The Thai media have been forced to mention the existence of the other identical plane in Munich in response to the Walter Bau administrator’s assertion that he was considering getting the twin impounded to cover the balance of the Thai government’s unpaid debt. Even though the plane’s arrival was reported in German media last week and the adminstrator’s comment was several days old, Thai media only mentioned its existence today in the context of reporting Abhisit’s comments that there were no legal grounds to impound the second plane. In the event that the administrator and the German court fail to concur with Abhisit’s legal analysis and the second plane is impounded regardless, it will be interesting to see how long it takes for a triplet to appear in Munich and whether such an event would be regarded as in any way newsworthy by the Thai media.
Improved electricity may lead to less people reading, but not necessarily to a great extent. If you travel outside Yangon at night you see people in teashops watching Korean soaps and football; if they can’t afford a cup of tea, then they probably won’t be able to afford a TV. Agree with MArtin that much of what people get at book rental shops is not very good. And given that most print runs are 1000-2000 copies, it seems like authors aren’t selling much. The question is, to what extent is economics responsible? Would people read more (and more worthy books) if they had the money and access? In any case, the market for journals and magazines seems to be growing. I’m told 7-Day News has overtaken Weekly Eleven and is nearly at 100,000 copies a week. But again, I think this is predominantly urban readers.
Jokes aside, the electricity supply in Yangon has definitely improved this year, although I doubt that’s the case elsewhere. It’s amazing what an election will do… New roads, steady electricity… They’re even fixing the pavements in downtown Yangon!
I’m beginning to suspect that the Thai parliament is being guided by a Thai translation of Catch-22: “The only people permitted to ask questions are those who never do”. And of course it is neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never question anything.
Sam: your third point isn’t making legal sense for me. If the plane is privately owned and has been seized in the belief that it is state property, then surely the alleged owner would sue or take some action for the return of his alleged property?
Sam @149: The free consultation is nearing an end. I will shortly start charging you my hourly fee. Where shall I send the invoice?
1. Who filed what: FIRST the Germans filed an arbitration claim against Thailand, to recover what they claimed Thailand owed on the road project. Thailand lost the arbitration; the arbitrator rendered a multi-million dollar award against Thailand. SECOND, the Germans filed a petition to confirm the award (i.e., convert it to a court judgment) in the U.S. District Court in New York. That’s the proceeding that BP was referring to. (It was not an appeal of the arbitration award.) The court granted the petition and entered a judgment against Thailand. That is the judgment that the Germans are now moving to enforce and execute on. THIRD, Thailand appealed the judgment to the U.S. court of appeals.
Appealing certain types of judgments automatically stays (puts on hold) enforcement of the judgment. In this case, a simple judgment requiring payment of money, a stay is not automatic when the loser files an appeal. The loser has to ask the court to order a stay. For whatever reason, Thailand has so far not done that.
By the way, as the appealing party, Thailand must file the first brief. When I last looked at the court docket, the brief was due today (26 July).
You are not correct that the court of appeals has found Thailand’s appeal to be “worthy”. The court has probably quickly reviewed the file and determined that the appeal is not completely frivolous (e.g., it was filed on time, it is the type of judgment that may be appealed, etc.), but otherwise the court will not consider the merits of the appeal until the parties have filed their briefs.
2. If Thailand wins the appeal, I expect that it may be able to recover much, if not all, of certain costs of the litigation. That would include costs it incurs to protect its assets against impoundment. So you are not correct that the impoundment is grossly unfair to Thailand. And again, Thailand can try to avoid these costs by asking the court to stay enforcement of the judgment. Thailand’s hands are not tied in this case.
Again, this is all very routine in the world of judgment-collection. The process is designed to protect rights on both sides.
If Thailand really does not own the airplane, then what costs or damages will it incur? The owner of the plane will be the one to incur costs.
3. I think you’re confused on this point. I asked why Thailand would threaten to sue the Germans for impounding the airplane, when Thailand claims it does not own the plane. What is the damage to Thailand if the Germans mistakenly impound someone else’s property? If the CP owns the plane, then he–not Thailand–is the one with an interest to protect. But, you say, the CP is not a party to the original lawsuit. That’s irrelevant: the CP’s property has been impounded, so he’s a party to any proceeding to get it back.
I don’t know how Walter Bau chose the court, or if he even did. Getting a writ to execute on property is very routine, and it’s possible it did not require a judge to approve — just a paper stamped by the court clerk and then delivered by local law enforcement to the airport. It’s not rocket science, even for a big asset. Airplanes are impounded all the time around the world.
Burma was well known for its electricity supply shortage and frequent interruptions. Of late things have improved. The electricity supply is said to have become regular and standardized and the outages less frequent. e.g. Each year the cut-off has been limited to twice a year and each time stays off for about six months at a time.
BKK lawyer, once again, Thank You for your legal insights.
1. Re your “The Germans did not file the appeal.” (Where did you read this?)
The Bangkok Pundit (BP) wrote it:
“BP: On Thani saying that Thailand was appealing in New York, BP went googling and found out that Walter Bau (“WB”) decided to take the matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to seek confirmation of the arbitration award and to enforce it (ie get their money).”
The confusing here seems to be in BP’s denying that the Thais filed the appeal, by pointing to Bau initiating the action in the Arbitration Confirmation stage. Then BP later grants that the Thais have indeed filed an appeal but in a different court, noting “Thailand appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit on April 13, 2011 which scheduled (PDF) a pre-trial argument conference in the above-referenced appeal for Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 3.30pm.”
2. Again, despite your informed explanations as to the workings of the legal process, I fail to see “fairness” in your legal interpretation. It would allow Bau to heap costs on the Thais, while the Thais are in Appeal of that ruling. An Appeal, which one concludes was accepted by a US Appeals Court, as presumably the Appeals Court found the Thai grounds for the Appeal to worthy and not frivolous.
To demonstrate this point, let’s say THE plane is RTAF. The airport fees for setting there impounded during a 2 year Appeal process could literally run into a million or more dollars. Then the loss of use of that plane, and the cost of replacement, be it commercial or otherwise, would be substantial. Finally, the physical damage to a plane setting unused for 2 years would be likewise extremely costly to restore.
Yet, if we accept your legal interpretation, and if the Thais win their appeal, they are stuck with these huge costs and losses of use, despite the fact that Bau’s debt claim is ruled as groundless and the impoundment null and void.
Allowing Bau to do this seems to be allowing legal harassment and personal legal punishment. Furthermore, it allows Bau to use the law, as you describe it, to discourage and prevent a defendant from pursuing their legal rights, by burdening them with extraneous costs.
Again, with all due respect, I find it unreasonable that an Appeals proceeding would not automatically forestall such abuses.
3. Finally re your: “Why would Thailand sue anyway? According to the Thai position, the Germans have not impounded Thailand’s property. If anyone would sue, it would be the CP, who claims ownership of the seized airplane.”
The suit filed by the German liquidator in the German Court — is against the Thai Government, not the CP. The Thais say this suit falsely claims:
1. The Thai Government owes the German company court awarded debt.
2. And, that the Thai Government has failed to pay the court awarded debt.
While you, BKK lawyer, are saying the Thais would lose such a case, nevertheless, this is why the Thai Government is suing, and not the CP.
HRK’s asks, “Sam might explain as well what is meant by “backwater court”.
Connected litigants ‘shop’ for sympathetic Court venues to file their claims and charges. The Viktor Bout case generated whole articles on how the Feds ‘shopped’ for a US Court that would maximize their advantages.
Bau did not take this highly charged “diplomatically sensitive and international” case to an appropriately experienced Berlin or Munich court. Instead, Bau sought out a “backwater” local German court. This would be comparable to the Thais responding in some related action by going through a local court in Nawwatiwat.
By calling this like it is, a “backwater court,” it is this obvious ploy that I am pointing to.
People read a lot but it’s mostly crap. With little electricity for TV, they turn to books. There are lots of rent-a-book stalls much like videostores. A lot of the books are short and read in one night.
So while people may read a lot, I don’t think there is a lot of quality in their reading. Nor is their much critical thinking going on with ordinary folk, or even those well-educated.
I wouldn’t say it was an intellectual society, and I think an increase in the power supply would see reading levels fall rapidly.
Thai law is one thing, Thai unwillingness to meet its obligations in a general sense quite another.
In a civil damages case I have personal experience with, a Thai woman was sued for civil damages in defamation. Found guilty in court of first instance, she appealed. Upheld in Appellate, she appealed to the Supreme Court. This took from 2005-2010! As each succeeding level of court appearance requires a deposit, the woman appealed to Supreme Court officials that she did not have the money so would they waive the requirement in her case? So in effect she is appealing to be able to appeal!
The woman has publicly declared herself to be owner of a community radio station, has a vehicle and home and other “connections.” Yet she claims not to have any money, even to file an appeal.
The message is that just like bus drivers who suddenly disappear after crashing and killing someone, other Thais just won’t reconcile themselves to the principle that behavior, consequences, responsibility and restitution are all part of the package in dealing with others. It is almost second nature for Thais not to pay anyone anything for anything because everyone else should just accept the idea that they can’t afford to pay and let’s get on with life. Those that can easily afford to pay usually give a pittance. This is one of the ways that Thai culture has decimated Buddhism and justice…let alone the principles of credibility and honor.
My question was not clear, apologies.
I believe you answered it, however, in saying that you did not see any grounds for criminal charges for the impounding.
Thank you.
Vichai – If you really want to cite wikileaks, then there is only one befitting the title ‘Father of corruption’, considering the numerous backroom deals involving high rank officials, army generals, and courts that he’s behind.
Though, I believe his self-styled doublespeaking terms is ‘Father of the Land’.
Would you happen to know anyone with that description?
To be fair, given the prevailing socio-economic environment in the world, the more well off a society the less interest in intellectual pursuits by the general populace. Australia is hardly unique.
Too many distractions with a fair amount of disposable income or easy credit, and a steady descent to the lowest denominator in press and media production (diarrhoeal in output as it may seem and pretty hard to sift through), are probably the contributory factors.
Television did not make its appearance in Burma until 1981, so they never knew B&W TV. There was reading as the main leisure activity before that besides the radio (transistor radios were very popular).
It is incumbent on our leaders in the end to raise the level of intellectual, cultural and political consciousness. But why would they be keen to cultivate that enlightened kind of electorate?
The fact of the matter is that Malaysia is a semi-authoritarian government which is corrupt. Of course, it does better than many other countries – but the fact remains.
The points that you bring up is irrelevant to the legitimate rights of Malaysians to peacefully demand for reforms and elect legislators and a government of their choice.
Now, isn’t that a basic tenet of a functioning democracy.
The Burmese are a curious and opinionated race. Current affairs is high on the list of what they read, and I agree that access basically determines what they do get to read. The Internet remains in a rarefied stratum out of reach for most.
Whilst there is a greater choice allowed by the authorities nowadays, a Murdoch style tabloid press gaining ground bodes ill for the future of popular culture especially affecting the young. Much of the content of magazines and journals today already consists of foreign and domestic celebs, material copied or borrowed from the Western press, and accounts of foreign visits by those who can brag about them. Between that and politically sensitive material, the choice is obvious for the Ministry of Information’s Press Scrutiny and Registration Division (PSRD).
Fiction of all kinds – romance, thrillers, whodunnits, magic/wizardry and kung fu stories – has been very popular across the board. But this is an area where TV series and DVDs have superseded books for many like eleswhere.
I wouldn’t say the Burmese are more intellectual than other races, but given their particular circumstances they are bound to be more interested in politics and current affairs, both domestic and international.
Having Herr Bau declared persona non grata in Thailand might be held to be a contempt of court – an attempt to interfere with and influence the court’s judgment be putting pressure on a litigant or witness. The penalty in English law is a fine or imprisonment.
But I would like to shift the debate back to the original court action – why has a Thai government agency not paid a debt after 20 years? After all, the road was built, or wasn’t it?
One thing I know is when compare Burma, Thailand and Australia, Australia is the least intellectual ! People are given great opportunities with education and welfare but they choose to be dole bludgers !
Looks like an epidemic of fess ups has broken out in the land of Oz.
It gets curiouser and curiouser.
The Burmese do like company, so the more the merrier.
If it turns out to be true or half truths, the police have got their work cut out (true at least that informers tended to be infiltrated into the student/dissident movements including among those who had fled the country, Hla Oo should know).
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Plane audacity in Thai dispute
The German Embassy is now openly putting the screws on Thailand:
http://www.tannetwork.tv/tan/ViewData.aspx?DataID=1046177
Plane audacity in Thai dispute
The Thai media have been forced to mention the existence of the other identical plane in Munich in response to the Walter Bau administrator’s assertion that he was considering getting the twin impounded to cover the balance of the Thai government’s unpaid debt. Even though the plane’s arrival was reported in German media last week and the adminstrator’s comment was several days old, Thai media only mentioned its existence today in the context of reporting Abhisit’s comments that there were no legal grounds to impound the second plane. In the event that the administrator and the German court fail to concur with Abhisit’s legal analysis and the second plane is impounded regardless, it will be interesting to see how long it takes for a triplet to appear in Munich and whether such an event would be regarded as in any way newsworthy by the Thai media.
Burma’s reading culture
Improved electricity may lead to less people reading, but not necessarily to a great extent. If you travel outside Yangon at night you see people in teashops watching Korean soaps and football; if they can’t afford a cup of tea, then they probably won’t be able to afford a TV. Agree with MArtin that much of what people get at book rental shops is not very good. And given that most print runs are 1000-2000 copies, it seems like authors aren’t selling much. The question is, to what extent is economics responsible? Would people read more (and more worthy books) if they had the money and access? In any case, the market for journals and magazines seems to be growing. I’m told 7-Day News has overtaken Weekly Eleven and is nearly at 100,000 copies a week. But again, I think this is predominantly urban readers.
Jokes aside, the electricity supply in Yangon has definitely improved this year, although I doubt that’s the case elsewhere. It’s amazing what an election will do… New roads, steady electricity… They’re even fixing the pavements in downtown Yangon!
Translating Thai political restrictions
I’m beginning to suspect that the Thai parliament is being guided by a Thai translation of Catch-22: “The only people permitted to ask questions are those who never do”. And of course it is neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never question anything.
Plane audacity in Thai dispute
Sam: your third point isn’t making legal sense for me. If the plane is privately owned and has been seized in the belief that it is state property, then surely the alleged owner would sue or take some action for the return of his alleged property?
Plane audacity in Thai dispute
Sam @149: The free consultation is nearing an end. I will shortly start charging you my hourly fee. Where shall I send the invoice?
1. Who filed what: FIRST the Germans filed an arbitration claim against Thailand, to recover what they claimed Thailand owed on the road project. Thailand lost the arbitration; the arbitrator rendered a multi-million dollar award against Thailand. SECOND, the Germans filed a petition to confirm the award (i.e., convert it to a court judgment) in the U.S. District Court in New York. That’s the proceeding that BP was referring to. (It was not an appeal of the arbitration award.) The court granted the petition and entered a judgment against Thailand. That is the judgment that the Germans are now moving to enforce and execute on. THIRD, Thailand appealed the judgment to the U.S. court of appeals.
Appealing certain types of judgments automatically stays (puts on hold) enforcement of the judgment. In this case, a simple judgment requiring payment of money, a stay is not automatic when the loser files an appeal. The loser has to ask the court to order a stay. For whatever reason, Thailand has so far not done that.
By the way, as the appealing party, Thailand must file the first brief. When I last looked at the court docket, the brief was due today (26 July).
You are not correct that the court of appeals has found Thailand’s appeal to be “worthy”. The court has probably quickly reviewed the file and determined that the appeal is not completely frivolous (e.g., it was filed on time, it is the type of judgment that may be appealed, etc.), but otherwise the court will not consider the merits of the appeal until the parties have filed their briefs.
2. If Thailand wins the appeal, I expect that it may be able to recover much, if not all, of certain costs of the litigation. That would include costs it incurs to protect its assets against impoundment. So you are not correct that the impoundment is grossly unfair to Thailand. And again, Thailand can try to avoid these costs by asking the court to stay enforcement of the judgment. Thailand’s hands are not tied in this case.
Again, this is all very routine in the world of judgment-collection. The process is designed to protect rights on both sides.
If Thailand really does not own the airplane, then what costs or damages will it incur? The owner of the plane will be the one to incur costs.
3. I think you’re confused on this point. I asked why Thailand would threaten to sue the Germans for impounding the airplane, when Thailand claims it does not own the plane. What is the damage to Thailand if the Germans mistakenly impound someone else’s property? If the CP owns the plane, then he–not Thailand–is the one with an interest to protect. But, you say, the CP is not a party to the original lawsuit. That’s irrelevant: the CP’s property has been impounded, so he’s a party to any proceeding to get it back.
I don’t know how Walter Bau chose the court, or if he even did. Getting a writ to execute on property is very routine, and it’s possible it did not require a judge to approve — just a paper stamped by the court clerk and then delivered by local law enforcement to the airport. It’s not rocket science, even for a big asset. Airplanes are impounded all the time around the world.
Burma’s reading culture
Burma was well known for its electricity supply shortage and frequent interruptions. Of late things have improved. The electricity supply is said to have become regular and standardized and the outages less frequent. e.g. Each year the cut-off has been limited to twice a year and each time stays off for about six months at a time.
Thailand’s corruption record
Mmm…, here’s an interesting initiative from the Thai Police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBNhi_SUNLQ
Plane audacity in Thai dispute
BKK lawyer, once again, Thank You for your legal insights.
1. Re your “The Germans did not file the appeal.” (Where did you read this?)
The Bangkok Pundit (BP) wrote it:
“BP: On Thani saying that Thailand was appealing in New York, BP went googling and found out that Walter Bau (“WB”) decided to take the matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to seek confirmation of the arbitration award and to enforce it (ie get their money).”
http://asiancorrespondent.com/59962/liquidator-seizes-royal-thai-air-force-plane-in-munich-an-update/
The confusing here seems to be in BP’s denying that the Thais filed the appeal, by pointing to Bau initiating the action in the Arbitration Confirmation stage. Then BP later grants that the Thais have indeed filed an appeal but in a different court, noting “Thailand appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit on April 13, 2011 which scheduled (PDF) a pre-trial argument conference in the above-referenced appeal for Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 3.30pm.”
2. Again, despite your informed explanations as to the workings of the legal process, I fail to see “fairness” in your legal interpretation. It would allow Bau to heap costs on the Thais, while the Thais are in Appeal of that ruling. An Appeal, which one concludes was accepted by a US Appeals Court, as presumably the Appeals Court found the Thai grounds for the Appeal to worthy and not frivolous.
To demonstrate this point, let’s say THE plane is RTAF. The airport fees for setting there impounded during a 2 year Appeal process could literally run into a million or more dollars. Then the loss of use of that plane, and the cost of replacement, be it commercial or otherwise, would be substantial. Finally, the physical damage to a plane setting unused for 2 years would be likewise extremely costly to restore.
Yet, if we accept your legal interpretation, and if the Thais win their appeal, they are stuck with these huge costs and losses of use, despite the fact that Bau’s debt claim is ruled as groundless and the impoundment null and void.
Allowing Bau to do this seems to be allowing legal harassment and personal legal punishment. Furthermore, it allows Bau to use the law, as you describe it, to discourage and prevent a defendant from pursuing their legal rights, by burdening them with extraneous costs.
Again, with all due respect, I find it unreasonable that an Appeals proceeding would not automatically forestall such abuses.
3. Finally re your: “Why would Thailand sue anyway? According to the Thai position, the Germans have not impounded Thailand’s property. If anyone would sue, it would be the CP, who claims ownership of the seized airplane.”
The suit filed by the German liquidator in the German Court — is against the Thai Government, not the CP. The Thais say this suit falsely claims:
1. The Thai Government owes the German company court awarded debt.
2. And, that the Thai Government has failed to pay the court awarded debt.
While you, BKK lawyer, are saying the Thais would lose such a case, nevertheless, this is why the Thai Government is suing, and not the CP.
HRK’s asks, “Sam might explain as well what is meant by “backwater court”.
Connected litigants ‘shop’ for sympathetic Court venues to file their claims and charges. The Viktor Bout case generated whole articles on how the Feds ‘shopped’ for a US Court that would maximize their advantages.
Bau did not take this highly charged “diplomatically sensitive and international” case to an appropriately experienced Berlin or Munich court. Instead, Bau sought out a “backwater” local German court. This would be comparable to the Thais responding in some related action by going through a local court in Nawwatiwat.
By calling this like it is, a “backwater court,” it is this obvious ploy that I am pointing to.
Burma’s reading culture
People read a lot but it’s mostly crap. With little electricity for TV, they turn to books. There are lots of rent-a-book stalls much like videostores. A lot of the books are short and read in one night.
So while people may read a lot, I don’t think there is a lot of quality in their reading. Nor is their much critical thinking going on with ordinary folk, or even those well-educated.
I wouldn’t say it was an intellectual society, and I think an increase in the power supply would see reading levels fall rapidly.
Plane audacity in Thai dispute
Thai law is one thing, Thai unwillingness to meet its obligations in a general sense quite another.
In a civil damages case I have personal experience with, a Thai woman was sued for civil damages in defamation. Found guilty in court of first instance, she appealed. Upheld in Appellate, she appealed to the Supreme Court. This took from 2005-2010! As each succeeding level of court appearance requires a deposit, the woman appealed to Supreme Court officials that she did not have the money so would they waive the requirement in her case? So in effect she is appealing to be able to appeal!
The woman has publicly declared herself to be owner of a community radio station, has a vehicle and home and other “connections.” Yet she claims not to have any money, even to file an appeal.
The message is that just like bus drivers who suddenly disappear after crashing and killing someone, other Thais just won’t reconcile themselves to the principle that behavior, consequences, responsibility and restitution are all part of the package in dealing with others. It is almost second nature for Thais not to pay anyone anything for anything because everyone else should just accept the idea that they can’t afford to pay and let’s get on with life. Those that can easily afford to pay usually give a pittance. This is one of the ways that Thai culture has decimated Buddhism and justice…let alone the principles of credibility and honor.
Plane audacity in Thai dispute
Bkk Lawyer #144:
My question was not clear, apologies.
I believe you answered it, however, in saying that you did not see any grounds for criminal charges for the impounding.
Thank you.
Thailand’s corruption record
Vichai – If you really want to cite wikileaks, then there is only one befitting the title ‘Father of corruption’, considering the numerous backroom deals involving high rank officials, army generals, and courts that he’s behind.
Though, I believe his self-styled doublespeaking terms is ‘Father of the Land’.
Would you happen to know anyone with that description?
Burma’s reading culture
Jesse,
To be fair, given the prevailing socio-economic environment in the world, the more well off a society the less interest in intellectual pursuits by the general populace. Australia is hardly unique.
Too many distractions with a fair amount of disposable income or easy credit, and a steady descent to the lowest denominator in press and media production (diarrhoeal in output as it may seem and pretty hard to sift through), are probably the contributory factors.
Television did not make its appearance in Burma until 1981, so they never knew B&W TV. There was reading as the main leisure activity before that besides the radio (transistor radios were very popular).
It is incumbent on our leaders in the end to raise the level of intellectual, cultural and political consciousness. But why would they be keen to cultivate that enlightened kind of electorate?
BERSIH 2.0 analysis
Tony #9 – your conflating issues.
The fact of the matter is that Malaysia is a semi-authoritarian government which is corrupt. Of course, it does better than many other countries – but the fact remains.
The points that you bring up is irrelevant to the legitimate rights of Malaysians to peacefully demand for reforms and elect legislators and a government of their choice.
Now, isn’t that a basic tenet of a functioning democracy.
Burma’s reading culture
The Burmese are a curious and opinionated race. Current affairs is high on the list of what they read, and I agree that access basically determines what they do get to read. The Internet remains in a rarefied stratum out of reach for most.
Whilst there is a greater choice allowed by the authorities nowadays, a Murdoch style tabloid press gaining ground bodes ill for the future of popular culture especially affecting the young. Much of the content of magazines and journals today already consists of foreign and domestic celebs, material copied or borrowed from the Western press, and accounts of foreign visits by those who can brag about them. Between that and politically sensitive material, the choice is obvious for the Ministry of Information’s Press Scrutiny and Registration Division (PSRD).
Fiction of all kinds – romance, thrillers, whodunnits, magic/wizardry and kung fu stories – has been very popular across the board. But this is an area where TV series and DVDs have superseded books for many like eleswhere.
I wouldn’t say the Burmese are more intellectual than other races, but given their particular circumstances they are bound to be more interested in politics and current affairs, both domestic and international.
Plane audacity in Thai dispute
Having Herr Bau declared persona non grata in Thailand might be held to be a contempt of court – an attempt to interfere with and influence the court’s judgment be putting pressure on a litigant or witness. The penalty in English law is a fine or imprisonment.
But I would like to shift the debate back to the original court action – why has a Thai government agency not paid a debt after 20 years? After all, the road was built, or wasn’t it?
Burma’s reading culture
One thing I know is when compare Burma, Thailand and Australia, Australia is the least intellectual ! People are given great opportunities with education and welfare but they choose to be dole bludgers !
Htoo Htoo Han the confessor
Looks like an epidemic of fess ups has broken out in the land of Oz.
It gets curiouser and curiouser.
The Burmese do like company, so the more the merrier.
If it turns out to be true or half truths, the police have got their work cut out (true at least that informers tended to be infiltrated into the student/dissident movements including among those who had fled the country, Hla Oo should know).
Plane audacity in Thai dispute
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/248740/pm-2nd-jet-can-t-be-impounded
Apparently, the CP owns two planes.