Thaksin Assets Case Fears

[Gaybutton]

The following appears in THE NATION:

_____

 

AHEAD OF RULING ON THAKSIN'S ASSETS CASE

House dissolution, civil war, coup most feared

 

February 15, 2010

 

But Businessmen, Expatriates Keep Fingers Crossed, Hoping Peace will Prevail

 

A House dissolution, civil war and a coup top the list of investment risks facing businesses ahead of the February 26 landmark verdict on the Bt76-billion assets foreclosure trial.

 

Former premier Thaksin Shinawatra may be guilty or not. His family's enormous fortune may be forfeited entirely or partially or the whole amount returned.

 

All these are among the possible scenarios that are prompting virtually all businessmen in this country - Thais or expatriates - to keep their finger crossed.

 

Many wish the political situation before and after February 26 will not be as bad as the brief street riots last April or the November 2008 airport closures.

 

Most importantly, they hope there will be neither a civil war among those with divergent political ideologies nor a coup that suspends the country's democratic governance system once again.

 

These perspectives were shared during last Thursday's roundtable discussion on Thailand's economic recovery versus its political crisis with a focus on the February 26 court verdict - jointly organised by The Nation and Krungthep Turakij.

 

When the yellow-shirted protesters shut down Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi Airport and Don Muang Airport back in late November 2008 to pressure then prime minister Somchai Wongsawat into tendering his resignation, visitor arrivals plunged 23 per cent the following month, just when the tourism industry was entering its high season.

 

Then came April 2009 when the red-shirted protesters went on a rampage on Bangkok's streets in a bid to oust Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. The tourism industry took another major hit, marked by a 22-per-cent fall in visitor arrivals.

 

Many businessmen now like to joke that Thai politics has become so "colourful" over the past several years, just like the colour-coded teams on the traditional college Sports Day.

 

In the end, they hope the players, red- or yellow-shirted, will respect the judges' verdict so that the country may return to normalcy.

 

Given the protracted political rifts, Thailand has missed chances to focus on the longer-term strategy of national development, especially with the enforcement of the crucial Asean Economic Community coming up in 2015.

 

One roundtable panelist said he's really sorry for the sad state of political affairs here, suggesting that more and more businessmen and investors are losing patience and growing increasingly hopeless. Another participant warned that the possible bankruptcy of several European governments, which are now sinking under huge fiscal deficits, might stall the global economic recovery, which is still fragile.

 

The US economic recovery is still not creating jobs, while Japan remains mired in deflation after two decades of low growth. And China's economic bubbles are increasingly worrisome.

 

All these factors could trip up Thailand's exports and GDP growth this year.

 

If the domestic political situation is not stabilised anytime soon, Thailand could be heading for another round of economic troubles.

 

To protect against uncertain times, a panelist suggested holding onto cash and bullion while selling off stocks and bonds.

 

Such pessimism also prevails because Thailand is passing through a significant political transition but lacks an effective mechanism to resolve conflicts.

 

A society cannot solve its problems with street politics. Yet, the parliamentary system also appears to be losing its effectiveness as far as elections are concerned.

 

One panelist said the flow of funds behind street politics should be cut off by authorities so that we could expect to see an end to the current protests.

 

An army without logistics and funding will quickly become feeble.

 

For many optimists, the darkest hour may come on February 26 when the Supreme Court hands down its historic verdict on the assets seizure case.

 

After that, Thailand should be able to come to terms with any of the outcomes. Political stability should gradually return. Or is that just wishful thinking?

[Guest fountainhall]

Whatever the result, it seems certain we are in for massive street demonstrations yet again. Unfortunately, someone forgot that when you let the genie out of the bottle by permitting yellow and red shirt mobs to rampage and then have one impose their will, you are usually unable to contain it. In this case, unless there is the virtual imposition of martial law, the coloured mobs are going to be back in force. That, according to my Thai friends, is bound to happen.

 

With all the talk of disruptions, mass protests, coups and the like, it is interesting to see what is happening behind the scenes. There was an intriguing and seemingly innocuous article in the Bangkok Post yesterday about Newin Chidchob, leader of the faction which switched sides from the ruling People’s Power Party led by Thaksin’s brother-in-law, to the Democrats, thereby ensuring the present Democrat-led coalition a majority in parliament. This concerned Newin’s purchase of a soccer team in the Thai second division.

 

The article starts –

 

If Newin Chidchob can fulfill his ambition, his football club Buriram PEA would become Thailand's Manchester United or Liverpool featuring world class players like England stars John Terry and Frank Lampard.

 

Nicknamed the Thunder Castle, Buriram PEA were officially unveiled yesterday after chairman Newin took over the 2008 Thai Premier League champions Provincial Electricity Authority. Newin said he would turn the club into one of the top four in the Thai Premier League in three years and make them become a Manchester United or a Liverpool in the local league.

 

He moved the club's home ground from Ayutthaya to his province prompting protests from PEA supporters.

 

The full article can be read here –

 

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/sports/32254/buriram-pea-unveiled

 

Immediately we start to see a similarity to Thaksin who used English soccer to boost his standings when, in his first stint as Prime Minister, he said he would buy Liverpool Football Club. (Having gained a great amount of PR from this, he subsequently let it be known that it was actually government funds which would buy the club, not his own!)

 

So who is Buriram-born Newin Chidchob, an eminence gris who has played such a major role behind the political scene for so long? The first thing to note about him is that he was named after notorious Burmese Strongman, Ne Win, by his extremely wealthy politician and businessman father. In addition to tremendous personal wealth, Newin has a huge local organisation, a great deal of political experience and vast reserves of political acumen, which one website describes as knowing “how to successfully cut deals, discredit opponents, exploit opportunities, and roll with the political tide.”

 

Secondly, his loyalty flows with the political tide. Most people guessed that his switch of support from Thaksin’s allies to Apichart in 2008 was not just a change of heart, even though he publicly lambasted Thaksin “as the root of the political tension due to his 'doubts' of Thaksin's loyalty towards the monarchy and the current political system of the kingdom” (wikipedia). After all, he has switched sides so many times in the past it seems a way of life.

 

Having served as an MP for Buriram since 1986 for, in turn, the Solidarity, the Therd Thai, the Samakkhi Tham and then the Chart Thai parties, in 1995 his faction was largely responsible for the fall of the Democrat-led government of the day. For the General Elections in 1995 and 1996, he switched sides first back to the Chart Thai party and then back to the Solidarity party. The following year, he and his party joined the Democrat-led coalition after the start of the huge economic crisis. In 2001, he was elected, this time once again for the Chart Thai Party. In 2005 he switched yet again and aligned himself with Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai party. In the ever murky waters of Thai politics, has anyone switched allegiances so often, I wonder?

 

Although one of the powers behind the current Prime Minister, he is not now an MP, having been banned from politics for 5 years along with a whole host of other former MPs, a result of what I believe were vote rigging accusations. That ban expires in 2012.

 

Rather like his one time mentor, Newin, his family and followers are no strangers in the courts of the land.

 

Just prior to the 1996 election, some of his “vote canvassers” were arrested and found to be carrying Bt11 million in 100 and 20 bills. These they claimed were to buy land. No prosecution ensued because the government ran out of time. In 1998, then Minister for Agriculture in Chuan Leekpai’s coalition government, he was given a 6-month suspended sentence in an alleged vote-buying slander case. In 2000, his brother was arrested on a charge of having assassinated a liberal Democratic MP rival in Buriram. In the same year, his sister Usanee was banned from political activity after having been found guilty of vote buying in the Senate election.

 

A colourful character, indeed, but one who clearly had his eye on the future throughout his political career. Whatever happens within the next month or two, there is surely no doubt that Newin will play a part. Which side he favours will perhaps predestine the outcome – and perhaps the name of the Prime Minister in 2012 or soon thereafter. And so I wonder if anyone really believes his stated reason for purchasing that football club –

 

"I am doing this because I love football."

[Guest]

My prediction, they will keep all his money.

 

I think crazy. He may be corrupt but the money he made before office is his. No one should take it. IMHO

[Bob]

There seems to be no justification at all - at least from this westerner's eyes - to take any of the money of his ex-wife or his two children. And, while I can almost support taking some of his money (at least to the extent that his actions as prime minister at times were so damn unethical - like pushing the billion+ baht loan for Burma so they could use the money to buy shit from Shin Corporation), there's probably no recognizable legal basis for any confiscation.

 

But, given that the people who are going to rule on this are essentially patsies of the military, my prediction is they'll take it all. Their simply too obsessed not to in my view (and, with all the empty talk about political reconciliation, they'll choose the one action that will make that the worst it possibly could be).

 

Just my guess.

[bkkguy]

there's probably no recognizable legal basis for any confiscation.

 

either the shares were really owned by, the business was really controlled by, and the decision to sell the shares was really made by, the kids, maid, gardener and brother et al and they had no influence on government policy and thus the increase in value of the company and the shares that was realized at the sale was legit, or the offshore trusts etc really were used to hide shareholdings by a member of the government who influenced decisions that profited his company and who realized those profits by the sale of the shares

 

either way the paper trail is unlikely to unraveled by the court decision next week - which reveals as much about the biases of the court as it does about the concealment skills of the other parties involved but to say there is no legal basis for any confiscation is a bit simplistic!

 

bkkguy

[Bob]

but to say there is no legal basis for any confiscation is a bit simplistic!

 

bkkguy

 

I disagree........and would like you to cite any specific Thai law that would allow grabbing any of the funds.

 

In the US, we have tons of laws but there is no one law that says something to the effect that "if the court thinks your a bad guy, they can order you to forfeit all your money and/or the money of your wife and children." The concept of "rule of law" implies there will be laws that specifically proscribe certain conduct and provide quantifiable methods for punishment. Having the military kick a legitimate government out the door and then position people on a court who will then rule in a general sense that you're a bad guy (that's kinda pre-ordained in this case, that's for sure) and then say we get to take all your money because of that is hardly following any "rule of law" notions.

 

I'm not saying at all that Shinawatra wasn't as corrupt as almost all Thai politicians - as he certainly was; however, he is slightly different than most of them as he made most of his money not as a direct result of being a politician.

[Guest voldemar]

 

In the US, we have tons of laws The concept of "rule of law" implies . I'm not saying at all that Shinawatra

Of course, you are too simplistic and did not bother to familiarize yourself with facts.

Thailand is not 51 US state and all these tons of US laws are not applicable here.

You are hardly in position to lecture on rule of law (even as a former US lawyer) in the country with different traditions. You, of course, doing something quite strange for a lawyer in the first place trying to prejudge the decision of Thai court. I do not understand why you call Khun Thaksin Shinawatra (and simaltaneously call Smiles Khun Smiles). You see , Khun Thaksin is respected Thai and the way you address him is highly impolite. Smiles is Canadian and therefore it would be much more appropriate to address Smiles as Mr Smiles if you wish to.

Oh, well, I guess I expect to much from ignorant Yankee...

[Bob]

Lord Voldemort, obviously, is the new handle of some _______ (fill in the blank as you might choose) from one of the other gay boards who either lacks the guts to post under his normal handle and/or isn't allowed to do so.

[Guest voldemar]

Lord Voldemort, obviously, is the new handle of some _______ (fill in the blank as you might choose) from one of the other gay boards who either lacks the guts to post under his normal handle and/or isn't allowed to do so.

It is quite obvious that you have nothing to say and thus choose to attack me personally.

So much for your so-called standing on this and other message boards.

I , by the way, strongly protest against ridiculing my handle.

Apparently, it is O'K for poasters like Fountain hall and Bob doing this.

What about if I retailate? E.g , I think that the handle Fountain hall is quite moronic.

It does not mean I am saying that.

This board is full of double standards, unfair treatment of various posters etc.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

Khun Thaksin is respected Thai

Respected by whom? The educated BKK business community or the rural uneducated farmers?

[Guest fountainhall]

either the shares were really owned by, the business was really controlled by, and the decision to sell the shares was really made by, the kids, maid, gardener and brother et al and they had no influence on government policy and thus the increase in value of the company and the shares that was realized at the sale was legit, or the offshore trusts etc really were used to hide shareholdings by a member of the government who influenced decisions that profited his company and who realized those profits by the sale of the shares

Nicely put, bkkguy. This, I believe, is the heart of the argument. Who on earth really believes a man who, after his election to Parliament having declared relatively modest assets, claimed his gardener and maid truly owned a gazillion shares in his company?

 

I'm not saying at all that Shinawatra wasn't as corrupt as almost all Thai politicians - as he certainly was; however, he is slightly different than most of them as he made most of his money not as a direct result of being a politician.

Come on, Bob! You can't really believe this! Who changed the law allowing overseas companies to gobble up large chunks of Thai utilities companies? And who again changed the law so that beneficiaries of such sales would not have to pay the substantial taxes on the gains? Parliament, yes. But who was Prime Minister and had an absolute majority? And who benefited almost exclusively from such new laws? Thaksin. True, a portion of the US$1.9 billion he gained from that little ploy must have been made prior to his becoming a politician. But what about the tax that should have been levied on that sum? That belongs to Thai tax taxpayers. And what of the cash benefits from his shady dealings in Myanmar. In my book, he has zero right to those funds - and neither do his family members. But then, I'm no lawyer!

[Guest fountainhall]

E.g , I think that the handle Fountain hall is quite moronic

You think I care? Actually it is fountainhall - not two words - and there is a very specific reason for using it. That is my business. But, unlike some, I do not post on any other chat room under any guise (other than a handful of posts under this same name on cruisingforsex). Can you say you never post on this or other boards under a different name?

[Gaybutton]

unlike some, I do not post on any other chat room under any guise (other than a handful of posts under this same name on cruising for sex).

If your avatar pic is also really you, are you free for dinner Saturday night . . . ?

[Guest fountainhall]

If your avatar pic is also really you, are you free for dinner Saturday night . . . ?

If your avatar is really you, I'm afraid I will end up being the first course!

[Gaybutton]

If your avatar is really you, I'm afraid I will end up being the first course!

Well, yes . . . that's the idea.

[Guest fountainhall]

Well, yes . . . that's the idea.

Thought so

[bkkguy]

I disagree........and would like you to cite any specific Thai law that would allow grabbing any of the funds.

 

In the US, we have tons of laws but there is no one law that says something to the effect that "if the court thinks your a bad guy, they can order you to forfeit all your money and/or the money of your wife and children." The concept of "rule of law" implies there will be laws that specifically proscribe certain conduct and provide quantifiable methods for punishment.

 

this handy review of possible outcomes of the case should give you enough keywords for a google search to find the text of the specific laws involved if you are really that interested

 

The Nation - The court's options in its ruling on Feb 26

 

bkkguy

[Bob]

If your avatar is really you, I'm afraid I will end up being the first course!

 

I have to tell you, fountainhall, that I've met GB many moons ago and I can assure you that his avatar here is a bit of an improvement.* For example only , I don't remember him having that good of a tan.

 

I don't use an avatar here for two reasons: (1) I've been too lazy so far to even figure out how to do it and (2) I wouldn't want to scare the bejeebees out of you by posting a real photo.

 

(*for the slightly moronic not including GB, Fountainhall, or the vast bulk of the posters here - I am only joking).

[Guest fountainhall]

It might be interesting to run a competition to see who looks more like his avatar. I know I would not win!

[Gaybutton]

I am only joking).

Whadya mean joking ?!?!?