• 
• 

Tulsathit Taptim's expectation that Thailand would fail in its bid to extradite Thaksin Shinawatra from Britain was unjustifiably pessimistic.

Thaksin would certainly have been granted asylum if he had sought it after the coup in September 2006 since Britons abhor coups, whether justifiable or otherwise. However, his run for British cover this time was caused by the first court judgement against his wife for tax evasion and also the ongoing case of malfeasance for having his spouse successfully bid for a piece of government land at a price far below market value while he was prime minister. In both cases, Britons would detest that type of behaviour.

Furthermore, the newly appointed team from the Public Prosecution Offices is the same team that pursued Pin Chakkaphak unsuccessfully. Lessons must have been learnt from that past.

No, sir, I am more optimistic of success, especially when the government and legislative branches are believed to be majority-controlled by Thaksin, which should have helped his case. But the judiciary has proven to be independent in rendering that guilty judgement. This is Thaksin's albatross.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

 

Thailand need only prove its case against Shinawatras

Bringing Thaksin and his wife back for trial is not as complicated as one may think. I saw on TV international law experts and political scientists bragging as if they knew what they were talking about.

All the government has to do is send General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, the 2006 coup leader, along with the former members of the Assets Examination Committee (AEC), to testify before English authorities. General Sonthi may testify why he instigated the coup to oust Thaksin.

The AEC could present the tonne of evidence it had gathered against Thaksin during its one-and-a-half-year investigation. Nonetheless, it is best not to mention who set up the AEC. If asked, try to change the subject. (Say something like "Oh, it's hot in here, isn't it?") I think English people are reasonable people and I'm sure they'll extradite Thaksin and his wife after they hear the testimony.

Somsak Pola

Samut Prakan

 

London a popular spot for politicos on the run

So Thaksin and his wife are treading the well-worn path of the dissidents, criminals and malcontents of this world by heading to London, where they are usually welcomed with open arms, providing they have money of course, and the odd UK investment does help. The fact that Pojaman and Thaksin, the former having just been found guilty in a court of law and the latter facing serious charges, were able to waltz through British immigration highlights an appalling double standard in the system.

Also do not put too much faith in the extradition process. The British have a record of looking after people of Thaksin's ilk - General Augusto Pinochet being a prime example.

Greg Mellor

Bangkok

 

Thaksin's case completely different from Pinochet's

Re: "Precedents in case for extradition", Politics, August 15.

Your columnist points to the UK's treatment of the "Argentine" dictator Augusto Pinochet as an indication that Thaksin will not be extradited. This is inaccurate and insults British courts. Pinochet was a Chilean, accused of genocide and charged under extra-territoriality principles by a Spanish judge. The UK's House of Lords (or supreme court) ruled that he was not exempted from trial as a former head of state.

However, after a period of house arrest, he was released for medical reasons (he was nearly 90 and reportedly sick). He then returned to Chile voluntarily.

Thaksin's extradition hearing will rest on the professionalism, relevance and completeness of the case made against him by the Thai authorities. The UK cannot and should not extradite anyone just because a friendly country may need a favour.

Surely if Thai authorities really wanted Thaksin prosecuted they would not have let him leave so easily and so obviously. Maybe we should not blame the UK but ourselves.

Anti-dictator

Bangkok