Sidh S refers to a “coordinated international media effort” which is only a step away from the paranoic but quite widely held view that the overseas press is in the pay of Thaksin or his public relations people.Naturally in this complex debate it’s important to understand nuance and context, but by any reasonable standard Thaksin is a victim of Thai politics and although I wouldn’t describe the judiciary as “dodgy” it has surely been enlisted (some would say instructed) to destroy Thaksin and his influence.
Chris, thanks for your comment. I agree that there is no reason to predict a regular or consistent “swing” in Thailand (or elsewhere). Statements about “swings” in any election are, of course, aggregations of all sorts of movements that are often quite regionally disparate. And I agree, it would be very over-optimistic to suggest that the Democrats are on the verge of a breakthrough. But the numbers do suggest that relatively small movements in voting patterns could make a big difference. An opposition strategy that combined efforts to achieve a national “swing” against the PPP with focussed campaigns in constitutencies that looked promising would make sense. It may not work – that is the nature of elections. And it may take time – here in Australia we had Howard for 12 years! But what is the alternative?
Fair enough, Andrew. However, I take liberty with your last paragraph to present a more complete story:
“Taking to the (electorate) is an honourable part of the democratic tradition. But where the deliberate strategy of (TRT/PPP Government) leaders is to obliterate a diverse and dynamic process of national political decision making – and where the (PPP Government) deliberately provoke (PAD protesters by) explicitly (trying to white-wash corruption cases against PMThaksin and cronies) – I have no hesitation in joining the cretinous commentariat in condemning them.”
For what ever purposes, there seems to be a coordinated international media effort to present PMThaksin as the “victim” of “Thai politics” and “dodgy Thai judiciary”. I understand that an academic of the highest calibre such as Andrew will not hesitate in also pointing out that that is highly misleading.
Corrections to my speedy blog:
1. Kor Tor Sor = ASC (Assets Scrutiny Committee) – I missed out a line here…The issue relates to the “funds to revitalise and develop the financial instutions”.
2. “The minimum land price was set by the Kor Tor Sor charged with buying the land for the state” should read: “The minimum land price was set by the funds charged …”
The issues relate “simply” (if this were possible!!) :
(a) Thaksin questioning whether Kor Tor Sor set up by CNN has the legal bases to file charges against him
(b) The mean price set by the funds for the land is lower than the market value of the land; thus he is accused of manipulating the land value.
Again, confirming the highly technical, rigourous nature of the ruling (reflected in the varied 5-4, 7-2, 8-1 verdicts for different accusations). I understand now why ASC chose this as the first case – it clearly conflicts the letter of the anti-corruption law of 1999 that disallows office holders to do business with the government.
It is a case of the Master of Legal Corruption and conflicts of interests (“р╣Вр╕Бр╕Зр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕бр╕╡р╕Бр╕╢р╣Лр╕Щ” according to Thairath’s political team) drowning in shallow water. As I speculated earlier, buying state property in his children’s name – or even his company’s name, could have made this a very weak case, sticking to the letter of the law.
For me this points to the broader issue – for even mature Western democracies – of ‘corporate corruption’. How do democratic societies regulate to minimize the cozy relationships between government and business. At least with this ruling, I argue that Thailand has taken a small step to the higher standards or the West, where, for example in Australia, it is highly unlikely that Therese Rein, PMKevin Rudd’s wife, will be doing lucrative business deals with the government – at least while he is in power.
However, in most cases, ‘corporate corruption’ has been sophisticatedly institutionalized – and the classic case is the benefits reaped by Halliburton, VPCheney’s ‘former’ employer, post-Iraq War. Many of the projects weren’t even tendered and I doubt Bush or Cheney will ever be tried for corruption.
Here, PMThaksin has another comparable case pending when his government gave a loan to the Burmese Junta (through EXIM Bank) to buy telecommuncation equipments from his company ShinCorp. As with Halliburton, there’s no tender and ShinCorp, I understand, was specified.
The ensuing cases will get much more complex, sophisticated and challenging for the Thai judiciary system – it will be a much needed huge learning curve setting critical historical precedents.
Thai society may be self-immolating now, but many years down the line, outside of PMThaksin’s shadows, we might be thankful to PMThaksin’s darkest sides that provide the sternest test for both Thai Democracy and Thai Corruption…
As if evidence is needed: According to the Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) Thailand now ranks 9th out of 12 Asian countries as having the most corrupt judiciary, beaten as the most corrupt only by China, Vietnam and Indonesia. PAD leaders have been let off prosecution, as with the 2006 coup-makers before them. Meanwhile Judge Jaran (Charan) and his black gang of tainted Constitutional Court judges are not going to cease trying to pin Thaksin and his family down simply to justify their own existence or conditions of appointment and madcap behaviour since the illicit 2006 coup.
As I understand it, Thaksin’s lawyers said the Kor Tor Sor (roughly the “funds to revitalise and develop the financial instutions”) has no right because it was set up by an illegal coup though the court said the coup was in fact legal and does have the right to do this!!
But then these judges do not care about justifying their decisions; many of them are past retirement and passionate Democrats/Amaats.
Fact 1. The land purchased by Thaksin’s wife was not sought after for commercial purposes because of building restrictions imposed until the land title was changed by the BMA (with Apirak as Governor) after, yes after, they had already bought it…(I cannot see Apirak wanting to do any favours to then PM Thaksin). Thaksin’s wife in fact did not do anything against the law according to the judges summary. The fault was on Thaksin because he signed documents (normal in Thailand where husbands have to sign with wives & vice-versa) while he was the PM. The judges believed that the land was under-priced at sale. There were three unsuccessful bidders beforehand. The minimum land price was set by the Kor Tor Sor charged with buying the land for the state.
Fact 2. The judgment in the court was actually flawed and based on hearsay without any evidence of malfeasance, arguing that Thaksin had broken the law according to 2542 (1999) anti-corruption acts (articles 100 and 122). But it is interesting that the court use bits and pieces of the 1997 Constitution (its selected acts) that is supposed to be redundant and then draw in bits from the 2007 Constitution to suit their ulterior motives.
Any fair legal person would have field day with this pathetic and corrupt circus going on in Thailand right now. And remember; the government cannot touch the courts.
[…] ongoing political crisis in Bangkok. I’m not sure if he had New Mandala in his sights, but the argument that opposition forces in Thailand should pursue an electoral rather than confrontational strategy […]
Well, I am Thai, been following Thai news ever since Thaksin became elected. –Saw the quality of living of Thais improved dramatically over his governance and also noticed improved transparency in the government(although “chosen experts”/newspapers might claim otherwise). Have they not remembered transparency pre-97? have they not looked at reports published by the UN? or were they complacently ignored?
Sadly, to me, this issue is analogous to the claim of WMD by GW. BUSH. Here we have a group of people saying Thaksin is corrupt. However unlike the case in the US where no WMD were found, people in Thailand do things differently….
It goes something like this: You must be corrupt because you are unusually rich and we don’t like you. Since we say you are corrupt, you are corrupt and we will make you corrupt using our friends in the court…
This is indeed Thaksin’s moral victory and he will get more sympathy around the world. PAD mobsters are happily clapping their silly hand clappers not realizing they have become the laughing stock of the entire world.
The international community is watching the Thai judiciary’s rulings more closely now after a court of appeals suddenly reversed a lower court’s ruling and ruled that an attack against the state’s TV station and occupation of a Govt House is NOT treason. This can happen only in Thailand where criminals become heroes and vice versa.
Sorry for the misspelling. I mixed the name up with that of a friend of mine whose name is Visit. I agree with you that his column is rather more political than linguistic in nature. However, his attempt is flawed, because he systematically edited out relevant meanings and references.
SuperMarsupial: What about the wife?
AnonymousCaller: We already have a three-year sentence on her and this verdict will be confirmed in the appeals instance. I’m taking care of that (chuckles).
SM: So we can let her off the hook?
AC: Yes, it might make your appear more benign and impartial (chuckles). Also, my superiors feel sorry for the wife. After all she’s a Khunying and all that.
SM: What about the sentence then?
AC: What is the maximum term again?
SM: Three years.
AC: Uh, how about two years? Sounds good in the papers. Strict, but not full throttle. So we can say to the critics: ‘We could have meted out a much harsher sentence because PM is a position that should set and example etc..etc.’ (chuckles)
SM: OK, consider it done. I guess there’s no need for the share concealment case then? We’re getting a little tired of writing these long-winded verdicts, cutting all corners of jurisprudence and twisting the law to make it fit the facts.
AC: I’ve already advised the OAG accordingly. You can take it easy now and let your colleages at the Constitution Court do some work on the dissolutions. And thanks again for selflessly serving the Rule of Law in Thailand
(conversation drowns in laughter).
I appreciated Christian Schafferer’s essay and photos. Since I don’t know anything about Taiwan’s experience with New Democracy I can’t comment on that aspect.
Regarding doctorJ’s comments, I think the people of Thailand need democracy AND critical thinking skills and wisdom. I am appalled at the lack of critical thinking skills exhibited by the supposed upper stratas of Thai society such as doctors, pilots, “scholars”, media editorialists, government and military officials, etc.
They consistently display a form of knowledge but one that is without real content. If this is the best this society can do then they are in really bad shape for the future.
I deeply appreciate your sentiments. Tell me how often have you sat down and listened to the tradition and mythology of your people from your elders? What type of school do you attend…a Hindu missionary or Christian missionary? Where have the beautiful forests and wild life of your land gone?
The Chinese have a historical claim over your land. They haven’t given it up. Please continue with your Inner Line system to lend support and strength to their claim.
Which tribe do you belong to? What does it have in common with the other tribes of Arunachal?
How come there are so many Nepalese settled and working in Arunachal? And the Bengalis running your offices? and the Bangladesi servants? and your own Sholung slaves?
I love your land and people but we need to accept that change is inevitable. Your people cannot live in the past forever and are not doing so.
I worked with Harry in Saudi Arabia. Never in our times together did we need to fear this kind of justice as displayed in a different kingdom.
Harry and I have been in Thailand several times together since he wrote the book. I wonder why only now has the authorities chosen to take issue with a book that was published several years ago.
The ruling is highly technical – and one wonders if, instead of KYPotjaman buying the land, one of their children buys it on their behalf (as they have held ShinCorp shares on their parents’ behalf), the ruling may be different (any lawyers around here)? Ofcourse, this goes against the spirit of the 1997, 2007 constitutions – well, any previous constitutions on matters of conflict of interests and corruption really…
I agree with KhunGad Pokasang’s verdict – however, I believe the verdict is timely to set new legal – and societal it is hoped – precedents. IF PMThaksin believes he is unfairly treated because other corrupt politicians are not standing trial and being punished, then it is time he spills the beans on all his former friends/allies turned current foes…
Here is something to consider- Thaksin’s inevitable guilty verdict: Who controls the courts? Who cares? (adapted from http://thaiintelligentnews.wordpress.com/2008/)
In case after case it is clear that the Thai courts are part of the Amaat system (traditional elites, privy councilors, aristocrats and high ranking public servants [of monarchy- less the state]) which includes the Thai Supreme Court. These ruled on Thaksin’s Ratchada land case and came to the inevitable guilty conclusion. It could not have been any other way. The Amaat system is engaged in a bare fist fight with Thaksin, endorsing an illegal group of street thugs (PAD) in the front line to carry out their task given by the military CNC/junta and their Democrat Party friends since late 2006. The courts have not ruled in this case in accordance with legal precepts, but in accordance with their mandate to deliver a final blow to Thaksin. If one were to keep an open mind (if that’s possible these days) the vindictiveness and ulterior motive of the so-called independent state apparatus is glaringly obvious.
As Amaat control the courts they appear immune to criticism outside, much of it muted by the “free” Thai media working in hand with the Amaat and Democrats. As for lifting the treason case against Sondhi and PAD’s leaders, or Samak’s guilt for TV cooking would indicate a twisted motive of the judicial system in Thailand. If the courts can let Sondhi roam freely to damage the Thai nation state and monarchy, ban the government’s media in 2007, make decisions against public opinion, kick Samak out of government house, then why are the courts so infatuated, so intoxicated with perverting the rule of law in order to crucify Thaksin?
Despite the guilty ruling, one must ask what damaged has Thaksin’s purchase of the Ratchada land done to the public interest. In fact, the land in question is valued in the public finance books as being worth only a few hundred million baht, but Thaksin purchased it about five times the registrar’s price. And while the purchase is above book price, did the public get the best deal possible from its sale of public land to Thaksin’s wife? Well, it was an open bidding process and so one can assume that the public got the best price from this plot of land. After the sale, there should not have been an issue (certainly not an issue of law), as long as the sale was conducted in a transparent and accountable manner.
Apart from Thaksin’s responsibility to the state while he was in office, he also has a responsibility to free enterprise – being a champion of capitalism. Thus, did Thaksin unfairly bid for the land by making it impossible for others to bid for the land? In other words, was it fair competition that enabled Thaksin’s wife to purchase the land? It was suggested by some that because Thaksin was a super-rich well-known bidder, other bidders were frightened away. However, this argument misses the point: was the system of bidding open and carried out fairly so that everyone who wished to bid for it could have done so? In fact, this was the case, and there was nothing underhand about this procedure. Thaksin had too much to lose by playing under the table. He was too rich and prominent to risk everything in this way. He was too smart to do that. But he came back to Thailand earlier this year thinking that these and other spurious accusations spun incessantly by Sondhi and his mates in the so-called “free press” would be righted in the Thai courts. How wrong he was on that one.
Where to from here? It seems that, given the will, Thaksin still has some choices. Fortunately for him, most of the world’s press are on now on Thaksin side and understand the nature of the Thai courts seeing them as something of a very tragic comedy. It would not take much for Thaksin to state his case to the international media to show what is really going on in the perverted world of the Thai judiciary. He may even hire a PR company to do some work for him with the international legal community, which he has done before, and it worked well. As each day goes by with this sad saga, Thaksin becomes more and more a victim of Thai injustice. But the Thai courts do not give a damn about the international legal, political or wider community; neither do any of the amaat-supported state apparatuses. Recent letters of concern from the World Medical Association (WMA) to a group of pro-PAD medical doctors in Thailand, especially Chulalongkorn University Hospital, over refusing to treat sick police or their families fell on death ears. The Airline pilots association looked the other way after furious complaints when a female government MP was refused by a pro-PAD pilot to board a plane in the northeast of the country. The stories go on and on. But who cares? The people who voted for Thaksin’s TRT and then the PPP, seemingly just have to take it, anyway, which way.
I have just examined the yellow cover variant of р╕Бр╕Зр╕Ир╕▒р╕Бр╕гр╕Ыр╕╡р╕ир╕▓р╕И and am uploading scans of the cover and front endpaper. We must assume, according to the comments above from An old phrai and Ajarn Somsak that this must be the 1974 edition which was privately circulated. There are no apparent textual differences with the black cover variant issue and I would speculate they were produced from the same printing plates. These plates must have remained well hidden from 1974 to 1977! There are some minor differences in the location of the illustrations.
However, what I find very curious is that the first 16 pages are missing from both variants, years apart! Ajarn Somsak speculates that these missing pages, including the title page, formed the first signature or gathering of the book.
We wonder when, exactly, these pages were removed!
We are one of the Salt importers in Hongkong. Our market is mainly in Hongkong and Macau. Please qoute your lowest CIF price to Hongkong in 25kg/bag
Best Regards,
Mr. Chim Wo
Yat Fung Company
DD23, Lot 627, Lai Pek Shan Tsuen
TaiPo, N.T. Hongkong
Tel. No. 00852-2398180
Fax No. 00852-27891709
email add; [email protected]
THIS COMMENT IS ON MY OWN BEHALF AND SELF INTEREST
To me the PAD phenomenon is nothing more than ridiculous stage show by some circus clowns. Trying desparately to draw as much people as they can to achieve their political goal(which has nothing to do nor benefit the royal monarch).
But this doesn’t mean Thaksin is not guilty. He also did a lot of damage to this country(there had been alot of comments on this issue already, and not the main point of discussion here).
PAD doesn’t consume democracy, but PAD mislead people, guide them to the wrong direction, the very dangerous direction, to the verge of civil war. Only when people can come to their sense in time, we may avoid further bloodshed.
What people in this country need right now is not democracy, but critical thinking, and WISDOM. May God bless them wisdom. May God save them from these wicked CLOWNS!
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
More from a parliamentary cretin
Sidh S refers to a “coordinated international media effort” which is only a step away from the paranoic but quite widely held view that the overseas press is in the pay of Thaksin or his public relations people.Naturally in this complex debate it’s important to understand nuance and context, but by any reasonable standard Thaksin is a victim of Thai politics and although I wouldn’t describe the judiciary as “dodgy” it has surely been enlisted (some would say instructed) to destroy Thaksin and his influence.
Blood rather than ballots
Chris, thanks for your comment. I agree that there is no reason to predict a regular or consistent “swing” in Thailand (or elsewhere). Statements about “swings” in any election are, of course, aggregations of all sorts of movements that are often quite regionally disparate. And I agree, it would be very over-optimistic to suggest that the Democrats are on the verge of a breakthrough. But the numbers do suggest that relatively small movements in voting patterns could make a big difference. An opposition strategy that combined efforts to achieve a national “swing” against the PPP with focussed campaigns in constitutencies that looked promising would make sense. It may not work – that is the nature of elections. And it may take time – here in Australia we had Howard for 12 years! But what is the alternative?
More from a parliamentary cretin
Fair enough, Andrew. However, I take liberty with your last paragraph to present a more complete story:
“Taking to the (electorate) is an honourable part of the democratic tradition. But where the deliberate strategy of (TRT/PPP Government) leaders is to obliterate a diverse and dynamic process of national political decision making – and where the (PPP Government) deliberately provoke (PAD protesters by) explicitly (trying to white-wash corruption cases against PMThaksin and cronies) – I have no hesitation in joining the cretinous commentariat in condemning them.”
For what ever purposes, there seems to be a coordinated international media effort to present PMThaksin as the “victim” of “Thai politics” and “dodgy Thai judiciary”. I understand that an academic of the highest calibre such as Andrew will not hesitate in also pointing out that that is highly misleading.
One verdict on Thaksin
Corrections to my speedy blog:
1. Kor Tor Sor = ASC (Assets Scrutiny Committee) – I missed out a line here…The issue relates to the “funds to revitalise and develop the financial instutions”.
2. “The minimum land price was set by the Kor Tor Sor charged with buying the land for the state” should read: “The minimum land price was set by the funds charged …”
The issues relate “simply” (if this were possible!!) :
(a) Thaksin questioning whether Kor Tor Sor set up by CNN has the legal bases to file charges against him
(b) The mean price set by the funds for the land is lower than the market value of the land; thus he is accused of manipulating the land value.
One verdict on Thaksin
A much more detailed account from Thairath:
р╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕Ур╣Вр╕Фр╕Щр╕Др╕Фр╕╡р╣Бр╕гр╕Б р╣Ар╕Ир╕нр╕Др╕╕р╕Б2р╕Ыр╕╡ р╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓р╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╕Кр╕┤р╕Зр╣Вр╕Хр╣Йр╕Чр╕▒р╕Щр╕Др╕зр╕▒р╕Щ [22 р╕Х.р╕Д. 51 – 04:00]
in
http://www.thairath.co.th/offline.php?section=hotnews&content=108508
Again, confirming the highly technical, rigourous nature of the ruling (reflected in the varied 5-4, 7-2, 8-1 verdicts for different accusations). I understand now why ASC chose this as the first case – it clearly conflicts the letter of the anti-corruption law of 1999 that disallows office holders to do business with the government.
It is a case of the Master of Legal Corruption and conflicts of interests (“р╣Вр╕Бр╕Зр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕бр╕╡р╕Бр╕╢р╣Лр╕Щ” according to Thairath’s political team) drowning in shallow water. As I speculated earlier, buying state property in his children’s name – or even his company’s name, could have made this a very weak case, sticking to the letter of the law.
For me this points to the broader issue – for even mature Western democracies – of ‘corporate corruption’. How do democratic societies regulate to minimize the cozy relationships between government and business. At least with this ruling, I argue that Thailand has taken a small step to the higher standards or the West, where, for example in Australia, it is highly unlikely that Therese Rein, PMKevin Rudd’s wife, will be doing lucrative business deals with the government – at least while he is in power.
However, in most cases, ‘corporate corruption’ has been sophisticatedly institutionalized – and the classic case is the benefits reaped by Halliburton, VPCheney’s ‘former’ employer, post-Iraq War. Many of the projects weren’t even tendered and I doubt Bush or Cheney will ever be tried for corruption.
Here, PMThaksin has another comparable case pending when his government gave a loan to the Burmese Junta (through EXIM Bank) to buy telecommuncation equipments from his company ShinCorp. As with Halliburton, there’s no tender and ShinCorp, I understand, was specified.
The ensuing cases will get much more complex, sophisticated and challenging for the Thai judiciary system – it will be a much needed huge learning curve setting critical historical precedents.
Thai society may be self-immolating now, but many years down the line, outside of PMThaksin’s shadows, we might be thankful to PMThaksin’s darkest sides that provide the sternest test for both Thai Democracy and Thai Corruption…
One verdict on Thaksin
As if evidence is needed: According to the Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) Thailand now ranks 9th out of 12 Asian countries as having the most corrupt judiciary, beaten as the most corrupt only by China, Vietnam and Indonesia. PAD leaders have been let off prosecution, as with the 2006 coup-makers before them. Meanwhile Judge Jaran (Charan) and his black gang of tainted Constitutional Court judges are not going to cease trying to pin Thaksin and his family down simply to justify their own existence or conditions of appointment and madcap behaviour since the illicit 2006 coup.
As I understand it, Thaksin’s lawyers said the Kor Tor Sor (roughly the “funds to revitalise and develop the financial instutions”) has no right because it was set up by an illegal coup though the court said the coup was in fact legal and does have the right to do this!!
But then these judges do not care about justifying their decisions; many of them are past retirement and passionate Democrats/Amaats.
Fact 1. The land purchased by Thaksin’s wife was not sought after for commercial purposes because of building restrictions imposed until the land title was changed by the BMA (with Apirak as Governor) after, yes after, they had already bought it…(I cannot see Apirak wanting to do any favours to then PM Thaksin). Thaksin’s wife in fact did not do anything against the law according to the judges summary. The fault was on Thaksin because he signed documents (normal in Thailand where husbands have to sign with wives & vice-versa) while he was the PM. The judges believed that the land was under-priced at sale. There were three unsuccessful bidders beforehand. The minimum land price was set by the Kor Tor Sor charged with buying the land for the state.
Fact 2. The judgment in the court was actually flawed and based on hearsay without any evidence of malfeasance, arguing that Thaksin had broken the law according to 2542 (1999) anti-corruption acts (articles 100 and 122). But it is interesting that the court use bits and pieces of the 1997 Constitution (its selected acts) that is supposed to be redundant and then draw in bits from the 2007 Constitution to suit their ulterior motives.
Any fair legal person would have field day with this pathetic and corrupt circus going on in Thailand right now. And remember; the government cannot touch the courts.
Blood rather than ballots
[…] ongoing political crisis in Bangkok. I’m not sure if he had New Mandala in his sights, but the argument that opposition forces in Thailand should pursue an electoral rather than confrontational strategy […]
One verdict on Thaksin
Well, I am Thai, been following Thai news ever since Thaksin became elected. –Saw the quality of living of Thais improved dramatically over his governance and also noticed improved transparency in the government(although “chosen experts”/newspapers might claim otherwise). Have they not remembered transparency pre-97? have they not looked at reports published by the UN? or were they complacently ignored?
Sadly, to me, this issue is analogous to the claim of WMD by GW. BUSH. Here we have a group of people saying Thaksin is corrupt. However unlike the case in the US where no WMD were found, people in Thailand do things differently….
It goes something like this: You must be corrupt because you are unusually rich and we don’t like you. Since we say you are corrupt, you are corrupt and we will make you corrupt using our friends in the court…
One verdict on Thaksin
This is indeed Thaksin’s moral victory and he will get more sympathy around the world. PAD mobsters are happily clapping their silly hand clappers not realizing they have become the laughing stock of the entire world.
The international community is watching the Thai judiciary’s rulings more closely now after a court of appeals suddenly reversed a lower court’s ruling and ruled that an attack against the state’s TV station and occupation of a Govt House is NOT treason. This can happen only in Thailand where criminals become heroes and vice versa.
On royal silence
Songtham:
Sorry for the misspelling. I mixed the name up with that of a friend of mine whose name is Visit. I agree with you that his column is rather more political than linguistic in nature. However, his attempt is flawed, because he systematically edited out relevant meanings and references.
One verdict on Thaksin
SuperMarsupial: What about the wife?
AnonymousCaller: We already have a three-year sentence on her and this verdict will be confirmed in the appeals instance. I’m taking care of that (chuckles).
SM: So we can let her off the hook?
AC: Yes, it might make your appear more benign and impartial (chuckles). Also, my superiors feel sorry for the wife. After all she’s a Khunying and all that.
SM: What about the sentence then?
AC: What is the maximum term again?
SM: Three years.
AC: Uh, how about two years? Sounds good in the papers. Strict, but not full throttle. So we can say to the critics: ‘We could have meted out a much harsher sentence because PM is a position that should set and example etc..etc.’ (chuckles)
SM: OK, consider it done. I guess there’s no need for the share concealment case then? We’re getting a little tired of writing these long-winded verdicts, cutting all corners of jurisprudence and twisting the law to make it fit the facts.
AC: I’ve already advised the OAG accordingly. You can take it easy now and let your colleages at the Constitution Court do some work on the dissolutions. And thanks again for selflessly serving the Rule of Law in Thailand
(conversation drowns in laughter).
PAD, consumed democracy and self-dramatization: A comparative view from Taiwan
I appreciated Christian Schafferer’s essay and photos. Since I don’t know anything about Taiwan’s experience with New Democracy I can’t comment on that aspect.
Regarding doctorJ’s comments, I think the people of Thailand need democracy AND critical thinking skills and wisdom. I am appalled at the lack of critical thinking skills exhibited by the supposed upper stratas of Thai society such as doctors, pilots, “scholars”, media editorialists, government and military officials, etc.
They consistently display a form of knowledge but one that is without real content. If this is the best this society can do then they are in really bad shape for the future.
“Arunachal Pradesh…exotically yours”
Dear Atoniya
I deeply appreciate your sentiments. Tell me how often have you sat down and listened to the tradition and mythology of your people from your elders? What type of school do you attend…a Hindu missionary or Christian missionary? Where have the beautiful forests and wild life of your land gone?
The Chinese have a historical claim over your land. They haven’t given it up. Please continue with your Inner Line system to lend support and strength to their claim.
Which tribe do you belong to? What does it have in common with the other tribes of Arunachal?
How come there are so many Nepalese settled and working in Arunachal? And the Bengalis running your offices? and the Bangladesi servants? and your own Sholung slaves?
I love your land and people but we need to accept that change is inevitable. Your people cannot live in the past forever and are not doing so.
Then why the ILP?
Lèse majesté and Harry Nicolaides
I worked with Harry in Saudi Arabia. Never in our times together did we need to fear this kind of justice as displayed in a different kingdom.
Harry and I have been in Thailand several times together since he wrote the book. I wonder why only now has the authorities chosen to take issue with a book that was published several years ago.
One verdict on Thaksin
Verdict’s out. PMThaksin GUILTY; KYPotjaman NOT GUILTY and money from transaction will be returned to her.
At the time of writing, Thairath seem to provide more details of the verdict than other newspapers:
р╕Ир╕│р╕Др╕╕р╕Б “р╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕У” 2 р╕Ыр╕╡ р╕вр╕Бр╕Яр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Юр╕Ир╕бр╕▓р╕Щр╕Др╕Фр╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Фр╕┤р╕Щр╕гр╕▒р╕Кр╕Фр╕▓ [21 р╕Х.р╕Д. 51 – 16:06]
in
http://www.thairath.co.th/online.php?section=newsthairathonline&content=108473
The ruling is highly technical – and one wonders if, instead of KYPotjaman buying the land, one of their children buys it on their behalf (as they have held ShinCorp shares on their parents’ behalf), the ruling may be different (any lawyers around here)? Ofcourse, this goes against the spirit of the 1997, 2007 constitutions – well, any previous constitutions on matters of conflict of interests and corruption really…
I agree with KhunGad Pokasang’s verdict – however, I believe the verdict is timely to set new legal – and societal it is hoped – precedents. IF PMThaksin believes he is unfairly treated because other corrupt politicians are not standing trial and being punished, then it is time he spills the beans on all his former friends/allies turned current foes…
One verdict on Thaksin
Here is something to consider- Thaksin’s inevitable guilty verdict: Who controls the courts? Who cares? (adapted from http://thaiintelligentnews.wordpress.com/2008/)
In case after case it is clear that the Thai courts are part of the Amaat system (traditional elites, privy councilors, aristocrats and high ranking public servants [of monarchy- less the state]) which includes the Thai Supreme Court. These ruled on Thaksin’s Ratchada land case and came to the inevitable guilty conclusion. It could not have been any other way. The Amaat system is engaged in a bare fist fight with Thaksin, endorsing an illegal group of street thugs (PAD) in the front line to carry out their task given by the military CNC/junta and their Democrat Party friends since late 2006. The courts have not ruled in this case in accordance with legal precepts, but in accordance with their mandate to deliver a final blow to Thaksin. If one were to keep an open mind (if that’s possible these days) the vindictiveness and ulterior motive of the so-called independent state apparatus is glaringly obvious.
As Amaat control the courts they appear immune to criticism outside, much of it muted by the “free” Thai media working in hand with the Amaat and Democrats. As for lifting the treason case against Sondhi and PAD’s leaders, or Samak’s guilt for TV cooking would indicate a twisted motive of the judicial system in Thailand. If the courts can let Sondhi roam freely to damage the Thai nation state and monarchy, ban the government’s media in 2007, make decisions against public opinion, kick Samak out of government house, then why are the courts so infatuated, so intoxicated with perverting the rule of law in order to crucify Thaksin?
Despite the guilty ruling, one must ask what damaged has Thaksin’s purchase of the Ratchada land done to the public interest. In fact, the land in question is valued in the public finance books as being worth only a few hundred million baht, but Thaksin purchased it about five times the registrar’s price. And while the purchase is above book price, did the public get the best deal possible from its sale of public land to Thaksin’s wife? Well, it was an open bidding process and so one can assume that the public got the best price from this plot of land. After the sale, there should not have been an issue (certainly not an issue of law), as long as the sale was conducted in a transparent and accountable manner.
Apart from Thaksin’s responsibility to the state while he was in office, he also has a responsibility to free enterprise – being a champion of capitalism. Thus, did Thaksin unfairly bid for the land by making it impossible for others to bid for the land? In other words, was it fair competition that enabled Thaksin’s wife to purchase the land? It was suggested by some that because Thaksin was a super-rich well-known bidder, other bidders were frightened away. However, this argument misses the point: was the system of bidding open and carried out fairly so that everyone who wished to bid for it could have done so? In fact, this was the case, and there was nothing underhand about this procedure. Thaksin had too much to lose by playing under the table. He was too rich and prominent to risk everything in this way. He was too smart to do that. But he came back to Thailand earlier this year thinking that these and other spurious accusations spun incessantly by Sondhi and his mates in the so-called “free press” would be righted in the Thai courts. How wrong he was on that one.
Where to from here? It seems that, given the will, Thaksin still has some choices. Fortunately for him, most of the world’s press are on now on Thaksin side and understand the nature of the Thai courts seeing them as something of a very tragic comedy. It would not take much for Thaksin to state his case to the international media to show what is really going on in the perverted world of the Thai judiciary. He may even hire a PR company to do some work for him with the international legal community, which he has done before, and it worked well. As each day goes by with this sad saga, Thaksin becomes more and more a victim of Thai injustice. But the Thai courts do not give a damn about the international legal, political or wider community; neither do any of the amaat-supported state apparatuses. Recent letters of concern from the World Medical Association (WMA) to a group of pro-PAD medical doctors in Thailand, especially Chulalongkorn University Hospital, over refusing to treat sick police or their families fell on death ears. The Airline pilots association looked the other way after furious complaints when a female government MP was refused by a pro-PAD pilot to board a plane in the northeast of the country. The stories go on and on. But who cares? The people who voted for Thaksin’s TRT and then the PPP, seemingly just have to take it, anyway, which way.
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
I have just examined the yellow cover variant of р╕Бр╕Зр╕Ир╕▒р╕Бр╕гр╕Ыр╕╡р╕ир╕▓р╕И and am uploading scans of the cover and front endpaper. We must assume, according to the comments above from An old phrai and Ajarn Somsak that this must be the 1974 edition which was privately circulated. There are no apparent textual differences with the black cover variant issue and I would speculate they were produced from the same printing plates. These plates must have remained well hidden from 1974 to 1977! There are some minor differences in the location of the illustrations.
However, what I find very curious is that the first 16 pages are missing from both variants, years apart! Ajarn Somsak speculates that these missing pages, including the title page, formed the first signature or gathering of the book.
We wonder when, exactly, these pages were removed!
The price of salt in Myanmar
We are one of the Salt importers in Hongkong. Our market is mainly in Hongkong and Macau. Please qoute your lowest CIF price to Hongkong in 25kg/bag
Best Regards,
Mr. Chim Wo
Yat Fung Company
DD23, Lot 627, Lai Pek Shan Tsuen
TaiPo, N.T. Hongkong
Tel. No. 00852-2398180
Fax No. 00852-27891709
email add; [email protected]
One verdict on Thaksin
Are you talking about KhunGad Pokasang’s verdict, KhunSongtham?
PAD, consumed democracy and self-dramatization: A comparative view from Taiwan
THIS COMMENT IS ON MY OWN BEHALF AND SELF INTEREST
To me the PAD phenomenon is nothing more than ridiculous stage show by some circus clowns. Trying desparately to draw as much people as they can to achieve their political goal(which has nothing to do nor benefit the royal monarch).
But this doesn’t mean Thaksin is not guilty. He also did a lot of damage to this country(there had been alot of comments on this issue already, and not the main point of discussion here).
PAD doesn’t consume democracy, but PAD mislead people, guide them to the wrong direction, the very dangerous direction, to the verge of civil war. Only when people can come to their sense in time, we may avoid further bloodshed.
What people in this country need right now is not democracy, but critical thinking, and WISDOM. May God bless them wisdom. May God save them from these wicked CLOWNS!