Gaybutton

Can you give us a hint? Their Internet edition for Feb 16-28 is not yet online.

Whatever was going on on Soi Khao Tolo, apparently it's over. This evening I drove down Soi Khao Tolo to Sukhumvit. There was nothing. That large area where the Red-Shirts usually rally was completely empty and deserted. There was no sign of any recent activity. Today in Pattaya everything appeared perfectly normal. If there was any trouble anywhere, other than heavy weekend and holiday traffic, I saw no sign of it.

Maybe there was, but it wasn't enough. The Bangkok location was more or less a hole-in-the-wall, with only a few tables. The Pattaya location is at least three times the size of the Bangkok location and has more tables. Either way, I'm sorry both locations didn't remain open, but I'm glad the new location is near enough to me that now I can go any time I want . . . and that's going to be often. This is one restaurant I really like.

That's too bad. I was hoping for a Schrafft's . . .

That is sad news indeed, at least for me. That was my favorite place to eat in Bangkok and so convenient to the Malaysia and Pinnacle hotels. Maybe they closed in order to open in Pattaya. Of course, the fact the restaurant is now in Pattaya is very good news and I hope they succeed here, but it's a loss for Bangkok.

I suggest clicking the following: Gay India and Indian Gay and Lesbian Resources by Utopia Asia

Composer Jerome Kern was once asked to describe Irving Berlin's place in American music. His response was, "Irving Berlin has no place in American music. He is American music." I think Thaksin sees himself in a similar manner. He would love it if people say he has no place in Thailand. He is Thailand. I think the verdict has slapped his face and kicked his butt. I think a person like him isn't going to give up without a fight and he likely sees this as losing a battle, but not the war. I think he is prepared to fight and is capable of anything to regain his power in Thailand. If he comes up with some new tactic it will be very interesting to see just how far the Red-Shirts will go along for the ride.

You know what I'd love to see? Emails from Thaksin (or some con artist pretending to be Thaksin) similar to the ones I get every so often . . . Dr. Mweleke Mwenene from Ghana, or somewhere, who wants to put untold millions into my bank account to help him get his money out of the country. Do you get those? I check my junk mail folder once a week and there are usually one or two of them in there. Oh well, whether you are a supporter, an opposer, or a 'who cares' with regard to Thaksin, I doubt the man is ever going to have to worry about where his next meal is coming from. I also don't think the Red-Shirts are going to fade out of the picture just yet, but I do think there will be far fewer of them actively participating in protests and demonstrations as time goes on. If I were to bet on it, I wouldn't bet on them prevailing in the end. I think an awful lot of wind has just been knocked out of their sails and I don't think they're going to recover with the power and influence they held before the verdict came in. Time will tell, but that's the way I think it's going to go. I could be dead wrong, of course. I've been looking all over the place, but I just can't find my crystal ball (and don't tell me to look for it under my leg . . . I already did. As always, nothing was there. Story of my life.).

We did get to Chez Vickie, finally, and I'm delighted to report that it's just the same and just as good as the Vickie L'amour in Bangkok. All of us had the ham and cheese crepe starter, which was served piping hot and really delicious. We all also wanted the eggplant parmesan and it too was served piping hot and was excellent. Between the starter, the eggplant parmesan, and we had water, the bill came to 480 baht and very well worth it. There are many more selections besides just those and they also offer set menus. I think once people discover Chez Vickie, it's going to become a Pattaya favorite.

So far, the only Red-Shirt reaction being reported in Pattaya is quite mild. The following appears in the PATTAYA DAILY NEWS: http://www.pattayaone.net/pattaya-news/14670/pattaya-red-shirts-gather-at-local-red-shirt-radio-station-after-thaksin%E2%80%99s-supreme-court-decision _____ Pattaya Red Shirts gather at local Red Shirt Radio Station after Thaksin’s Supreme Court Decision 27th February 2010 Following the Supreme Court decision relating to the seizure of some assets belonging to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a group of around 100 red shirts gathered at the office of People Radio 89 FM which is located in Soi Day Night 2 in South Pattaya following rumors that soldiers from the Sattahip Navy Base were going to arrive and force the station to close. Trucks fitted with loud speakers soon arrived and told the gathered Red Shirts what may happen. They were determined not to allow this to happen. The rumors appeared to be false and the station continues to broadcast for now, despite similar stations being shut down in Bangkok after the Supreme Court decision which seized 46 Billion Baht of Thaksin’s money. The situation around Thailand remains volatile and should you encounter groups of Red Shirts here in Pattaya, please do not shout at them or abuse them in any way as this could put you and others in danger.

Of course all any of us can do is guess what will, if anything, happen next. Yesterday, before it was read, Thaksin said he would accept the verdict no matter how it turns out. Today he is saying he does not accept the verdict. There is talk about him taking his case to the International Court of Justice. If he does and if that court rules in his favor, there is nothing to force Thailand to comply with the verdict. I doubt that court would even agree to hear the case on the grounds that the case is a domestic case, not an international case. Still, you never know. This thing could drag on for years or it could, for all practical purposes, already be over. It's too soon to know. What I do know is that so far there have been no reports of violence or serious demonstrations. Today in Pattaya life went on normally, as if nothing at all had happened.

Appeal to whom? The ruling came from the Thai supreme court. Who is left for him to appeal to? The supreme court is where the legal buck stops, isn't it?

As I predicted in another thread, now that the Thaksin verdict has been handed down so far nothing at all has happened. It's a perfectly normal day. Again, the only way you would know anything is going on would be to read the newspapers or watch TV. To my mind, the big questions now are: 1. Is Thaksin's influence and power in Thailand dead now? 2. Despite the fact that so far nothing substantial has happened, does that mean it's over and nothing will happen as a result? 3. Is the Red-Shirt movement over, except for the die-hards? All that remains to be seen, but so far the only news items I've seen all pretty much say the same thing, that Thaksin is bitter over the outcome and that while the Red-Shirts are disillusioned, disappointed, and angry, there have been no riots and the rallies have consisted of a few hundred people, but not the thousands and thousands that many predicted. Is it over for Thaksin or is it just the beginning? Only time will tell. The following appears in the BANGKOK POST: _____ Jeers, Tears, Expletives as Thaksinites Absorb Bitter Blow Ruling transforms carnival festivities at Puea Thai headquarters into anger, frustration, and misery 27/02/2010 Tears, jeers, expletives, crumpled handkerchiefs and something resembling war cries greeted the fact Thaksin Shinawatra is now 46 billion baht poorer. About 300 red shirts at the Puea Thai Party headquarters yesterday responded with anger and tears at the Supreme Court's final verdict which was delivered at 8.50pm. Upstairs on the fourth floor, 30 Puea Thai MPs sat in anxious silence while one of the nine judges presiding over the case at the court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions read the last portion of the historically-long verdict. One MP blurted: ''This is not acceptable.'' Fifteen minutes later in front of a screen beaming Thaksin's image, Krongthong Puengsanga, white-haired woman said: ''Red shirts from every province must now come out to fight.'' In her hands she clutched an large photograph of Thaksin sitting astride a white horse. Although the verdict could not have come as a total shock, the red shirts maintained high spirits throughout a day that could not accurately be described as eventful. The lengthy, monotonous reading of the court's deliberations had the dual effect of inducing heightened expectations and prolonged boredom. Loyal supporters, mostly middle-aged women, sat glued to their seats in front of the projector's screen from early afternoon until late evening, listening to every word uttered by the judges and reacting with occasional hooting. When the day began, it was expected that the drama would be focused on the Supreme Court near Sanam Luang. In the afternoon, a handful of red shirts showed up, followed by an appearance by Maj Gen Khattiya Sawasdipol. The view of riot police and barbed barricades gave the high-fenced building a timely gravity. Across the street, the Daeng Siam (Red Siam) stage in Sanam Luang was a paltry affair that only attracted a small crowd. By the afternoon, it was clear that the ebb and flow of emotions was actually taking place at the Puea Thai head office on Rama IV Road, Klong Toey, where the mood was upbeat, buoyant, even optimistic. The red shirts turned the steps of the building entrance into an entertainment arena. They sang and danced and shouted Thaksin's name in glorious unison. The northeastern mor lam songs were a staple that spurred people to get up and shake their hips, like a mini carnival. Puea Thai chairman Chavalit Yongchaiyudh arrived and roused the crowd into great emotion. Former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat's arrival again provoked a hubbub, with a number of women clamouring to have their photos taken with him. ''We're singing because we believe that we're fighting for justice and we enjoy doing it,'' said one man. Yet there was tension in the air. At 3.30pm, loud cheers broke out on the steps of the building when, to the surprise of reporters, someone had mistaken the court's reading of the statement from Thaksin's defence as an acquittal. Prasith Chaisriya started to cry with joy. ''I was so happy,'' he said as he wiped his face, then was stunned speechless when he realised that it was a false alarm. ''I'm singing because today we're not fighting for one man but for justice,'' another woman said. The same woman sobbed quietly six hours later when she learned her hero was a loser in the historic court case that will determine the course of Thai politics for years. Only 100 Thaksin supporters turned up at the People Channel station to listen to the live broadcast of the court's verdict. They occupied seats near a large projector set up in front of the office on the sixth floor of the Imperial Department Store at Lad Phrao. One red shirt member said he arrived at the station early to listen to the verdict, which he did not expect would favour Thaksin. The judges' explanations were lengthy and confusing, he said. The once-cheering crowd of Thaksin's supporters quietly dispersed once the court ruled to seize 46 billion baht of the Shinawatra family's 76.6 billion in frozen assets. ____________________ And this, from THE NATION: _____ 10 Criminal Cases Now Possible By Budsarakham Sinlapalavan Nophakhun Limsamarnphun The Nation Published on February 27, 2010 Thaksin Could Face Suits from Agencies Ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday was found guilty of hiding his assets and abusing his power while in office. The Supreme Court's verdict could lead to at least 10 separate criminal cases in connection with the landmark Bt76-billion assets-seizure case. First, the revenue-sharing percentage of a prepaid-mobile concession agreement between Advanced Info Service (AIS) and state-owned TOT was reduced from 25 per cent to 20 per cent. This resulted in TOT losing Bt70.2 billion in revenue, including an estimated loss of Bt14.2 billion from 2001-06 and another estimated loss of Bt56 billion from 2006-15. This could prompt TOT to file a separate lawsuit seeking compensation for the damage caused by the concession amendment. Second, there was a failure to enforce a satellite concession contract between Shin Satellite (ShinSat) and the Transport Ministry, resulting in public damage of Bt20 billion. ShinSat, a unit of Shin Corp and since renamed Thaicom, was supposed to invest in Thaicom 4, a back-up satellite costing Bt4 billion, under its contract with the government. However, the contract was changed to allow ShinSat to switch to launch the commercially oriented iPSTAR satellite instead of Thaicom 4. In addition, the concession contract was amended to reduce Shin Corp's investment burden in ShinSat from 51 per cent to 40 per cent. Third, the state-owned Export-Import Bank of Thailand (Exim Bank) was persuaded to extend a Bt4-billion loan to the Burmese government to buy satellite services and equipment from ShinSat. This later caused the Finance Ministry to set aside Bt670 million as an interest subsidy covering the 12-year loan contract. This could lead to a separate lawsuit by Exim Bank or the Finance Ministry seeking compensation. Meanwhile, there could be four potential perjury cases related to official asset declarations of public office holders and their spouses. Records of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) show the asset declarations of Thaksin and his then-wife Pojaman na Pombejra back in 2001 were Bt569 million and Bt9.96 billion, respectively. However, Pojaman, in her recent closing statement in the Bt76-billion assets-seizure case, told the Supreme Court that Bt34 billion of the Bt76 billion belonged to her even though she reported her assets amounted to only Bt9.96 billion in February 2001, when Thaksin first assumed the premiership. Besides the 2001 declaration, Pojaman reported to the NACC in 2005 that her assets had dropped to Bt8.91 billion and those of Thaksin to Bt506 million. In the 2005 NACC filing, Panthongtae and Pinthongta, Thaksin's son and daughter, who had not yet come of age, reported combined assets of Bt3.26 billion. In 2006, Thaksin declared his assets to be Bt557 million, while Pojaman's wealth was reported as Bt8.84 billion. Panthongtae and Pinthongta, who had come of age, were no longer required by law to declare their assets. In this context, Pojaman had argued the Bt34 billion was owned by her before Thaksin assumed the premiership in 2001 and later transferred to Panthongtae and her step-brother, Bhanapot Damapong. As a result, the entire amount could not be included in the Bt76-billion assets-seizure case. In addition to these potential perjury cases, another two cases are pending in court. First, Thaksin was charged with abusing his power while in office by converting the AIS mobile-phone concession fee into an excise tax, thus weakening state-owned TOT, which was supposed to receive the concession fee. Second, the fugitive ex-premier was charged with abusing his office by influencing state-owned Exim Bank to lend the Bt4 billion to the Burmese government to buy ShinSat satellite services and equipment. In addition, Pojaman has been charged with evading taxes involving the transfer of Shin Corp shares. That case is now pending in the Appeal Court.

Doesn't that go hand-in-hand with what I'm saying? You've listed several factors that are probably beyond his control, so it would seem to me the school for him to attend would be the school that offers him the best chance of employment. Of course there are no guarantees, but it seems to me the logical thing to do is to go where the odds are the most in his favor.

To me, a "good" school is the school in which the graduates are most sought-after by potential employers. On a practical level, I don't think much else is really important. Another school might have a better reputation or be more prestigious, but I think the bottom line is how marketable the student is upon graduation. GT says his boyfriend is interested in computer programming, engineering, and mechanics. I think what he ought to be investigating is not necessarily which school is "better" than another, but from which schools the graduates end up with the best careers in those fields.

The following appears in the BANGKOK POST: _____ Court Confiscates B46bn of Thaksin's Assets 26/02/2010 The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions on Friday confiscated 46.3 billion baht that former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his ex-wife Potjaman na Pombejra acquired from selling their shares in Shin Corporation to Singapore's Temasek Holdings. The court ruled that Thaksin had abused his power and become unusually richer while holding the post of prime minister and abused his authority to benefit his own company, Shin Corp, before selling his shareholding to Temasek. However, the court said it would be unfair to confiscate all of the 76 billion baht in frozen assets held in local banks, as requested by the Office of the Attorney-General, because part of it was acquired before Thaksin became prime minister. The 46.3 billion baht to be confiscated comprises 6.8 billion baht in dividends and 39.4 billion baht from the sale of Shin Corp shares to Temasek. Immediately after the court's verdict, Thaksin told his supporters in a video link from Dubai that the verdict was unfair, politically motivated and "an international joke". He called his supporters to continue to fight for democracy. The nine judges on the bench of the Supreme Court's Criminial Division for Holders of Political Positions Position were: Chief Justice Somsak Netmai, Taris Kesawapitak, Pithak Kongchan, Pongthep Siripongtikanont, Adisak Timmat, ML Ritthithep Devakula, Prateep Chalermpattarakul, Kampol Poosudsawaeng, and Pairoj Wayupap. The reading of the landmark verdict began about 1.30pm and took seven hours, finishing about 8.30pm. The courtroom's public gallery was packed with the maximum 100 spectators allowed, including local and foreign reporters. First of all, the court made it clear that the Assets Scrutiny Committee (ASC) was established under Order No 30 of the Council for Democratic Reform (CDR) - the military junta that overthrew the Thaksin Shinawatra government in the Sept 19, 2006 coup. The ASC, therefore, had the power under the order to investigate former cabinet ministers and agencies suspected of corruption and having become unusually wealthy through graft. The appointment of Klanarong Chanthik, Bancherd Singkhaneti and Kaewsan Atipho - who Thaksin said were his political enemies - as members of the ASC was also lawful. The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which was established under Order No 19 of the CDR, was legally bound to take over the responsibility of the ASC in handling the case against Thaksin after the ASC's term expired. The NACC also had the power to ask the Office of the Attorney General to refer the case to Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions to make a ruling on the 76-billion-baht assets seizure case against Thaksin and his family, the court said. The court decided unanimously that Thaksin and his ex-wife Potjaman na Pombejra were the real owners of 1.4 billion or 48 per cent of the Shin Corp shares that were sold to Temasek Holdings while Thaksin was still prime minister, even though they said they had sold them to their son Panthongtae, eldest daughter Pinthongta and other relatives before Thaksin ran in the 2001 election. Political office holders and their spouses are not allowed to hold more than 5 per cent of shares in a company which has a state concession. The court also decided by majority vote on the following points that Thaksin had abused his authority while holding the office of prime minister for the benefit of Shin Corp: - The conversion of concession fees into excise tax by virtue of an executive decree issued by the Thaksin administration which enabled mobile phone operators to deduct their concession fees from the excise tax to be paid by them was beneficial to Advance Information Service (AIS) and had caused the state to suffer 60 billion baht in lost revenue. The increase of the excise tax to the range of 20-50 per cent made it impossible for the new players to compete with Shin Corp's AIS.. - The change of the mobile phone contract regarding the prepaid card service between AIS and TOT Corporation under which AIS was obliged to share 20 per cent of revenue earned from prepaid card service to TOT, instead of a progressive rate of sharing from 20 to 30 per cent, benefitted AIS. - The change of the mobile phone contract regarding roaming service between TOT and CAT Telecom on one side with Shin Corp and AIS on the other side was beneficial to AIS. - The issuance of several mesures to boost the satellite industry was in favour of Shin Corp. - The Thaksin administration's approval of a 4 billion baht Export-Import Bank low-interest loan to the Burmese government benefited Shin Corp and its subsidiary Thaicom.

You may have to settle for a trip to Sattahip and a bag of fried grasshoppers . . .

The following appears in THE NATION: _____ Thaksin Guilty, Bt46 bn Seized, Bt30 bn Returned By Avudh Panananda The Nation Red Siam rally site at Sanam Luang sees sparse crowds following last night rally. Organisers ask protesters to reassemble in the afternoon to monitor the verdict. Security measures stepped up at Parliament, Government House, Si Sao Thewes residence of chief royal adviser General Prem Tinsulannonda, Chan Song La residence of ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra's family and the stock market. 7.30 am: Nine Supreme Court judges arrive in a bullet-proof car. Tight security at court building, 8.30 am: People's Channel, pro-Thaksin satellite broadcasting, airs a taped Thaksin speech urging his supporters not to assemble at the court building. Thaksin said he would monitor the live broadcast of the verdict in Dubai and that none of his family members would attend the verdict session. In his speech and his Twitter message, Thaksin insists on his innocence, arguing he is not a cheater and that his wealth has been honestly earned and not ill-gotten gains. 9.30 am: Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thuagsuban says the situation is stable. He pledges to safeguard the judges in doing their job. He ensures the public that the government has the contingency plan to deal with any disturbances. He also allays the concern for a coup, saying he guarantees there will be no military intervention. 9.10 am: Nine Supreme Court judges seen entering their private chamber to debate the Bt76 billion asset seizure case. The judges are expected to read out their individual opinions before forming the judicial decision. Wireless signals are jammed to prevent leaks. By 10.00 am: Democrats and Pheu Thai MPs start arriving at their respective parties to monitor the situation. Red shirts in Udon Thani congregate at a pro-Thaksin radio station to keep tap on the verdict. Red shirts in Chiang Mai assemble at an empty lot in front of Waroros Grand Palace Hotel. 11.30 am: Thaksin may phone in via a video link to his Pheu Thai supporters while the verdict is being read this afternoon, Pheu Thai Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit says. The video link will take place at Phue Thai headquarters on Rama IV Road. The main opposition party has set up two large projectors for live broadcast of the verdict. Party supporters are expected to turn out in full force. Key figures in the pro-Thaksin camp, including Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, Somchai Wongsawat, Yaowapha Wongsawat, Pongthep Thepkanchana, Chaturon Chaisang, Chusak Sirinil and Sukhumpong Ngonkham are scheduled to arrive at the party headquarters before the verdict session at 1.30 pm. After the judges read out the verdict, the Pheu Thai legal team will issue a statement. Thaksin is scheduled to give an interview reacting to his verdict via the video link. Web-based TV journalist Tuangporn Asvavilai is in Dubai to act as his interviewer. 11.45 am: Red Siam rally organiser Surachai Danwattananusorn says protesters would not move to the Supreme Court compound regardless of the outcome of the verdict. The Red Siam rally site is at Sanam Luang, Surachai says, denying the linkage to the verdict on the asset seizure case. Before noon, Chart Thai Pattana Party spokesman Watchara Kannikar calls on parties concerned to respect the judicial decision. If rival camps continue to carry on the fight, then the political struggle might escalate into a civil war, he says. Watchara urges the authorities to exercise restraints and refrain from using force to crackdown on protesters. And the military should not exploit the situation to seize power, he says. 1.15 pm: In his video link message to Pheu Thai Party, Thaksin calls on his supporters to join him in listening in to the verdict. He says he views the verdict as the historic moment signalling the major change following a long political struggle. He says he braces well for the verdict. "The ball is now not in our court, it is up to how the other would play and direct the ball," he says, ahead of the verdict session. 1.30 pm: Judges start reading the verdict by outlining the prosecution case The high court begins by outlining the prosecution argument detailing Thaksin's equity structure in Shin Corp. The prosecution contends equity structure was designed to conceal true ownership. The next issue is the conversion of telecom concession fees into excise charges to favour the family-controlled Shin Corp. The other prosecution point is the adjustment of the revenue sharing agreement on pre-paid mobile phone services to benefit Advanced Information Service. The prosecution contends Thaksin's interference in regulating the telecom industry to benefit his family-controlled telecom group, boosting its market valuation. The prosecution outlines Thaksin's involvement to fix the concession contract on satellite communications. Because of his meddling, ThaiCom 4, a designated satellite for back-up communications, was cancelled and replaced by the launching of IPStar which allows the operator to start the satellite service for Internet instead of fulfilling the original ageement on satellite communications. The prosection contends Thaksin's inference in satellite communications has inflicted Bt4 billion damage to the state and left a long-lasting impact on the country's communications security. The prosecution contends Thaksin's involvement to grant Exim Bank loans to Burma in order to benefit the telecom and satellite businesses of his family business empire. Under Thaksin's instruction, the loans were increased from Bt3 billion to Bt4 billion. The prosecution contends Thaksin's involvement in increasing the equity cap on the telecom business to pave way for him and his family to sell their Shin Corp stakes to a foreign buyer. The Asset Examination Committee has frozen Bt66 billion of Bt76 billion sought as compensation to damage caused by conflict-of-interest decisions. 2.50 pm: Judges begins to outline the defence arguments. The defence contends Thaksin filed his asset statements as prescribed by the anti-graft law. The defence contends Thaksin openly transferred his equity stakes to his children before assuming office. The defence contends the AEC was biased in trying to fault Thaksin. The AEC conducted iits investigation based on expediency and not prescribed procedures. For example, the AEC claimed the shares belonging to Thaksin's children when it ruled on tax liability. But it insisted Thaksin had full control of the shares when it wanted to prosecute him for abuse of power and conflict of interest. In rebutting charges related to telecom business, the defence contends Thaksin's leadership following precribed procedures and implementing all policies sanctioned by the laws. The defence contends the wealth of Thaksin and family was earned before assuming office. The defence contends the wealth distributed from Thaksin to his children was genuine and not a scam for asset concealment. The defence cites the statutory limitation as ground for dismissal, arguing the AEC indicts Thaksin after he left office for more than two years. The defence contends the AEC failed to follow prescribed steps for indicting Thaksin and freezing the assets. The defence contends the National Anti Corruption Commission was not appointed under the constitutionally-sanctioned procedures, hence it had no mandate to carry on the defunct AEC in prosecuting Thaksin. The defence cites the statutory limitation as ground for dismissal, arguing the AEC indicts Thaksin after he left office for more than two years. The defence contends the AEC failed to follow prescribed steps for indicting Thaksin and freezing the assets. The defence contends the National Anti Corruption Commission was not appointed under the constitutionally-sanctioned procedures, hence it had no mandate to carry on the defunct AEC in prosecuting Thaksin. 3.50pm: Judges begins to read the ruling by outlining the non-contested issues and the business ties between Thaksin and his family members. First legal issue is whether the AEC has the mandate to probe Thaksin and seize the assets. The high court rules by an unanimous decision that the AEC was empowered to prosecute Thaksin. Second legal issue is whether legal provisions can be applied to Thaksin in the wake of the coup and the suspension of the 1997 charter. The high court rules the suspended charter has not impacted on law enforcement. Third legal issue is whether the coup announcement to form the AEC was legally sanctioned. The high court rules that the coup-issued law is classified as an equivalent to an act of Parliament, hence it is legally binding. Fourth legal issue is whether the AEC violates the statutory of limitations. The high court rules that the AEC complete its job within the deadline. On the fifth legal issue, the high court rules to endorse steps taken by the AEC and the NACC to conduct the inquiry, notify charges, review defence rebuttals and freeze assets. On the seventh legal issue, the high court rules to endorse appointments in the AEC, the NACC and in relevant investigative panels. On the ninth legal issue, the high court strikes down the defence argument related to biased opinions of three graft busters, Klanarong Chantik, Banjerd Singkhaneti and Kaewsan Atibhodi. On the tenth legal issue, the high court dismisses the defence argument that the prosecution omits to prove criminal wrongdoing before asking for the asset seizure. At issue is the civil litigation on whether or not the accused amass unusual or illegal wealth due to his office. This is not a litigation about criminal wrongdoing. The judges rules in the unanimous decision that the prosecution is just and has followed legally-sanctioned steps. At 5.00 pm: The judges proceed to rule on the followings: - By an unanimous decision, the prosecution is unclear on the extent of unusual wealth and how it is linked to abuse of office - The high court believes Thaksin and family retain control over Shin Corp through their equity structure before and after becoming the prime minister - The high court rules the conversion of concession fees to excise charges for mobile phone services was deemed favourable to Shin Corp, dampening competition. - In regard to the adjustment of revenue sharing scheme for AIS pre-paid services, the high court rules that the new scheme was unnecessarily made favourable to the operator. - Addressing the adjustment of roaming charges paid by AIS to its contractor Telephone Organisation of Thailand, the high court rules the charges were calculated to favour AIS. - The high court rules in a majority decision that the adjusted rules for the telecom industry were designed to favour Shin Corp. - In regard to satellite communications, the high court rules the revised contractual provision for ThaiCom deal were manipulated to designate IPStar as a back-up satellite even though its functions are different from ThaiCom. This allows the contractor to avoid launching ThaiCom4. - The high court rules the decision to adjust satellite contractual provisions resulted in helping Shin Corp and ThaiCom to launch a new satellite without having to bid for a new concession. - By a majority decision, the jugdes rule the ThaiCom deal was favourable to Shin Corp. - The high court rules that Shin Corp, state concessionair holding the majority stakes in ThaiCom, diluted its equity in the satellite communications without the approval of the Cabinet. - By a majority decision, the judges rule the equity dilution was favourable to Shin Corp. - The high court finds the decision to allow ThaiCom to earmark an insurance claim from damaged ThaiCom3 satellite to lease a foreign satellite instead of launching a back-up satellite was arbitrary. - By a majority decision, the judges rule such arbitrary decision to favour Shin Corp and ThaiCom. - The high court finds that the approval of Exim Bank loans to Burma was part of the Thai foreign policy. - It also uncovers that the telecom deal came up after Thaksin met Burmese leaders and that the deal was not in the original talks in Pegu, Burma to promote good neighbourly relations. - The high court believes the Burmese request to increase the loans from Bt3 billion to Bt4 billion under concessionary terms was destined to pay for services provided by ThaiCom. - By a majority decision, the judges rules the deal was favourable to Shin Corp and Thaicom. At 8.15: the judges move to address Thaksin's involvement in benefiting Shin Corp. The high court finds Thaksin as prime minister and his ministers, including those from Finance, Industry and Information Communication and Technology were directly linked to deals deemed favourable to Shin Corp. By a majority decision, the judges rule Thaksin abuse his office to benefit Shin Corp, AIS and ThaiCom. The high court rules Thaksin's wealth is ill-gotten gains. The earnings from the Shin Corp deal to Temasek of Singapore is ill-gotten, hence can be confiscated by the state. The high court then addresses the ground on asset seizure related to the wealth held by Thaksin's ex-wife. The judges rule ill-gotten gains in the name of the spouse can be seized. The judges outline two grounds to seize assets - unusual increase in wealth and abuse of office to beget the wealth. The judges move to address that the dividend payments can be seized. The judges say the original stakes owned by Thaksin before assuming office can not be seized. By a majority decision, the seizable assets confined to dividend payment worth Bt6 billion and the capital gains worth Bt39 billion. The total seizure is Bt46 billion.

The following appears in the BANGKOK POST: _____ Burma's Top Court Rejects Suu Kyi Freedom Bid 26/02/2010 Burma's Supreme Court on Friday rejected an appeal by Aung San Suu Kyi against her extended house arrest, her lawyer said, keeping her in detention ahead of elections promised by the junta for this year. The opposition leader, who has spent most of the last two decades locked up, had her incarceration lengthened by 18 months in August after being convicted over a bizarre incident in which a US man swam to her lakeside home. Her legal team immediately vowed to lodge a final "special" appeal with Burma's chief justice to win her freedom. Suu Kyi was not at the court in the former capital Rangoon to hear Friday's verdict. "The appeal was rejected. They just read out the order which did not include the reason, so we do not know why they rejected it," said Nyan Win, her lawyer and the spokesman for her National League for Democracy (NLD). Nyan Win said he was neither surprised nor disappointed by the ruling against Suu Kyi. "Today we will go for a special appeal," he said. The next step would be to write to the chief justice and ask for a panel of judges in Rangoon to hear the special appeal, he said. If that failed they could ask for a similar appeal to be heard in the new capital Naypyidaw. A lower court threw out an initial appeal against her house arrest in October. A Burma official said the court had also rejected appeals by Suu Kyi's two female live-in assistants against similar periods of detention. Suu Kyi has been in jail or under house arrest for 14 of the last 20 years since the country's last elections in 1990, which the NLD won by a landslide. The junta then prevented the party from taking power. She has previously dismissed comments by Home Affairs Minister Maung Oo, who reportedly said she would be released in November, as "unfair" ahead of any court decision. Junta chief Than Shwe has promised to hold elections this year under his "roadmap to democracy" but has failed to set a date. Critics say the polls are aimed at simply entrenching the generals' power. The British, French, US and Australian envoys went to the court for Friday's verdict. French ambassador Jean-Pierre Lafosse said Suu Kyi "should be released immediately as one of the conditions for real national reconciliation." British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he was "appalled and saddened" by the court's decision but said it came as "no surprise. "From start to end, the sole purpose of this show trial has been to prevent Daw Suu Kyi from taking part in elections," he said in a statement on the British Foreign Office website. Suu Kyi's continued detention keeps her off the scene for the elections, in which she is effectively barred from standing anyway by the constitution. A quarter of the parliamentary seats up for grabs are also reserved for the army. She has said it is too early for her party to decide whether to participate. Exiled Burma activist Aung Din of the US Campaign for Burma said the international community had to put more pressure on the regime. "I am not surprised by the Supreme Court?s decision. Than Shwe already made the verdict for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and no judge will have the nerve to change it," he said. At least 2,100 other political prisoners remain behind bars in Burma, according to UN figures. Friday's ruling comes a week after UN human rights envoy Tomas Ojea Quintana visited the country, saying as he left that he "deeply regretted" being refused access to Suu Kyi during his five-day trip. Burma's government has given mixed signals ahead of the polls, earlier this month releasing deputy NLD leader Tin Oo after seven years of detention, but jailing five other dissidents during Quintana's visit. Suu Kyi herself has made efforts to defrost relations with the junta since late last year, while US President Barack Obama's administration has pursued greater engagement with the Burma regime.

The holiday, Makha Bucha Day, which is a major Buddhist holiday, actually falls on Sunday, February 28. Since the holiday falls on a Sunday, the banks, government offices, and many businesses will be closed on Monday, March 1. I have not yet heard whether the bars will also close or, if they do close, whether it will be Sunday, Monday, or both. Last year it was left up to the individual bars to close or remain open for this holiday, their choice. Whether it will be the same this year remains to be seen. Usually, when bars are ordered to be closed, they are not officially informed until about 24 hours before. This is a Buddhist holiday. It has nothing to do with the Thaksin case.

As you probably know, today is the long anticipated day in which the Thai Supreme Court renders its decision as to whether Thaksin gets to keep all of his money, part of his money, or if he has to forfeit all of it. The total amount is 76,621,603,061.05 baht. At current exchange rates that works out to about US $2,321,866,759. At the moment it is about 3:30PM. The verdict is in the process of being read and it will probably be a few hours before the outcome is known. Meanwhile, despite all the media hype, warnings from embassies, etc, in Pattaya, at least, it's just another ordinary day. Unless you are watching it on TV or otherwise keeping up with it, you wouldn't have any idea that anything is going on. Everything is functioning normally. The banks are all open. There are no visible rallies that I've encountered. Traffic is normal. The stores are all open and fully stocked. Nobody seems the least bit apprehensive. Not a thing to worry about . . . so far.

Everything I've heard about Assumption tells me that's the best university in Thailand.

The area is at the junction of Sukhumvit and Soi Khao Tolo. Yes, the white buses can take you there. If you are coming from Thepprasit Road, go to Sukhumvit. Turn left onto Sukhumvit an then make an immediate right at the traffic signal. That's Soi Khao Tolo and that's the place. Believe me, if they are out there, you won't miss it.

A copy of the lawsuit document can be seen at: http://safekids.com/robbins17.pdf

Everybody seems to be trying to predict what will happen, no matter how the court rules. The Thai media is having a field day with it. The real doom-and-gloomers are predicting everything from protesters blocking traffic literally everywhere to the entire Thai banking system being forced to shut down. You know what I think will happen? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I do think there will be protest rallies, including right here in Pattaya, but I don't believe for one second there will be rioting in the streets, government and banking forced to shut down, mass violence, or anything of the sort. In Pattaya, and probably most of Bangkok, I think it will be a perfectly normal day with most people going about their business as usual. I'm sure it will be widely discussed and argued by Thais and farang alike, but I believe all the media hype will turn out to be just that, hype. I really don't expect to see new attempts at airport takeovers, government building takeovers, massive traffic jams, assassination attempts, a breakout of civil war, soldiers moving in, martial law, or any major drastic disruptive activity at all. I hope, for Thailand's sake, I won't have to eat my words. I believe the next 24 to 48 hours will tell the tale.