You may like visit "Voice from the Heart of Thai People to International Media" on Facebook page
 (No Ratings Yet) Loading ... |
Thaksin would respect court’s ruling only when it benefit himself.
Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife are now not only convicted as fugitive criminals but also they have shown their utmost immorality in cheating and lying to their fellow citizens and cowardly betraying their homeland just for the sake of themselves.
Here are the counter-replies to Thaksin’s latest message for international media.
Lawyers Council of Thailand’s Announcement (Update 1/NOV)
Lawyers Council of Thailand
Lawyers Council of Thailand’s Announcement on
The Case of a Convicted by Thai Court of Justice Who Fled and Distributed a Statement with Distorted FactsLawyers Council of Thailand’s Announcement
October 31, 2008The distribution of a statement through various media both domestic and foreign by Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra who has been convicted by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions for a two-year imprisonment, to inform both domestic and foreign mass media, shows a crucial intent to provide false information to the audiences such that “for why the court convicted him was because he was a politician who was so successful as to be a Prime Minister for two terms“.
The Lawyers Council considers such acts as an intention to commit a court contempt and a disrespect to the Thai judiciary system despite of his best opportunity to defend the case. The Lawyers Council, threfore, release this announcement to condemn such acts as follows.
1. Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra, having a Thai nationality, was a defendant in a criminal case which underwent an adjudication by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions. The court which holds the righteous jurisdiction, having carried out a deliberation of the indictments and the defendants’ statements including the testomonies by litigants’ witnesses, reached a guilty verdict upon Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra and sentenced him to a two-year imprisonment.
The processes were duely according to the laws and the Procedure Code of the Thai Judiciary which Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra was aware. Even during Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra’s Prime Minister’s term, several other ex-ministers were convicted by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions, without a chance of appeal as the verdicts had been final, following the enforcement of 1997 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand.
Whereas with 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra, the currently convicted by the Supreme Court and a fugitive on-the-run still has the rights to appeal to the plenary session of the Supreme Court justices before November 20, 2008. Evidently, for this, the latter constitution is more generous than the 1997 Constitution. Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra, therefore, cannot excuse himself to the public on such claims. His claims may not be considered otherwise, apart from words of a politician who does not respect the country’s laws, and words of groundless, unreasonable and unworthy to accept.
2. As for Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra’s claimed that the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions convicted him because he was a politician, he must have known well from the very beginning when he got into politics as the leader of Thai Rak Thai party, that there have been cleary stated legislations in the Constitution and Code of Procedures for the proceedings upon Holders of Political Positions for the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions to be applied to any Thai politicians who were extensively committing corruptions.
As for Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra’s claimed that he and his party won the majority twice, he did not explain how he won the elections and whether or not the majority was fairly won by democratic exercises like in Britain or other countries. Also, he did not explain why his party was disbanded according to the verdict of the Constitutional Tribunal in which Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra had once been narrowly acquited for the indictment of hiding his shares.
3. Lawyers Council has an opinion that both 1997 and 2007 the Kingdom of Thailand’s Constitutions’ designation of forms of adjudicaton to suit politicians are well-finalized matter of facts for over ten years since there have long been extensive corruptions both direct and indirect as well as conflicts of interests. Therefore, the courts must possess swift proceedings for the holding of political positions are as short as four years. If usual proceedings for criminal cases were to be applied, it could be too late and the nation would have lost as much as ten or hundred thousands of millions bahts without a chance to recover it. Consequently, the presence of the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions has helped speeding up adjudication by as many as nine experienced and qualified senior Supreme Court judges whom had undergone a selection by a plenary session of the Supreme Court judges. Any politicians like Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra had their best opportunities to defend in fair trials.
4. Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra may not claim that there was no law against him. Actually and all along, there have been such laws, into which the court looked. For Ratchadapisek land auction, there is no politician in any developed or developing countries who would commit such actions of allowing the spouse or relatives to purchase state’s lands. Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra must understand that politicians must not have conflicts of interests. It is not justifiable that politicians, once being candidates, later turning to have political power in their hands, would be able to do anything followed by such acts of turning to attack the judiciary system. Those are nonsense, desperate and unacceptable by the world.
Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra must know and follow the Office of the Prime Minister’s Regulations for the Moral and Ethical Standards of Political Civil Servants 2000 article 12 which states that “Political civil servants must not use their status or their political civil servants positions to earn unjust benefits, for themselves or for others, no matter valuable assets or else.“ Since, the ethical rules have already been present all along, therefore, Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra has to ask himself for whether or not he followed them and if not Why?
5. Lawyers Council has an opinion that the Minister in the Ministry of the Office of the Prime Minister who has the authority to order and control the Public Relations Department must carry out its duty according to the Prime Minister’s Regulations for the Code of Ethics of Political Civil Servants 2008
article 25 which states that “Political civil servants must not use or distort the state’s information to mislead or for their or for others’ benefits.“;
article 26 which states that “Political civil servants must protect state’s assets and utilize state’s assets according to the due purposes only.“; and
article 28 which states that “Political civil servants must not get acquainted to or support the outlaws or any people of corrupt behaviors.“
This regulations has been enforced since 2000 and revised in Samak Sundravej’s government on August 22, 2008. Therefore, broadcasting or permission to release the news of the state’s station must not directly or indirectly assist any convicted.
In addition, if the case of Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra is finished, the National Police Office which is the original affiliation which had issued the rank of “Police Lieutenant Colonel” must remove the rank of and dismiss Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra because he has been convicted and sentenced for jail immediately, while at the same time, the Office of the Secretariat of the Cabinet must quickly revoke all the decorations since Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra’s acts of court contempt may not be accepted. Consequently, he should no longer deserve any rank or decorations.
Lawyers Council as a professional organization in the judiciary system, having considered the acts of Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra a willingful intention to commit a disrespect to the Thai judiciary system and to mislead foreigners in the transparency and the just of Thai courts, therefore, issues this announcement to relevant persons and officials to sharply and duly execute the duties.
The counter-reply from Suthichai Yoon at The Nation
It’s all about anti-corruption Article 100, stupid! (Updated 30/Oct/08)
Here is another counter-reply from Suthichai Yoon (The Nation). Not sure if the word “stupid” above is to describe Thaksin, but if it really refers to him, I would call that “Pretending to be stupid”
Suthichai Yoon (from his blog at OkNation Blog)
THERE is hardly any doubt that former premier Thaksin Shinawatra is an intelligent person. So, when he said in his note to “dear friends in the international media” on October 22 that he was “confused” by the Supreme Court’s verdict a day earlier to jail him for two years, he was only being humble.
Or, to put it mildly, he was only pretending that he didn’t get it.
Of course, he knew exactly what brought about the unprecedented jail sentence for an ex-premier.
It’s Article 100 of the National Counter Corruption Commission law which, for the first time, spells out clearly that “conflicts of interest” among Cabinet members are punishable by imprisonment.
What Thaksin didn’t expect was to become the first big fish to be caught by this huge net – and a very big one at that.
He simply couldn’t bring himself to face the fact that a man of his wealth and influence could be sentenced to a jail term. He was “confused” because he thought he could get away with anything – even when he was out of office.
This was what he wrote about his “confusion”:
“I listened to the judgement yesterday and even now I am still confused; there is no evidence of fraud, corruption or abuse of power in relation to the bid in question; my wife was the one who was involved and made the decision to bid for the land, offered a lot more to the seller, the Financial Institutions Development Fund [FIDF], than other bidders, signed the contract with the seller, paid for the land with no involvement from her husband except when he was required to sign a spousal form …”
No evidence of fraud, corruption or abuse of power?
It was an anti-corruption clause that he had violated, according to the verdict. And “conflict of interest” committed by a prime minister is clearly a clear case of corruption and abuse of power.
He added: “The best I can comprehend is that I was convicted simply because I was a politician. In that case, I was guilty because I was quite a successful politician. I got elected twice by the majority of the Thai people as prime minister.”
No, he wasn’t convicted because he was a politician. The prison term was imposed on him because he was a politician caught violating a tough clause in a law aimed at snaring politicians who make no distinction between personal and public interest.
And that, without exception, is a serious crime in any politically developed country, especially in the United Kingdom, which Thaksin had earlier described as a “democratically mature country”.
Politicians, particularly those given a public mandate to run a country, are supposed to avoid any act that may be construed as benefiting their own family members when they should be acting for the public interest. In this case, Thaksin admitted having signed a spousal consent form to allow his wife to bid for a piece of land being handled by a government agency.
As the verdict pointed out, as soon as word went out that the PM’s wife was in the bidding contest, officials in charge of the auction immediately knew what they were supposed to do. The level playing field was immediately tilted to one side.
Thaksin knew, and we all knew, that it didn’t matter at all, as he claimed in his statement, that he didn’t have any direct supervisory power over the FIDF. The public, the officials, his wife and the premier himself knew how things were supposed to work. And he exploited that to the hilt.
Thaksin blamed “various groups of privileged elites” for conspiring against him. He says they “believe in anything but democracy”. Thaksin says he is a threat to them “because I represent the principle of liberal democracy”.
Perhaps he really is confused here. Thaksin himself is, without a doubt, at the forefront of Thailand’s “privileged elite”. He also apparently confuses electoral gimmickry and populism with “liberal democracy”.
If Thaksin isn’t one of highest members of the “privileged elite”, he wouldn’t be able to call the shots from afar, even when he is now called, in some circles, “Inmate Thaksin”.
Besides, if he were just an ordinary man trying to help the country, he wouldn’t be able to create such a sensation by simply saying he will make a public address to his supporters by telephone on November 1 at a gathering of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship.
In the end, it’s not the two-year jail term that “confused” him. After all, he insisted all along that the issue of conflict of interest was nothing but his critics’ feeble excuse to irritate him. Nothing more, nothing less.
No. Thaksin simply can’t live with the fact that he became the first politician to be convicted under Article 100 of the National Counter Corruption Commission Act.
Source: The Nation
The counter-reply from Korn Chatikvanij, Democrat Party
Member of Parliament’s letter to Thaksin (UPDATE 31/OCT)
Korn Chatikavanij - Democrat Party
“It’s a shame… since, once again, you feel compelled to harm the country of your birth in order to protect and promote your own personal interests,” Korn wrote. “Frankly, if you really wanted to present facts, you should provide these details yourself.”
Korn urged Thaksin to leave Thailand alone so people could “clean up the mess you left us in”
Korn Chatikavanij, a Bangkok MP of the Democrat Party, has written an open letter to ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. It was in response to Thaksin’s letter from London, which tried to side-step the guilty verdict over the Ratchadaphisek land deal and blamed the ‘elite’ for his political downfall.
Read Korn’s full letter from antithaksin.wordpress.com
Counter-reply from Preaw Sea Ngern (ThaiPost newspaper)
Sanoh and Thaksin in Thai Rak Thai party
The article is the transcript of the interview with Sanoh Tienthong, an old politician, now in his eighty who joined Thai-Rak-Thai party and helped Thaksin to win the 2001 election. And before 2006, after feeling betrayed by Thaksin, he supported a PAD campaign in 2006 to oust ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinnawatra. However, in the latest 2007 election, he and his small party formed coalition governments of Samak and Somchai again and turned silence.
The current conflicts originated from the only single cause, that is Thaksin. This person cheated to get the power. With power in his hands, he remains cheating. He is extremely dangerous to the country because he has educational qualifications. He conspires to take advantage on others. It is so disgraceful of him in being the country’s leader.
Read Thaksin & Pojamarn in Sanoh’s Perceptions
Counter Thaksin’s Attack on Thai Judiciary from Khun Ronayos (antithaksin.com)
Following the October 21, 2008 final verdict by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders in the case of the auction for a state-owned land on Ratchadaphisek Road, to jail Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra the No.1 defendant, who was a state officer breaching article 100 (1) of the National Counter Corruption Act and to be penalized according to article 122 of the Constitution’s Related Act on the National Counter Corruption (NCC) 1999 by a two-year jail sentence, instead of Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra’s acceptance and returning to Thailand for the jail sentence accordingly, he denied the ruling and broadcasted his letters to international media on October 22, 2008 saying that in order to clarify some relevant facts, as he was innocent, the court had ruled without any evidence to prove any frauds or any corruptions or any abuse of power in relation to the auction of the Ratchadaphisek land. His action is a definite contempt of the court in accusing the court of sentencing a jail term without evidences.
His counterclaim letter may cause some misunderstanding among the people and the media both domestic and abroad that the Thai justice process and the judiciary system are not trustworthy. Therefore, here are the actual facts related to the behaviors of Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra and his associates in relation to the Thai judiciary system as follows.
1. Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra sued a lot of people in various courts including civil courts and criminal courts in which he claims more than a billion baht worth of compensation. These actions prove that Pol. Lt. Col.Thaksin Shinawatra has confidence in the judiciary system. Otherwise, he would not have sued people in Thai courts.2. Thai judiciary system has undergone continuous development and is well accepted internationally. Every judge adjudicates the cases in the name of the His Majesty the King. However, there have been several occasions indicating unduely influences and undermining interferences by Pol. Lt. Col.Thaksin Shinawatra. He would accept court verdicts only from which he and his associates benefit.
2.1. In 2001, the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) filed a case against Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra to the Constitutional Court for when he was a deputy Prime Minister in PM General Chawalit Yongjaiyuth, Thaksin willingfully submit a falsifying assets report. The court acquitted Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra who confessed of an “innocent mistake” and praised the court of being fair to him. The ruling, carried out in the first Prime Minister term, enabled a continuity of his post.Later, in a trial of another court case, between members of the Consititution Court Judges in Thaksin’s trial (the plaintiff) and Lieutenant Commander Prasong Soonsiri (the defendant), sued for court content and libel, a witness revealed that some associates of Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra had approached some Consititution Court Judges during the Thaksin’s trial. It is, therefore, an obstruction of justice. Vera Somkwamkid have already reported to the Crime Suppression Department alleging Somchai Wongsawat, the permanent secretary of Ministry of Justice then had bribed some Consititution Court Judges in Thaksin’s trial.
2.2 In the April 2006 general election, in which Pol. Lt. Col .Thaksin Shinawatra, the Prime Minister and the Thai Rak Thai party’s leader then, hastily arranging a snap election within 35 days after the parliament dissolution, selfishly exploited its authority over other political parties so much that the Democrat party and other political parties boycotted the general election by a total abstaining from the race against Thai Rak Thai party. Together with voters’ strong boycott against Thai Rak Thai party in some areas, this action pushed Thai Rak Thai party to conspire secret hiring of small-size political parties to fill the uncontested constituencies to avoid the compulsory minimal threshold votes of 20 per cent of all eligible voters. Some small-size political parties’ candidates were unqualified for the election. Some fraudulently moved from one constituency to another in the following by-election. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the election was invalid. Constitutional Tribunal, later ruled that Thai Rak Thai party committed acts which violated Constitutional Monarchy Democracy and sentenced a disbanding of Thai Rak Thai Party as well as a five-year prohibition of political rights for the 111 party directors including Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra.Two judges in the Constitutional Tribunal revealed that there were attempts to bribe Constitutional Tribunal to rule in favor of Thai Rak Thai party but they refused. The Thai-Rak-Thai-party-frauds-ignorant Election Control Commission led by Police General Wasana Permlarb was also convicted in the lower criminal court for abuse of its authority and sentenced to four-year imprisonment without suspension of the punishment. (The case is now in the appeal court.)
2.3 The verdict by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders in the case of the auction of Ratchadaphisek land has revealed several important issues. In the second auction, the minimal threshold price was abolished. Instead, the guarantee deposit was raised as high as 100 million baht. This implicitly precluded more other bidders. The abolishment of the minimal threshold price in the second auction enable the candidates to offer lower bidding prices as compared to the canceled first auction. Both measures facilitated Khunying Potjaman Shinawatra to win the auction at a much lower price than the officially estimated price. Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra, in his letter, claims that the Prime Minister does not have the authority to control the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF) which organized the auction. In fact, according to the court’s detailed explanation of the verdict, the Prime Minister has the authority to control the FIDF indirectly through the Minister of Finance. The most important issue is Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra’s claim that there is no evidence of his wrong doing, which is an indirect contempt of the court by accusing the court of sentencing him without evidences. In fact, article 100 (1) of the National Counter Corruption Act is intended to prevent state authority officers from abusing their authoritative power to benefit themselves or their associates. The court carefully adjudicated all the relevant laws, witnesses and evidences related to the Financial Institutions Development Fund’s operation before duely ruling that Pol. Lt. Col.Thaksin Shinawatra was guilty as charged.In addition, during this trial, Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra’s lawyer’s team consisting of Pichit Chuenban, both defendants’ lawyer; Supasri Srisawat, lawyer assistant; and Thana Tansiri, cases coordinator, tried to offer 2 million baht cash to some court’s officers on June 10, 2008 when both defendants Pol. Lt. Col.Thaksin and Khunying Potjaman Shinawatra must report to the court. The court convicted all three lawyers for court contempt and sentenced them to six-months imprisonment.
All above, prove Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra of being hypocrite, for he would respect court’s ruling only when it benefit himself. He does not have a due respect in judiciary process. Worst of all is that he, via his close associates, tried to bribe the courts in several cases.
Therefore be extremely careful in placing the faith in Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra since he and his wife are now not only convicted as fugitive criminals but also they have shown their utmost immorality in cheating and lying to their fellow citizens and cowardly betraying their homeland just for the sake of themselves.
Read the original counter attack from antithaksin.com
Other Court Verdicts and Corruption Charges
More on Court Verdicts and Corruption Charges against Thaksin and his associates
Appendix – Thaksin’s announcement
Woodsome Manor
Surrey, England22 of October, 2008
Dear My Friends in International Media,
I am writing to you today to clarify few facts, The news headlines have reported that I have been convicted of corruption for two years stemming from the purchase of land by my wife, Khunying Potjaman Shinawatra.
What you have read is true, I was convicted for two years, but not because of corruption charge. The only reason I was sentenced to Jail is because at the time my wife bought the land through the open bid, I was the Prime Minister.
I listened to the judgment yesterday and even now I am still confused ; there is no evidence of fraud, corruption nor abuse of power in relation to the bid in question; my wife was the one who in volved and made decision to bid for the land, offered a lot more seller, Financial Instit ution Development Fund (FIDF), than other bidders, signed the contract with the seller, paid for the land with no involvement from her husband except when he was required to sign a spousal consent form, In terms of any alleged influence I may have had no direct supervisory power over the FIDF. Interestingly, the Court did not find the sale transaction of my wife unlawful or illegal, they did not convict her because she is not a politician; nevertheless, I was . I trust that you will independently verify the above facts as professional journalists often do. Unfortunately, most of you professsional colleagues in Thailand refuse to do so.
The best. I can comprehend is that I was convicted simply because I was a politician . In that case I was quite guite guilty cause I was quite a successful politician, I got elected twice by the majority of thai people as Prime Minister.
If I were to be guilty of anything, that would be what I have shown to the Thai people, especially those underprivileged rural thais that they can, and have the right to, demand their government to provide effective policy and programs to improve their lives.
I received this judgment with mixed feeling; relief for my wife as I pulled her into enough troubles because of my politcal ambition to bring greatness and well-being to my country and my people, amused and bitter with the illogical of the judgment, and worry for those politicians in Thailand that they could go to jail simply because their unhappy spouses may sought to manipulate the law.
For those of you who may not be too familiar with Thailand, state offices and enterprises in Thailand are doing so many businesses from telecommunication, banking, power generator or even owning gas stations.
I do not know should I laugh or cry to see the direction Thailand is moving forward: a democratically elected leader was put out of job because he cooked on a TV show but those who unlawfully trespassed and occupying the government house got protection from the Court.
Whatever happen to me is a political driven actions collaborated by various group of privileged elites who believe in anything but democracy. I am a threat to them because I represent the principle of liberal democracy which promote hope and pride of the poor of my country.
Thailand is and will remain a great and beautiful country. Few people cannot face the face,obstructing the will of majority of the people. I believe that at the end Thai people will win over this struggle. And the end of their nightmare is not far.
I thank you for the opportunity to share the facts with you.
Truly Yours,
Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra
Related posts:
RSS
Subscribe by Email
so the obvious question in the Ratchadaphisek land case is… has the Finance Minister been charged or will he be charged?
if the Minister of Finance is the responsible minister why is it necessary or even logical to go over his head… unless there is some charge and evidence that the PM specifically over-rode the Minister in this matter. Was/is there any such evidence?
Reply to this comment
David, i havent read the actual verdict, but from reading the news reports and their summaries, Thaksin was in this case charged with conflict of interest. So, it seems the court found evidence for conflict of interest. Now, the finance minister might not have the conflict of interest in this case since he or related person not benefiting from this deal?
Reply to this comment
I just added another reply written by Suthichai Yoon from The Nation newspaper. Please read the update in this post.
And ST is right, we can’t find yet that the minister of finance had something to do with this.
Reply to this comment
I have just added another counter-reply from the Lawyers Council of Thailand.
Reply to this comment