Thaksin clears 1st legal hurdle
The Nation
Prosecutors cite lack of evidence of malicious intent; critic says decision should be reviewed
Public prosecutors decided yesterday to drop charges of lese majeste against deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, saying they lacked solid evidence to prove malicious intent against His Majesty the King.
The lese majeste charges were one of four general accusations used by the junta to justify the coup on September 19 to topple Thaksin. Corruption, intervention in independent bodies and causing national disunity were the other main accusations against Thaksin.
The prosecutors' decision was controversial and there were calls late yesterday for the police chief to seek a second opinion on whether to take the matters further.
Chief criminal prosecutor Sermkiart Woradit said: "Thaksin, then prime minister, should not have made such inappropriate comments in his public speeches but his words could not be classified as defamation, insulting or threatening against His Majesty." Two of the cases stemmed from speeches by Thaksin. The first was to a rally of taxi drivers on December 25, 2005. The second was a televised address aired by Channel 11 on February 4, 2006. The third case involved supporters from the Caravan of the Poor group waving flags with the royal insignia when they greeted him last March.
Continued
I have to give credit the public prosecutors for having the courage to drop these charges. They must have a lot of pressure to cook up as many crimes against Thaksin as possible.
Now will Thaksin sue the generals for accusing him of a crime he didn't commit?
Maybe the generals and police will accuse him of human rights abuses during his "War on Drugs."
But I doubt it.
So far, the government's case against Thaksin: His wife bought land and she avoided paying taxes ten years ago.
Do these alleged crimes against Thaksin's wife justify an illegal coup and tearing up the constitution? Nope
9 comments:
Tax evasion crimes of wife Potjaman, children and brother-in-law Banaphot are NOT Thaksin crimes? That is stretching the Thai people's credibility too thin Fonzi.
The extrajudicial rampage of Thaksin Shinawatra resulting in thousands of villagers killed without due process should by itself stand as a horrific crime against humanity. Any Prime Minister who willfully violated rule of law and human rights immediately lose any legitimacy!
Count too that blatant conflict interest in that Baht 73 billion AmpleRich-Shin-Temasek sale deal.
Tack in the Suvarnabhumi airport runaway corruption.
There are more of course, not less.
So Fonzi let's just wait how the next few months will turn out and whether or not justice will finally be served to Thaksin Shinawatra.
Was the coup justified, all the above crimes of Thaksin Shinawatra?
But Thaksin won't give up power and the Kingdom of Thailand was being split apart because Thaksin just won't let go.
Coup still not justsified Fonzi?
thanakarn-
Go to the right hand corner of my blog, open the link for the 1997 Constitution, read the constitution, and you tell me how every single constitutional mechanism was undermined or corrupted by Thaksin. Until you prove to me that all legal methods of getting rid of Thaksin were exhausted to their fullest extent, then I'll argue that the coup wasn't justified.
Constitution or coup? I'm choosing the constitution.
By the way, Thaksin has not been charged with any of the crimes you have mentioned.
Nor has the press proved that Thaksin is guilty of any crimes.
Thanakarn, you think Potjamam and Banaphot's crimes are Thaksin's crimes?
I'd like to see the law in Thailand's criminal code that says the crimes of one member of a family makes everybody else in that family automatically guilty.
If you committed a crime, would your mother and father be guilty of the same crime?
Thanakarn you can believe what you want about Thaksin, but the law is the law. Your beliefs don't make him a criminal.
Fonzi, or whoever you are. You love the 1997 Constitution that much, huh? Wow, my eyes are brimming with tears. Thaksin raped that Constitution inside and out and you want that Constitution to "protect" him? Thaksin got what he deserved, because he didn't hold your beloved Constitution in the highest esteem as a popular leader with strong mandate is supposed to do. You don't understand the spirit of your beloved Constitution, my friend. It sought to promote and strengthen checks and balances and pre-empt conflicts of interests and enhance transparency. What did Thaksin do? He mocked it by lying about his assets in order to avoid the conflicts of interests rules and bribed or manipulated his way out of checks and balances barriers. The result? Many Thais couldn't stand his blatant tax cheat that shouldn't ahve happened in the first place if the spirit of your beloved Constitution had been protected. Where were you when all these happened? Did you come out and say Thaksin you must stop doing this to my Constitution? No. In your silence, tanks came in and put your beloved Constitution out of its misery. Don't try to tell me you now love and want to protect that Constitution. All you need to do is read it. I mean not read it like a kid preparing for exam. Read it and seek to go inside its spirit you hypocritical fool. Read it and go to any church and confess that you have been a shameless fake.
Steven Gerrard
Fonzi should have been spelled Ponzi. Fonzi is a fake . . paid for by Thaksin to teach us how to read the Thai constitution.
Steven, hi. The 1997 Constitution was doubtless a fine document and doubtless looks very nice hanging on a wall somewhere. Sadly in Thailand, as you know looking good is all that matters and it clearly wasnt terribly successful. What Thailand needs is a constitution enshrining similar ideals but which somehow persuades Thais to actually take notice of it. Thaksin rode roughshod over that and democracy in ths country but the Thais let him.
IMHO he is a criminal and should do very hard jail time for a whole lot of things including the apalling human rights violations of the war on drugs. But the Thais let it happen. The Thais let it all happen. And he wont do any time, nor will any of his cronies in the cabinet and public services. They were opportunists, and ultimately did it because they were able to.
A constitution has no merit unless it is observed and respected, same as democracy. These people cant even stop drivers going through red lights or make them stop at marked crossings. probably the best thing for them is a benign and honest dictatorship so they dont have to think for themselves.
Carter
Steven-
I don't know where you come from nor do I care.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and I would venture to say that you are a hypocrite and probably a racist.
Would you tolerate a military coup in your country?
I'd guess that you wouldn't tolerate a military coup in your own country.
So why would you tolerate a coup in somebody else's country?
You have made accusations against Thaksin that have not been proven in the media or in a court of law. He hasn't even been officially arraigned in court.
You accuse Thaksin of bribery and undermining the checks and balances. If you have evidence, then show it to me. I'll put it on the front page of this blog.
But I bet the only evidence you have is your own feelings and personal opinions, which just doesn't cut it in the real world.
And even when you take into account all the accusations against Thaksin, they still don't justify a coup, because there were many mechanisms in the constitution to deal with Thaksin's alleged crimes.
Also, if Thaksin did all the things that you said he did, then how come the government is going after him and his family and leaving all the bureaucrats, judges and permanent secretaries who colluded with him in place to keep doing what they did under his administration. In other words, the whole corrupt infrastructure is still in place and your coup has not changed one damn thing.
You think without Thaksin all the corruption has stopped? If you believe that, you are delusional. Thailand's corruption rating has sunk to the second worse in SEA after the coup.
I can agree with everything you say and believe what you believe, but that doesn't matter, because I choose to live under a constitution rather than a military dictatorship. Obviously, you choose the military dictatorship. I'm sure that your fellow countrymen will be comforted by that fact.
If you want to live by the laws of the jungle where your personal feelings, moods and whims reign, and you don't have to provide evidence to overthrow legally installed governments, then at least be honest and say that is where you stand.
Fonzi: Do you prefer living under a Demagogue or a Military Dictatorship?
I don't like either, but based on the last 6 months I would say the military dictatorship is more benign.
I have not seen any extrajudicial killings yet, although how the latest vigilante killings are handled will tell a story.
hobby, good point. The eternal Thai dilemma. Whether to have a corrupt government that iat least does get *some* things done, or an honest government that is completely incompetent.
I was happy to see the coup but they have frittered away the opportunities they had to resolve the (still) rampant corruption and are becoming just another incompetet government. It is easy to envisage the likes of Meechai and Sudarat just saying 'just keep our heads down for a bit, it will all blow over and then we will be back in business'. Same ole same ole. Their corruption rating in the world doesnt seem to bother the Thais at all so they clearly dont deserve a democracy. Thaksin might just as well come back so they can all get on with business.
I suspect we will all see the time this year when there is open talk about just that - having Thaksin back. And the junta and government will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Carter
Carter...."A constitution has no merit unless it is observed and respected, same as democracy. " Couldn't agree more. What I'm trying to tell Fonzi is that if a popular elected leader, already rich and powerful and with overwhelming mandate, didn't respect Constitution and demcoratic spirits and didn't bother to protect those values, how can we expect military generals in the same country to love and defend democracy till the last drops of their blood? Thaksin had his big chance to move this country forward but he failed democracy Big Time. Instead of trying to promote or foster key democratic or constitutional principles, No, he was busy setting up Ample Rich and moving his damned shares around hoping to get just a little richer cheating on his own country's revenue coffer. he abused, exploited and distorted Thailand's fledging system. The rest is history.
Steven Gerrard
Post a Comment