Google
 

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Deconstructing Sopon Ongkara: Final Solution to the Thaksin Question

Sidelines: Govt must hit Thaksin where it hurts most

Sopon Ongkara


The Nation


The government and agencies pushing for the passage of the new constitution are becoming concerned that Thaksin and his huge war chest abroad may able to persuade a large number of people to reject the charter on the grounds that it is the product of a military dictatorship.


Sopon’s logic: The government is worried that the Thaksin and his money will convince Thais, notably the poor masses that Sopon has contempt for, that the new constitution is a product of a military dictatorship. Note to Sopon: The constitution is a product of a military dictatorship, and Thaksin’s money has nothing to do with that fact.


Some academics and university lecturers, Western-trained and obsessed with the idea that democracy must come from elections only, are against the new charter.


Sopon, for some bizarre reason, thinks he knows more about democracy than “Western-trained” academics and university lecturers. And this from a man who openly endorses military coups! Further, I will examine Sopon’s democratic logic further down the column, because the last thing on Sopon’s mind is democracy, the rule of law and constitutionalism. No, Sopon only cares about his personal vendetta against Thaksin and nothing else.


They seem not to consider what they would do if Thaksin were still around with his unassailable power base and money from government coffers and questionable sources.


Sopon has no shame. He deals with hypotheticals as if they were the truth. Is Sopon a fortune teller? How could he know the future of the country if there wasn’t a coup? It really is frustrating how a “journalist” gets away with this kind of bullshit.


Let's deal with the problems at hand and explore how we should deal with Thaksin to prevent his attempts to derail the new charter and cause other political troubles.


The Nation has not published one investigative report proving that Thaksin is behind the “vote no” campaign. If Sopon knows something we don’t know, then why doesn’t The Nation report it?


No doubt Thaksin is more than angry after the freezing of more than Bt65 billion of his assets. That's just peanuts, as we know that he has at least Bt200 billion stashed abroad in various places, such as in savings accounts and investments in funds and securities through nominees here and abroad.


Again, Sopon fabricates facts about Thaksin’s wealth instead of telling the truth. He writes that Thaksin has 200 billion baht stashed away. First, how does Sopon know this, and if he knows it is a fact, then why hasn’t The Nation done an expose on Thaksin’s wealth? It has only had seven years to do it. Second, 200 billion is almost 7 billion dollars, which would make Thaksin one of the richest men in the world. But, of course, Sopon just pulls these figures right out of his ass without one shred of evidence.


One way to cause him sleepless nights would be to bring the battle to his place of refuge, England, rather than letting him go on about the lack of democracy and military dictatorship here. There are tough laws in England dealing with political crooks who use their dirty money to live luxurious lives amidst the poverty and hardships of their fellow countrymen.


Sopon’s final solution to the Thaksin question is to dump Thailand’s problems onto the British, and let them endlessly deal with the Thaksin drama, as if they cared. Sopon is so delusional about the real world that he has no clue about how the court system works in the West. Sopon really believes that the British should just take the junta’s( and The Nation’s) word that Thaksin is a crook. Only an idiot like Sopon( and the rest of the idiots at The Nation) would seriously think that a western government would prosecute a democratically elected leader ousted in an illegal coup without any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. What kind of lunacy is this?


Moreover, if The Nation is so worried about the “Thaksin Question”, then why doesn’t The Nation hand over all the facts that it is has been sitting on (supposedly out of fear of repercussions for telling the truth) for the last 12 years of Thaksin’s political career and let the British press have a go at Thaksin, if he really is the heinous criminal that Sopon says that he is. If The Nation is so worried about Thaksin’s crimes, why doesn’t it hand over all the evidence it has to the British government and to the English football authorities? Why does The Nation wait for the junta installed commissions to tell it what to report? In any other country, the media would question the findings of a government commission and question them to see if they pan out with its own independent investigations. But The Nation just reports what the military tells it to report.


I would wager a lot of money that The Nation doesn’t have anything. It doesn’t have a “smoking gun,” because The Nation is an incompetently run news organization led by sanctimonious morons who have no clue about doing really journalism. These so-called journalists at The Nation actually believe that their opinions are the same things as facts that could be used to prosecute Thaksin in a western court of law, which actually has criminal rules of procedure that have stood the test of time for hundreds of years.


Thaksin has been boasting about his purchase of Manchester City, but until money has been paid and shares have changed hands, many will remain sceptical that such a deal will materialise. It could be another political gimmick or a public-relations stunt on Thaksin's part. Now he is making the most out of it.


Real journalists deal with facts and not hypotheticals.


The government can cause him more trouble by hiring a high-profile law firm to sue him in England, calling for the Manchester City deal to be stalled or the shares to be frozen on the grounds that the money to be spent on the shares left the country without the due permission of the Bank of Thailand.


Sue him for what exactly? Who would be the plaintiff and the defendant? The Kingdom of Thailand versus Thaksin Shinawatra? And this whole scenario would be fought out in a British court? WTF does Britain have to do with Thai politics? No Thai with a bit of shame would want his country's political problems hashed out in a foreign country in a foreign court system that has absolutely nothing to do with the problems at hand.


Who here would have the guts and nerve to go after Thaksin's hot money with government agencies still engaged in managerial buck-passing in order to avoid getting involved in a highly complex issue?


I really love the The Nation’s hypocrisy. The Nation never ceases to bang the drums of Bang Rajan when it comes to defending the sanctity and integrity of glorious Thai government institutions. But, in this particular case, The Nation wants to fob the Thaksin problem onto the British.


This problem would be solved if they let English lawyers handle the task.


How exactly would English lawyers handle the “Thaksin question”? I wonder how many English lawyers Sopon contacted and asked for their professional legal opinion. I reckon the answer is none.


We have the money to pay, of course, especially if we can recover a big chunk of Thaksin's assets hidden abroad.


How would a British court recover Thaksin’s assets stashed in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands? Which British laws did Thaksin break? Did he steal or embezzle money from the British people? WTF is Sopon getting the British mixed up in Thai affairs. Also, Thaksin has never been accused of stealing from the country, so why would his assets need to be recovered?


It will be a win-win situation for the law firm and the government, not to mention for taxpayers whose money Thaksin and his cronies took away.


The only win-win situation is the one that exists in Sopon’s delusional mind.


Submitting an emergency request to the English high court would take just a few days. We can also inform the British Embassy here of our intentions and let the British people know that they should not consort with suspected notorious criminals, who might buy a fairly well known football club with dirty money.


Seriously, read this truly f###ed up paragraph. Submit an emergency request concerning what exactly? Inform the British Embassy about what exactly? Let the British people know that Thaksin is a suspected criminal? Notice that facts are missing from all of this bullshit that Sopon is spouting. He really believes that The Nation and the military junta can just say whatever they want about Thaksin and seriously expect people to believe them. Where are the facts, and why haven't they been published in Thailand or given to British to publish in their newspapers? Sopon thinks he can call his political enemies criminals without a shred of proof and expect foreigners to believe him without any substantiation.


Sopon’s mentality is not only sick, but also dangerous, because he believes in launching propaganda campaigns against Thai politicians ousted in illegal coups in foreign countries. And Sopon will get away with this bullshit. His editors could care less about his lack of ethics and professionalism, and the foreign press in Bangkok will continue to allow him to spout this nonsense week after week without any kind of response.


Seeking litigation in England does not mean that our courts or judicial system would lose sovereignty.


No, it means involving the British in a problem that really is none of their business. If anything, the British government should be scolding the military junta for overthrowing Thaksin and request his restoration.


Sopon’s notion is so ridiculous, so unprecedented in modern world politics that he should be ridiculed for this column for the rest of his life. Seriously, it would be a first for a military junta to sue a former Thai prime minister in a court for corruption in a third party country without any evidence at all.


If Aung San Suu Kyi was still in Britain and the Burmese junta tried to sue Aung for corruption and recovery of assets in a British court, the junta would become the laughingstock of the world. This just goes to show that even the Burmese junta isn't as stupid as Sopon Ongkara.


Such a move would be an extension of our efforts to get Thaksin through legal means to ensure that criminal proceedings in Thailand and in England complement one another, and to let the world know that this man who brags about his good deeds is not who they perceive him to be.


How can anybody take such foolish notions seriously? Why does Sopon have a job where the firing of brain cells is involved?


There is also a suggestion that Thaksin and his lawyers here have insisted that they would not want to defend themselves in Thailand because they fear that the courts would be under the influence of the Council for National Security and the government.


It is a legitimate concern. The judges were all hand-picked by the junta and the prosecutors and investigators are Thaksin’s sworn political enemies.


That's hogwash, as we all know. Thaksin and his family do not want "justice" in court. What they actually want is to get off the hook. If full justice is served, it is highly possible, if not certain, that they will all serve time for a series of high crimes, all reflecting a betrayal of the public trust.


What high crimes? Tax avoidance and buying property on Ratchadapisek?


Refusing not to appear in court or accept the trial system here on whatever grounds could be easily interpreted as contempt of court, and the court could hand down a punishment to Thaksin and his lawyers without a trial if it so desired.


This could be a possibility.


Destruction of his credibility abroad, which might not be much now, is an effective means to prevent his self-proclaimed supremacy and hollow self-righteousness from fooling some people who still want his money.


Here we are again with Sopon self-admittedly arguing for a propaganda campaign against Thaksin in a foreign court system. Will it be effective? Well, I don’t think the British are idiots, so I seriously doubt they will sustain the criminalization Thai politics in their court system. The British legal system has a lot of integrity. I doubt it wants to be tainted with the military junta’s witch hunt and The Nation’s vendetta against Thaksin.


Loose lips serve as their own trap. Thaksin and his lawyers are using their mouths to open the jail doors for themselves. Their mouths are the most fearsome weapons they face. If they had shut up, things would have quieted down.


What does this paragraph have to do with the rest of the column?


Now we know how to deal with Thaksin by engaging him in more criminal and civil cases abroad. The question is who is going to get it done, because Thaksin still has cronies in high public office here, and some of our guys want to bleed him dry before dealing with him conclusively.


If the British court system really processes and allies itself with a military junta’s campaign of political destruction against Thaksin, it will compromise its integrity. A British court should never recognize the legitimacy of a military junta as a plaintiff against a prime minister that it ousted illegally and without just cause. Let us hope the British are smart enough not to drink from the junta's and The Nation's Kool-Aid.


12 comments:

Matty said...

Actually Sopon's suggestion to judicially pursue Thaksin abroad, and if possible, using the UK or foreign courts to bring Thaksin to account, is NOT that bad Fonzi. And Sopon's warning that Thaksin is shielded and dangerously ARMED still by his enormous financial war chest (from monstrous ill-gottens and corruptions he harvested while in power) should be heeded.

It is only in the details that I disagree with Sopon. I'd rather Thailand would get some extrajudicial victims to formally file their grievances to the Thai courts, and, if Thaksin refuses to return to face his extrajudicial accusers, then to bring the cases abroad. And the victims I think can claim multi-billion baht damages from Thaksin's extrajudicial rampage during his anti-yaa baa madness.

I wonder if the UK courts would also consider Thai tax evasion cases against Thaksin, or, hidden assets abroad that suggest Thaksin had defrauded Thailand? I am no lawyer so I am not sure Fonzi.

When you are NOT on substance abuse Fonzi you get very focused - - - but still on the very same enemy: The Nation. Fonzi you seem to be pursuing a personal vendetta against The Nation, as an agent for Thaksin no doubt.

Fonzi said...

Matty-

You are an intelligent fellow.

What jurisdiction does a foreign court, notably a UK court, have in Thai internal matters?

Could an American sue George Bush over things that happened concerning George Bush's corruption in Thailand?

Could Aung San Suu Kyi sue the Burmese junta in a Chinese court or a French court?

I mean, this notion is so ridiculous that I can't believe you believe this Matty, and even though we disagree, I know you are not stupid.

The Latin term is called Ultra Vires, and that means an act that falls outside the jurisdiction of the court.

What happens inside Thailand's borders between Thais falls under Thai jurisdiction, especially when no foreigners are involved.

And the notion that an illegal military junta with no official international recognition will sue the legal head of the Thai state in Britain over specious corruption charges cooked up by the junta's own friends and allies is so ridiculous that it really goes beyond words.

Further, and I have been saying this for the last 6 months, I agree with you Matty, Thaksin's victims could have sued Thaksin in Thai courts and/or take impeachment hearings to the Senate, or recalled him through legal means, and nobody did it, Matty, nobody did it, and you have to ask these victims why they didn't do shit while we lived under a legal system that provided recourse for grievances.

The thing that people don't get Matty is that Thaksin didn't abuse the checks and balances system, the problem was that the checks and balances mechanisms were never utilized properly by those who were supposed to check the executive power.

Matty said...

That is ridiculous Fonzi for you to actually suggest that Thaksin did not abuse anything while in power . . . and all those nearly half a million furious Bangkok residents were just plain "jealous" to you Fonzi of Thaksin was why they called for his resignation and later on removal. And surely the extrajudicial rampage of Thaksin that led to the slaughter of thousands of very poor "innocent" villagers must be counted as horrific abuse! And also surely Fonzi you do recall the 'honest mistakes' that inaugurated Thaksin's premiership, when he was able to buy enough Constitutional Court judges so that he will NOT be disqualified for the Premiership? Didn't Thailand meet more of Thaksin's honest mistakes ever since, from extrajudicial murders to tax evasions, to non-stop criminal corruption that led to the street protests and the coup that followed? Is your attention span Fonzi actually as short as a fly to have conveniently forgotten those not so tiny bits of important facts?

Thaksin in short Fonzi had bought nearly every institution (the senate, the Constitutional Court, the Election Commission, etc. etc.) that would guarantee Thaksin & his gang of crooks were able to carry on with their criminal corruption unobstructed, unchallenged and unafraid, and definitely tax-free!

But back to the foreign courts having jurisdiction on criminal abuses carried out by non-citizens. I think there was already a precedent for this. Ferdinand Marcos was brought to account in New York for his human rights violations (many Philipinos I believed were murdered/silenced by Marcos henchmen during his rule) and if my memory is not failing, the Marcos estate was actually asked to compensate the families of the victims, from the contested Marcos wealth stashed overseas.

But for tax evasion, I agree with you that the most Thailand can do is call for Thaksin's extradion. At any rate, Thaksin because of his financial resources would be a tough go . . . and I foresee, even for extradition, that Thailand prosecutors will have to formally appeal or present their case before the UK courts.

Matty said...

Fonzi so my memory did NOT fail me after all. I checked the archives and here was a July-2005 NY Times article about a NY court judgement against the Marcos estate - - a class action suit for human rights abuses (very similar to Thaksin's extrajudicial crimes, don't you agree Fonzi?)


NY Times Published: July 13, 2004

"A federal judge ordered that $40 million that once belonged to the Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos, left, should go to a class action of plaintiffs who successfully sued the Marcos estate for $2 billion. The judge, Manuel Real of Federal District Court, ruled that the assets should begin paying a 1995 multibillion-dollar judgment won by 9,539 Filipinos who were victims of human rights abuses under Marcos. Judge Real denied a motion to freeze the assets pending an appeal by the Arelma Corporation, a Panamanian company that originally held the $40 million."

Fonzi said...

Matty-

There are distinctions between Marcos and Thaksin.

1. Sopon says nothing about Thailand suing Thaksin over his human rights abuses. And if you had read my blog carefully Matty, I took Sopon to task because the idiot wouldn't spell out how the British court system would handle the case. He just says hire a bunch of hire powered lawyers in London and let them deal with it. Deal with what exactly?

2. The Marcos estate was executed under US probate law after Marcos died in the US. Ergo, the US court system had some say in how to administer the Marco estate.

3. Why hasn't a victim of Thaksin sued Thaksin in Thailand or Britain for violating their human rights?


4. Another major difference between the Marcos case and the Thaksin case is that the idiot Sopon wants the military junta to sue Thaksin in Britain, whereas the plaintiffs in the case against Marcos were actual victims of crimes.


Last thing Matty, you don't have one shred of evidence that Thaksin corrupted every aspect of the checks and balance mechanisms of the 97 constitution.

All you have is your personal feelings, because you evidently didn't get your information from the Thai media, which hasn't demonstrated once how Thaksin prevented impeachment or a recall process, which the tens of thousands of people in Bangkok could have initiated at any time.

Matty said...

Fonzi - Nothing would have earned my respect (and millions of other Thais) more than Thaksin Shinawatra allowing himself to face a judicial, parliamentary or independent public inquiry into the many allegations of his, his family's and his friends' abuses during Thaksin's rule. But Thaksin Shinawatra, of a crooked policeman mould, had believed that suborning (remember 'Honest Mistakes' Fonzi?) judges, critics and senators was a much more preferable style.

Had I told you before Fonzi that Thaksin's career and billionaire status was built on bribery and undue influence? Thaksin's first million was earned by selling computers to the Police Department where Thaksin's father-in-law was Police Chief. Thaksin Shinawatra made his mega-fortune from four telecom concessions awarded by government at a time when military influence was strong. He had to lobby generals to get these concessions, and he had to reward them. In one famous instance, Thaksin gave a general a Daimler. At the launch of his satellite, Thaksin said "I could not have this day without Big Jod," meaning General Sunthorn, the head of the 1991 coup junta.

Following General Sunthorn's death due to cancer, a scandal arose over the distribution of his estate. General Sunthorn's will left most of his approximately 150 million U.S. dollar fortune to his mistress. General Sunthorn's wife sued to have the will declared void. However, questions arose on how a general earning a little over US$1,000 a month could accumulate such a large personal fortune. Because Thaksin Shinawatra had publicly acknowledged "Big Jod" or General Sunthorn as the man responsible for Shinawatra Group's fortune and existence, public suspicion lingered that Thaksin Shinawatra himself may have been the 'mysterious source' of General Sunthorn's unusual wealth.

Auditor-General Jaruwan was quoted: "The current (Thaksin) administration has made corruption and political favoritism legal and it is fair to say that state officials at all levels, whether directly involved in the process or not, have accepted it as a natural phenomenon that no one can do anything about it". Police Gen Pratin Samtiprapholob, a former national police chief and ex-senate anti-graft panel head, said he had never before witnessed such a large scale of corruption from any other government as displayed under Thaksin's rule.

Thai Rak Thai's exceptional presence in Thai politics over the past six years was underwritten by exceptional amounts of cash. Where did this come from? Since the party's foundation, Potjaman had been the largest donor according to official figures. But her generous largesse (said to account for more than 50% of TRT's running & election needs) nowhere near covered the estimated budget for the party's operating expenses and election campaign costs. Other leaders of this billionaires' party have chipped in. In 2005, party-list candidacies and minister posts were awarded to some big moneybags, including alleged stock market fraudsters. Still, it was difficult to account fully for Thai Rak Thai's massive financial power in Thai politics.

A suggestion appeared in the fourth of the series of "Ru Than Thaksin" (Understanding Thaksin) books edited by former senator Chirmsak Pinthong. This volume is subtitled "The Insiders", though "The Rat Laundry" might have been more appropriate. Four former supporters of Thaksin explained why they had defected (ratted), and tried to justify (launder) their past actions in supporting him.

The longest confession was from Snoh Thienthong, who truly qualified as an "insider". He was formerly adviser, whip, and deputy leader of the Thai Rak Thai Party, and number 18 on the Thai Rak Thai party list in both 2001 and 2005. He connived with Thaksin in the infamous land deal over the Alpine golf course, and had often claimed to be the kingmaker who put Thaksin in power.

In this book, Snoh made the following allegation.

"He placed one of his own people in every ministry. These people did not need to have a powerful post, but everybody knew who they were ... If any minister wanted to propose a project using the central budget, the minister would first have to clear it with 'his person' first. Many ministers were approached by 'his person' saying, 'The budget is coming. You can have five or six billion, but 10 per cent must go to the party ... Any minister who would not do this, could not remain."

Snoh then explained how the system worked.

"For this 10 per cent policy, the minister would have to pad the budget proposed for approval to include the 10 per cent that would go to the party. Then once it was agreed with 'his person' via Khunying, the matter could be sent to his trusted 'permanent political representative', who used to be his company employee. To date nobody knows how much this 10 per cent amounts to. Probably need to ask Khunying."

Snoh claims to have asked Pojaman what she needed so many billions for, and got this answer: "In politics you have to hand out money. It has to be considered a business." Snoh asked her what would happen if things blew up, and she replied, "If Thaksin falls, the Thai Rak Thai Party will have to stay in power for at least two more terms for safety."

Of course, allegations over percentage commissions on budget projects are nothing new at all. It is other aspects of this allegation which make it so arresting.

First, the centralisation. We are used to hearing about gangs of ministers, senior officials, and businessmen conspiring to take a percentage on budget projects through overpricing and similar devices. But this allegation suggests another subtraction which supplants or (more likely) supplements that form of corruption. We are told there is a centrally directed network that reaches into "every ministry". Ten per cent of the total capital budget is about Bt20 billion.

Second, the proceeds were allegedly channeled to the Thai Rak Thai Party. In other words, Snoh alleges that the party's massive financial strength is financed by the taxpayer.

Is Snoh credible? He was a very old-style politician. He gave Thaksin considerable help and had a lot to excuse himself for. He had been sidelined by Thaksin and had reasons for feeling aggrieved. He still has political ambitions and has already launched his own new party. His allegation could be seen as nothing more than another move in the political chess game.

But that makes it all the more extraordinary that the accusation has brought forth no pained denial, no counter-charge, and none of the defamation suits which have become the confetti of Thai politics. This allegation was not some careless words heard by a few people. It was not one of those newspaper reports that the speaker can deny on the following day and blame on journalistic incompetence. It appeared in print in a signed article in a book that has quickly become very popular. Is there silence because Snoh is so lacking in credibility that denial is deemed unnecessary? Or is he too close to the truth for comfort?

And I haven’t even touched the conflict of interest AmpleRich-Temasek-Shin sale, tax evasion cases, and Rajadipisek land case against the Shinawatra.

(These were extracts from past news articles against Thaksin during the heights of the protests Fonzi).

But the most damning evidence Fonzi against Thaksin were those thousands of slaughtered at the villages by extrajudicial Thaksin Shinawatra for his anti-yaa baa show - - to delight his gullible masses with the diversion while Thaksin & his crooked gang went on with their stealing spree.


But evidence are coming Fonzi and slowly (but surely) the legal cases against Thaksin Shinawatra and wife and cronies are formally coming out.

Will Thaksin's final end be from a tax evasion conviction a-la-Capone? Or will some extrajudicially traumatized family find the courage to prosecute Thaksin for willful murder? Or will Thaksin against succeed to bribe himself out of jeopardy? Only time will tell Fonzi.

fall said...

Sopon is delusional.

For all those who actually think England would give a damn about Thai politic and scandal.
I got one word for you, just one word
"Akeyuth Anchanbutr" (actually, that's two).

Fonzi said...

Matty-

Thanks for making an effort in your response.

Most educated Thais and a few foreigners know about Thaksin's relationship with the 91 coup makers and his telecom empire. We also know about his mobile phone monopoly and how he gouged us with ridiculous prices and crappy service for many years. We knew about this before he got elected in 2001.

Guess what? The masses still voted for him.

As for Thaksin's abuses while in power, I ask for the millionth time, why didn't the Senate impeach him? Why didn't the yellow shirts recall him? Just needed 50,000 signatures.

Any member of the government could have referred any of Thaksin's criminal behavior to the corruption commission, yet nobody did. Why not?

Matty, you say Thaksin undermined every single check and balance mechanism under the 97 constitution, yet not one Thai newspaper or academic has written an article or report on how he did it. Nobody has spelled his crimes out.

But now, after a coup has taken place, and all of Thaksin's sworn enemies are in positions of judge and jury, you want me to sit back and unquestionably accept their judgment?

Further, even if Thaksin did everything that you said he did, that means he had accomplices, Matty, and where are all his accomplices? Aren't they all still senior bureaucrats or new party bosses?

They are doing what they always did.

Therefore, Thaksin is gone, but the old apparatus is still in place ready suck the Thai people's blood once again, like your friend Jao Pa Sanoh, who has been the criminal mastermind behind every corrupt government for the last 20 years.

If you have noticed Matty, all the usual suspects are coming out of the woodwork, now that Maew has gone into the football biz, and who shall we expect to be the next PM, Chalerm, with Sanoh and Sanan as his henchmen.

Or maybe we can have Chavalit or Barnharn back, those two paragons of righteous virtue running the show.

Or maybe they can let Nong Mark be the pretty boy out front while all the old generals gather for informal cabinet meetings down at Royal Golf.

hobby said...

Forget about The Nation, here's my own opinion piece, exclusivly for Thailand Jumped the Shark:

Forget about the Thai & British legal systems - Those military dictators should just confiscate all of the Thaksin family frozen money, distribute it amongst his supporters in the North/North East, and leave it up to them if they want to give it back to him.

Thaksin shouldn't mind because he loves his supporters anyway (and they love him) and he still has his football club to satisfy his ego.

Matty said...

I would like to suggest Fonzi that perhaps only you and Thaksin were the only Thais believing Thai constitutional checks & balances were still functional up to the last second Thaksin was ousted by the coup. OK . . maybe Bangkok Pundit, Fall and Andrew Walker could be added to the Fonzi-Thaksin bunch!

But let's go to the nitty-gritty of your grievance Fonzi. Fonzi you as much admitted that Thaksin was an extra-judicial monster, Thaksin was corrupt even during his billionaire-formative years, Thaksin was a monopolist and a suborner-par excellence, and Thaksin had very powerful accomplices during his flagitious rule BUT the masses loved Thaksin nevertheless!

So what Fonzi???? That was massively bought love Fonzi . . Thaksin greased the generals, Thaksn greased the judges, Thaksin greased the senators so Thaksin too could grease the peasants, right?

And YET Fonzi you blame every body else, but NOT Thaksin for all the mess Thaksin brought to the Kingdom of Thailand! Can you explain your nonsense to me Fonzi in a language understandable to a 10-year old?

Fonzi said...

Matty-

I have said before that I think Thaksin should have resigned.

I am not an apologist for Thaksin.

The bigger crime in my opinion was the coup, especially when no independent sources, in the government, in academia, and in the press demonstrated enough evidence against Thaksin to justify a coup, punishing 65 million Thais for the alleged criminal activities (tax evasion and buying land on Ratchada) of one man.

Everybody keeps harping about Thaksin's human rights abuses, as if he was the one out there killing people, but could not care less that those military and police officers who actually murdered people are now running the government.

hobby said...

"I have said before that I think Thaksin should have resigned."

Someone with the country's best interest at heart should have whispered in his ear and asked him to resign - it would have saved the country a lot of trouble and angst!


"I am not an apologist for Thaksin."

You might have to insert that into each one of your posts because it is often not apparent.


"Everybody keeps harping about Thaksin's human rights abuses, as if he was the one out there killing people, but could not care less that those military and police officers who actually murdered people are now running the government."

As I've said before, the buck has to stop with Thaksin on those abuses - he instigated the drug war - as soon as the abuses became apparent it was up to him to stop them continuing, fully investigate & bring about justice and compensation for the wronged victims.


Your & Matty's last posts sum up the Thaksin problem nicely - He was a slippery customer who greased enough people to keep his policy corruption going, and when the shit hit the fan, his greed & ego was too much to allow him to walk away (resign).