Letters to the Editor
Rejection of impeachment petition was simply in Thailand’s best interest
Re: “Thaksin off the hook”, News, February 17. I love the Constitution Court’s rejection of the conflict-of-interest case. Disruption of economic and political stability has now been avoided; otherwise, there would have been a vacuum in which no national advancement could be expected while the court took the time to consider the case, and governing would have come to a standstill. But I was flabbergasted to read a statement from one adviser in Thaksin’s camp after the court’s ruling: “The prime minister has said all along that his children were adults, and they could hire advisers to do the job for them. He is no longer involved.” As a father with a son and daughter aged 26 and 24, respectively, I would not have left it to any adviser to make decisions on their behalf about selling or not selling a business worth Bt73.3 billion. Especially not if the business had been founded by me and obtained by my children a few years ago because of my political aspirations. While I was still alive and living in the same house with them, I would have to play some part in decisions to sell and at what price. The visit to Singapore on New Year’s Day did not help the credibility of the adviser’s statement. Victory – and it is a sweet one – has been achieved, so they should not spoil it by crowing from a misguided premise. I would like to see the realisation of the far-sighted mega-projects in my lifetime. If they keep on being too clever by half and believe others to be below their intelligence, not only would a third term be unlikely, but also an unpleasant and shorter end in the second term – which I do not want, for the sake of business – could result. The Constitution Court has given them a chance at redemption. It is a chance to present themselves prospectively cleaner than clean in the eyes of the public. I think people are prepared to forget the past, because of the achievements to date and no alternative leader. But don’t push your luck! Songdej Praditsmanont Bangkok ------------------------------ Ruling assures a dark legacy for ‘independent’ body
Re: “Thaksin off the hook”, News, February 17. The Constitution Court has again defied jurisprudence and due process itself. When 27 senators petition the court that PM Thaksin violated Article 209, instead of ruling that the senators did not present sufficient evidence, they should be allowed to present evidence in a trial. With this procedure, the court can rule for or against anyone based on a petition, without any fact-finding process of a trial. Of all the independent agencies under the Constitution of 1997, the court will go down in history with a dark legacy of shame. Veharachan Bangkok ------------------------------ Yet another case of ‘deja vu’ all over again
Re: “Thaksin off the hook”, News, February 17. All the endless accusations, finger-pointing and court appeals remind me of another time, of another premier in another country, his cabinet, cronies and corruption allegations. Eventually, the law did catch up with them all, and the premier had his day in court. When asked about gratuitous payments, he replied to the court that it was not his fault if people came into his office carrying paper bags full of money and forgot to take them when they left. Nor did he recollect what happened to the money; he supposed the owners returned later to claim it. Ha ha! Well, although the ministers escaped custodial sentences, it cost them all their ill-gotten gains in legal expenses to stay out of the clink, so it was the lawyers who won in the end. The police commissioner was not so fortunate; he got 10 years in the slammer, to reflect on his misconduct and mend his ways. Just a word of encouragement for all you protesters out there: that premier was in power for almost 18 years, and it took another three to bring him to court. Straight Shooter Bangkok ------------------------------ You don’t need a star-gazer to predict this outcome
Re: “NTC to rule on Shin in 7 days”, News, February 16. In regard to whether the vaunted National Telecommunications Commission will revoke or suspend Shin Corp’s cellular licence and satellite concession, they will need seven days to make their decision. I can already predict the outcome of the NTC’s decision: Shin Corp will retain all licences, and everything will just be fine and dandy. A Fortune-teller Bangkok ------------------------------ It makes no sense to keep flogging a dead horse
Re: “French leader’s visit time to reconsider Surakiart’s UN bid”, Opinion, February 17. How is it we are hearing about Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai again? According to the latest press reports, Surakiart plans to seize upon the visit of French President Jacques Chirac as an opportunity to revive his quest to become United Nations secretary-general at the end of this year. Considering the many possible candidates for the top UN post worldwide, Surakiart hasn’t a chance. Furthermore, Surakiart’s inexcusable conduct towards the oppressed Burmese democracy forces has made him a pariah in many quarters. Moreover, it appears that Surakiart’s billionaire mentor, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, is about to be toppled from power. Eng Matanongsri Bangkok ------------------------------ Abstentions should not count in judicial rulings
Re: “Thaksin off the hook”, News, February 17. It seems to me the opposition groups are going about things the wrong way. The original ruling on PM Thaksin’s assets-concealment case in 2001, reviewed by the Constitution Court of that year, should be appealed and overturned. The vote in PM Thaksin’s favour was listed as eight for and seven against. The problem with that is the actual count was three for and seven against, with five abstentions, if memory serves. In no other court in the world have I ever seen abstentions being counted as votes “in favour”. In fact, abstentions are not legally counted at all. The actual result should have been Thaksin being penalised with a five-year ban on participation in politics. No offence intended to Thaksin, but that’s the way the law and the vote are supposed to work. My recommendation to the opposition: have your legal team review the rules of law in the Kingdom of Thailand for the actual regulations on the counting of votes. If there aren’t any, then they should appeal to the court to provide a ruling and set a precedent, so there would be no further question on this point in the future. Why are abstentions counted as “in favour” or as any vote at all? One example is if an abstention is a vote in favour, then if a bill were being voted on in Parliament, and 120-plus members of the opposition voted against it, and every single member of the Thai Rak Thai Party abstained, then in accordance with how the court was counted in 2001, Thai Rak Thai would win without even having to vote. That, my friends, is absurd. It is also why abstentions do not count. Farang Observer Bangkok ------------------------------ Offering normal TV fare during rallies was an insult
Two major events have occurred in Bangkok, one on February 4 and the other on February 11. At both events, tens of thousands of people gathered at the Royal Plaza to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, demanding that he step down from the premiership. The gatherings were very peaceful and well organised, probably the most organised and well mannered in the world. I tried to follow the situation on all available television stations but was very disappointed to see poor coverage, or none at all, of what was happening. Television was showing the regular soap operas and other nonsensical programmes. I had to resolve this by following the live broadcasts from the Royal Plaza via the Internet. I feel very sad about Thais being betrayed by a government that keeps them in the dark and feeds them with manipulated information and unconstructive game shows. That alone should be reason enough for the majority of Thais who have no access to the Internet or satellite television to demand that the PM quit, to end this “dark age”. Danai Leosawathiphong Chiang Mai ------------------------------ Instigator of credit-card fraud deserves punishment
Re: Steps can be taken to protect against credit-card fraud”, Letters, February 10. While I appreciate Crossley’s attempt to help on the issue of my experience with credit-card fraud, I felt his advice was way too cynical to be helpful. As a credit-card holder for more than 25 years, I have never experienced fraud with my account. I take card security very seriously. Upon notification of unrecognised payments, I immediately contacted the credit-card company, cancelled the card and sought advice on determining the source of the fraud. Unfortunately, since I moved from the location where I believe the fraud to have occurred (Koh Samui), I have found it difficult to follow through directly with the local police. And as I pointed out, I believe reporting the crime by mail/e-mail would have gotten me nowhere, as I know that the company/resort involved has close contacts with the police, and also the owner has a “Thai minder” who smoothes out any local difficulties for a price. And although the credit-card company is not holding me responsible for these transactions, I am nevertheless bound by principle to try to find a means with which this fraud can be addressed by a legal agency. I hope it’s not just case of turning a blind eye and that some useful direction from the Letters column may be forthcoming. KWJ Bangkok
|
