While not the same as Thaksin I think the relationship between Abhisit his father and CP group is worth noting and is fair. If for no other reason than to highlight the interwoven fabric of business and politicians. It would be near impossible for any government to make any policy that does not effect both the politicians involved and some member of their family be it father, mother brother sister, son, daughter or cousin etc. The problem with Thai politics is the privileged class runs both the majority of business and the majority of government that’s a conflict of interest waiting to happen.
patiwat – Abhisit was accused of concealing his assets when he took the PM post, but nothing happened. In essence you are correct but CP Group is the biggest conglomerate in Thailand with it’s fingers in every pie. I’m not faulting them for that it’s a good way to do business but Abhisit and his family could hold smaller share counts in more of CP’s companies and by changing different policies could cause the individual companies share prices to increase. Thus causing their interests to rise. I think this thing may become a can of worms for many in the future.
For those with short memories, the self-serving ‘dumbed-down’ sound-bite message of most if not all Western government’s after the coup was that Thaksin was a “democratically elected” and therefore Thailand’s legitimate political leader. However this position deliberately ignored the reality of Thailand’s semi-democracy and the dominant system of patronage and entrenched money politics, as well as the democratic pre-requisites of adequate access to diverse sources of information and educated voters.
In this context, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why two of the hallmarks of ex-PM Thaksin’s premiership (aside from thousands of officially sanctioned judicial killings and the monopolization and exploitation of state resources to the benefit of his ruling clique etc. etc.) were the clamp down on independent media and the continuation of mind control by maintaining the predominance of rote-learning in education at all levels. In his own words, “Democracy is not my goal”.
To me, in the absence of a truly charismatic individual possessed of both integrity and a modern vision, the middle path for Siam lies largely in gaining the trust of the military by providing the right carrots and sticks in order that it feels secure enough to sustain an orderly rollback of its business activities and political machinations. At this point, the only alternative seems to be a violent and likely very bloody revolution. Perhaps by default then, PM Abhisit, hamstrung as he is by a legitimate albeit fractious and weak coalition government and the lack of a direct democratic mandate (not to mention a liking for Barry Manilow – but perhaps I digress) remains Siam’s last, best hope to escape the past 75-odd years of rule by Thailand inc. and it’s legacy of repression and pent-up demand and establish the foundations for a genuine and inclusive representative democracy.
George Orwell wrote that the middle classes will follow their own interests in deciding whether to side with the rich or the poor. Therefore, given the reality of entrenched money politics in every party here, the party which can win the majority of middle class support seems likely to prevail once more at the next election.
In my opinion, the litmus test this year for PM Abisit’s leadership is how well he can deliver on his much touted big-push on education reform while at least making some significant reforms in other policy areas: in other words, a good compass and a safe pair of hands.
One was kept in my hut, hanging from a nail on the wall. I had many opportunities to examine it, but sadly, none to use it. The Karenni Army get them from the SPDC.
The workmanship was very poor, with poorly fitting parts and tool marks.
They also had G3’s that had been taken off of dead SPDC soldiers, or from ones who deserted and traded them for safe passage to Thailand.
They were much better made.
The problems that the SPDC had with the G3 stemmed from the fact that the weapon was designed for a larger person (longer arm reach).
I’m not going to get into the argument of which round was better – 7.62 vs 5.56. Each has its fans and detractors. Same for 9mm vs 45 caliber. Both are arguments that never end.
Insofar as magazine capacity, a person who knows what he’s doing will get along just fine with a twenty round capacity magazine. Those of the “spray and pray” persuasion should probably consider going back to the rifle range for more instruction. Holding the rifle over your head and emptying the magazine in the general direction of the enemy only works if the enemy is employing the same tactic.
Well aimed fire, whether with a MA-1 or a G3, is the ticket to success.
“Srithanonchai, I find that being politically sincere towards the people and having never given up his sincerity towards his business interests are mutually exclusive concepts.” >> Conceptually, I am not sure. In practical mental terms, individuals can combine a lot of thinking and behavior that to outside observers might appear contradictory.
I have a query – and it is only that – about the Court’s judgement on AIS/ Shin getting a reduction from 25% to 20% payments to TOT : is n’t this supposed to be what free-market capitalism is about ?
I.e. “rolling back” (in Reagan’s great term) the government sector, in favour of the private ?
I find it hilarious that the activists think the reason that there is no “change by national, regional or international community leaders” is because of the lack of knowledge. In fact, there is quite a bit of knowledge about Burma, but no willpower. The world has failed to take action even when there has been even more knowledge, as in Darfur. I simply fail to see what a “fake court” – even composed of influential individuals – will do to remedy this situation.
Portman: They did not calculate the gain that way because its clear there was NO (or minimal at most) gain if calculated that way – sort of makes the verdict/conviction of an abnormal gain a nonsense doesn’t it?
As usual when it comes to Thaksin (and others that are not on the ‘untouchable’ list), the penalty is disproportionately excessive for the ‘crime’.
RE: But since the US has a much stronger legal system than Thailand, American’s like to litigate more, and so many people hate Cheney, I was surprised that nobody tried to pursue the issue in court. And certainly nobody called for Gen. Petraeus to return from Baghdad, arrest Cheney, and put him on trial!
Actually, even a cursory search into American politics will find plenty of people looking for Cheney’s legal accountability.
That said, the American legal system is just a rife with political maneuvering as that in Thailand. Look no further than how George W Bush was given the presidency by the Supreme Court which effectively brought a stop to the counting of the ballots — exactly what an election is suppose to do.
Of interest is the make-up of the Supreme Court at that time, composed of plenty of George Bush Sr/ daddy’s appointees. And there is no need to get into the fixing of voting machines in Governor/brother Jeb’s state of Florida, or the Republican partisan rubes working the bureaucracy behind the scenes in shaping the voter lists pro-Republican to further make the point either.
Justice in America is like everything in America — a commodity for sale.
Michael – Bangkok Post or Nation featured an article last year, in which they reported the government as warning there was a movement to divide the regions against each other, through-out the whole country – not simply Pattani.
I read this way before I started posting anything on NM. I’ve certainly got no connection whatsoever to any Thai political movement, least of all any such as this. I’ve never been active politically in Thailand at all, during any of my many visits, over decades. If you think this is “silly” I suggest you look up the article, and give that label to the government agencies which were saying it !
But this article did get me thinking (I suggest you try that!).
Two decades ago, when I travelled through Pattani and southern Thailand you would have been called “silly” for suggesting what is happening there now. It was a lovely, peaceful place.
“Esan people want to be included to a greater extent in the rights & privileges of Thai nationality. They are sick of being excluded.”
Of course they do – I’ve only SUGGESTED if they continue to be excluded, now having had their expectations raised by Thaksin, that if widespread violence is used against them (eg. through a pro-PAD coup), then the country will increasingly split into MILITARISED polarised regions reflecting the already polarised vote : this means secession.
It means an independent ISAARN.
I never said an independent Isaarn would necessarily join the PDR.
But it is highly likely the PDR would come to Isaarn’s aid.
As for “I haven’t met a single person from the area near Laos who has expressed any interest in joining that country” :
Sorry, but I’ve met MANY who expressed sorrow about “the broken heart” – i.e. the separation of formerly Siam co-joined Lao and Isaarn.
And want this division – like Germans wanted Berlin’s Wall down – to now end.
This may happen peacefully – I hope it does – but not if there is a bloody, pro-PAD (which wants to disenfranchise Isaarn) coup.
The comparison with Abhisit’s father being a director of CP Foods looks like an attempt to clutch at straws to justify The Boss’s criminal antics which have now properly been judged as such. Abhisit hasn’t attempted to conceal his father’s directorship and anyway there is no legal prohibition on parents being on company boards. Patiwat’s comment “…by being a director of CP Foods, he has a fiduciary responsibility to the Chearavanonts…” seems to betray a lack of understanding of corporate governance. Prof Athasit is an independent, non-executive, director of CP Foods. Therefore, while he does have a fiduciary responsibility towards all the shareholders of CPF collectively, including the Chearavanonts, he is expected to look out for the interests of the minority shareholders, in the event that there is a conflict of interests between the majority and minority shareholders. Independent directors are not supposed to have any shares in the company and non-executive directors have nothing to do with the management of the company.
Thaksin’s children and the other family nominees were, on the other hand, holding an effective controlling stake in Shin Corp on behalf of Thaksin who had deliberately concealed this fact and made fraudulent assets declarations.
The court’s decision to confiscate only the gains accrued while the shares were fraudulently owned by Thaksin seems quite fair. It would be absurd for the court to try come up with a complicated analysis of what exactly was the “alpha” part of the returns generated by Thaksin’s criminal behaviour, as opposed to the “beta” part generated by the market. The two are not entirely indivisible, since Shin’s performance contributed to the performance of the whole and separating the two would have had an army of finance academics arguing for a decade. Anyway the judges are not expected to be qualified investment analysts. Confiscating the gains on the assets that Thaksin was not allowed to own as prime minister is fair enough and avoids nitpicking arguments about what was the alpha and what was the beta. Thaksin is not the underdog in a competition in investment research methodology, he is a criminal on the run from a jail sentence, who has just been found guilty of further criminal acts while prime minister.
I do not know 5.56 MA at all. But I know 7.62 G3 well. I used to sleep with one beside my bed. Powerful and reliable but to long, too big, and too cumbersome for jungle warfare. The magazine is only 20 rounds too.
Smaller MA with 30 round magazine is more suitable for the Burmese jungle.
Unreliable junk?
Maybe the production facilities are not up to the Israel standard yet. Or the original Galil itself has reliability problems?
Maybe that is the reason even the Israel infantry use M16 instead of their own Galil.
This article provides an alternative perspective on the main cause of the low water levels:
A regional drought has caused the water to drop, the MRC said. “Severe drought will have an impact on agriculture, food security, access to clean water and river transport and will affect the economic development of people already facing serious poverty,” it said in a statement. “The northern provinces are amongst the poorest areas for both Lao PDR and Thailand.”
River tour operators have stopped offering services on the river between the Laotian tourist centre of Luang Prabang and Huay Xai on the Thai border, the MRC said. Officials in Laos have started advising people to reduce water consumption. Bird said it is difficult to say whether global warming is responsible but the wet season in Vientiane last year was one of the worst on record, and was followed by much lower than average rain late in 2009 and early this year. As a result, there has been very low water flow in the Mekong’s tributaries. “The rainfall in China is also extremely low,” Bird said.
Thai non-governmental groups believe the unusually low levels are caused by Chinese dams, according to reports in the Bangkok Post. There are eight existing or planned dams on the mainstream Mekong in China, the MRC has said. “It’s difficult for us to say categorically that there’s no link” between the low water levels and those dams, Bird said. But he added it would not be normal for dams to be filled during the dry season.
The Nation newspaper in Bangkok reported that Thailand would ask the MRC to negotiate with China for the release of more water from its Mekong dams to alleviate downstream drought. Bird said the commission has not yet received any formal request from Thailand. If it does, the MRC would discuss with China the possibility of releasing water. “This is one area where the dams upstream would actually be beneficial,” he said, because once the hydropower projects are in service they should lead to 30-40 percent more dry-season water flow. China and Myanmar are dialogue partners with the MRC which groups Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia.
MRC data show that water levels on the Mekong in Cambodia are not as low as in the north, which Bird said is explained by factors such as different regional rainfall systems. For the north, the problem is only set to get worse. “The flows will probably continue to reduce for another month,” Bird said.
Fringer, you stated that Abhisit himself would have to own a controlling stake in CP Foods for CP to potentially be accused of policy corruption. And you stated that “unfairly benefit” was a criteria for policy corruption.
I disagree on both counts.
– Thaksin himself didn’t own the critical stake in Shincorp – his children did. The court found that this father-son relationship meant that in essence Thaksin owned Shincorp. The same father-son relationship should hold in the case of Abhisit and his father.
– Thaksin’s children owned the critical shares in Shincorp, but Abhisit’s father is “just” a director. As far as I know, he doesn’t own any significant stake. But the number of shares Abhisit’s father owns is not relevant – by being a director of CP Foods, he has a fiduciary responsibility to the Chearavanonts. This fiduciary duty is the the highest “standard of care” in law, and he must put his duty to CP Foods above that of his own interests.
– As far as I understood from the ruling, the “fairness” of the benefit derived by Shincorp wasn’t the deciding issue – instead, it was the issue of whether Shincorp derived ANY benefit from Thaksin. Using the 101 buffaloes analogy, it doesn’t matter if the 100 buffaloes also get equal access to the commons, or even if they eat more than the buffalo owned by the headman. As long as the headman’s buffalo derives any benefit from the commons purchased under his authority, he’s guilty. This is why Thaksin’s penalty was the total increase in wealth due to Shincorp’s share price appreciation, rather than the difference between Shincorp’s appreciation and either the SET’s appreciation.
(Clarification: the TV commentator who also used a buffalo analogy wasn’t my cousin. My cousin probably heard it from him and then mentioned it to me.)
(Please don’t think that I was ever defending Cheney’s situation. But since the US has a much stronger legal system than Thailand, American’s like to litigate more, and so many people hate Cheney, I was surprised that nobody tried to pursue the issue in court. And certainly nobody called for Gen. Petraeus to return from Baghdad, arrest Cheney, and put him on trial!)
This woman is obviously quite sincere in wanting a more equal and democratic Thailand, and I applaud her for that.
However, I can’t help thinking, that she along with several red shirt supporters I know (middle class suburban Bangkokians), are so desperate for change, they are prepared to accept a “pirate copy” of democracy and an equal chance for all, instead of holding out for, or even better still, creating their own “legitimate” Thailand.
I wouldn’t brag on the Burmese MA rifles. Having handled them I can tell you that they’re unreliable junk.
The SPDC would have served themselves better had they stuck with the G3, or even Singaporean copies of the M-16.
Using Halliburton and Dick Cheney as an example supporting correct policy implementation only reveals the author’s own misguided legal understandings.
The USA would serve its people well if it had the gonads to go after Cheney on this one as well, but powerful hands prevent that from happening.
At least Thailand has stood up for what is right — a conflict of interest, especially when shrouded in years of shell games and deception, is only the start of the concerns with the Shiniwatra social crimes.
The arms embargo don’t mean that much for Burmese junta too as China and other rogue countries such as Israel and Ukraine are willing to provide arms legally or illegally to the Burmese army.
Burmese army standard infantry rifle used to be the locally-produced German Heckler and Koch G3 till the day UN and EU imposed the arms embargo. Within a year the Burma’s Defense Industries is producing new MA rifles whch is the exact replica of Israeli Galil assault rifle.
Israel claimed it is an illegal copy. But it really is a better and updated version of the Israeli IMI GALIL assault rifle, manufactured under supervision of Israeli consultants and with the use of Israeli machinery shipped to Burma in violation of the arms embargo.
A payment of 100 million US dollars simply lifted the arms embargo!
RR makes a good point. The jurisdictional issues were almost all referred back to the legitimacy of coup announcements. Of course Thaksin’s lawyers tried to argue that this was illegitimate, but from the TRT dissolution case it was clear what the courts felt. The case to ensure that the AEC/ASC was legally constituted, decided earlier, was to avoid the situation that arose with the Chatichai assets seizure case when the ruling on Chatichai was overturned as illegal. Politically, though, the acceptance of every junta action is troubling.
Without commenting on the verdict directly. The one thing that troubled me is the court in essence has legitimized the use of a coup for any and all reasons, past but more worrying future. If the Thai people revolted and took power overthrowing the government and military, would the court be so accommodating.
“However, do you think there is a higher probability of gain from the BGF and election route?”
Regarding the BGF transformation, I think it’s problematic for both the State and the non-state armed groups. Aside from the contentious political aspects of the deal (i.e. who controls what and how many soldiers) that both sides have yet to agree on, there are other simply technical problems with the transformation that have not been addressed: Like what’s going to happen to all those ethnic soldiers (and their weapons) who are suddenly put out of a job (for almost all groups the BGF transformation will involve some reduction in troop numbers).
But, I think the elections can be separated somewhat from the BGF transformation (insofar as a group can (as the KIO have shown) create an informally affiliated political party to pursue the election route irrespective of their decision on the BGF issue). And so, yes, I do think that engaging in the elections would be the most pragmatic move for ethnic political parties (and for pro-democracy opposition parties as well, for that matter).
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Making sense of the verdict
While not the same as Thaksin I think the relationship between Abhisit his father and CP group is worth noting and is fair. If for no other reason than to highlight the interwoven fabric of business and politicians. It would be near impossible for any government to make any policy that does not effect both the politicians involved and some member of their family be it father, mother brother sister, son, daughter or cousin etc. The problem with Thai politics is the privileged class runs both the majority of business and the majority of government that’s a conflict of interest waiting to happen.
patiwat – Abhisit was accused of concealing his assets when he took the PM post, but nothing happened. In essence you are correct but CP Group is the biggest conglomerate in Thailand with it’s fingers in every pie. I’m not faulting them for that it’s a good way to do business but Abhisit and his family could hold smaller share counts in more of CP’s companies and by changing different policies could cause the individual companies share prices to increase. Thus causing their interests to rise. I think this thing may become a can of worms for many in the future.
Thitinan on the looming verdict
Response to Vichai N.
For those with short memories, the self-serving ‘dumbed-down’ sound-bite message of most if not all Western government’s after the coup was that Thaksin was a “democratically elected” and therefore Thailand’s legitimate political leader. However this position deliberately ignored the reality of Thailand’s semi-democracy and the dominant system of patronage and entrenched money politics, as well as the democratic pre-requisites of adequate access to diverse sources of information and educated voters.
In this context, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why two of the hallmarks of ex-PM Thaksin’s premiership (aside from thousands of officially sanctioned judicial killings and the monopolization and exploitation of state resources to the benefit of his ruling clique etc. etc.) were the clamp down on independent media and the continuation of mind control by maintaining the predominance of rote-learning in education at all levels. In his own words, “Democracy is not my goal”.
To me, in the absence of a truly charismatic individual possessed of both integrity and a modern vision, the middle path for Siam lies largely in gaining the trust of the military by providing the right carrots and sticks in order that it feels secure enough to sustain an orderly rollback of its business activities and political machinations. At this point, the only alternative seems to be a violent and likely very bloody revolution. Perhaps by default then, PM Abhisit, hamstrung as he is by a legitimate albeit fractious and weak coalition government and the lack of a direct democratic mandate (not to mention a liking for Barry Manilow – but perhaps I digress) remains Siam’s last, best hope to escape the past 75-odd years of rule by Thailand inc. and it’s legacy of repression and pent-up demand and establish the foundations for a genuine and inclusive representative democracy.
George Orwell wrote that the middle classes will follow their own interests in deciding whether to side with the rich or the poor. Therefore, given the reality of entrenched money politics in every party here, the party which can win the majority of middle class support seems likely to prevail once more at the next election.
In my opinion, the litmus test this year for PM Abisit’s leadership is how well he can deliver on his much touted big-push on education reform while at least making some significant reforms in other policy areas: in other words, a good compass and a safe pair of hands.
Bottom line: so far, so good.
Thanks Vichai.
Burma sanctions: limited, Western, symbolic
Hla Oo,
One was kept in my hut, hanging from a nail on the wall. I had many opportunities to examine it, but sadly, none to use it. The Karenni Army get them from the SPDC.
The workmanship was very poor, with poorly fitting parts and tool marks.
They also had G3’s that had been taken off of dead SPDC soldiers, or from ones who deserted and traded them for safe passage to Thailand.
They were much better made.
The problems that the SPDC had with the G3 stemmed from the fact that the weapon was designed for a larger person (longer arm reach).
I’m not going to get into the argument of which round was better – 7.62 vs 5.56. Each has its fans and detractors. Same for 9mm vs 45 caliber. Both are arguments that never end.
Insofar as magazine capacity, a person who knows what he’s doing will get along just fine with a twenty round capacity magazine. Those of the “spray and pray” persuasion should probably consider going back to the rifle range for more instruction. Holding the rifle over your head and emptying the magazine in the general direction of the enemy only works if the enemy is employing the same tactic.
Well aimed fire, whether with a MA-1 or a G3, is the ticket to success.
Making sense of the verdict
Portman:
“Srithanonchai, I find that being politically sincere towards the people and having never given up his sincerity towards his business interests are mutually exclusive concepts.” >> Conceptually, I am not sure. In practical mental terms, individuals can combine a lot of thinking and behavior that to outside observers might appear contradictory.
Making sense of the verdict
I have a query – and it is only that – about the Court’s judgement on AIS/ Shin getting a reduction from 25% to 20% payments to TOT : is n’t this supposed to be what free-market capitalism is about ?
I.e. “rolling back” (in Reagan’s great term) the government sector, in favour of the private ?
International Tribunal on Crimes Against Women of Burma
I find it hilarious that the activists think the reason that there is no “change by national, regional or international community leaders” is because of the lack of knowledge. In fact, there is quite a bit of knowledge about Burma, but no willpower. The world has failed to take action even when there has been even more knowledge, as in Darfur. I simply fail to see what a “fake court” – even composed of influential individuals – will do to remedy this situation.
Making sense of the verdict
Portman: They did not calculate the gain that way because its clear there was NO (or minimal at most) gain if calculated that way – sort of makes the verdict/conviction of an abnormal gain a nonsense doesn’t it?
As usual when it comes to Thaksin (and others that are not on the ‘untouchable’ list), the penalty is disproportionately excessive for the ‘crime’.
Making sense of the verdict
RE: But since the US has a much stronger legal system than Thailand, American’s like to litigate more, and so many people hate Cheney, I was surprised that nobody tried to pursue the issue in court. And certainly nobody called for Gen. Petraeus to return from Baghdad, arrest Cheney, and put him on trial!
Actually, even a cursory search into American politics will find plenty of people looking for Cheney’s legal accountability.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/12/waiting-for-a-president-to-do-the-right-thing/
That said, the American legal system is just a rife with political maneuvering as that in Thailand. Look no further than how George W Bush was given the presidency by the Supreme Court which effectively brought a stop to the counting of the ballots — exactly what an election is suppose to do.
Of interest is the make-up of the Supreme Court at that time, composed of plenty of George Bush Sr/ daddy’s appointees. And there is no need to get into the fixing of voting machines in Governor/brother Jeb’s state of Florida, or the Republican partisan rubes working the bureaucracy behind the scenes in shaping the voter lists pro-Republican to further make the point either.
Justice in America is like everything in America — a commodity for sale.
Are you kidding me?
Michael – Bangkok Post or Nation featured an article last year, in which they reported the government as warning there was a movement to divide the regions against each other, through-out the whole country – not simply Pattani.
I read this way before I started posting anything on NM. I’ve certainly got no connection whatsoever to any Thai political movement, least of all any such as this. I’ve never been active politically in Thailand at all, during any of my many visits, over decades. If you think this is “silly” I suggest you look up the article, and give that label to the government agencies which were saying it !
But this article did get me thinking (I suggest you try that!).
Two decades ago, when I travelled through Pattani and southern Thailand you would have been called “silly” for suggesting what is happening there now. It was a lovely, peaceful place.
“Esan people want to be included to a greater extent in the rights & privileges of Thai nationality. They are sick of being excluded.”
Of course they do – I’ve only SUGGESTED if they continue to be excluded, now having had their expectations raised by Thaksin, that if widespread violence is used against them (eg. through a pro-PAD coup), then the country will increasingly split into MILITARISED polarised regions reflecting the already polarised vote : this means secession.
It means an independent ISAARN.
I never said an independent Isaarn would necessarily join the PDR.
But it is highly likely the PDR would come to Isaarn’s aid.
As for “I haven’t met a single person from the area near Laos who has expressed any interest in joining that country” :
Sorry, but I’ve met MANY who expressed sorrow about “the broken heart” – i.e. the separation of formerly Siam co-joined Lao and Isaarn.
And want this division – like Germans wanted Berlin’s Wall down – to now end.
This may happen peacefully – I hope it does – but not if there is a bloody, pro-PAD (which wants to disenfranchise Isaarn) coup.
Making sense of the verdict
The comparison with Abhisit’s father being a director of CP Foods looks like an attempt to clutch at straws to justify The Boss’s criminal antics which have now properly been judged as such. Abhisit hasn’t attempted to conceal his father’s directorship and anyway there is no legal prohibition on parents being on company boards. Patiwat’s comment “…by being a director of CP Foods, he has a fiduciary responsibility to the Chearavanonts…” seems to betray a lack of understanding of corporate governance. Prof Athasit is an independent, non-executive, director of CP Foods. Therefore, while he does have a fiduciary responsibility towards all the shareholders of CPF collectively, including the Chearavanonts, he is expected to look out for the interests of the minority shareholders, in the event that there is a conflict of interests between the majority and minority shareholders. Independent directors are not supposed to have any shares in the company and non-executive directors have nothing to do with the management of the company.
Thaksin’s children and the other family nominees were, on the other hand, holding an effective controlling stake in Shin Corp on behalf of Thaksin who had deliberately concealed this fact and made fraudulent assets declarations.
The court’s decision to confiscate only the gains accrued while the shares were fraudulently owned by Thaksin seems quite fair. It would be absurd for the court to try come up with a complicated analysis of what exactly was the “alpha” part of the returns generated by Thaksin’s criminal behaviour, as opposed to the “beta” part generated by the market. The two are not entirely indivisible, since Shin’s performance contributed to the performance of the whole and separating the two would have had an army of finance academics arguing for a decade. Anyway the judges are not expected to be qualified investment analysts. Confiscating the gains on the assets that Thaksin was not allowed to own as prime minister is fair enough and avoids nitpicking arguments about what was the alpha and what was the beta. Thaksin is not the underdog in a competition in investment research methodology, he is a criminal on the run from a jail sentence, who has just been found guilty of further criminal acts while prime minister.
Burma sanctions: limited, Western, symbolic
Charles F.
How did you manage to get hold of one?
I do not know 5.56 MA at all. But I know 7.62 G3 well. I used to sleep with one beside my bed. Powerful and reliable but to long, too big, and too cumbersome for jungle warfare. The magazine is only 20 rounds too.
Smaller MA with 30 round magazine is more suitable for the Burmese jungle.
Unreliable junk?
Maybe the production facilities are not up to the Israel standard yet. Or the original Galil itself has reliability problems?
Maybe that is the reason even the Israel infantry use M16 instead of their own Galil.
Damned Chinese: mighty Mekong a memory
This article provides an alternative perspective on the main cause of the low water levels:
Making sense of the verdict
Fringer, you stated that Abhisit himself would have to own a controlling stake in CP Foods for CP to potentially be accused of policy corruption. And you stated that “unfairly benefit” was a criteria for policy corruption.
I disagree on both counts.
– Thaksin himself didn’t own the critical stake in Shincorp – his children did. The court found that this father-son relationship meant that in essence Thaksin owned Shincorp. The same father-son relationship should hold in the case of Abhisit and his father.
– Thaksin’s children owned the critical shares in Shincorp, but Abhisit’s father is “just” a director. As far as I know, he doesn’t own any significant stake. But the number of shares Abhisit’s father owns is not relevant – by being a director of CP Foods, he has a fiduciary responsibility to the Chearavanonts. This fiduciary duty is the the highest “standard of care” in law, and he must put his duty to CP Foods above that of his own interests.
– As far as I understood from the ruling, the “fairness” of the benefit derived by Shincorp wasn’t the deciding issue – instead, it was the issue of whether Shincorp derived ANY benefit from Thaksin. Using the 101 buffaloes analogy, it doesn’t matter if the 100 buffaloes also get equal access to the commons, or even if they eat more than the buffalo owned by the headman. As long as the headman’s buffalo derives any benefit from the commons purchased under his authority, he’s guilty. This is why Thaksin’s penalty was the total increase in wealth due to Shincorp’s share price appreciation, rather than the difference between Shincorp’s appreciation and either the SET’s appreciation.
(Clarification: the TV commentator who also used a buffalo analogy wasn’t my cousin. My cousin probably heard it from him and then mentioned it to me.)
(Please don’t think that I was ever defending Cheney’s situation. But since the US has a much stronger legal system than Thailand, American’s like to litigate more, and so many people hate Cheney, I was surprised that nobody tried to pursue the issue in court. And certainly nobody called for Gen. Petraeus to return from Baghdad, arrest Cheney, and put him on trial!)
No ordinary government?
This woman is obviously quite sincere in wanting a more equal and democratic Thailand, and I applaud her for that.
However, I can’t help thinking, that she along with several red shirt supporters I know (middle class suburban Bangkokians), are so desperate for change, they are prepared to accept a “pirate copy” of democracy and an equal chance for all, instead of holding out for, or even better still, creating their own “legitimate” Thailand.
Burma sanctions: limited, Western, symbolic
Hla Oo.
I wouldn’t brag on the Burmese MA rifles. Having handled them I can tell you that they’re unreliable junk.
The SPDC would have served themselves better had they stuck with the G3, or even Singaporean copies of the M-16.
Making sense of the verdict
Using Halliburton and Dick Cheney as an example supporting correct policy implementation only reveals the author’s own misguided legal understandings.
The USA would serve its people well if it had the gonads to go after Cheney on this one as well, but powerful hands prevent that from happening.
At least Thailand has stood up for what is right — a conflict of interest, especially when shrouded in years of shell games and deception, is only the start of the concerns with the Shiniwatra social crimes.
Burma sanctions: limited, Western, symbolic
@Derek Tonkin
“I am in favour of the Western arms embargo”
The arms embargo don’t mean that much for Burmese junta too as China and other rogue countries such as Israel and Ukraine are willing to provide arms legally or illegally to the Burmese army.
Burmese army standard infantry rifle used to be the locally-produced German Heckler and Koch G3 till the day UN and EU imposed the arms embargo. Within a year the Burma’s Defense Industries is producing new MA rifles whch is the exact replica of Israeli Galil assault rifle.
Israel claimed it is an illegal copy. But it really is a better and updated version of the Israeli IMI GALIL assault rifle, manufactured under supervision of Israeli consultants and with the use of Israeli machinery shipped to Burma in violation of the arms embargo.
A payment of 100 million US dollars simply lifted the arms embargo!
Making sense of the verdict
RR makes a good point. The jurisdictional issues were almost all referred back to the legitimacy of coup announcements. Of course Thaksin’s lawyers tried to argue that this was illegitimate, but from the TRT dissolution case it was clear what the courts felt. The case to ensure that the AEC/ASC was legally constituted, decided earlier, was to avoid the situation that arose with the Chatichai assets seizure case when the ruling on Chatichai was overturned as illegal. Politically, though, the acceptance of every junta action is troubling.
Making sense of the verdict
Without commenting on the verdict directly. The one thing that troubled me is the court in essence has legitimized the use of a coup for any and all reasons, past but more worrying future. If the Thai people revolted and took power overthrowing the government and military, would the court be so accommodating.
The KIA digging in
“However, do you think there is a higher probability of gain from the BGF and election route?”
Regarding the BGF transformation, I think it’s problematic for both the State and the non-state armed groups. Aside from the contentious political aspects of the deal (i.e. who controls what and how many soldiers) that both sides have yet to agree on, there are other simply technical problems with the transformation that have not been addressed: Like what’s going to happen to all those ethnic soldiers (and their weapons) who are suddenly put out of a job (for almost all groups the BGF transformation will involve some reduction in troop numbers).
But, I think the elections can be separated somewhat from the BGF transformation (insofar as a group can (as the KIO have shown) create an informally affiliated political party to pursue the election route irrespective of their decision on the BGF issue). And so, yes, I do think that engaging in the elections would be the most pragmatic move for ethnic political parties (and for pro-democracy opposition parties as well, for that matter).