Saturday, October 31, 2009

The Nation's Dishonest Editorial on the Ratchadapisek Case

The Nation


The Supreme Court has ruled that Thaksin broke the law by giving his wife official consent to buy state-owned land in Ratchadaphisek.

While the ruling and other incidents involving Thaksin have divided Thailand more than anything in history, one thing is clear: Law was violated in the acquisition of the land and finding Thaksin guilty for it is purely legal, not political.

Chalerm was mixing things up to try and reinforce the blurred picture that Thaksin is trying to present to the world that what happened to him was "political", not legal. Of course, the coup was a big setback for democracy. But irrespective of the coup that deposed him, Thaksin violated the law and needs to be imprisoned. Everything is there in the letter of the law.

I don't know why The Nation insists on lying and distorting this case all the time.

Here are the facts:

The court never found Thaksin guilty of any collusion on the bidding.

There was no injury to the state.

There was no criminal conspiracy to defraud the public.

MR Pridiyathorn Devakula signed off on the deal and testified in Thaksin's favor.

Potjaman was never found guilty of any crime and didn't have the land confiscated.

In fact, Thaksin was compelled under Thai law to sign the land transfer documents because Thailand is a community property country.

Now, I guess one could make an ethical argument that the prime minister's wife shouldn't be buying land during his tenure just to keep appearances up.

But an ethical lapse doesn't mean one should get 2 years in the gaol.

The Nation refuses to tell the truth about the case because it might interfere with its "Get Thaksin" propaganda and might have to stop referring to Thaksin as that corrupt prime minister fugitive from justice.


Steve said...

You could also add that the status of the land-selling agency (FIDF) was changed by the court in order to facilitate a "guilty" verdict.

"In its ruling, the Junta appointed court redefined FIDF as a government agency, and as such, is under the control of the central government and the Prime Minister. This is contrary to established legal provisions stated in The Bank of Thailand Act of 1942."

More details and analysis at:

hobby said...

What's up Fonzi?