Prev Page 2 of 2 1 2 Please log in to reply 30 replies to this topic

[Serpico]

Changian, on 2009-11-04 19:12:26, said:

Thailand Jumped The Shark, New Mandala and the excellent Bangkok Pundit are way more informative than The Nation when it comes to anything political in Thailand.  The Nation has been caught out many times rewriting history to suit it's master's views.

Exactly.
If you rely on The Nation or Bangkok Post, you are getting bad info put out by the Junta.

Edited by Serpico, 2009-11-08 07:13:30.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

rixalex, on 2009-11-07 13:45:59, said:

WinnieTheKhwai, on 2009-11-07 13:20:55, said:

Not everyone gobbles up the fodder that we're being fed..

That's true. There are some who gorged so heavily on gobbling up the previous batch of fodder they are still bloated.

The previous batch is out of office for quite a while now, so we do have the advantage of being able to judge that time based on actual achievements, as wells as actual mistakes.  There are plenty examples of both.

[rixalex]

Serpico, on 2009-11-08 07:13:11, said:

Changian, on 2009-11-04 19:12:26, said:

Thailand Jumped The Shark, New Mandala and the excellent Bangkok Pundit are way more informative than The Nation when it comes to anything political in Thailand. The Nation has been caught out many times rewriting history to suit it's master's views.

Exactly.
If you rely on The Nation or Bangkok Post, you are getting bad info put out by the Junta.

As there is bad and tainted info on TJTS, NM and BP. Accepting that none of the sources are free from bias, the intelligent thing to do is to read from a broad and diverse spectrum. Sadly though people often simply choose to read the print that reinforces the conclusions they have already come to.

[rixalex]

WinnieTheKhwai, on 2009-11-08 08:10:15, said:

The previous batch is out of office for quite a while now, so we do have the advantage of being able to judge that time based on actual achievements, as wells as actual mistakes. There are plenty examples of both.

For some sadly this isn't the case. Propoganda has the power to affect people's judgement and establish in them preset beliefs that even the passage of time and the surfacing of new contradictory evidence fails to dim.

[Steve2UK]

rixalex, on 2009-11-08 09:50:23, said:

Serpico, on 2009-11-08 07:13:11, said:

Changian, on 2009-11-04 19:12:26, said:

Thailand Jumped The Shark, New Mandala and the excellent Bangkok Pundit are way more informative than The Nation when it comes to anything political in Thailand. The Nation has been caught out many times rewriting history to suit it's master's views.

Exactly.
If you rely on The Nation or Bangkok Post, you are getting bad info put out by the Junta.

As there is bad and tainted info on TJTS, NM and BP. Accepting that none of the sources are free from bias, the intelligent thing to do is to read from a broad and diverse spectrum. Sadly though people often simply choose to read the print that reinforces the conclusions they have already come to.

It would be helpful to have at least some example of what you consider "bad and tainted info on TJTS, NM and BP". That part aside, I 100% agree with what you go on to say - and likewise with the view in your following post "Propaganda has the power to affect people's judgement and establish in them preset beliefs that even the passage of time and the surfacing of new contradictory evidence fails to dim". Speaking of evidence, I note again that there is still no response (from those so vocal and categorical about the "facts" of the land case) to the detailed points raised in the New Orange Cafe "If law is law" link I posted earlier. Just questioning the identity of the writer doesn't deal with the legal specifics raised in it - is what's written there correct or false?

Back to the point about sources of information. Perhaps the following quote looks like it must have dropped off the pages of sites like TJTS, NM and BP (granted I did see it first at BP):

"In Thailand, politics dominates law. Seemingly solid evidence in Thaksin's share-concealment case in 2001 gave way to political factors. His party's violation of electoral laws, which was intended to fix a constitutional deadlock resulting from a Democrat-boycotted election, was dealt with only after he was out of power. In other words, when it comes to the really big cases affecting the status quo, it doesn't quite matter what the laws say or how strong the evidence is. The decisive force is what the politics says." [my bold emphasis]

It's actually from yesterday's editorial in The Nation about the Saxena case (and, to comply with forum rules, I'll post the full article separately next - the quote above is the third paragraph from the end). IMO the view it expresses (it's also the headline of the editorial) cannot help but be applicable to consideration of the land case verdict. Given that this view would certainly seem to fit comfortably on the pages of TJTS, NM, BP etc - one starts to wonder if this is a] The Nation finally catching up and/or b] the wheel of Thai politics is starting to turn more obviously again (perhaps I go too far).

[Steve2UK]

EDITORIAL
Politics not law will decide Saxena case
By The Nation
Published on November 8, 2009

Extradition of ex-BBC adviser will unleash web of intrigue that could abort the cause of justice

Political influence is bad news in almost all legal cases, and the looming trial of Rakesh Saxena, who has been extradited to Thailand after more than a decade of relative peace as far as the Bangkok Bank of Commerce (BBC) scandal was concerned, ensures full-blown politicisation. If the web of intrigue was amazing when Saxena fled Thailand, it must be doubly so now. This means the outcome of the case may not depend as much on what the lawyers and prosecutors say as on what the politicians want.

A lot of things have changed since BBC crumbled and Saxena was sent fleeing. The Democrats, who exposed the scandal when they were in the opposition bloc, are now in power. And they have allied themselves with the very people they deemed the worst crooks 13 years ago. Thaksin Shinawatra, who was a virtual nobody politically when the Democrats chopped the Group of 16 to pieces at that time, took the notorious faction under his wing in the early 2000s. But its leader, Newin Chidchob, betrayed him late last year. Now Thaksin is said to be gleefully following the Saxena developments and has reportedly instructed his troops to make the biggest political ammunition out of them.

Theories have varied as to why Saxena was "suddenly" sent back. Some said Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva wanted to get him in order to tame the restless Group of 16, who have not been ideal allies. Others went further, saying Saxena's return was part of a conspiracy to not tame but annihilate the troublesome element before it became a bigger threat. Last, but not least, there are people who looked at Thaksin's over-eagerness about turning Saxena into a lethal political weapon and wondered if the ousted leader had anything to do with Canada's "abrupt' decision to extradite him.

Some observers believe the truth may be less exciting. Canada's Supreme Court decided late last year to send him home. At that time, Thai politics was in turmoil, with a pro-Thaksin government collapsing, the yellow shirts making headlines with the Suvarnabhumi Airport seizure and the Newin group on the verge of abandoning Thaksin for the Democrats. Abhisit could not have plotted or influenced Saxena's return at that time, whereas the pro-Thaksin camp must have been too busy fighting a rearguard battle to look beyond what was happening in front of it.

A tell-tale piece of information was a report in the Canadian media saying there was growing concern last year that the more the extradition saga dragged on, the more it would mock the Canadian justice system. If the BBC case expired and the suspect walked free, someone in the Canadian judiciary was quoted as saying, it could give Canada a really black eye.

If we are to believe that Saxena was sent back simply because Canada was feeling ashamed, we may assume that nobody here really wanted him back. Old wounds had better be left untouched, and Democrat Suthep Thaugsuban must be a leading advocate of this school of thought.

Saxena's return must have unnerved the Group of 16, but politically speaking they have less to lose than Suthep. His censure speech against the Group of 16 all those years ago has been republished in newspapers and it exposes hypocrisy as big as what anyone can expect from our politics. In many other countries, Suthep would have been forced to resign on the spot.

But this is Thailand and the Saxena case will have to continue to tread the murky waters. "I've done my job [in the censure debate 13 years ago] and it will now be up to the justice system," is the best Suthep has had to offer. Translation: I'm not going to go after Newin and Co, who are now my closest allies, and Banharn Silapa-archa, who I called the most untrustworthy prime minister back then, doesn't have to worry, either.

Some may say the circumstances benefit Abhisit, as the Newin group will now be kept at bay and the embarrassment serves Suthep right. But we can't analyse Abhisit based on his satisfaction alone. He came to power thanks to Suthep and Newin and, like it or not, he still needs them to remain in power. Friendship, loyalty and allegiance may change, but not the fact that it is extremely difficult for Abhisit to survive without his reluctant allies.

Thaksin has far less to lose, obviously. It wouldn't mean much even if Saxena dropped a bombshell accusation linking anyone close to the former prime minister with the BBC scam. This is an opportunity to embarrass the Democrats more than at any time in the past. Of course, there was a photo of Newin tearfully hugging Thaksin at the beginning of the latter's downfall, but there has been, arguably, a more famous picture since - the one showing THAT embrace between Newin and Abhisit when the Democrat leader became prime minister.

In Thailand, politics dominates law. Seemingly solid evidence in Thaksin's share-concealment case in 2001 gave way to political factors. His party's violation of electoral laws, which was intended to fix a constitutional deadlock resulting from a Democrat-boycotted election, was dealt with only after he was out of power. In other words, when it comes to the really big cases affecting the status quo, it doesn't quite matter what the laws say or how strong the evidence is. The decisive force is what the politics says.

Like it or not, the case is more likely to be driven by political intrigue than legal standpoints. The "opposite sides" when Saxena fled Thailand have rolled into each other, creating a new landscape that the smart and tricky brain of the extradited man has to figure out how to make the make the best use of. Of course, everyone must be hoping they can use him, but, knowing that fact, he can use them, too.

What began as manipulation in the stock market and in bank lending over a decade ago is set to become full-scale political manipulation. The BBC scandal started off as, in Suthep's own words, a financial rip-off, but it may end up being something worse - betrayal.


-- The Nation 8 November 2009