Bangkok No Fun any more

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:45:07 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:27:17 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

The law was amended in accordance to the constitution, so what is wrong
with the amendment even if it was amended on the same day?

Where is the separation of power? A law is changed & the leader benefits to
the tune of millions of dollars 2 days later? You know the old saying - if it
looks like **** & smells like ****....

Are you saying that the constitution, the election and the people who
stand for election and the people who went to vote in the election are
all ****? Now one **** is trying to throw **** at another **** in Thailand?

The election was BEFORE this incident. Get your timeline straight.


Did I said the election is after this case.

In that case what has the election got to do with the case we are talking
about? Do you always fly off at tangents?

What is wrong to amend the
law if you are in the government with majority.

Everything, if it is to benefit you - it goes against the whole ideals of
democracy. I suppose if Thaksin brought in a law naming himself
Dictator-For-Life that would be fine by you as well?

The opposition accused
him mixing his business with politic and government, The fastest way to
get rid of his business is to sell away his business. The law has to be
amended to allow him to get rid of his business.

Please - what was done was illegal - his son took the fall for him. We have
already established that. The law was NOT changed to allow him to get rid of
his business - the law was changed to allow him to get rid of his business
without paying tax.

Seems that you are unable to think rationally - if Thaksin brought in a law
saying all people named lobert should be lined up & shot, would that be ok by
you? After all, he is in the majority!

Dave

Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:45:07 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:27:17 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

The law was amended in accordance to the constitution, so what is wrong
with the amendment even if it was amended on the same day?

Where is the separation of power? A law is changed & the leader benefits to
the tune of millions of dollars 2 days later? You know the old saying - if it
looks like **** & smells like ****....

Are you saying that the constitution, the election and the people who
stand for election and the people who went to vote in the election are
all ****? Now one **** is trying to throw **** at another **** in Thailand?
The election was BEFORE this incident. Get your timeline straight.

Did I said the election is after this case.

In that case what has the election got to do with the case we are talking
about? Do you always fly off at tangents?

What is wrong to amend the
law if you are in the government with majority.

Everything, if it is to benefit you - it goes against the whole ideals of
democracy. I suppose if Thaksin brought in a law naming himself
Dictator-For-Life that would be fine by you as well?

Did he do that (Dictator-For-Life)? No, he dissolve the parliament and
call for new election. Let the people decide.

The opposition accused
him mixing his business with politic and government, The fastest way to
get rid of his business is to sell away his business. The law has to be
amended to allow him to get rid of his business.

Please - what was done was illegal - his son took the fall for him. We have
already established that. The law was NOT changed to allow him to get rid of
his business - the law was changed to allow him to get rid of his business
without paying tax.

Whether his son or his maid took the fall for him, so long as the court
did not convict him, what is wrong with that. You don't pay tax for
capital gain anyway.

Seems that you are unable to think rationally - if Thaksin brought in a law
saying all people named lobert should be lined up & shot, would that be ok by
you? After all, he is in the majority!


He only terminated the drug pest and terrorists. Did he arrested anyone
from the opposition ? No!

The Securities and Exchange Commission has given Prime Minister Thaksin
Shinawatra and his daughter Pinthongta a clean bill of health after
investigating alleged irregularities related to the offshore company
Ample Rich Investments Ltd.


SEC secretary-general Thirachai Phuvanat-naranubala said Thaksin and
Pinthongta had properly filed reports to comply with disclosure rules.


However, the commission has found that Panthongtae, the prime minister's
son, violated disclosure rules and takeover codes in his accumulation of
Shin Corp shares.


At a press conference yesterday, Thirachai said the investigation had
been conducted within the framework of the Securities and Exchange Act.
Therefore the securities watchdog did not determine if there was actual
payment for the transactions involving Thaksin and his children.


On June 11, 1999, Thaksin sold 32.92 million shares of Shin Corp to
Ample Rich. These later multiplied tenfold when Shin split its par value
from Bt10 to Bt1 per share. On December 1, 2000, Panthongtae bought
Ample Rich, which then had only US$1 (Bt40) in capital, from his father.


"Under Article 246, the SEC focuses solely on acquisition reporting and
not if there was any payment or when [the transactions took place],"
Thirachai said. "Finding that out has no weight on the investigation
whether the securities law is violated."


He also pointed out that in the investigation, the SEC did not set out
to discover if Ample Rich was Thaksin's nominee because Panthongtae, who
claimed ownership of Ample Rich, was an adult and not an under-aged
child. Therefore, there was no reason to assume that Ample Rich held
Shin shares on behalf of other individuals.


"This has nothing to do with the securities law," he said. "But if any
state agencies have doubts, or want to investigate if there is a
violation of any other laws, they can press for documents from the
individuals involved."


The nominee issue has been the subject of intense speculation. If it was
proven that Ample Rich was Thaksin's nominee, the prime minister could
be charged with violating Article 209 of the Constitution, for failing
to report the assets, as required, when he took office.


Meanwhile, Panthongtae Shinawatra faces penalties for violating the
Securities and Exchange Act. Under the relevant provisions of the law,
he is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a
fine not exceeding Bt500,000 and a further fine not exceeding Bt10,000
for every day during which the contravention continued, or both.


According to The Nation's calculations, Panthongtae could be fined about
Bt20.3 million for failing to launch a tender offer. For failing to
disclose Ample Rich's holding of Shin shares, he could be fined another
Bt20.3 million and, for a third offence committed in September 2002, he
could face an additional penalty of Bt13 million.


Panthongtae and Pinthongta were also cleared of charges of insider
trading in their purchase of Shin shares for Bt1 each three days before
reselling them to Temasek Holdings at Bt49.25. Thirachai said that as
they owned Ample Rich and as the transactions were done out of the
market, the buyer and the seller had not caused advantage or
disadvantage to others.


However, Thirachai said the Stock Exchange of Thailand was still
investigating alleged trading irregularities involving the Shin
subsidiary, Advanced Info Service Plc (AIS).


Executives of AIS, including Thaksin's sister Yingluck - the company's
president - are reported to have sold AIS stock ahead of the Shin
sell-off to Temasek Holdings of Singapore.


"We have not yet received the SET's investigation result," he said.


Commenting on the recent change in Shin holdings of Aspen Holdings Co
Ltd and Cedar Holdings Co Ltd - the Temasek nominees that bought 49.6
per cent of Shin and are tendering for its remaining shares - Thirachai
said the companies were not obliged to report the change because they
identified themselves as a single group of investors in the tender offer
proposal.

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:23:05 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:45:07 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:27:17 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

The law was amended in accordance to the constitution, so what is wrong
with the amendment even if it was amended on the same day?

Where is the separation of power? A law is changed & the leader benefits to
the tune of millions of dollars 2 days later? You know the old saying - if it
looks like **** & smells like ****....

Are you saying that the constitution, the election and the people who
stand for election and the people who went to vote in the election are
all ****? Now one **** is trying to throw **** at another **** in Thailand?
The election was BEFORE this incident. Get your timeline straight.

Did I said the election is after this case.

In that case what has the election got to do with the case we are talking
about? Do you always fly off at tangents?

What is wrong to amend the
law if you are in the government with majority.

Everything, if it is to benefit you - it goes against the whole ideals of
democracy. I suppose if Thaksin brought in a law naming himself
Dictator-For-Life that would be fine by you as well?

Did he do that (Dictator-For-Life)? No

Seems like you are avoiding the question - first you start off with the
assertation that he can amend any law if he has a majority, so I put forward
an example - you try to wriggle out of it.

he dissolve the parliament and call for new election.

Only after a lot of pressure.

Please - what was done was illegal - his son took the fall for him. We have
already established that. The law was NOT changed to allow him to get rid of
his business - the law was changed to allow him to get rid of his business
without paying tax.

Whether his son or his maid took the fall for him, so long as the court
did not convict him, what is wrong with that.

Obviously nothing in your mind. Shows what a sense of morality you have.

You don't pay tax for capital gain anyway.

Are you even keeping up with what is going on? Seems you don't even
understand the subject.

Seems that you are unable to think rationally - if Thaksin brought in a law
saying all people named lobert should be lined up & shot, would that be ok by
you? After all, he is in the majority!

He only terminated the drug pest and terrorists.

Ah, more avoiding the question and unwittingly let slip another glimpse of
your sense of morality - I guess you don't believe in innocent until proven
guilty? As none of the 2000 or so killed in 3 months ever got a trial, none
of them were proven guilty. Not to mention the fact that the exercise did
NOTHING to improve the drug situation in Thailand.

You'd be singing a different tune if you got caught in the cross-fire.

I guess the 16 month old baby was a major drug pusher?
http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0203/84/

Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:23:05 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:45:07 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:27:17 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

The law was amended in accordance to the constitution, so what is wrong
with the amendment even if it was amended on the same day?

Where is the separation of power? A law is changed & the leader benefits to
the tune of millions of dollars 2 days later? You know the old saying - if it
looks like **** & smells like ****....

Are you saying that the constitution, the election and the people who
stand for election and the people who went to vote in the election are
all ****? Now one **** is trying to throw **** at another **** in Thailand?
The election was BEFORE this incident. Get your timeline straight.

Did I said the election is after this case.

In that case what has the election got to do with the case we are talking
about? Do you always fly off at tangents?

What is wrong to amend the
law if you are in the government with majority.

Everything, if it is to benefit you - it goes against the whole ideals of
democracy. I suppose if Thaksin brought in a law naming himself
Dictator-For-Life that would be fine by you as well?

Did he do that (Dictator-For-Life)? No

Seems like you are avoiding the question - first you start off with the
assertation that he can amend any law if he has a majority, so I put forward
an example - you try to wriggle out of it.

he dissolve the parliament and call for new election.

Only after a lot of pressure.

Please - what was done was illegal - his son took the fall for him. We have
already established that. The law was NOT changed to allow him to get rid of
his business - the law was changed to allow him to get rid of his business
without paying tax.

Whether his son or his maid took the fall for him, so long as the court
did not convict him, what is wrong with that.

Obviously nothing in your mind. Shows what a sense of morality you have.

You don't pay tax for capital gain anyway.

Are you even keeping up with what is going on? Seems you don't even
understand the subject.

Seems that you are unable to think rationally - if Thaksin brought in a law
saying all people named lobert should be lined up & shot, would that be ok by
you? After all, he is in the majority!

He only terminated the drug pest and terrorists.

Ah, more avoiding the question and unwittingly let slip another glimpse of
your sense of morality - I guess you don't believe in innocent until proven
guilty? As none of the 2000 or so killed in 3 months ever got a trial, none
of them were proven guilty. Not to mention the fact that the exercise did
NOTHING to improve the drug situation in Thailand.

You'd be singing a different tune if you got caught in the cross-fire.

I guess the 16 month old baby was a major drug pusher?
http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0203/84/

It never ceases to amaze me about that guy lobert - you can kill and
deal - as long as you change the law for yourself. But what this
Sillypore moron don't know: there is no law written in Thailand that
you can accuse and shoot people BEFORE they were processed by the
court. Same this moron don't mind that our PM changed his money from
driver to maid to kids and skimms it and still is able to be PM?

I gave up on that Sillypore Idiot - he's either too dumb or a criminal
at heart.

Chabby

Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:20:21 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:


The law was amended in accordance to the constitution, so what is wrong
with the amendment even if it was amended on the same day?

Where is the separation of power? A law is changed & the leader benefits to
the tune of millions of dollars 2 days later? You know the old saying - if it
looks like **** & smells like ****....

I see. So now you're saying that you don't like the Constitution of
Thailand? If the law was changed in accordance to the Constitution then
that's kind of the end of the subject. Unless, of course, you're some
kind of elitist who thinks that because *he* didn't approve of the
Constitution it's therefore wrong and the people of Thailand have no
right to live by it.

That about it?

His son had also paid the fine for what he had done.

Which helps prove he was guilty,

Okay. So finally you admit that Clinton was, in fact, guilty as he was
punished by the court for what he did. Or do different rules apply?

and it's common knowledge that he's only a proxy for his father.

And again. "Common knowledge" (meaning, of course, your opinion) trumps
the rule of law. Standard elitist tripe.

It was your "common knowledge" that Unocal took over Chevron in
Thailand, wasn't it?

It was your "common knowledge" that Unocal in Thailand operates in a
building that says Unocal on the front door, wasn't it?

It was your "common knowledge" that Chevron Management doesn't work for
Chevron, wasn't it?

On 16 Mar 2006 04:45:25 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:20:21 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:


The law was amended in accordance to the constitution, so what is wrong
with the amendment even if it was amended on the same day?

Where is the separation of power? A law is changed & the leader benefits to
the tune of millions of dollars 2 days later? You know the old saying - if it
looks like **** & smells like ****....

I see. So now you're saying that you don't like the Constitution of
Thailand? If the law was changed in accordance to the Constitution then
that's kind of the end of the subject.

It would be the end of the subject if you consider just the purely
legal aspect of it, but most people's judgments of whether a person is
doing something wrong extend way beyond that.

I'm not familiar with all the details of this case, but if Thaksin did
indeed use his party's majority in parliament to implement a law which
enabled him to personally save billions in taxes just two days later,
then that's wrong in my view, and an abuse of power. Of course that's
only my personal opinion, others may make judgments about right and
wrong according to a more relaxed set of standards.

Chris

"Chris Blunt" kirjoitti
om...

I'm not familiar with all the details of this case, but if Thaksin did
indeed use his party's majority in parliament to implement a law which
enabled him to personally save billions in taxes just two days later,
then that's wrong in my view, and an abuse of power. Of course that's
only my personal opinion, others may make judgments about right and
wrong according to a more relaxed set of standards.

Shinawatra closely resembles Silvio Honest Berlusconi of Italy. However,
Shinawatra remains rather popular in many (most?) parts of the country.
People are not as concerned of solid and non corrupt administration in
Thailand than let's say in Denmark or Sweden.

On 16 Mar 2006 04:45:25 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:

I see. So now you're saying that you don't like the Constitution of
Thailand? If the law was changed in accordance to the Constitution then
that's kind of the end of the subject.

And you are a dickhead who thinks that billions of dollars that should have
gone to the Thai people including your girlfriends & their buffalos has now
gone into the pocket of 1 man is a GOOD thing. If you can't see that the law
was changed to expressly allow this, then you are a fool, but then again, we
all knew that.
http://groups.google.com.my/groups?h...ol&sa=N&tab=wg
http://www.google.com.my/search?hl=e...owa+fool&meta=

Unless, of course, you're some
kind of elitist

I'm as elite as the 100,000+ Thais who have come out on the street to protest
in the past days. Just because you feel more at home in a rice-field with the
buffalos doesn't qualify anyone with greater aspirations as "elitist".

His son had also paid the fine for what he had done.

Which helps prove he was guilty,

Okay. So finally you admit that Clinton

I have done no such thing - I don't give a rat's arse about Clinton - I have
no investments in the USA & he is hardly the subject of this thread or this
newsgroup.

and it's common knowledge that he's only a proxy for his father.

And again. "Common knowledge" (meaning, of course, your opinion) trumps
the rule of law. Standard elitist tripe.

Yawn - go & read what the experts on the situation are saying - it is nothing
to do with my opinion - I just happen to agree with the expert opinion.

It was your "common knowledge" that Chevron Management doesn't work for
Chevron, wasn't it?

Still waiting for you. But I suspect that you did enough digging to find out
that I am entirely correct, otherwise I see no reason for your reticence.
Surely if you thought you had me over a barrel you'd be willing to put your
money where your mouth is? I on the other hand will be only too glad to take
your money off you, post the payment information on the web to prove what a
fool you are, and donate the money to Thai charity.

Dave

Dave Baker wrote:
On 16 Mar 2006 04:45:25 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:

I see. So now you're saying that you don't like the Constitution of
Thailand? If the law was changed in accordance to the Constitution then
that's kind of the end of the subject.

And you are a dickhead who thinks that billions of dollars that should have
gone to the Thai people including your girlfriends & their buffalos has now
gone into the pocket of 1 man is a GOOD thing. If you can't see that the law
was changed to expressly allow this, then you are a fool, but then again, we
all knew that.
http://groups.google.com.my/groups?h...ol&sa=N&tab=wg
http://www.google.com.my/search?hl=e...owa+fool&meta=


Are the billions from the people or from a company outside Thailand? May
be the Singaporean should protest not Thais.
You use the word "dickhead" now, you must have lost your cool !
Argue on the points made not the person making the point.

Unless, of course, you're some
kind of elitist

I'm as elite as the 100,000+ Thais who have come out on the street to protest
in the past days. Just because you feel more at home in a rice-field with the
buffalos doesn't qualify anyone with greater aspirations as "elitist".

Those 100,000 supporting Thaksin or the ruffians?

His son had also paid the fine for what he had done.

Which helps prove he was guilty,

Okay. So finally you admit that Clinton

I have done no such thing - I don't give a rat's arse about Clinton - I have
no investments in the USA & he is hardly the subject of this thread or this
newsgroup.


and it's common knowledge that he's only a proxy for his father.

And again. "Common knowledge" (meaning, of course, your opinion) trumps
the rule of law. Standard elitist tripe.

Yawn - go & read what the experts on the situation are saying - it is nothing
to do with my opinion - I just happen to agree with the expert opinion.


some experts are giving the same view as elitists and some have
different agenda.

It was your "common knowledge" that Chevron Management doesn't work for
Chevron, wasn't it?

Still waiting for you. But I suspect that you did enough digging to find out
that I am entirely correct, otherwise I see no reason for your reticence.
Surely if you thought you had me over a barrel you'd be willing to put your
money where your mouth is? I on the other hand will be only too glad to take
your money off you, post the payment information on the web to prove what a
fool you are, and donate the money to Thai charity.

Only the people who have the mandate from the people can say that they
are correct.


Dave