New Mandala

29 responses so far ↓

• 1 songtham tawinwang // Oct 21, 2008 at 6:43 pm

  With this biased judiciary, Thaksin and his wife would surely be found guilty.

• 2 Sidh S. // Oct 21, 2008 at 7:52 pm

  Are you talking about KhunGad Pokasang’s verdict, KhunSongtham?

• 3 goodbyedemocracy // Oct 21, 2008 at 9:05 pm

  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.

• 4 Sidh S. // Oct 21, 2008 at 9:06 pm

  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:

  จำคุก “ทักษิณ” 2 ปี ยกฟ้องพจมานคดีที่ดินรัชดา [21 ต.ค. 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…

• 5 krid // Oct 21, 2008 at 11:55 pm

  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).

• 6 Democracygone // Oct 22, 2008 at 2:40 am

  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.

• 7 Bob // Oct 22, 2008 at 8:11 am

  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…

• 8 jim's goodbyedemocracy // Oct 22, 2008 at 10:22 am

  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.

• 9 Sidh S. // Oct 22, 2008 at 12:46 pm

  A much more detailed account from Thairath:

  ทักษิณโดนคดีแรก เจอคุก2ปี เจ้าตัวชิงโต้ทันควัน [22 ต.ค. 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 (“โกงแบบมีกึ๋น” 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…

• 10 Jim's goodbyedemocracy // Oct 22, 2008 at 12:48 pm

  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.

• 11 boonchuay // Oct 22, 2008 at 2:58 pm

  Thaksin has so much money that he can pay so many people to express their opinions to support him include British Government related agencies, such as British diplomats in Thailand, and BBC.
  Besides many British companies are doing business in Thailand. So they have reasons to please Thaksin. Since Samuk, and Somchai’s governement are under his control.
  Please read other sources of of information You ‘ll know the truth.

• 12 Jim Taylor // Oct 22, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  Truth? or propaganda Boonchuay? sounds like Sondhi’s spin on truth. Just because Thaksin is rich does not mean he is guilty. He has legitimate concerns about the interpretation of truth in Thailand today by the amaat/Democrat Party/military alliance-against-democracy. I suggest you read other sources of information other than from the Manager Group or ASTV.

• 13 Bangkok Pundit // Oct 22, 2008 at 5:24 pm

  Sidh said 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.

  I would be interested to see where you read that about Shin Corp being mentioned as I haven’t read anything which says that. Some 600 million of the 4 billion baht was used to purchase telecommunications equipment. If there is evidence of a quid pro quo and Shin Corp was specified then Thaksin should rightly be convicted.

• 14 Sidh S. // Oct 22, 2008 at 10:31 pm

  Bangkok Pundit, I’m not sure about details myself – and I just learnt that the Burmese Junta used the Thai government loan to buy services from ShinSat, a subsidiary of ShinCorp – and not ShinCorp. It surely would be another case of the Master drowning in shallow water if his company was specified in the contract – but remember, technically, it is not his company, but his children’s. Did he run ShinCorp through his children as he is running the Thai government through his nominees in PPP? That will be hard to prove in court, hence the court did not accept cases that accused Thaksin of not strictly following his ban from political activities (impossible to enforce?). The next question is whether there was a tender for the contract or the Burmese Junta just chose ShinSat (wink wink with PMThaksin?)… And that could be the big loophole here.

  For me this is the same old story. Godfathers are only convicted of much lesser crimes and the same goes to Capitalist Mafias who flees their crimes and live life of luxury…

  Talking about Halliburton in Iraq, I also did a quick search and found this interesting article – the EXIM Bank loan to Myanmar gets more complex and compelling!

  “US twist to Thaksin court case”
  in
  http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/JH02Ae01.html
  Southeast Asia

• 15 Ralph Cramden // Oct 23, 2008 at 5:16 am

  Sidh: I went to your Thai Rath link. It seems to be a summary, including taking stuff from Western news agencies. Sidh’s confidence in the judgment based on these reports seems unwarranted. Is the full judgment available anywhere yet?

• 16 Sidh S. // Oct 23, 2008 at 7:01 pm

  Ralph, while awaiting the full judgment – which part of the verdict is not warranted?

  And just to make sure our understandings of “conflict of interest” are not different – two test questions:

  1) Assuming you are Australian, if Therese Rein, PMRudd’s wife, buys a 5 hectare piece of prime real estate in Sydney’s CBD owned/controlled by the federal government today (or while Rudd is in power) – is that a conflict of interest? Would Australians on the street view that as normal?

  2) Assuming Therese Rein still controls her job-search business (I can’t remember exactly what business). PMRudd’s cabinet approve a government to government loan to Indonesia and they use that money to buy services from Rein’s business. Is that a conflict of interest? Would Australians on the street view that as normal? “All above board mate”…

  You sound like someone who know the legalities of this thing well. Do illuminate us on how Australian law would deal with the two case that I raise. I may naively thought the Thai judiciary has set new precedents that I am proud of. Ralph can give me a reality check and see how far we are from ‘best practice’…

• 17 Portman // Oct 23, 2008 at 7:36 pm

  I can’t see any convincing argument put forward here as to why it was legal and even desirable for a prime minister’s wife to be involved in a transaction with a state agency, regardless of whether the price was below, above or at the market price. Thaksin’s spousal consent signature on the standard Lands Dept transfer form made it impossible for him to deny knowledge of his wife’s transaction and he clearly failed to take any action to prevent the unethical purchase.

  Re the Burma Exim Bank loan case. I don’t think the court can procede with this case unless Thaksin is present for the first hearing. If it is ever heard, it might hinge on ownership and control of Shin Corp, the parent company of Shin Sat. This might in turn hinge partly on who owned and controlled the shares held by the BVI company, Ample Rich, and held by UBS’ Singapore branch. Thaksin has produced documents to show that the BVI company’s shares had in fact been transferred to his children but this was likely to have been just an internal company document, since BVI companies don’t need to register share transfers with a central registrar, and therefore unreliable. Ample Rich seemed a weak link in the Shin Corp nominee shareholding structure and the planning for the sale to Temasek. It seems likely that the original plan was to sell Ample Rich to the buyer with the shares still in it. The original ownership would probably have not come under scrutiny and Ample Rich could have perhaps used the Singapore domicile of UBS’ branch to avoid capital gains tax for an off market transaction under the double tax treaty without having to its declare ultimate Thai ownership. Selling to Temasek made things more difficult as they would certainly have refused to buy a BVI company as part of the transaction, whereas most other buyers would not have had a problem with it and would rather have liked the structure for providing them with a large block of foreign registered shares and saving a lot of brokerage commission. As it was, the Shinawatras were forced to transfer the shares to Thaksin’s children and put the block through SET as a big lot local board transaction on the day of the sale. This created a paper trail that has already created problems for them with the Revenue Department and has the potential to cause more problems in the Exim Bank loan case.

  Perhaps they will be lucky in that Thai investigators seem to have very little clue about overseas company law, especially in offshore jurisdictions. Even Democrat Korn “Shadow Boxer” Chatikavanich spent a long time barking up the wrong tree on this one, thinking there were two Ample Rich’s, one registered in the BVI and the other in England. He overlooked the obvious possibility that a clerk had seen the word “British” and duly inscribed the word “angrit” in the registration document without looking any further.

• 18 Ralph Cramden // Oct 24, 2008 at 1:00 am

  Sidh: I have no knowledge of events in Australia that you refer to. If you hadn’t told me that Therese Rein was Rudd’s wife, I’d have not known. I do not follow Australian politics at all. So you are barking up the wrong tree. My question was essentially: how can you decide that the judgment was rigorous if the verdict is not available in detail? Any idea when and where the judgment will be published?

• 19 Ralph Cramden // Oct 24, 2008 at 1:02 am

  For Portman – “I can’t see any convincing argument put forward here as to why it was legal and even desirable for a prime minister’s wife to be involved in a transaction with a state agency, regardless of whether the price was below, above or at the market price.” That may be true. So how come she got off? It does seem odd, but as I have tried to convey to Sidh, I haven’t seen the judgment (but would like to).

• 20 Sidh S. // Oct 24, 2008 at 1:03 pm

  Ralph, while we wait for the detailed judgment to be published – which will answer your question – can you just simply answer mine on “conflict of interests”? There’s no barking up the wrong tree here as this is what the Ratchada land case is about at the very least – the wife of an incumbent prime minister buying government owned/controlled prime real estate.

  Alright, so you are not Aussie – if you are American just put President Bush and his wife in place of PMRudd and Therese Rein. If you are British, just put Gordon Brown and his wife etc…etc… Let’s be honest here, I don’t think “conflict of interest” and its legal mitigation is a Thai creation and I suspect you know much more about this than I do (I am Thai, it is relatively rather new and I have learnt a lot in my 10+ years in Australia).

• 21 Fonzi // Oct 24, 2008 at 4:08 pm

  Sidh-

  Where were you when General Surayud couldn’t account for the title to his palatial compound in a national park, where he is not even entitled to receive a deed to the land?

  Let’s see, which is the worse crime: Thaksin being married to Pojaman(in essence, that was the crime), who the court ruled bought the land legally or Junta-appointed illegally installed Prime Minister Surayud, an unusually rich millionaire general, who is holding an illegal title without any evidence of where his funds came from on a soldier’s salary.

• 22 R. N. England // Oct 25, 2008 at 1:37 pm

  If it is unethical for the prime minister or his wife to buy and sell land in Bangkok, why is it not unethical for the king to do so?

• 23 Sidh S. // Oct 25, 2008 at 3:26 pm

  Fonzi, I agree – the big difference here is that GenSurayud did not acquire the land while being prime minister.

  Maybe you can also help answer my simple question to Ralph: Is it considered a “conflict of interest” in Australia, Britain, America etc. for the wife of an incumbent prime minister/president to buy government owned/controlled prime real estate? Would the general population in those mature democracies be OK with it?

  BBC and Thairath speculates on the possibility of extradiction:

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7686729.stm

  http://www.thairath.co.th/news.php?section=politics03&content=108869

  “Impossible” they say – and I agree. Besides, if things are not favorable for PMThaksin in the UK, he already has back up plans. The last option of which is much closer to home – where Kamnan Poh and Vattana Asavaheme resides…

• 24 HC lau // Oct 26, 2008 at 12:20 am

  Fonzi,

  Sind- response to your question about General Surayud is classic PAD member logic. Its okay for the generals, democratic party and PAD to commit any crime, but not anyone else! He did not even attempt to decry the general’s purchase (maybe he did not purchase, just ’suggest’ the land office to change the title deed)

  Sind simply say -Oh that’s different, he’s not a Prime minister – implying he’s a general, so its Okay.

  Now you know why the situation in Thailand is what it is. I have stated before and will state it again – The reason Democratic party / PAD cannot win an election in Thailand is because of this twisted logic NOT TRT / PPP votes buying. The average Thai is not so stupid as to not see through such hogwash

• 25 Portman // Oct 27, 2008 at 1:12 am

  As mentioned in the “What happened thread” (but this is a more appropriate place for it), I have a bit of a problem with the fact that Supreme Administrative Court didn’t refer Potjaman’s case to the appropriate court to try her, if it had no jurisdiction over her, rather than acquit her. I also have a problem with the court’s sudden decision to let Thaksin travel to Japan and China when it had earlier been adamant that the ruling on the case was too imminent to let Thaksin and Potjaman travel. The court can’t have really thought they would meekly show up to face the music on that Monday morning. From recent comments in the Press it seems that the Bank of Thailand on behalf of the FIDF has no intention of trying to recover the piece of land in Ratchadapisek. The BoT didn’t want the case brought in the first place as it didn’t show it and its former governor in a very good light and the acquittal of Potjaman makes it easy for them do do nothing now.

  Sarayudh’s land case is ugly too, even though he was not PM at the time he acquired the land. He was also allegedly given a free house at the Bangkok Royal Golf Course by the developer when he was commander-in-chief but perhaps was OK because there wasn’t anything wrong with the title deed. If they pursue cases like these against the military the entire top brass might have to be nailed for being “unusually wealthy”, bearing in mind that Sarayudh was regarded as “unusually clean” in the military.

• 26 Sidh S. // Oct 27, 2008 at 5:10 pm

  HC Lau, please read my reply carefully before commenting. I agreed with Fonzi and these cases should be investigated.

  Fonzi also agreed with me “Thaksin being married to Pojaman (in essence, that was the crime)”. While both Fonzi and Ralph refuse to answer my very simple question directly, I have lived in Australia long enough to believe that this contitutes a “conflict of interests” – which is a crime that should be harshly punished especially for political office holders…

  Again, I will argue, as Portman has reinforced above, PMThaksin and KYPotjaman got of lightly. He wasn’t accused of the more serious crime of corruption, the Ratchada land and the money paid was not seized (I wonder why – the same reason PMSurayud’s land case was not investigated deeper?). Look HC Lau, he (and his wife) was even ‘allowed’ to flee bail!

  PMThaksin got two years for breaking the anti-corruption law of 1999 (long BEFORE the coup) that disallows office holders to do business with the government (interestingly something he could have easily circumnavigate by buying the land in his kid’s, his driver’s or servant’s name). “… the situation in Thailand is what it is…” because Thaksin refuses to accept the ruling.

  PMThaksin’s refusal is ‘business-driven’ and not for the betterment of Thai Democracy as I have argued in a yet to be published post on “More from a parliamentary cretin”. I might have to self-censor and rewrite that post to appease New Mandala’s sensitive ears???

• 27 Ralph Cramden // Oct 27, 2008 at 11:55 pm

  And, while on Surayudh, what of his Patek Philippe watch collection and his penchant for expensive cars. Small things perhaps compared with others, but still important in the context of the Samak decision. On the value of watches, see, for example, http://www.gemnation.com/base?processor=viewWatchDetails&watch_id=1502

• 28 songtham tawinwang // Oct 28, 2008 at 11:40 am

  When you look at Thaksin and Surayudh, you can’t help thinking that this is a matter of whose side you are on. In Thailand, justice is but lip service.

• 29 HC lau // Oct 28, 2008 at 3:28 pm

  songtham,

  You are absolutely right about justice depending on whose side one’s on. I, however am on nobody’s side.

  What I have is a whole bunch of relatives, both rich and poor in Thailand. All of them ‘A-political’ and going about their lives like most ordinary Thais. The most telling difference in the Thai govt is that, my relatives were much better off during Thaksin’s time, better off than before Thaksin and after the coup. The rich ones are always OK, but the poorer ones are suffering. As far as they are concernall politicians are corrupt, but Thaksin at least make an effort to spread the wealth around a bit.

  For the richer ones, Thaksin was a far better economic manager than all the previous govt combined.

  For me, all these so call guilt attributable to Thaksin is simply a witch hunt by the “other” side, who are as guilty if not more so than Thaksin. They simply have the upper hand at the moment due to the entrenched elite power structure. having a military appointed “election commission”, court officials, pricy council etc etc also help.

Leave a Comment