Truethaksin watch pts 3+4 : The final chapters (but for whom?)

(Sorry this piece is long. I put two articles into one to avoid 'bombarding' , I wanted truethaksin watch to be no more than three pieces.)

So ends Truethaksinwatch, at least for now.

When I first scanned the truethaksin site, I was expecting rebuttals to be painstakingly exhaustive. I really thought I'd have to re-read a lot of books, dig up old newspapers, make calls all over the FCCT and basically re-live my studies of the last few years. In fact, the whole thing was easy, disappointingly so.

It reminded me that Thaksin and his site are all about propaganda. It doesn't matter to him that it's mostly polemics disguised as fact. Despite its motto, the site was never meant to be about truth. It was designed to incite and encourage supporters in Thailand who have already decided he is wonderful and to overseas viewers who are already expecting a clear cut case of a nice, honest democratically elected leader unseated by nasty generals.

When viewed from this angle, the site does well except for its awful use of English.

One final point. I don't normally use article quotes and then interject my own comments. To me, this can come across as a 'cheap shot' or a debate where one side cannot respond. I have only done it here because there are so many untrue or misleading statements on the site, this is the only way to deal with them properly.

Enough waffle, let's find the "legal facts" as the site calls it........



*******************************************************************



The junta claims Dr.Thaksin a corrupted politician, but no single fact can be proven and now they want to do more worse things to Thailand. Here it from one of their own supporter!

Luckily, the rest of the article is not written by Mr Thaksin or a crony, so the English is comprehensible.



Bangkok Post, 9 August 2007, by, M.L. Natakorn Devakula


M.L. Nattakorn Devakula is a news analyst and he is the son of the former Governor of Bank of Thailand and former Deputy Prime Minster of the military-appointed government; M.R. Pridiyathorn Devakula.

Aha! So this should be a highly educated, well cited and very difficult to rebuke defence right?



ASC's life extension is extra-constitutional

If you try to call up one case where the Assets Scrutiny Committee ( ASC ) has concluded all its findings and where there has been a victorious prosecution of the accused in a court of law, you will find yourself at a loss.


This is because up until this point there has not been a single case originating from the ASC where former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his colleagues have been found guilty by a panel of judges. If you do not believe this, you are welcome to look up the details.

What? This reminds me of the 'South Park' parody of the OJ Simpson trial and the lawyer's "If Chubacca lived on Endor you must acquit" defence. The writer's "you can look it up" defence seems to suggest some kind of exoneration of Thaksin because the judicial process is not complete. Of course, if the cases HAD been rushed through there would be an uproar of people accusing Thailand of being a "kangaroo court".



The furthest a case has gone is the Ratchadapisek Road land deal that has been accepted by the court. Prosecution has not even begun, and even if Mr. Thaksin is eventually found guilty it would be indirect redemption, since it was his wife who purchased the land from the Financial Institutions Development Fund. It is not necessarily comparable to catching someone with their hand actually in the cookie jar.


Ah, but what khun Devakula forgot to mention is that Thaksin has signed a consent form for the purchase. He is forbidden to do this by law when dealing with a government office transaction involving a spouse or relative. Thaksin can only defend himself by trying to convince the judges he did not directly control the FIDF and didn't even feel it necessary to check any concerns before signing the form. This defence in my amateur opinion looks weak given that three of the nine committee members of the FIDF are from the MOF and another from the OAG.

In any case is "no hand in the cookie jar" really the best defence statement available from a prminent figure to post in defence of Mr. Thaksin?





Upon learning that the National Legislative Assembly had, quickly and without warning, passed the bill which extended the ASC's life-term till June 2008, I was shocked.

Not as shocked as I was at reading some of this nonsense masquerading as "legal facts" on Thaksin's own web site!

First, the original cabinet-proposed term extension was for the ASC to continue operating until the termination of the current cabinet. Or, at the longest, the ASC would continue to exist until a newly-elected administration came in. It is beyond a democratic citizen's comprehension how a body that derives all its powers from military edicts has been granted tools equivalent to that of organisations created by a constitution. As part of the ASC's term-extension bill, the anti-graft body's status was also lifted to the level of National Counter Corruption Commission ( NCCC ).

There is another side to this. Thaksin and his family have stalled and procrastinated at every turn. The family have had a whole wealth of unfortunate illnesses sweep over them that have endlessly delayed testimonies. The AEC were honest enough to allow deadline extensions.

If the role of the AEC was unable to be fulfilled due to these delays, what would be the point? How would justice be served and tax money justified? The only formal objection was made by Klanrong, and AEC member who happened to be head of the NCCC? Now for ten points, can anyone tell me why the head of a slow and inefficient graft commission might have a vested agenda protesting the AEC term extension?




One must seriously consider the extensive powers of the ASC. It has the ability to apply laws within the confines of the NCCC and the Anti-Money Laundering Office ( Amlo ) . This means it has the ability to temporarily seize assets and prosecute even when the attorney-general decides not to take cases. The near-limitless powers of the ASC constitute some of the most egregious violations of legal practice itself.
Does anyone actually understand this last sentence?



It can act without constitutional logic, institutional check and popular accountability. Its decisions cannot be questioned by other constitution-born agencies, while its powers cannot be shrugged off by anyone -- from low-level bureaucrats to even members of the present administration. This has been seen in the ASC's attempt to purge a gargantuan number of senior-level officers of the Ministry of Finance.

Who were suspected of stalling and providing cover for tax evasion.



This particular example of an attempt emanates simply from a difference of opinion on what income is deemed taxable.

No it doesn't. It originates from suspicion of collusion and incorrect process in tax collection due to coercion.


Another case emanates from the Finance Ministry officials' following of a cabinet resolution to sell above-ground two-and three-digit lotteries. The ASC has shown its potential to perhaps abuse CNS-granted powers.

That last sentence is an oxymoron. So many AEC protesters state that the group is unfair or can abuse power. The same group then point to Thaksin's innocence by saying "Look! None of the cases have gone to court yet!". The reason for the second point being true is because the first point is untrue. Genuine judicial process in graft cases takes time.



Thailand needs to look at itself in the mirror and picture this ad-hoc agency, and ask itself the following questions: What has a democracy come to (this is if we are one in the first place) when bodies arisen out of a coup d'etat last beyond the lifespan of the very executive apparatus that ruled in power during the post coup -- aftermath? What happened to the idea that once a new constitution has been drafted and elections have been set in place, coup -- makers must head back to the barracks and coup -- related agencies back to their benches? What happened to the idea of holding agencies constitutionally and popularly accountable?

I question the linearism of this writer's logic. The reason the AEC needed to exist in the first place is because the agencies in place were simply inept. They had been rendered impotent by a political juggernaut called Thai Rak Thai. If the independent checking bodies had been truly independent and honest in their work, the AEC would never have been required to exist.



The ASC has to date gone after state bureaucrats who are, for some reason, held at fault for following politicians' orders and the dictates of cabinet resolutions.

Because it against the law to follow orders to break the law. Any state bureaucrat should know that and if they were intimidated, their defence should be accepted.



The ASC has to date gone after friends, relatives, wife and children of Thaksin Shinawatra. The ASC has to date gone after ministers and high -- level executives, which due to a sense of over -- imagination and obsessiveness are thought to be cronies of the former PM.


I can't help but wonder what gives this journalist his overwhelming since of sympathy for the Thaksin family. Notice he gives himself leeway by declining to name the other chargees, thus allowing his "over -- imagination and obsessiveness" to go unchallenged.




While loathing anyone seen to be associated with the former administration -- real or imagined -- hawkish and obsessive ASC members have let their eyes off the ball. The original goal was to handle Mr Thaksin, not purge hardworking and low salary -- earning state officers or bystanding businessmen.

Nonsense. Utter propaganda designed to depict the AEC as bullies of corrupt millionaires.




The ASC's job, since its inception, was to rein in Mr Thaksin on corruption and prove the cases in a court of law before placing him in jail.
Actually it was to forward cases to the relevant body (usually the OAG) for prosecution, not to prove the cases in court themselves.


Instead, it has sidetracked by going after alleged cronies and relatives, To compound these mistakes, the junta -- created body has illegitimately frozen assets of the former PM, thus pushing him further into a desperate position.
Did this writer not state earlier in this article that the AEC had power to freeze assets? Now it's " illegitimately" ? Make your mind up Natakorn!


In desperate times men resort to desperate measures, and the ASC will, in addition, be held partially accountable for Mr Thaksin's political retaliation. The book by Sunisa Lertpakawat, Thaksin:Where Are You?, sheds light on the impact the assets seizure has had on the former PM and how it may play a role in pushing him back to fight in the political arena.

He'd need to return to Thailand to do that. The "return to politics" was an impetuous threat during a game of bluff between Thaksin and the junta. Nothing more.


A term extension is not what the ASC deserves.
I really wonder about this writer's impartiality. The AEC needs a term extension because it has been unable to complete its duties due to stalling by people heavily charged with corruption.



A censure motion and closer scrutiny -- in other words, a little bit of their own medicine -- are rather more appropriate, considering the sweeping and indiscriminate application of NCCC and Amlo powers to those who had nothing much really to do with the previous regime's corrupt ways.

The AEC can now be charged so they are accountable. Notice the repeat of the previous tactic "nothing much really to do with the previous regime's corrupt ways." is devoid of names or examples. The writer protects his own made up nonsense.



*************************************************************************

Junta's Intervention of Justice Part II

The Military knew the coup would not be acceptable by any civilized and democratic society. They have to push so hard to justify all their actions and also to pave the way to power for the junta's leaders.

So if the Democrats win the election, is Abhisit a junta leader?



The military knew they could not run the country for long nor can they control other branches of sovereign power, particularly, the judicial. They knew their time was running out. They also knew it is impossible to leave the power to the public without bearing the consequences of their abuse of power. So many wrongful acts and allegations have occurred, so many laws have been violated; consequences of these actions will follow.


I love that prescient last sentence. It is so true in more than one way.



That is the rationale for Section 309 of the junta's proposed draft constitution:

Section 309: Any and all actions which have been confirmed or acknowledged by the provisions of the Interim Constitution of 2006 to be legitimate and constitutional including any and all actions relating to those matters whether occurring before or after the date of this Constitution, shall be deemed legitimate, lawful and constitutional.


Very true. It's sad fact that the junta were always going to project themselves and their attack on democracy. However, this text is all based around "they are more wrong than me" argument





Further, the military and their servants knew well their acts were illegal and unconstitutional, and many of these can be classified as "crime". The "universal" amnesty provision is good but may not be enough if in the future, certain judges would find the amnesty provision "unconstitutional"

Then, what shall the junta do?

Simple answer: The junta needs to make sure their servants remain in charge of the Constitutional Tribunal for the next nine years. All lawsuits filed against the junta and their servants, like the lawsuit of the Asset Examination Committee which issued various illegal assets freezing orders, and any future lawsuits by those harmed by the coup, will be heard by the junta's selected group of obedient servants. Just like the tribunals which followed the orders of the junta's leader to ban the Thai Rak Thai Party.

Constitutional judges are appointed by the king up senate advice. How does Thaksin prove they are "obedient servants"? My Thai wife finds such a statement highly offensive.


Don't just listen to us.

Don't worry. We won't.

Hear what the leading independent law lecturers of Thailand have to say about this issue:


The following are English language summaries of the statements on Rejection of the Proposed Draft Constitution issued on July 6, 2007, by six law lecturers of Thammasat University, namely Assistant Prof. Dr. Vorajet Pakeerat, Assistant Prof. Prasith Piwawattanaponich, Assistant Prof. Dr. Janjira Iam-mayura, Dr. Thapanan Nipithkul, Piyabutra Sangkanokkul and Teera Sutheewarangkul:

"3.5 It is eminent that the Proposed Draft confers extensive and additional power and authority on the Judiciary. For example, all selections of personnel for those independent government bodies setup by virtue of the Constitution will require approval by the President of the Supreme Court or his designated person as well as the approval by the President of the Administrative Court and the Chairman of the Constitutional Tribunal or their designees. In regard to the judiciary, the Proposed Draft involves the judiciary in politics through the nomination and selection process. Further, all political disputes shall now be subject to the judicial branch through its "criminal division for politicians". Any disputes in relation to the election will also be decided by the judiciary, not by holding a new election. It is clear that the judiciary will monitor and balance the political activities but there is no mechanism to monitor and balance the power of the judiciary!

In the '97 version the selection for independent bodies was made by HM The King upon advice from the senate.

I would not be so foolish as to question a law lecturer but I would ask them: What is the massive difference between appointments by the judiciary and by HM The King with senate advice?

If the reply to this was "The senate are elected" I would ask : given the huge problems in senate elections and the general public acceptance that the senate is far from impartial, is it not better to have a panel of judges make a decision?

The senate was described by one of its own members as "only twenty to thirty percent truly impartial" and by an MP as "a slave house". The Constitutional Court has a reputation for being almost unlobbiable.



3.6 It is worth mentioning that this is also the very first time in Thailand that the provision of the Constitution provides specifically for the extension of retirement age of the judges, from 60 to 70. The issue is not whether the retirement age of the judges shall be extended or not but why is it so important or critical that such provision has to be stated in the constitution!

Is the retirement age an issue of human resource management? If so, the issue shall be dealt by the legislature to decide according to the policy of the government. We have to record our note here explicitly that this extension of retirement age has not been addressed at the public hearing




Again, I cannot question but I wonder what the big del is? Retirement age for judges was stated in the '97 and '91 constitutions. The age has been extended and stated as such.


.........................................................................................................................................

3.8 The specific provisions of the Constitution provide for the succession of power, duty and personnel appointed by the junta. Especially, these appointed to various independent government bodies under the Constitution will remain in their positions for the complete term after the upcoming general election.

These people have no rights nor justifications to remain in these positions once there is a general election, which will happen in the near future. If necessary, these appointees shall remain in their position but just for a certain period so that the people's representatives can select new qualified persons for those offices after the general election. This means the people will have no power to direct these independent bodies for the next decade.

There is no provision in the Constitution that limits or restrict the military's appointees to run for parliament or to be selected as senators.

True. The final point was a major issue after the previous coup when Suchinda enacted a constitutional clause allowing him to become PM. I am also not a fan of this clause but it's worth noting that Sondhi doesn't seem to be a popular candidate even if he does run!


Section 308 of the Proposed Draft also empowers the military-appointed cabinet to setup "Law Performance Commission" without any explanation nor clarification as to terms or purposes or scope of duty.

There is no other way for us to comprehend these matters but to conclude that this is the succession mechanism designed by the junta to preserve their rights and power against the interests of the people"

This clause has not yet been translated. If we are to take it as stated here, such an ambiguous term is slightly alarming.



After all these facts, when one seeks to gain personal benefit, can that one still perform his/her functions for the public? Can one look at this extension of retirement age as a 'bribe'? Can we still have faith in the justice of Thailand ?

OK just one argument. Bribe for what? For following the law to the hilt? Being highly articulate when doing so? For incriminating a party that broke constitutional law?