is proven) that there has been a conflict of interest. Can you find even one country which does this? Find one and we’ll talk..about whether this law is justified, with reference to the case you may find (if any) from that country, based on the facts of the case, and the reasoning given by the Courts..
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
Re: the King and Prem’s involvement in the War on Drugs (Gunter c46, Darren 48, CT c49)…
PPT has today posted two BKK Post articles by Wassana Nanuam from Dec 2002 and 20o5 describing both Prem and the King’s instigation, enthusiasm and backing for the War on Drugs:
http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/prem-and-the-war-on-drugs/
Thus, it would have been almost impossible, even in Thailand, to prosecute Thaksin for his role in War on Drugs, without involving Prem, the King, some Generals, etc.
Hence the dubious use of his wife’s purchase of the Ratchada land in an open auction to manufacture the Thaksin as “criminal” and “international fugitive” message and propaganda.
It is worth noting that neither Interpol nor many other countries took this so-called “conviction” as anything other than political persecution of a democratically-elected leader overthrown by a military coup.
Open letter to Yingluck on lese majeste
Section 112 Whoever, defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years. (Thailand Penal Code)
I believe that Thais are happy to maintain the above section. Please do not make a decision on the issue for them.
Open letter to Yingluck on lese majeste
chris b – 30
This topic has been addressed by Ajarn Vorajade (he is a law prof at TU. in case you didn’t know) long time ago btw, long before chalerm even make the case.
You are right that the court found Thaksin to be guilty of using his position to purchase the land, but before that, the court have to find that Pojaman was “benefit” from her husband position “first” (meaning they have to find her and FIDF guilty first) then they should have case against Thaksin. However, Thaksin was found guilty before the case between FIDF and Pojaman even settle. Where is the “due process” in this?
Furthermore, can Thaksin as a PM have influence over FIDF, an organization under BOT?
Before you called me of having dodgy law skill, why dont you at least show what you really know about the case?
Open letter to Yingluck on lese majeste
chris b – 30
I am no legal expert, but I think that both you and Tarrin have missed the central issue of this case. You state that Thaksin was found guilty of using his position to help his then wife buy the land, your implication perhaps being that he used his influence as Prime Minister to ensure she won the bid.
Actually, as far as I am aware, he was prosecuted simply for adding his signature to the relevant paperwork in his capacity as husband of the purchaser. This he was obliged to do, as under Thai law I don’t think a married woman can enter into a legal contract without her husband’s approval. However, by doing so he was held to have contravened the conflict of interest laws covering dealings by government ministers with State agencies. It’s hardly seems like a heinous crime, more a technical infringement, and certainly not worthy of the standard “convicted criminal”, “convicted felon” and “guilty of corruption” or “abuse of power” tags which are regularly used by his opponents to describe his currrent status in relation to this conviction.
I am of course ready to be corrected by those more knowledgeable on these matters than I am, but there must be many public figures and politicians still active in the nation’s affairs who have committed far graver crimes than this sole misdemeanour for which Thaksin has been convicted, and so publicly and repeatedly excoriated.
Open letter to Yingluck on lese majeste
Tarrin -28
I think your legal skills are as dodgy as Chalerm’s – (strangely the BP recently described him as a legal expert!).
Thaksin wasn’t found guilty of purchasing the land. He was found guilty of
using his position to help her buy it.
Open letter to Yingluck on lese majeste
Vichai N (c.26)
“Open letters to Yingluck are fruitless. ”
How do you know?