Who is Thaksin Shinawatra?

[Thaimo]

Explainer: Who is Thaksin Shinawatra?

By Dan Rivers, CNN

February 26, 2010

Bangkok, Thailand (CNN) -- Thaksin Shinawatra was the prime minister of Thailand from 2001-2006, when he was ousted in a bloodless coup. After his ouster, he continued to play a role in Thai politics -- even from outside of the southeast Asian nation.

Who is Thaksin Shinawatra?

Visionary leader or venal despot: Opinions vary, like the color of the shirts his supporters and detractors wear. If you sport red, you think Thaksin was the only prime minister to offer the rural poor a voice and real benefits; if you wear yellow, you view him as akin to Ferdinand Marcos: greedy, self-serving and dangerous.

What is not in dispute is that he won two elections, was the only Thai prime minister to serve a full-term in office and is still hugely popular. But critics say he bought his support and was only in politics to help himself.

What is he accused of?

In 2008 he was found guilty and sentenced in absentia to two years in prison for a land deal that enabled his wife to buy a valuable city plot for a fraction of its true value.

The case currently being considered by the Supreme Court relates to the transfer of shares in his communications company Shin Corporation. The prosecution alleges he illegally transferred the shares to his family, who then sold them to the Singapore government's Temasek without paying tax.

The court will also rule on whether Thaksin's government implemented policies that benefited his businesses, including a low interest loan from the Thai government to the Myanmar government to buy equipment from Shin Corp, a change in tax laws that benefited Shin Corp and changes to satellite laws that helped Shin Corp.

What does Thaksin's defense team say?

The defense team argues that neither Thaksin nor his wife owned the Shin Corp shares while he was prime minister, selling them to their son before he took office. It was their son who decided to sell Shin Corp to the Singaporeans. The defense also claims that the Assets Scrutiny Committee -- which has led the investigation in this case -- was politically motivated, having been appointed after the coup that ousted Thaksin, and therefore was biased against him.

How much money is at stake?

76.6 billion baht (about US$2.3 billion dollars). That is the total value of his and his family's assets that are currently frozen in Thailand. But there is speculation that he has a great deal more money elsewhere.

Why bother going after Thaksin when so many other Thai leaders have been perceived to be corrupt?

Well, Thailand certainly has had a checkered history. But current Premier Abhisit Vejjajiva is widely believed to be honest and free from any taint of corruption. He wants to give the country a fresh start by showing no one is above the rule of law and that means ensuring Thaksin isn't allowed to get away with his alleged corruption, even though he is in exile. However, many analysts say this case is not just about corruption, but more about Thaksin's challenge to the Thai political elite that has ruled for decades.

The theory goes that Thaksin was dangerously popular and refused to submit to powerful factions in the army, privy council and aristocracy -- hence the 2006 coup and the lengthy efforts to shut him down.

Has Thaksin continued to be a thorn in the side of the current government?

Yes. He has recently been appointed economic adviser to Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen at a time when relations between Thailand and its neighbor Cambodia are particularly fractious. He has also continued to fund his "red shirt" supporters, who organized numerous rallies and demonstrations against the government. He continues to make "appearances" at the red shirt rallies, via satellite or phone from Dubai.

Who are the yellow shirts?

They have protested for years against Thaksin, starting while he was still in office and helping to precipitate the coup against him. But even after he was ousted the yellow shirts didn't rest.

When Thaksin's allies returned to power after an election in 2007, the yellow shirts took to the streets again, culminating in their occupation of Bangkok's two main airports in November 2008. Thaksin's allies were finally kicked out after a court ruling dissolved the party for vote rigging.

Political maneuvering helped the current ruling Democrat party cobble together a coalition in 2009.

If Thaksin's assets are seized, how will it compare to previous Thai politicians?

Well, there is quite a track record. Thaksin stands to lose $2.3 billion (76.6 billion baht), way more than politicians before him -- even allowing for inflation. Gen. Chatichai Choonhaven, former prime minister, and ten other politicians had 1.6 billion baht seized in 1991, after their administration was brought down by a coup.

Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn had 434 million baht seized in 1974 after an investigation by his successor found he was "unusually rich". Another Field Marshal, Sarit Thanarat, had 604 million baht seized in 1964. But an investigation after his death found in total he "granted" 2.8 billion baht for "secret services" to himself and associates -- most of which was never recovered.

[Wino]

How much money is at stake?

76.6 billion baht (about US$2.3 billion dollars). That is the total value of his and his family's assets that are currently frozen in Thailand. But there is speculation that he has a great deal more money elsewhere.

The court ruled today. They will seize 46.37 billion baht. Thaksin is able to keep the money he accumulate before becoming prime minister in 2001.

[Thaimo]

This story is from The Nation newspaper online

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/02/26/politics/Thaksin-guilty-Bt46-bn-seized-Bt30-bn-returned-30123503.html

Red Siam rally site at Sanam Luang sees sparse crowds following last night rally. Organisers ask protesters to reassemble in the afternoon to monitor the verdict.

Security measures stepped up at Parliament, Government House, Si Sao Thewes residence of chief royal adviser General Prem Tinsulannonda, Chan Song La residence of ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra's family and the stock market.

7.30 am: Nine Supreme Court judges arrive in a bullet-proof car. Tight security at court building,

8.30 am: People's Channel, pro-Thaksin satellite broadcasting, airs a taped Thaksin speech urging his supporters not to assemble at the court building.

Thaksin said he would monitor the live broadcast of the verdict in Dubai and that none of his family members would attend the verdict session.

In his speech and his Twitter message, Thaksin insists on his innocence, arguing he is not a cheater and that his wealth has been honestly earned and not ill-gotten gains.

9.30 am: Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thuagsuban says the situation is stable. He pledges to safeguard the judges in doing their job. He ensures the public that the government has the contingency plan to deal with any disturbances.

He also allays the concern for a coup, saying he guarantees there will be no military intervention.

9.10 am: Nine Supreme Court judges seen entering their private chamber to debate the Bt76 billion asset seizure case.

The judges are expected to read out their individual opinions before forming the judicial decision.

Wireless signals are jammed to prevent leaks.

By 10.00 am: Democrats and Pheu Thai MPs start arriving at their respective parties to monitor the situation.

Red shirts in Udon Thani congregate at a pro-Thaksin radio station to keep tap on the verdict.

Red shirts in Chiang Mai assemble at an empty lot in front of Waroros Grand Palace Hotel.

11.30 am: Thaksin may phone in via a video link to his Pheu Thai supporters while the verdict is being read this afternoon, Pheu Thai Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit says.

The video link will take place at Phue Thai headquarters on Rama IV Road. The main opposition party has set up two large projectors for live broadcast of the verdict. Party supporters are expected to turn out in full force.

Key figures in the pro-Thaksin camp, including Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, Somchai Wongsawat, Yaowapha Wongsawat, Pongthep Thepkanchana, Chaturon Chaisang, Chusak Sirinil and Sukhumpong Ngonkham are scheduled to arrive at the party headquarters before the verdict session at 1.30 pm.

After the judges read out the verdict, the Pheu Thai legal team will issue a statement. Thaksin is scheduled to give an interview reacting to his verdict via the video link. Web-based TV journalist Tuangporn Asvavilai is in Dubai to act as his interviewer.

11.45 am: Red Siam rally organiser Surachai Danwattananusorn says protesters would not move to the Supreme Court compound regardless of the outcome of the verdict.

The Red Siam rally site is at Sanam Luang, Surachai says, denying the linkage to the verdict on the asset seizure case.

Before noon, Chart Thai Pattana Party spokesman Watchara Kannikar calls on parties concerned to respect the judicial decision. If rival camps continue to carry on the fight, then the political struggle might escalate into a civil war, he says.

Watchara urges the authorities to exercise restraints and refrain from using force to crackdown on protesters. And the military should not exploit the situation to seize power, he says.

1.15 pm: In his video link message to Pheu Thai Party, Thaksin calls on his supporters to join him in listening in to the verdict.

He says he views the verdict as the historic moment signalling the major change following a long political struggle.

He says he braces well for the verdict.

"The ball is now not in our court, it is up to how the other would play and direct the ball," he says, ahead of the verdict session.

1.30 pm: Judges start reading the verdict by outlining the prosecution case

The high court begins by outlining the prosecution argument detailing Thaksin's equity structure in Shin Corp. The prosecution contends equity structure was designed to conceal true ownership.

The next issue is the conversion of telecom concession fees into excise charges to favour the family-controlled Shin Corp.

The other prosecution point is the adjustment of the revenue sharing agreement on pre-paid mobile phone services to benefit Advanced Information Service.

The prosecution contends Thaksin's interference in regulating the telecom industry to benefit his family-controlled telecom group, boosting its market valuation.

The prosecution outlines Thaksin's involvement to fix the concession contract on satellite communications. Because of his meddling, ThaiCom 4, a designated satellite for back-up communications, was cancelled and replaced by the launching of IPStar which allows the operator to start the satellite service for Internet instead of fulfilling the original ageement on satellite communications.

The prosection contends Thaksin's inference in satellite communications has inflicted Bt4 billion damage to the state and left a long-lasting impact on the country's communications security.

The prosecution contends Thaksin's involvement to grant Exim Bank loans to Burma in order to benefit the telecom and satellite businesses of his family business empire. Under Thaksin's instruction, the loans were increased from Bt3 billion to Bt4 billion.

The prosecution contends Thaksin's involvement in increasing the equity cap on the telecom business to pave way for him and his family to sell their Shin Corp stakes to a foreign buyer.

The Asset Examination Committee has frozen Bt66 billion of Bt76 billion sought as compensation to damage caused by conflict-of-interest decisions.

2.50 pm: Judges begins to outline the defence arguments.

The defence contends Thaksin filed his asset statements as prescribed by the anti-graft law.

The defence contends Thaksin openly transferred his equity stakes to his children before assuming office.

The defence contends the AEC was biased in trying to fault Thaksin. The AEC conducted iits investigation based on expediency and not prescribed procedures. For example, the AEC claimed the shares belonging to Thaksin's children when it ruled on tax liability. But it insisted Thaksin had full control of the shares when it wanted to prosecute him for abuse of power and conflict of interest.

In rebutting charges related to telecom business, the defence contends Thaksin's leadership following precribed procedures and implementing all policies sanctioned by the laws.

The defence contends the wealth of Thaksin and family was earned before assuming office.

The defence contends the wealth distributed from Thaksin to his children was genuine and not a scam for asset concealment.

The defence cites the statutory limitation as ground for dismissal, arguing the AEC indicts Thaksin after he left office for more than two years.

The defence contends the AEC failed to follow prescribed steps for indicting Thaksin and freezing the assets.

The defence contends the National Anti Corruption Commission was not appointed under the constitutionally-sanctioned procedures, hence it had no mandate to carry on the defunct AEC in prosecuting Thaksin.

The defence cites the statutory limitation as ground for dismissal, arguing the AEC indicts Thaksin after he left office for more than two years.

The defence contends the AEC failed to follow prescribed steps for indicting Thaksin and freezing the assets.

The defence contends the National Anti Corruption Commission was not appointed under the constitutionally-sanctioned procedures, hence it had no mandate to carry on the defunct AEC in prosecuting Thaksin.

3.50pm: Judges begins to read the ruling by outlining the non-contested issues and the business ties between Thaksin and his family members.

First legal issue is whether the AEC has the mandate to probe Thaksin and seize the assets. The high court rules by an unanimous decision that the AEC was empowered to prosecute Thaksin.

Second legal issue is whether legal provisions can be applied to Thaksin in the wake of the coup and the suspension of the 1997 charter. The high court rules the suspended charter has not impacted on law enforcement.

Third legal issue is whether the coup announcement to form the AEC was legally sanctioned. The high court rules that the coup-issued law is classified as an equivalent to an act of Parliament, hence it is legally binding.

Fourth legal issue is whether the AEC violates the statutory of limitations. The high court rules that the AEC complete its job within the deadline.

On the fifth legal issue, the high court rules to endorse steps taken by the AEC and the NACC to conduct the inquiry, notify charges, review defence rebuttals and freeze assets.

On the seventh legal issue, the high court rules to endorse appointments in the AEC, the NACC and in relevant investigative panels.

On the ninth legal issue, the high court strikes down the defence argument related to biased opinions of three graft busters, Klanarong Chantik, Banjerd Singkhaneti and Kaewsan Atibhodi.

On the tenth legal issue, the high court dismisses the defence argument that the prosecution omits to prove criminal wrongdoing before asking for the asset seizure. At issue is the civil litigation on whether or not the accused amass unusual or illegal wealth due to his office. This is not a litigation about criminal wrongdoing.

The judges rules in the unanimous decision that the prosecution is just and has followed legally-sanctioned steps.

At 5.00 pm: The judges proceed to rule on the followings:

- By an unanimous decision, the prosecution is unclear on the extent of unusual wealth and how it is linked to abuse of office

- The high court believes Thaksin and family retain control over Shin Corp through their equity structure before and after becoming the prime minister

- The high court rules the conversion of concession fees to excise charges for mobile phone services was deemed favourable to Shin Corp, dampening competition.

- In regard to the adjustment of revenue sharing scheme for AIS pre-paid services, the high court rules that the new scheme was unnecessarily made favourable to the operator.

- Addressing the adjustment of roaming charges paid by AIS to its contractor Telephone Organisation of Thailand, the high court rules the charges were calculated to favour AIS.

- The high court rules in a majority decision that the adjusted rules for the telecom industry were designed to favour Shin Corp.

- In regard to satellite communications, the high court rules the revised contractual provision for ThaiCom deal were manipulated to designate IPStar as a back-up satellite even though its functions are different from ThaiCom. This allows the contractor to avoid launching ThaiCom4.

- The high court rules the decision to adjust satellite contractual provisions resulted in helping Shin Corp and ThaiCom to launch a new satellite without having to bid for a new concession.

- By a majority decision, the jugdes rule the ThaiCom deal was favourable to Shin Corp.

- The high court rules that Shin Corp, state concessionair holding the majority stakes in ThaiCom, diluted its equity in the satellite communications without the approval of the Cabinet.

- By a majority decision, the judges rule the equity dilution was favourable to Shin Corp.

- The high court finds the decision to allow ThaiCom to earmark an insurance claim from damaged ThaiCom3 satellite to lease a foreign satellite instead of launching a back-up satellite was arbitrary.

- By a majority decision, the judges rule such arbitrary decision to favour Shin Corp and ThaiCom.

- The high court finds that the approval of Exim Bank loans to Burma was part of the Thai foreign policy.

- It also uncovers that the telecom deal came up after Thaksin met Burmese leaders and that the deal was not in the original talks in Pegu, Burma to promote good neighbourly relations.

- The high court believes the Burmese request to increase the loans from Bt3 billion to Bt4 billion under concessionary terms was destined to pay for services provided by ThaiCom.

- By a majority decision, the judges rules the deal was favourable to Shin Corp and Thaicom.

At 8.15: the judges move to address Thaksin's involvement in benefiting Shin Corp.

The high court finds Thaksin as prime minister and his ministers, including those from Finance, Industry and Information Communication and Technology were directly linked to deals deemed favourable to Shin Corp.

By a majority decision, the judges rule Thaksin abuse his office to benefit Shin Corp, AIS and ThaiCom.

The high court rules Thaksin's wealth is ill-gotten gains. The earnings from the Shin Corp deal to Temasek of Singapore is ill-gotten, hence can be confiscated by the state.

The high court then addresses the ground on asset seizure related to the wealth held by Thaksin's ex-wife.

The judges rule ill-gotten gains in the name of the spouse can be seized.

The judges outline two grounds to seize assets - unusual increase in wealth and abuse of office to beget the wealth.

The judges move to address that the dividend payments can be seized.

The judges say the original stakes owned by Thaksin before assuming office can not be seized.

By a majority decision, the seizable assets confined to dividend payment worth Bt6 billion and the capital gains worth Bt39 billion. The total seizure is Bt46 billion.

[lvdkeyes]

It seems reasonable to me.

[rucus7]

Thaksin barely has enough left for a happy meal . . . . . .

[rucus7]

As soon as Thaksin serves his full two year sentence, I think Thai people will let bygones be bygones.

[lvdkeyes]

Like that's going to happen!

[Wino]

I found this news clip about key dates in the political crisis interesting. Seems to me the people are clearly on the Thaksin side but the money people and ruling class will never give up power. Ah yes, democracy in Thailand?

By The Associated Press The Associated Press Events leading to a court judgment Friday on confiscation of the wealth of billionaire ousted Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, whose political fortunes have closely tracked the country's years of political turbulence:February 2001: Thaksin Shinawatra, a telecommunications tycoon, becomes prime minister after his Thai Rak Thai Party wins a sweeping election victory.

August 2001: The Constitutional Court acquits Thaksin of concealing assets while he was a Cabinet minister in 1997-98. A conviction would have forced him out of office.

February 2005: Thaksin re-elected in a landslide.

February 2006: Rallies accusing Thaksin of corruption and abuse of power attract tens of thousands of people. Thaksin dissolves Parliament and calls elections.

April 2006: Thaksin's party wins 57 percent of the votes as the opposition boycotts the elections, later nullified by the courts.

Sept. 19, 2006: The military stages a bloodless coup while Thaksin is overseas and sets up an interim government.

May 2007: Thaksin's party is dissolved by court for election law violations; he and 110 party executives are barred from politics for five years.

December 2007: The People's Power Party, a proxy for Thaksin's disbanded party, easily wins elections and assembles a coalition government.

February 2008: Thaksin welcomed by supporters on his return from exile.

May 2008: The People's Alliance for Democracy — popularly known as the Yellow Shirts — launches protests against the pro-Thaksin government.

July 2008: Thaksin's wife Pojaman, her brother and her secretary are convicted of tax evasion. She is sentenced to three years in jail and released on bail.

August 2008: Thousands of anti-Thaksin protesters take over the prime minister's office compound.

October 2008: Thaksin is sentenced to two years in jail for breaking a conflict-of-interest law, but has already fled to London.

November 2008: Anti-Thaksin protesters take over Bangkok's two airports, stranding hundreds of thousands of travelers.

December 2008: Protesters vacate the airports and the prime minister's office after a court finds the pro-Thaksin ruling party guilty of electoral fraud, forcing its dissolution. With the backing of the military, opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva is chosen prime minister.

April 2009: Pro-Thaksin demonstrators, dubbed the Red Shirts, swarm a regional summit in Pattaya, forcing its cancellation as Asian leaders are hurriedly evacuated. Several days afterward they riot in Bangkok, leaving two people dead before the army restores order.

Feb. 26, 2010: Thailand's Supreme Court is to rule on whether Thaksin abused his position as prime minister for personal gain, and whether $2.29 billion of his assets should be confiscated.

Key dates in Thailand's political crisis - Yahoo! News

[Beer Chang]

Perhaps Thailand would be best off without both Thaksin and the traditional powerful Thai politicians/businessmen/military.

[Bob]

Perhaps Thailand would be best off without both Thaksin and the traditional powerful Thai politicians/businessmen/military.

Probably correct...but it'll be a hell of a fight for the elite to be taken down. If Puea Thai forms the next government and if (a big if) a coup doesn't follow within days, I suspect that many of the elite had better be careful as there likely will be some revenge taking.