taxi wrote:

---

 

this is some thing to do with discrimination,racism,selfish,and jealousy, thuksin he is HERO!! he help a lot of poor and developing a lot northern or Isaan which it never before they only always build bangkok at the past, now they have good schools good hospitals at Isaan because of thuksin so make bangkok people not happy and thuksin he has so much money long time before so make other jealous, the red shirts they fight for their right nothing wrong with that, sou sou red sou!!!

Lao we are here to help you any thing you want because we are same family!!

Live LONG LIFE THUKSIN YOU ARE GOOD MAN You are the hero for Lao people too!!!!

---

Dark Angel wrote:

---

 

narongchai_thi wrote:

---

I graduated from Thammasat Universit, and also have some friends working in Chlalongkorn and Thammasat universities. That's why I know some informations about the political belief of Gile Unpakorn regarding communism. Moreover, some old professors in the universities still believe in the communism and try to help Thaksin confidentially and stratgically to destroy the monarchy. Those professors used to join the communist party of Thailand in the part; however, they failed to change Thailand to be a communist country. They lose to General Prem, which is now the chief advisor to the KING.

Now, it's time for those communist professors to join force with Thaksin to destroy the monarchy, because the king is so old right now. It'so shameful that those communist professors working in the university I got the degree from.

---

         Good for you that does not meant that you could judge which system is good or bad that depends on the leader
         and the government. Very well , the king has nothing to do with politic . Prem is the trouble maker who created all
         the problems.He used the lese Majesty to damage Thaksin just to be in controlled and whom he wants to be and
         which way and direction that he would the prime minister to do and to go. When he could not control Thaksin  , then
         he would find the way to get rid of Thaksin by the coup because Thaksin is alway going to win the election.

 

---

 I can say that the communism is not appropriate to Thailand.  It could be good for the other countries, I don't know and don't want to mention.  However, a lot of people around Thaksin believing in communism.  They are dangerous to the national security.  Mr Prem has done a lot of good things to the country.  At least, he could lead the Thailand to beat the Thai communist movement.

If Thaksin want to change the system of Thailand from Kingdom to Republic.  Mr Prem is the biggest obstacle to Thaksin, and Thaksin has to get rid of Mr Prem.  That's why the red shirts keep attacking Mr Prem.

During Mr Prem 's administration as the Prime Minister, he prevented Thailand from being under the communism and being attacked by the economic crisis.  In general, the country had the economic stability.  However, when someone said that he should not be the Prime Minister because he was not selected by Thai people.  Then, He resinged form his position as a PM immediately.  This means that Mr Prem is never addicted to the position or the power.  After that, The King immediately appointed him to be His Majesty's advisor.  This can gaurantee the loyalty of Mr Prem to The king.

It is too different from Thaksin, who always has a lot of rumors about insulting the king. (please note the news I just posted in my previous replies).  too differently.......

Gile Unpakorn is the one who wants to destroy the monarchy. He believes in communism and a lot of faculties at Thammasat and Chulalongkorn Universities know his political belief. Moreover, he has joined hands with Thaksin as a member of Red Siam.  From the following clip, Gile insulted the KING of knowing the coup plot.  He is not loyal to the KING at all.




Read the following news...... Thaksin accused inappropriately the KINGof knowing and permitting the coup as well. I think that normally a loyal Thai people will not mention this topic about the KING. A loyal Thai people does not do this thing. That's why a lot of Thais wanting to know if he is loyal to the KING or not. Moreover, my mother mentioned that Thaksin should have not mentioned this about the KING.


http://nationsstate.blogspot.com/2009/04/thaksin-claims-thailands-king-knew-of.html
Thaksin claims Thailand's king knew of coup plot

http://www.newstin.co.uk/rel/uk/en-010-013189042
Full coverages: Thaksin claims Thai King knew of coup


Moreover, Thaksin has never stopped his people from accusing the KING. This make a lot of Thais people think that he would also have the same attitude as his people's agaist the King.

Cronies

Thaksin's Red Knights

( Last edit 2009-06-25 )

Kwanchai Praipana Sarakam, Udorn Lover leader, a local gangster chief who always organizes mob attacks on peaceful PAD's gathering. Click to see more of his violence in The Tyranny We Are Up Against





Suporn Attawong, Northeast Rambo, a Former Nakorn Ratchasima MP in Thai Rak Thai party, proudly holds a riot control rifle forcefully seized from an officer in the Ministry of Interior. He is indicted with a violation of the emergency state declaration. The incidence included brutal tampering of the car and beating up of the cabinet secretariat, Nipon Prompan and his driver which resulted in serious injuries to both victims.





Nipon Prompan sustained two fractures of the ribs and internal injuries.




Fortune Teller Lak Lekanithet, who likes to symbolistically flag his decisive predictions, has been long employed to host fortune telling programs on mobile phones under AIS under Shinawatra business empire. He went on the red-shirts stage on April 12, 2009 just before Red rioting in Bangkok, to cheer up the red-shirts with his self-made sacred images.

To the red crowd, he also predicted that PM Abhisit would finish by calling a house dissolution and Thaksin would be victorious by April 20, 2009. He hade made some predictions on TV in the early half of 2006 in favour of Thaksin that Thailand would be prosperous in 2007 and 2008 because of PM Thaksin. Unfortunately for this fortune teller whose master, Thaksin, really goes out of luck, his predictions have been wrong again and again.





Ex-Pop singer Arisman Pongruangrong and ex-MP of Thai Rak Thai led red-shirts army roaming in Chonburi and into Pattaya Royal Cliff Beach Resort Hotel which hosted ASEAN summit meeting. He took over the Press room to air his victorious cancellation of the ASEAN summit meeting.

Cronies

Giles Ji Ungpakorn, The Communist-Marxist-Leninist Living Evidence of Thaksin's Lese Majeste

( Last edit 2009-06-01 )

Giles Ji Ungpakorn got on the red-shirts stage, wearing bright red-shirt to condemn the Lese Majeste law. Later, with his publication, "A Coup For The Rich", he was charged by the police of committing Lese Majeste. He jumped bail in February 2009 and left his teaching post at Chulalongkorn University for Britain, claiming that he is not a Thai, but a half Chinese half British. His articles proved himself as a faithful in what he preaches, Marxism-Leninism Communism.

Below are comments by Michael H. Nelson, Center for the Study of Thai Politics and Democracy, King Prajadhipok Institute, on books writen by Giles Ji Ungpakorn during the past decade.



Ungpakorn, Ji. 1996. The Struggle Against the Military for Thai Democracy. [?]: Asia Research Centre, Murdoch University. (=Working Paper No. 55) 26 pp.

The author’s hero is the Bangkok working class and its struggle for democracy. In his attempt to elevate its place in Thai historical writings, he first reinterprets historical events (1932, 1973, 1992) to show that the working class had, in fact, substantial part in them, unfortunately without providing any systematic review of primary or secondary accounts. For readers who have not been convinced by his preceding presentation, the author proposes to eliminate the problem of social categorization altogether by using the “Marxist” definition of class according to which everyone who does not own the means of production belonged to the working class. Consequently, by definition, almost every urban and many rural Thai citizen belong to this working class, hence its dominating role in promoting democratization in Thailand. This trick also solves the problem of the “new myth of the middle class [that] has been created, [and] which further disguises the central role of the working class.”

Ronayos's Comment : It is a silly twist and lies to include unawakened majority of labourers and farmers in the 1932, 1973, 1992 in the rise-up democratic movements, in order to over-price communism.

Ungpakorn, Ji. 1997. The Struggle for Democracy and Social Justice in Thailand. Bangkok: Arom Pongpangan Foundation. 130 pp.

As this essentially is a political manifesto, there does not seem to be a need for an academic abstract. Instead, let the author himself describe his perspective: “Socialism is the most complete form of democracy because socialism means the democratic control of economic production as well as the trappings of political office. Only with socialism can we have production for human need [is this the same as the ‘collective need’ mentioned below; is there any difference to human or collective wants/needs; do humans now produce for non-human or inhuman need and how is this logically and practically possible?].

Yet, socialism has, for decades, been buried under the authoritarian hand of the followers of Stalin or Mao. In Russia, Eastern Europe, China and many third world countries, socialism has come to mean a strong authoritarian and oppressive state. This is the opposite of what Marx or Lenin stood for. [Marx, certainly, but Lenin? Wasn’t it him, together with Trotzky, who set in motion what Stalin later perfected?] The Stalinist view of socialism has been a weakening force in the struggle for freedom, democracy and justice in Thailand. The time has come to reclaim socialism, even in Thailand, for it is clear that Thai capitalist economic development alone is not solving the problems of poverty, oppression and ill health.” (p. 12)

The author wants to change Thailand’s political-economic order to a socialist system, i.e., “the common democratic ownership of the means of production by the workers [one wonders exactly what this may mean in practice as the author rules out state-ownership, i.e. the conventional definition of socialism], so that production can be organized for collective need, rather than profit or accumulation” (p. 117). Who is supposed to decide what the collective need is, and what will happen to those who disagree, e.g. because they consider profit and accumulation as their human need as well as the collective need?

Ronayos's Comment : It is another silly twist and lies to condemn authoritharianists who indeed exploited socialism, just to make him look better. Giles himself preaches deceitful authoritarianistic communism which is got caught here.



Ungpakorn, Ji Giles. 1999. Thailand: Class Struggle in an Era of Economic Crisis. Hong Kong: Asia Monitor Resource Centre; Bangkok: Workers’ Democracy Book Club. 118 pp.

Another political pamphlet by Giles who has been successful in establishing himself as what must be the most dogmatic and sectarian Marxist-Leninist author in Thailand. It is theoretically bizarre to say that Rama V has been the “ruler of Thailand’s first capitalist state in the 1870s” (p. 7). In order to argue against the assumption that middle class or civil society were naturally pro-democratic he goes as far as stating, “the German Nazi party was fundamentally a middle class party” (p. 97), with his sole source being—Trotzky! The concluding three sentences of this publication read, “However, at the end of the day, strengthening trade union struggles alone will not bring about the transformation to socialism. To do that, workers need a Marxist party with political clarity. An important part of that clarity must come from a proper assessment of the failure of the CPT (Communist Party of Thailand) and a clear understanding of the nature of the modern working class under capitalism.” (p. 116)

Ronayos's Comment : It is another silly twist and lies to market communism at the price of condemning trade union struggles.



Ungpakorn, Ji. 1999. “Three Stages in the Development of the Thai Capitalist State.” Asian Review 11 (1997): 1-26.

The three stages mentioned in the title are (1) “The absolute monarchy: formation of the first capitalist state (Rama V-1932)”; (2) “Military domination of the capitalist state (1932-1980s)”; and (3) “Bourgeois domination of the [capitalist] state (1980s-present)”. As the authors sees it, it was the “mainly working class mass movement”, though some other groups are conceded a role, that weakened the power of the military and increased the scope of democracy. Unfortunately, though, the working class had been poorly organized and lacked political self-confidence which made it possible for the bourgeoisie to reap the benefits of the working class struggle and achieve “its present overwhelming political domination of the Thai capitalist state” (p. 26).

Ronayos's Comment : It is another silly twist and lies to include Bourgeois domination for communist success. However, actually, a decade after his book was writen, it sounds strange that he does not respect the Bourgeois's rise up against the corrupt Capitalist Thaksin's regime. Instead, he and his communist colleagues wholeheartedly turn to support the corrupt capitalist.


From
Thai Politics Bibliography
Compiled and annotated by Michael H. Nelson
Center for the Study of Thai Politics and Democracy
King Prajadhipok Institute

narongchai_thi wrote:

---

Thaksin
Crimes

Damapongs - Shinawatras Tax Frauds : The Guilty Verdict

( Last edit 2009-10-05 )

Defendant No.1 : Mr.Bannapot Damapong, adopted elder brother of Lady Potjaman
Defendant No.2 : Lady Potjaman Damapong Shinawatra, the wife then of Pol. Lieut. Maj. Thaksin Shinawatra
Defendant No.3 : Mrs.Kanjanapa Honghern, private secretary to Potjaman

Allegations : Falsification of statements for 546 million baht tax avoidance of the 738-million-baht worth of shares of Shinawatra Computer and Communication (public) Co.,Ltd., which is a violation of article 37(1)(2) of the Revenue Code and a violation of articles 83 and 91.

Right Honourable Mr.Pramote Pipatpramote, the senior judge and the case owner together with his quorum presided a court session to pass a sentence at the Criminal Court on July 31, 2008 at 9:00 am.

Summary of the verdict, with minor additional clarification in brackets.
Exchange rate estimation for 1 USD = 35 bahts.
Related rulings of the family's scandals revealed.

Lady Potjaman, Bannapot and Kanjanapa attended the Court session together with Pol. Lieut. Maj. Thaksin and their children.



The Criminal Court passed the ruling on the case black or.1149/2550 which the attorney general had indicted: 59 years old Mr.Bannapot Damapong, the former executive president of Shin Corporation (public) Co.,Ltd.; 51 years old Lady Potjaman Damapong Shinawatra; 51 years old Mrs.Kanjanapa Honghern, private secretary to Potjaman, to be the defendant number 1, 2 and 3, with allegations of tax avoidance with frauds, fraudulent declaration, or deliberate falsification of statements.

First allegation: on November 7, 1997, all three defendants conspired to deceitfully or fraudulently or trickily avoid tax of 273,060,000 bahts.

Second allegation: between May 18 to August 30, 2001 the first and second defendants conspired to declare or provide falsified statements to avoid tax according to category 2 of the Revenue Code, resulting in the state's lost of 273,060,000 bahts and indemnity of 273,060,000 bahts, to make a total of 546,120,000 bahts. [USD 15.6 million ]

The Court has thoroughly deliberated the evidences and witnesses which both the plaintiff and the defendants presented. The final facts reached, were that the second defendant intended to give the first defendant 4.5 million shares of Shinawatra Computer [which later change its name to Shin Corporation (public) Co.,Ltd.], in posessesion of Ms.Duangta Wongpakdee who acted as a nominee shareholder [of Potjaman]. However, the transactiion was carried out as a trade in the Stock Exchange on November 7, 1997 when Patra Security (public) Co.,Ltd. was the broker for the amount of 4.5 million shares at 164 bahts per share, totalling of 738 million bahts. The second defendant [Potjaman] was the payer instead [of Bannapot], with a cheque to Patra Security. After Patra Security deducted the commission fee and VAT, Patra Security then issued a crossed cheque for the shares value to Miss Duangta. The cheque was then deposited to the original account of the second defendant [Potjaman] under the full control of the third defendant in every step.

When the first defendant [Bannapot] submitted the income statement for the year 1997, the first defendant did not declare the shares received as an income to calculate the income tax. Whereas the second defendant [Potjaman] did not include the money received from Patra Security in the taxable income list when calculated the income tax because trading in the Stock Exchange is tax-exempted according to article 42(17) of the Revenue Code and Ministry Regulation No.126 in accordance with tax-exempted item 2(23) of the Revenue Code.

In 2000, during the National Counter Corruption Committee (NCCC) 's investigation of the actuality and the presence of the assets and liabilities of Pol. Lieut. Maj. Thaksin Shinawatra, the first and the third defendants [initially] testified to the subcommittee of the NCCC that the second defendant [Potjaman] splitted up of some shares to give to the first defendant, not a sale. The NCCC later ruled that Pol. Lieut. Maj. Thaksin submitted falsified statements.

The revenue department, then requested the information from the NCCC to investigate for tax collection. The first and the second defendants testified to tax investigation officers that the transfer of shares was an affectionate gift during a ritual, traditional or cultural occasion; therefore, it was not taxable income as it was exempted according to article 42(10) of the Revenue Code. The investigation for tax coleection was then discontinued.

This case has a matter of law which the defendants raised to oppose that the CNS Announcement Number 30 is contradictory to the 2007 Constitution. The Constitution Court have already ruled in the case number 5/2008 that the CNS Announcement Number 30 is not contradictory to the 2007 Constitution. The ruling is applicable to all cases. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider this argument.

Another argument of the defendants is that the Attorney General does not have the authority to indict because it contradicts to the item 9 of the CNS Announcement Number 30 which stipulates a filing to relevant bodies first before filing to the police for criminal indictment. The criminal court judges that the second clause of item 9 of the CNS Announcement Number 30 extraordinarily authorized and endorsed ASC [Assets Scrutiny Committee]. Filing the case to the Attorney General is valid and hence the plaintiff has the authority to indict.

Regarding the issue of whether or not the three defendants conspired to fraudulently or trickily avoided tax, as seen from the facts above, despite that having nominated proxy shareholders can be practiced in the Stock Exchange, it is obvious that there was no actual trade between the first and second defendants. The transaction was a deceit to conceal the actual intents, thus a fraud to enable the second defendant, the seller, to have the earning from the shares sold as tax-exempted income.

Regarding the issue of whether or not the shares received by the first defendant are taxable income but which is extra statutory concessions, the first defendant testified to the subcommittee of the NCCC that it was a gift from the second defendant who splitted up of some shares to give to the first defendant, not a sale, because the first defendant has long helped the businesses of Pol. Lieut. Maj. Thaksin and the second defendant [Potjaman] from the beginning, as well as he has been the borrower and guarantor for them.



The Court sees that because of the importance of the scrutiny of the assets according to article 295 of the 1997 Constitution [by the NCCC] which could have impeached Pol. Lieut. Maj. Thaksin from the PM post and prohibited him from political posts for five years; therefore, the first defendant who had a very close relationship to Pol. Lieut. Maj. Thaksin, must have carefully prepared the testimony which was the very first initial statement without being investigated with tax issues and without this indictment. Thus, his testimony is considered likely to be factual.

Although that investigation did not include the issue of shares as a gift, as appeared in this case, the gift from the second defendant [Potjaman], the spouse of Pol. Lieut. Maj. Thaksin, during such a very important occasion according to the first defendant [Bannapot] 's claim, could have been mentioned in the testimony. However, instead of mentioning what occasion was the gift for, he testified only that it was a split up of some shares to give to him, not a sale whereas there were extensive detail in other cases. As a result, it is considered that the second defendant [Potjaman] gave shares to the first defendant [Bannapot] by a division which means in itself that it is not a traditional or ritual or cultrual occasion gift.

After the NCCC had [already] charged Pol. Lieut. Maj. Thaksin with deliberate submission of falsified statements, the first and second defendants then testified to the Constitution Court and tax officers that the second defendant [Potjaman] gave shares as a gift to the first defendant [Bannapot] by the observance of righteousness that he has been a co-founder and a partner in business when in the occasion that he got married and got a child. The later reasoning which is different from the initial testimony, is likely to be just a claim for tax exemption.

Also the claims of the first and second defendants that the second defendant [Potjaman], in order to even the statuses among the siblings, had wished to give the shares to the first defendant [Bannapot] since 1996 as a gift for the celebration of his mariage but Pol. Lieut. Maj. Thaksin was too busy upon entering politics and was occupied with management matters and that the gift was thus postponed until the son of the first defendant [Bannapot] was one year old, are contradictory to the testimony of the first defendant [Bannapot] and such shares had belonged to the second defendant [Potjaman] who had the third defendant as an advisor and assets manager acting on behalf of her all along. The transfer of the shares was therefore possible by the third defendant [Kanjanapa] alone.

Therefore, if the transfer of the shares were to be for a gift for marriage, then the second defendant [Potjaman] could have just informed the third defendant [Kanjanapa] to proceed without having to bother or involve Pol. Lieut. Maj. Thaksin and his management as they claimed.

Although Pol. Gen. Preawpan Damapong, Mrs.Somsong Kruachai and Mrs.Busba Damapong testified that the second defendant [Potjaman Damapong Shinawatra] had used to say that she would like to give shares to the first defendant [Bannapot Damapong] as a marriage gift; the testimonies are [naturally] likely to be for the defendants' interests, thus [relatively] weightless, since the witnesses have close relationship with the defendants.

Therefore, the concluded fact is that the second defendant [Potjaman] gave the shares to the first defendant [Bannapot] not in the affectionate manner during a ritual, traditional or cultural occasion according to article 42(10) of the Revenue Code.

The next issue is whether or not the shares fall into the category of a fostering income following the observance of righteousness according to article 42(10). During the shares were transferred, the first defendant [Bannapot] was the president director of Shinawatra Computer and Communication (public) Co.,Ltd. and directors of companies in Shin Corporation which were secured businesses. In the income statement for income tax, he declared 23,554,503.53 bahts of taxable income before expenditures and exemptions, which is very high. He also had securities as shares in many other companies.

Obviously, the first defendant [Bannapot] was not in the needy status which required fostering according to the laws. The second defendant [Potjaman] thus did not have the obligation following the observance of righteousness to foster the first defendant [Bannapot]. Any giving for whatever reasons may not be considered as following the observance of righteousness. Consequently, it may not to be ruled that the income worth of shares value, which was
received by the first defendant [Bannapot] is taxable income which is extra statutory concessions.

The next issue is whether or not the three defendants conspired [fraudulently] to avoid tax. According to the case, the [straightforward] transfer of the shares would be taxed for 273,060,000 bahts. The second defendant [Potjaman] did not transfer the shares to the first defendant [Bannapot] despite that transferring could be done in the Stock Exchange without commission fee and VAT for the broker. Instead, the second defendant [Potjaman] fraudulentlly and deceitfully traded the shares in the Stock Exchange, and was prepared to pay 7,380,000 bahts commission fee and VAT, in order to conceal the giving which was the actual intention.

The acts indicate the intention of the second defendant [Potjaman] to avoid income tax in the processes of giving and accepting which the second defendant [Potjaman] was supposed to be the payer of the tax. Therefore, fraudulent trade was carried out [by the three defendants] to conceal the giving.

Being the private secretary of the second defendant [Potjaman], the third defendant [Kanjanapa] who carried out shares transfer, has her husband who is an officer in Patra Security which is the broker in this case. The third defendant [Kanjanapa], therefore, must have possessed good knowledges about shares and transfer of shares. Her testimony also is in agreement with the second defendant [Potjaman]'s that before the shares transfer, they were consulting and advising together. As a result, it is to be ruled that the third defendant [Kanjanapa] knowingly conspired with the second defendant [Potjaman] to [fraudulently] avoid tax.

As for the first defendant [Bannapot], he knew from the beginning that the second defendant [Potjaman] would give him the shares but when the third defendant [Kanjanapa] asked him for the security trading account number informing him that it was for buying the shares, the first defendant [Bannapot] gave it away without resisting or questioning which is unusual for an honest practice. Additionally, there was no declaration of this income in his 1997's income statement.

Following deliberation of the above findings as well as the relationship between the first and second defendants, it is to be ruled that the first defendant conspired and jointly committed the crimes with the second and third defendants. Therefore, they are all joint principal culprits.

In conclusion, the witnesses and evidences presented by the plaintiff are more reasonable and solid. The defendants' witnesses and evidences cannot rebut. The facts obtained are without reasonable doubts, in accordance with the plaint that the three defendants conspired to avoid tax by frauds or deception or tricks or by any other similar means.

The next issue is whether or not the first and second defendants conspired to declare falsified statements to avoid tax. To the revenue department request for a tax payment investigation following the ruling of the NCCC that Pol. Lieut. Maj. Thaksin had submitted falsified assets statements, the first and second defendants testified as the court ruled above, refusing the allegations. Therefore, the defendants gave falsified statements to claim exemption not to pay tax. The revenue department was misled and believed the statements resulting in the first defendant exempted from tax payment.

The facts obtained are without reasonable doubts, in accordance with the plaint that the first and second defendants deliberately declared falsified statements or exhibited fraudulent evidences to avoid tax.

The three defendants have high economic and social statuses, particularly the second defendant [Potjaman] who is the wife [then] of the country's administrator[Thaksin]. Apart from the obligation to behave as other good citizens, they should have behaved as good examples to fit their high statuses.

Instead, they conspired to give falsified statements to avoid tax, which is illegal, and unjust to the society and the tax system whereas the amount of tax avoided by the first defendant and the total of the tax which was eventually to be paid by the seond defendant is incomparable to the assets in the possession of the second defendant and her family, at that moment.

The first defendant could have paid the tax without affecting the status of the second defendant. Thus, the misfeasances by the first and second defendants are severe.

The Court thus passes the verdict that the three defendants are guilty of violation of article 37(2) of the Revenue Code in association with article 83 of the Criminal Code. In Addition, the first and the second defendants are guilty of violation of article 37(1) of the Revenue Code in association with article 83 of the Criminal Code.

The first and the second defendants' acts are various different acts. The punishments are to be in orderly count as stipulated by article 91 of the Criminal Code. The sentences for the offence of conspiracy to deceitfully or fraudulently or trickily or by similar means to avoid tax, are imprisonment of the three defendants for two years each. The sentences for the offence of declaration of falsified statements or exhibition of fraudulent evidences to avoid tax, are imprisonment of the first [Bannapot] and the second defendants [Potjaman] for one year each. The total imprisonment for the first and the second defendants are three years each.

Within two weeks after the Criminal Court of the first instance passed the verdict of guilty and the jail sentences, indicating failure to bribe the judges, the principal culprits jumped bails and fled to U.K.. It was a full house of Shinawatras who followed Potjaman Damapong Shinawatra to go out shopping in London.

---

Dark Angel wrote:

---

 

narongchai_thi wrote:

---

I don't mind. I love the King and the Princess Sirindhorn.

-- Edited by narongchai_thi on Monday 25th of January 2010 06:55:39 PM

---

          It is Ok to love the king and the princess Sirindhorn. I love them too.

 

---

Dark Angel wrote:

---

narongchai_thi wrote:

---

You always talk about the les majesty law. As a Thai people, I am so OK with the law, and most Thai people think so. That's why I can say that this is not your business. it's only Thai people business.

If you wanna talk about the human right, you should have more concern about the Human Right in your copuntry. The lese Majesty Law in my country is less severe than being under the communist government for sure.

-- Edited by narongchai_thi on Monday 25th of January 2010 06:56:02 PM

---

         Well, it  is none of our business but your conversation drove me to discuss it.

 

-- Edited by Dark Angel on Monday 25th of January 2010 07:05:20 PM

---

 

 

narongchai_thi wrote:

---

I don't mind. I love the King and the Princess Sirindhorn.

-- Edited by narongchai_thi on Monday 25th of January 2010 06:55:39 PM

---

          It is Ok to love the king and the princess Sirindhorn. I love them too. I love every body who are good and kind not only the king and princess.

 

---

So What !!!!!!!!!

OH I can not believe.  A Laotian people Like you Love the Thai king or the KING of SIAM.

Can not believe.

You always say that Siam invaded LAos and took everuthing from Laos.  That's why I can not believe that You love Thai king.

 

-- Edited by narongchai_thi on Monday 25th of January 2010 07:03:30 PM

---

         My father is Thai Esan.

 

---

So What.......  Now, You are a Lao citizen.    You dont need to care for our future in Thailand.  Anything you should do is for the country of Laos. 

Oh dont try to link the well beuing of Thai Isan to the country of Laos.    I know your strategy.

Actually, I am a chinese Thai who live in Chiyaphum.   I love Thailand so much and have no any relationship with China at all.  Presonally, If someone ask me to choose.  Definitely, I will choose to do anuything for the Interest of Thailand.

---

Dark Angel wrote:

---

Arrest Prem , He is one number corrupted person.

---

Dark Angel, I can see that you've been engaging tensely about the politics in Thailand and even though I did not know what is all about, and whatever it is, I think you should already have proved your point by now and it is time to end it there brother. If you can't convince a person to believe in your reasoning theory, it is OK but at least you had tried and you also need to respect the other guy (narongchai) whose country is Thailand.  I am saying this with my good intention because I think you are a good man.