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?

Truethaksin watch pt II

I know it's ultra dry but somebody needs to put the record straight. Here is the second of three (probably) Truethaksin watch articles.

It's worth stressing again that this is no defence of Sondhi. As it happens I find him to be a typical developing country's cop rather than a soldier. He is irrational and looks like he has had too many trips to Mr Doughnut.

Steps to Power by General Sonthi (here)

Bangkok , June 27, 2007: Excerpt from "Politic Team" Column of Thai Rath newspaper. Since General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, Chairman of the Council of National Security ("CNS") and Army Commander in Chief, announced to the public his 4 step plan, he claimed that the ousted government will not be able to return to power because the final day of democratic reform has already been set!

Two articles cite this conversation and yet if it really happened, it passed without mention in the English language media and went unhighlighted in the Thai media. Did it really happen or do we see the behaviour one often sees from a defensive man: facts made up on the spot?

Step by step, he laid down details of his plan:

Step 1: Political Party will be dissolved for the obvious guilt.

Well yes, it's true that there was obvious guilt but when do Sondhi proclaim this before the event? Reports suggested he seemed a little bullish about the trial but he never assured it would happen.

Step 2: The public will be made aware of more corruption and wrongdoing of last government.

Yes. This was promised and delivered.

Step 3: Political Parties will be ruined, ex-members of parliament will need a new party for next election.

This comment is nonsense. Maybe it loses something in translation.

Step 4: Then there shall be a final verdict. We will have the referendum on the new constitution and then the general election.

Yes. Two out of four, well done!

Obviously, it seems all is going well according to the steps he laid down, especially various actions were completed gradually by the AEC.

By necessity. It must be painstakingly hard to trace the trail of a man who held so much power over so many in government and bureaucracy. A smart man, too.

General Sonthi also mentioned about the set-up of new government post-election: "In the next election, we will see only 2-3 major political parties that will run the country. That also means any political party running against those major parties will not survive."

Seems more like a prediction rather than a dark pledge.


Our political analysis team views that from a national security standpoint, such statements about a 4 step plan and how to deal with the ousted government may be acceptable and understandable.

He may want to give the public peace of mind that everything is under control and we will have a general election real soon.

But if we look at it from a democracy standpoint, this revelation by General Sonthi really shakes the foundation of democratic society. Whether it is done we do not know.

But clearly, it indicates that somehow all the actions taken by the AEC, the Attorney General as well as the Constitutional Tribunal have been orchestrated by the Council of National Security!

If it was true, then yes it would. However, the actions orchestrated to the AEC required evidence. That evidence has been found. It is genuine and adduceable.

This may lead to new resistance because the people do not want dictatorship.

True. We can tell this article is quoted, because some of the commentary is actually agreeable.


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

Rule of laws in Thailand: New Development by Junta (here)

In any civilized country, citizens need to obey laws or they have to be responsible for consequences. The legislative power enacts the laws but the administrative power (normally from democratically elected means) ..........

That second clause is the only buffer from criticism of legislative powers. Of course, judges in Thailand are approved by HM The King.

............can also issue certain laws and orders but in any case within the scope of the Constitution.

In a state where rules of laws is respected, the Court will decide cases according to the laws, not demand or desire of any group of persons.

Que?

In Thailand, the Court not only have to apply the laws but, at the same level as the constitution the Court must also follow any order of the junta: Link to Democratic Reform Order No.3 Do you still believe there is a fair trial in Thailand?


The reform order combined with the rhetoric is deceptive. Even my grade nine students know Thailand's courts are modelled on western systems. There are courts of first order (civil and criminal, with some subdivisions) , appeals court and supreme court. The Constitutional Court stands alone legislatively and (ahem) constitutionally. Since the constitution was scrapped, it stands to logic - albeit coup logic - that the court can no longer function. So in fact, this order is allowing 80% of the judicial process to continue.

And and yes I do believe in fair trials. Look what happed to the slimy, cowardly ECC officials who tried to use every trick and trapping of power to be vitiated of their crimes.


In a state where rules of laws is respected, the Court will never allow any citizen to be punished by the laws enacted after the date of a crime. No retroactive laws will be accepted any where in civilized world but Thailand. Link to Comment on Tribunal Decision

Again not true. A quick check on wikipedia will confirm many countries use these laws although they are not popular and scarce. Again we see the polemics are geared towards judicial process, not abolition of guilt.

What's in it for these people to do all those things for the junta? Please see Section 208 and 300 of the draft Constitution prepared by group of junta lovers: Two of the Constitutional Tribunal appointed by junta get 9 years extension of their offices!
The first time ever the extension of terms of services of certain Judges be fully recognized in the Constitution! Link: Section 208 and 300 of the draft Constitution.

Too bad judge Issara Nithithanprapas who claimed he was "unsuccessfully lobbied" in the 2001 Thaksin assets concealment trial was already mandatorily retired. Surely a judge of that calibre would have returned a fair verdict?

Yet again, we need to notice that there is no argument against the constitutional courts articulate and precise ruling, only arguments that one judge was "rewarded".

In a state where rules of laws is respected, there will never be a law issued just to penalize and to be applied specifically to a particular group of individuals especially in case where all actions derived from political differences. Link to Democratic Reform Order No.30

And that law would be......?

Truethaksin Watch part one: AEC : Part of the Perfect Pla

This is my first analysis of the truethaksin website.

Let me state immediately, this is not a pro junta or "defence of the coup" exercise. Too many people seem to think that we need a clear 'good' and a 'bad' in these situations. This is not how realpolitik works. There is rarely black and white in politics, only shades of grey. The coup was a disgraceful attack on democracy. None of that changes the fact that Thaksin was a deceiver, an opponent of press freedom and heavily, heavily alleged to be corrupt and greedy.

My analysis uses several sources including academic works, web sites, my own interviews and research and more. I can cite these if sensibly requested.

There will not be any order of analysis. I simply examine the articles I find to be interesting.

With this said, allow us to proceed with the article:

AEC : Part of the Perfect Plan (found here)

The Thaksin version:

We see the plan of the Junta clearer months after the coup, though many actions of the junta could be well predicted in advance.

One of the reason for coup d'etat, cited by the Junta under the politically correct name; the "Democratic Reform Council, was the vast corruptions by Dr. Thaksin' government. No doubt, the junta had to appoint the "Asset Examination Committee" to investigate and scrutinize the alleged wrongdoing of Dr. Thaksin's government, even though there are at least 2 other independent government offices already in charge with full power and authority.

My version:
Immediately we see the poor English. This is not nitpicking, a man of Thaksin's wealth and contacts, looking to mount a web site designed to garner international sympathisers should surely have the means to employ someone more diligent in their grammar usage. These mistakes are frequented heavily throughout the site, I will not constantly refer to them unless it is relevant to the point at hand.

The "two other bodies" quoted is likely to imply the NCCC and possibly AMLO or the Office Auditor General (OAG). If the latter was intended, we could note that auditor general Kun Ying Jaruvan Maintaka is already a member of the AEC, so we could accept that the OAG are part of investigations already.

But allow us to consider the other two cases:

The NCCC are well known to Thaksin. They instigated his legendary 2001 assets concealment trial at the Constitutional Court before he took office. It seems Thaksin has a newfound respect for the office, since back then his attitude seemed different when he stated " It seems strange that the leader elected by eleven million people had to bow to the ruling of the NCCC and the verdict of the court....."

It didn't stop there. Thaksin's attitude to the NCCC changed little during his term. The NCCC seemed impartial until 2003. Then, under Thaksin's tenure, the NCCC drafted a friend of Thaksin's from police school, and another individual who was his police cadet school mentor. Other associates of Thaksin were drafted in and no investigations of his government took place thereafter. Back here in 2007, the NCCC also have a backlog of ten thousand cases, they say. So perhaps they felt too overworked to take on the new cases.

As for AMLO, they have never been heavily involved in political cases and lack the experience to do so. They were surprisingly involved in an investigation of 'The Nation' newspaper at around the time Thaksin began to appear hostile to critical media. After a takeover of iTV in which twenty outspoken journalists were surreptitiously fired, The Nation stood as one of the few criticisers of the TRT regime. In 2002, it transpired AMLO had been instructed to investigate The Nation Group and were underway. Who gave the order was never disclosed but when the case came to light, all charges and investigations were dropped. It seemed bizarre that a group set up to investigate organised crime and drug trafficking revenue (not political corruption per se) was directing its resources in such a manner.

So if Mr. Thaksin wants to suggest that independent groups designed to investigate corruption already existed, perhaps he could address the issue of why such groups seemed compromised, slow, inefficient and unproductive under his government. Perhaps we could turn the tables by suggesting the AEC have been fast, efficient, more productive and far more impartial than existing groups. Indeed, secretary Kaesawan suggested his group would work quicker than the NCCC and he has been proved right.

Finally, perhaps Mr. Thaksin can take heart from the fact that the NCCC is scheduled to take over any cases that outlast the AEC's term. With the remarkable run of bad health in the Thaksin family that has caused huge delays, this seems a real possibility.


The Thaksin version:
The Democratic Reform Council issued Order No.23 on September 24, 2006 appointing the Asset Examination Committee, simply to find out within days that it can not exercise full control over this body.

Why? The answer is the wrong composition of member. The initial set of members of the AEC are senior officers, being the head of various government offices (Please See Democratic Reform Order No.23). Take the governor of Bank of Thailand or the Attorney General as examples. Both organization, i.e. the Bank of Thailand and the office of the Attorney General has its own sets of laws, regulation and practice. It is easy for the junta to influence individual not the organization since there could be too many neutral officers within such organization!

Within few days, the composition of the AEC has been changed. It needed to be change to ensure that the junta can influence and direct the AEC to fit its grander plan.

On September 30, 2006, the junta issued the Democratic Reform Council Order No.30 replacing the entire member of the AEC with group of individuals, all of them are publicly known as "Dr. Thaksin's enemy". Each of these individual, though some may be seconded from the Court of Justice, is and will be easier to influenced as they are not attach to any per permanent or formal institution. Just a group of hater get together for personal vendetta and agendas.


My version:
This paragraph took a couple of reads from me to try and understand its full message. The suggestion that the initial AEC was neutral and the later selection biased is ironically biased in itself. The initial AEC (actually called the APC at the time, perhaps the double meaning was deliberate?) included personnel from departments that would be directly involved with investigations. The conflicts of interest were obvious.

Lest anyone suggest I am devoid of sympathy, the new draft of the AEC did indeed include some Thaksin critics. Kaesawan was author of "Stop the Thaksin Regime" , a Thai language book which I am informed contained sensible well made arguments against Thaksin's management style. Jaruvan and Klamrong attended PAD rallies and Banjerd Singkaneti made a most infelicitous "Thaksin and Hitler" comparison.

Klanarong Chanthrik has been labelled as an "enemy of Thaksin" by Thaksin himself. In fact his only crime was to do his job by prosecuting Thaksin in the assets concealment case. An act for which he was later punished by rejection from the NCCC under Thaksin.

The four critics are just one third of the panel. This is a bigger proportion than members of the senate, the ECC , he NCCC and various other organisations that (allegedly were unbiased in TRT and Thaksin dealings during his stint.

(See my footnote for more on the perceived bias issue.)


The public "Dr Thaksin's enemy" charge is ludicrous. Jaruvan was famous - almost trendy - for being unbiased. Nam Yimyean likewise. Sawat (outgoing member) was known as an impartial and fair judge. To label all of these "publicly known as Dr Thaksin's enemy" is nothing short of hysterical, as is its proceeding clause.


The Thaksin version:
The investigation, threat, defamation and many other wrongful things had begun since that very day; September 30, 2006. However, up until now the AEC did not fine a single evidence to confirm the corruption by Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra or that Dr. Thaksin has any personal gain out of those 11 cases accused by the AEC. Never mind, though the investigation of those cases have not been finalized. Let's freeze the assets first, then let them fight for justice and prove that they are innocent!


My version:
The evidence has been found, it has not been publicly revealed because it would prejudice the case. Thaksin knows this and is using the AEC's professionalism as a weapon against them. When one case of UK authorities leaking details of possible account concealment by Thaksin was reported in the mainstream press, AEC secretary Kaeswawan was furious that the media were informed.

To use a crude analogy: imagine a police officer sees a drug dealer trying to throw away his drugs, would the officer be wrong to seize the drugs? The AEC had grounds to believe the cash stocks could be transferred away pending the announcement of charges, and ordered a freeze, no a seizure. It could be argued that Thaksin would have already transferred the money out but this is a straw man in the legal argument.



The Thaksin version:
The civilian back-up of the junta also aware that back in 1993, the Supreme Court has rendered decisions that the seizure of assets by the AEC appointed by the junta of 1991 was unconstitutional and ordered the release of all assets.


My version:
And Thaksin is well aware that the 1993 AEC did an excellent job, uncovering gift cheques and other assets worth approximately 1.9 billion. The High Court ordered that the AEC had no right to act as a court. At no time were the politicians found innocent and at no time was their highly unusual wealth explained.

Two politicians who were absolved of charges before the court case. One of these went on to head the junta's new Samakk hitham political party before he was found to be suspected of narcotics trafficking in America.

So Thaksin's reference to the 1993 case is another irrelevant straw man. The new AEC is protected under new laws.

(Notice the tone of this entire page is geared less towards proclamation of innocence, but more towards the subliminal suggestion that nobody has the right to catch a thief! See my second footnote.)



The Thaksin version:
The draft new constitution therefore need to ensure that history will not repeat itself. Section 208 and 300 of the draft Constitution, drafted by committee appointed by the Junta, (file draft by for the first time in the history of Thailand states that the Constitutional Tribunal appointed by the junta shall remain as the Constitutional Court for another period of 9 years. Further, all Supreme Court judge who supposed to be retired in October get extension of terms for another 10 years simply to ensure that the younger generation of Supreme Judges cannot overrule the political motivated decisions!

My version:
Perhaps such as the politically motivated decision to acquit Thaksin of assets concealment? After all, four of the judges were removed from court following an NCCC complaint some years later.

In fact, judges have appeared to be some of the last few who can still provide some semblance of impartiality throughout the massive political upheaval. The Constituional Court verdicts on the party dissolution case were comprhensively and logically explained.


The Thaksin version:
Good bye to democracy and Rules of laws in Thailand!


My version:
It's true. Democracy and rule of law are under threat. But this threat was not solely caused by the coup. It was caused throughout a culture of free press repression, corruption, and political deceit. Thaksin was as guilty of this as any PN. Two wrongs do not make a right, and if Thaksin is found guilty in court. He must pay his debit to society.



Footnote one:

As this is my first article analysis, I want to share a collection of quotes I compiled from Mr. Thaksin, that I used on my own personal blog. I believe it demonstrates his entire mindset of being above the law or better than the law, rather than being held accountable for his actions:

A few select quotes are:

On taking office:

"I will serve twenty full terms and then retire out of sympathy to the opposition. There will be no crime, no Mafia and no social ills"

In response to academic criticism:
"I have full knowledge of democratic values, those who know less should refrain from talking"
" Some teachers cannot teach and just criticize to look cool. They will have to go".

On concerns about compramisation of independent checking bodies:

"The woman who cautions me is my wife. People needn't worry, my wife keeps me in check"

(Two points of note here: Firstly, Thaksin didn't mention that since he took office, his wife had become the richest woman in Thailand and was heavily implicated in tax evasion allegations. Secondly, this quote was made not longer after HM The King had made a speech in which he mentioned how his mother used to keep his feet on the ground. I wonder if Thaksin simply liked the sound of HM The King's speech).

Talking to the rural masses about the protests in Bangkok:
"These people think they are smarter than you, you must tell them loudly how you feel"

After losing two by - elections:
[to the voters in those two provinces] "Let me be very clear, we will take care of our own first, we will give priority to those provinces who voted for us"

(NB Thaksin seemed unconcerned that he was publicly declaring a breech of constitutional rule by showing favour to provinces that voted for him)


Now watch for a trend from here on............

After protests against the government decision to privatise public businesses without referendum and sell them to politician shareholders:

"Some people don't understand what we are doing because they don't have enough knowledge"

During protests against Thaksin using public funds to buy Liverpool Football Club:
"Some people simply don't understand. They aren't ready for my vision yet"
"Some people might be upset because they don't have access to all the information"

After the Constitutional Court rejected Thaksin's bid to privatise the Electric Authority:
"Some people are confused and don't understand, that's OK"
"Some people might not be aware of all the facts"

After massive Bangkok protests in response to Thaksin selling his main business and avoiding paying tax:
"There are technical issues that most people don't understand so they are confused"









Footnote two:

Some months ago I debated the AEC bias issue with the prolific Bangkok Pundit. He made the suggestion of apprehended bias. While it was a good point, I still took issue on two accounts. Firstly, the issue of apprehended bias is itself ambiguous and unclear. We could all find a point of producible apprehended bias in most cases. Secondly, the AEC - at least up until the assets freeze - had worked flawlessly. Even their critics (i.e. Thaksin supporters) struggled to find a point of contention.


(I enjoy feedback of any type that is relevant and informed. Snipes and petty "I know it all" comments that come from people with nothing to offer are not helpful and reflect on the comment poster.)

Welcome to truethaksin watch.......

Truethaksin has been launched.

It contains a load of nonsense, badly written propaganda designed to sway the uninformed international audience. Hence the reason there is an English version.

Over the next few weeks, I'll be dissecting each and every page of this nonsense.

Stay tuned......and may crooks get all they deserve.