Thaksin's Court Contempt
( Last edit 2009-06-07 )
Counter Thaksin's Attack on Thai Judiciary
Following the October 21, 2008 final verdict by the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders in the case of the auction for a state-owned land on Ratchadaphisek Road, to jail Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin Shinawatra the No.1 defendant, who was a state officer breaching article 100 (1) of the National Counter Corruption Act and to be penalized according to article 122 of the Constitution's Related Act on the National Counter Corruption (NCC) 1999 by a two-year jail sentence, instead of Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin Shinawatra's acceptance and returning to Thailand for the jail sentence accordingly, he denied the ruling and broadcasted his letters to international media on October 22, 2008 saying that in order to clarify some relevant facts, as he was innocent, the court had ruled without any evidence to prove any frauds or any corruptions or any abuse of power in relation to the auction of the Ratchadaphisek land. His action is a definite contempt of the court in accusing the court of sentencing a jail term without evidences.
His counterclaim letter may cause some misunderstanding among the people and the media both domestic and abroad that the Thai justice process and the judiciary system are not trustworthy. The actual facts to counter the claims of Thaksin and his associates in relation to the Thai judiciary system as follows.
1. Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin Shinawatra sued a lot of people in various courts including civil courts and criminal courts in which he claims more than a billion baht worth of compensation. These actions prove that Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin Shinawatra has confidence in the judiciary system. Otherwise, he would not have sued people in Thai courts.
2. Thai judiciary system has undergone continuous development and is well accepted internationally. Every judge adjudicates the cases in the name of the His Majesty the King. However, there have been several occasions indicating unduely influences and undermining interferences by Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin Shinawatra. He would accept court verdicts only from which he and his associates benefit.
2.1 In 2001, the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) filed a case against Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin Shinawatra to the Constitutional Court for when he was a deputy Prime Minister in PM General Chawalit Yongjaiyuth, Thaksin willingfully submit a falsifying assets report. The court acquitted Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin Shinawatra who confessed of an "innocent mistake" and praised the court of being fair to him. The ruling, carried out in the first Prime Minister term, enabled a continuity of his post.
Later, in a trial of another court case, between members of the Consititution Tribunal in Thaksin's trial (the plaintiff) and Lieutenant Commander
Prasong Soonsiri (the defendant), sued for court contempt and libel, a witness, Ura Wang-Omklang, a member of the Consititution Tribunal testified that Somchai, the brother-in-law and Yaowapa Wongsawat the sister of Thaksin had approached him three times during the Thaksin's trial to offer a bribe for Judge Ura to help acquit Thaksin.
It is, therefore, an obstruction of justice. Vera Somkwamkid, an NGO activist of the People's Network for Anti-Corruption (PNAC), has already reported to the Crime Suppression Department alleging Somchai Wongsawat, the permanent secretary of Ministry of Justice then had bribed some Consititution Court Judges in Thaksin's trial.
2.2 In the April 2006 general election, in which Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin Shinawatra, the Prime Minister and the Thai Rak Thai party's leader then, hastily arranging a snap election within 35 days after the parliament dissolution, selfishly exploited its authority over other political parties so much that the Democrat party and other political parties boycotted the general election by a total abstaining from the race against Thai Rak Thai party. Together with voters' strong boycott against Thai Rak Thai party in some areas, this action pushed Thai Rak Thai party to conspire secret hiring of small-size political parties to fill the uncontested constituencies to avoid the compulsory minimal threshold votes of 20 per cent of all eligible voters.
Some small-size political parties' candidates were unqualified for the election. Some fraudulently moved from one constituency to another in the following by-election. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the election was invalid. Constitutional Tribunal, later ruled that Thai Rak Thai party committed acts which violated Constitutional Monarchy Democracy and sentenced a disbanding of Thai Rak Thai Party as well as a five-year prohibition of political rights for the 111 party directors including Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin Shinawatra.
Two judges in the Constitutional Tribunal revealed that there were attempts to bribe Constitutional Tribunal to rule in favour of Thai Rak Thai party but they refused. The Thai-Rak-Thai-party-frauds-ignorant Election Control Commission led by Police General Wasana Permlarb was also convicted in the lower criminal court for abuse of its authority and sentenced to four-year imprisonment without suspension of the punnishment. (The case is now in the appeal court.)
2.3 The verdict by the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders in the case of the auction of Ratchadaphisek land has revealed several important issues. In the second auction, the minimal threshold price was abolished. Instead, the guarantee deposit was raised as high as 100 million baht. This implicitly precluded more other bidders. The abolishment of the minimal threshold price in the second auction enable the candidates to offer lower bidding prices as compared to the cancelled first auction. Both measures facilitated Khunying Potjaman Shinawatra to win the auction at a much lower price than the officially estimated price.
Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin Shinawatra, in his letter, claims that the Prime Minister does not have the authority to control the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF) which organized the auction. In fact, according to the court's detailed explanation of the verdict, the Prime Minister has the authority to control the FIDF indirectly through the Minister of Finance.
The most important issue is Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin Shinawatra's claim that there is no evidence of his wrong doing, which is an indirect contempt of the court by accusing the court of sentencing him without evidences. In fact, article 100 (1) of the National Counter Corruption Act is intended to prevent state authority officers from abusing their authoritative power to benefit themselves or their associates. The court carefully adjudicated all the relevant laws, witnesses and evidences related to the Financial Institutions Development Fund's operation before duely ruling that Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin Shinawatra was guilty as charged.
In addition, during this trial, Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin Shinawatra's lawyer's team consisting of Pichit Chuenban, both defendants' lawyer; Supasri Srisawat, lawyer assistant; and Thana Tansiri, cases coordinator, tried to offer 2 million baht cash to some court's officers on June 10, 2008 when both defendants Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin and Khunying Potjaman Shinawatra must report to the court. The court convicted all three lawyers for court contempt and sentenced them to six-months imprisonment.
All above, prove Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin Shinawatra of being hypocrite, for he would respect court's ruling only when it benefits him. He does not have a due respect in judiciary process. Worst of all is that he, via his close associates, tried to bribe the courts in several cases.
The people and the media must be extremely careful in placing the faith in Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin Shinawatra since he and his wife are now not only convicted as fugitive criminals but also they have shown their utmost immorality in cheating and lying to their fellow citizens and cowardly betraying their homeland just for the sake of themselves.
Lawyer's Council's Announcement on Thaksin's Lies
The Lawyers Council's Announcement Agaisnt Thaksin's Dishonest Petition