Thaksin Shinawatra arrived at the Criminal Court in Bangkok on Monday morning, cutting an imposing figure in a vibrant yellow shirt and sleek black jacket. (Photo: Wassayos Ngamkham)
The former prime minister made his entrance for a crucial session—a witness and evidence examination in a contentious lese majeste case stemming from a 2015 interview he gave in Seoul, South Korea. As he stepped into the bustling courthouse environment at precisely 8:53 am, his demeanor was composed and unflinching.
Speaking to a flurry of reporters, Thaksin exuded confidence, stating, “I have no worries. The case happened shortly after the coup and involved use of the law to strengthen their hold on power.”
The significance of this court hearing is monumental—it revolves around remarks Thaksin made during an interview with South Korean newspaper, Chosun Ilbo, dated May 21, 2015. Thaksin claimed that privy councillors played a supportive role in the 2014 coup, which summarily dismissed his younger sister Yingluck Shinawatra from office. The published interview led to charges of lese majeste under Section 112, and also drew accusations of committing a computer crime.
Following his initial arraignment in June, the court granted him temporary freedom on a substantial bail of 500,000 baht, coupled with strict travel restrictions forbidding him from leaving the country without explicit court approval.
Complications arose last month when Thaksin sought the court’s consent to travel to Dubai for medical treatment. He argued that his Dubai-based doctors specialized in treating his chronic ailments—lung inflammation, respiratory issues, cardiovascular conditions, and a herniated disk. Additionally, Thaksin highlighted his need to conduct personal business and planned to schedule his return to Thailand ahead of his next court appearance on August 19.
However, the court determined that Thaksin’s medical concerns were common and could be treated by the healthcare professionals available in Thailand. The justices also noted that his planned meetings in Dubai were predominantly personal and didn’t justify the journey.
Given the proximity of his proposed travel dates to the impending court session, permission was decisively denied. The ruling maintained that, “The court did not see any necessity for the overseas trip,” ensuring that Thaksin remained within the country to face the legal proceedings.
As the public and media closely monitor every twist and turn of this high-stakes legal saga, one thing remains certain—Thaksin Shinawatra’s encounter with the judicial system captivates the nation, fueled by a tumultuous blend of political intrigue and relentless pursuit of justice.
How can they even consider letting Thaksin leave the country? He clearly has a history of evading justice!
Exactly. Thaksin always finds a way to slip through the cracks. Dubious medical reasons shouldn’t be an exception.
There are legitimate reasons for seeking specialized medical treatment abroad, though. We shouldn’t be so quick to judge.
But his reasons seemed more personal than medical. There’s plenty of capable doctors in Thailand.
Don’t be naive, if Thaksin leaves, we may never see him again. Not ruling this travel request is the only sensible decision.
True, but that doesn’t change the fact that EVERYONE deserves proper medical care. Even those accused of crimes.
It’s a debacle that the court is dragging Thaksin back in after all these years. The case itself reeks of political bias.
This is just a witch hunt. He made a comment years ago and now they are using it to crucify him.
It’s pretty typical for those in power to weaponize the law against political opponents. Nothing new here.
But weaponizing the law to protect the kingdom’s dignity is necessary. They broke the law, now they face the consequences.
Do you think the lese majeste law is even relevant in the modern age? It’s archaic and suppresses free speech.
I agree 100%. The law is just out of touch with today’s world. People should be able to express their opinions freely.
But some traditions need to be preserved. Respect for the monarchy is a cornerstone of Thai culture.
It’s not just about respect – it’s about protecting institutions that hold the country together.
There’s a fine line between respect and fear. Laws like these propagate fear and stifle progress.
It’s fascinating to see how one man’s comment can ignite such a storm. His accusations clearly touched a nerve.
Of course it did. Thaksin has a lot of influence and people either love him or hate him.
Remarkably, it shows you how fragile power can be. New leaders feel threatened by any potential opposition.
I don’t know what to think. On one hand, he made some pretty bold claims. On the other hand, the royal family shouldn’t be above criticism.
The case underscores a broader issue of human rights in Thailand. How far are authorities willing to go to silence dissent?
It seems like the judiciary is not impartial at all. Their decisions seem politically motivated more than anything else.
It’s hard to disagree. The Thai judiciary has long been suspected of colluding with political factions.
True, but where’s the solution? Outright criticism could land you in trouble. It’s a catch-22.
I’m curious if Thaksin will actually get a fair trial. The stakes are high, and so are tensions.
You mean, IF the trial even goes ahead without more delays or drama. It’s already a circus.
Why is Thaksin still so relevant? He’s been out of the spotlight for years.
His influence hasn’t waned. People still remember his policies and what he stood for.
He represents a divided Thailand – those who believe in moving forward versus those stuck in the past.
He should have known better than to make such statements publicly. It’s like he was asking for trouble.
Saying the privy councillors supported the coup is a serious allegation. Whether true or not, it wasn’t smart.
Given the current situation, should international observers be more involved in monitoring the trial?
International intervention might just escalate the situation. Better to let them handle their own issues.
Sometimes external pressure is necessary to ensure justice. The world is watching.
What’s more important here: protecting the monarchy or ensuring democratic freedom? It’s a tough balance to strike.
Reading the article closely, it seems like this trial is more about control than justice.