jonfernquest just can’t get things in perspective. jonfernquest says the blog should be dismissed because:
1. It is very selective in the news pieces it posts.
Which blog isn’t? So we should be dismissive of all blogs? This is a silly comment.
2. Already has its mind made up about most issues.
jonfernquest seems to think NM is monolithic in the opinions expressed. That is simply untrue. There has been, and continues to be, plenty of different opinions at NM. That the two major NM bloggers (AW and NF) tend to express strong positions is what blogs are about and are blogs because they invite readers to respond.
3. Stresses photos
What on earth does this mean? The photos from Oct 7? Goodness, every newspaper site and every Thailand-related blog I saw had tons of photos. What’s the issue? jonfernquest could easily read other non-photo blogs if he feels visually challenged.
By the way, I do not think that Connors is dismissive of NM but disagrees with some perspectives. So what’s wrong with that? He has his own blog and has strong opinions there, many of which I can disagree with as well. Isn’t that the point of this?
No mention of the willpower sapping Iraq war? Or Niall Ferguson’s exhuberant Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire (2004) that argued that such interventions were feasible and was subsequently proved wrong?
In and out strategies with 50 million plus states outside your sphere of influence? Rather, try webs of economic dependence created by doing business together over long periods of time. Such shared interests have drawn countries as diverse as Thailand and Korea closer to the western way of doing things.
The point was not that this blog is necessarily scholarly, it was that a scholar (Connors) should not dismiss its readers as being uninterested in other points of view.
Where did you get the idea that this blog should be (to simplify) inclusive, without a point of view, and without photographs? (Do you have a problem with photos in general, or just that one posting about Oct. 7? I believe that this blog linked to other sides showing a PAD one-sided set of photos as well, or at least had excerpts from their propaganda booklet.)
Where were you when General Surayud couldn’t account for the title to his palatial compound in a national park, where he is not even entitled to receive a deed to the land?
Let’s see, which is the worse crime: Thaksin being married to Pojaman(in essence, that was the crime), who the court ruled bought the land legally or Junta-appointed illegally installed Prime Minister Surayud, an unusually rich millionaire general, who is holding an illegal title without any evidence of where his funds came from on a soldier’s salary.
Ralph, while we wait for the detailed judgment to be published – which will answer your question – can you just simply answer mine on “conflict of interests”? There’s no barking up the wrong tree here as this is what the Ratchada land case is about at the very least – the wife of an incumbent prime minister buying government owned/controlled prime real estate.
Alright, so you are not Aussie – if you are American just put President Bush and his wife in place of PMRudd and Therese Rein. If you are British, just put Gordon Brown and his wife etc…etc… Let’s be honest here, I don’t think “conflict of interest” and its legal mitigation is a Thai creation and I suspect you know much more about this than I do (I am Thai, it is relatively rather new and I have learnt a lot in my 10+ years in Australia).
Portman: Thanks. That gives me a better idea of what went on. Still seems odd that a law that prohibits political office holders and their spouses from transacting business with state agencies ends up being interpreted as negligence. Is there no other court that could rule on Potjamarn breaking the NCCC Act?
For Portman – “I can’t see any convincing argument put forward here as to why it was legal and even desirable for a prime minister’s wife to be involved in a transaction with a state agency, regardless of whether the price was below, above or at the market price.” That may be true. So how come she got off? It does seem odd, but as I have tried to convey to Sidh, I haven’t seen the judgment (but would like to).
Sidh: I have no knowledge of events in Australia that you refer to. If you hadn’t told me that Therese Rein was Rudd’s wife, I’d have not known. I do not follow Australian politics at all. So you are barking up the wrong tree. My question was essentially: how can you decide that the judgment was rigorous if the verdict is not available in detail? Any idea when and where the judgment will be published?
Amberwaves wrote: “And that would also be a more useful exercise. Beating up on the simplifying, sanctimonious Western press isn’t very difficult, and seems more like a venting of frustrations than a scholarly pursuit.
BTW, it’s sort of discouraging that a scholar would be dismissive of this blog and its readers with the comment – mistaken, in my opinion..”
“Sanctimonious” in that most “news” articles in the foreign press end up being strongly opinionated op-ed pieces.
Dismissive of this blog because:
1. It is very selective in the news pieces it posts.
2. Already has its mind made up about most issues.
3. Stresses photos (what exactly doaction photos of riots prove? particularly when they are restricted to one street in a particular part of town), character assassination/ad hominem attacks (against Sonti, for instance), cheerleading.
Andrew 24 “the numbers do suggest that relatively small movements in voting patterns could make a big difference.” Yes, I agree. I’m only pointing out that, if you look at the whole result systematically, then those “small movements” could change it in very varied ways.
In the Post this week, Korn claimed that the DP has done this kind of analysis and knows which regions/constituencies to target. Add that together with Abhisit’s consistent call for a house dissolution, it looks very positive.
But this week I heard a wonderfully Byzantine explanation of what is truly behind this. Plot goes like this: a. Parliament is dissolved; b. skeletons in the closet of three ECT members are revealed, resulting in dissolution of ECT; c. no election can now be held so a new (DP) government is formed answerable to the Senate.
Now I don’t give this rumor any more credence than the other however many heard last week. But, if it does come about…..
I can’t see any convincing argument put forward here as to why it was legal and even desirable for a prime minister’s wife to be involved in a transaction with a state agency, regardless of whether the price was below, above or at the market price. Thaksin’s spousal consent signature on the standard Lands Dept transfer form made it impossible for him to deny knowledge of his wife’s transaction and he clearly failed to take any action to prevent the unethical purchase.
Re the Burma Exim Bank loan case. I don’t think the court can procede with this case unless Thaksin is present for the first hearing. If it is ever heard, it might hinge on ownership and control of Shin Corp, the parent company of Shin Sat. This might in turn hinge partly on who owned and controlled the shares held by the BVI company, Ample Rich, and held by UBS’ Singapore branch. Thaksin has produced documents to show that the BVI company’s shares had in fact been transferred to his children but this was likely to have been just an internal company document, since BVI companies don’t need to register share transfers with a central registrar, and therefore unreliable. Ample Rich seemed a weak link in the Shin Corp nominee shareholding structure and the planning for the sale to Temasek. It seems likely that the original plan was to sell Ample Rich to the buyer with the shares still in it. The original ownership would probably have not come under scrutiny and Ample Rich could have perhaps used the Singapore domicile of UBS’ branch to avoid capital gains tax for an off market transaction under the double tax treaty without having to its declare ultimate Thai ownership. Selling to Temasek made things more difficult as they would certainly have refused to buy a BVI company as part of the transaction, whereas most other buyers would not have had a problem with it and would rather have liked the structure for providing them with a large block of foreign registered shares and saving a lot of brokerage commission. As it was, the Shinawatras were forced to transfer the shares to Thaksin’s children and put the block through SET as a big lot local board transaction on the day of the sale. This created a paper trail that has already created problems for them with the Revenue Department and has the potential to cause more problems in the Exim Bank loan case.
Perhaps they will be lucky in that Thai investigators seem to have very little clue about overseas company law, especially in offshore jurisdictions. Even Democrat Korn “Shadow Boxer” Chatikavanich spent a long time barking up the wrong tree on this one, thinking there were two Ample Rich’s, one registered in the BVI and the other in England. He overlooked the obvious possibility that a clerk had seen the word “British” and duly inscribed the word “angrit” in the registration document without looking any further.
Ralph, while awaiting the full judgment – which part of the verdict is not warranted?
And just to make sure our understandings of “conflict of interest” are not different – two test questions:
1) Assuming you are Australian, if Therese Rein, PMRudd’s wife, buys a 5 hectare piece of prime real estate in Sydney’s CBD owned/controlled by the federal government today (or while Rudd is in power) – is that a conflict of interest? Would Australians on the street view that as normal?
2) Assuming Therese Rein still controls her job-search business (I can’t remember exactly what business). PMRudd’s cabinet approve a government to government loan to Indonesia and they use that money to buy services from Rein’s business. Is that a conflict of interest? Would Australians on the street view that as normal? “All above board mate”…
You sound like someone who know the legalities of this thing well. Do illuminate us on how Australian law would deal with the two case that I raise. I may naively thought the Thai judiciary has set new precedents that I am proud of. Ralph can give me a reality check and see how far we are from ‘best practice’…
it is interesting to note that now Chamlong calls his political platform as “New Politics”.
did he “borrow” this term from Duncan ? 😉
brief remark about “academics” – being academics doesn’t necessary make them an experts, nor more objective than non-academics. in fact, I suspect that “academics” are more remote from the ordinary people due to their scholarly (and therefore social) position. to me “academics” appear to be just a PASSIVE observers, more like a bunch of those who is “sitting on the fence and pretend to be able to score more goals”. in reality though, they have never being able to step forward and try to do something practical, instead of only talking and philosophizing. I mean – who of them has ever tried to run for elections ? for reply I will not accept some silly excuse like “they are neutral” – because they are highly partisan ! so, they only talk, and do nothing practical.
great leaders like Ghandi or Mandela, or Bolivar were not academics.
the only Thai PM whom I really respect was Anand Panyarachun – but he neither was an “academic”, more like a diplomat and partly a businessman.
so, Thai “academics” must play more active role in country’s future. and that should be expressed in actions, not words ! if they are so clever and smart and know better – why then no one of them makes a bold move and embarks on campaign to win the support of Thais and get ELECTED and leads this country towards a betterment ? otherwise their talks do not make them any better than taxi drivers or farmers or housewives, who also do a lot of talking, perhaps even more shrewd than those “academics” only in name and superficial designation ….
“I am appalled at the lack of critical thinking skills exhibited by the supposed upper stratas of Thai society such as doctors, pilots, “scholars”, media editorialists, government and military officials, etc.” >> Exactly!
More “institutional cretinism” rises its ugly (or beautiful) head!?
The Nation (October 22, 2008):
“As a first step toward a solution, the PAD should withdraw from the Government House, which its supporters have occupied for the past seven weeks. … The judgement should serve as a catalyst for further political reform and improvement of governance and accountability.”
Bangkok Post (October 23, 2008):
“In Thai society, things seem to be breaking apart. More and more activists and academics are calling for a true review of the attitudes of those who are siding with the PAD. They are encouraging people to think twice before attending a political rally, to stop blindly supporting the PAD, to put an end to the mobs and to prevent another coup at all costs. Gradually, critics of the ideology and approach of the PAD core leaders are making their voices heard. They are spreading the message that any change must be made through democratic and constitutional means; that neither side should be allowed to continue waging violence and setting the scene for military intervention and an undemocratic regime change.”
Ralph Cramden, The NCCC Act prohibits political office holders and their spouses from transacting business with state agencies for obvious reasons. The FIDF is a state agency (that among other things administers assets purchased with taxpayers’ money from failed financial institutions.) Thaksin knew that his wife was bidding for the land in the FIDF’s auction and failed to prevent it. As prime minister and husband of Potjaman he had a duty to prevent this breach of the NCCC Act. Since he did not, he knowingly facilitated a violation of the Act and was found guilty of a conflict of interests and negligence. He was not found guilty of malfeasance or corruption, which would have drawn a heavier prison sentence up to 10 years, because he did not purchase the land himself. Potjaman was acquitted because she was not a political office holder and, as such, was not under the jurisdiction of the court. Since Potjaman herself did not commit a crime under the jurisdiction of the court, there were no grounds to confiscate the land or the funds used to purchase it. Possibly the FIDF will initiate legal action to have the transaction annulled and recover the land.
Potjaman should consider extremely herself lucky that she did not fall under the jurisdiction of the court. Otherwise, she could have drawn a much heavier prison sentence than Thaksin and the land and the funds used to purchase it could have been confiscated. Hopefully the loophole that spouses of political office holders cannot easily be prosecuted for their violations of the NCCC Act is one that future constitution drafters will plug. That is not to say that the NCCC Act is not a huge step in the right direction in setting out a simple legal framework for the enforcement of minimal standards of behavior by political office holders.
I read and re-read the article, “Parliamentary Cretinism of the Commentariat”, then I sense that the author did not have faith in ‘average’ Thai citizen. That is the impression I can get from the article and some comments here.
Thai political system might not “functions like any other electoral democracy” but that does not means we have to abandon(in this case destroy) the system. We, Thai citizen as a whole, just need to learn how to control politician through Law and regulation. This is a slow and painful process without ‘shortcut’ (or another terms ‘new political system’).
If majority of Thai People elect crook politicians, let them run a house and government, let them slip pass the country’s ‘legal’ system, then let us be. I am sure we can learn somethings from our mistake.
We remain a ‘developed country’ for the past 50 years under military dictator, aristocracy, semi democracy and a short period of democracy. I would like to give representative democracy a try since I have faith in ‘average’ citizen of Thailand.
Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.
George Bernard Shaw
It is sad that, it took you so long to realise that the people behind the PAD are royals / Military and democratic party. I have enunciate this several months ago at the start of the PAD actions, particularly at the bangkok Post commentary pages. The finance for the PAD is mainly supported by Sondhi – the media mogul. It doesn’t take much to see from the obviously propaganda like “news” that the Thai press put out that the media owners are also behind this.
I say it is sad because, an obviously educated Thai like yourself has difficulty seeing through the smoke and mirrors, then the ordinary Thais will have a thougher time. having said that, don’t despair. Unless. Thailand deteriorate into civil war, things will eventually recover and the masses will prevail
Portman, this seems like the wrong thread for this, but let me get it straight, especially as I am yet to read the full judgement, and I take it that you have because you conclude that “Supreme Administrative Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders is to be commended for a very sound and just judgement yesterday.”
From what you say, there was a conflict of interests for a prime minister’s wife to buy land from the FIDF. Therefore the court was not in a position to convict Thaksin of corruption, but they gave him a relatively light sentence for… what? At the same time, the court was fair in acquitting Potjaman and not confiscating the land or the funds used to purchase it. Does that mean taht the sale has been allowed and completed?
Is that all correct? If so, can you imagine why others think the decision sounds strange and contrived? What’s missing here? There must be more to the decision.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Defending the realm
The PAD should form their own militia to patrol the border, given they sparked this international crisis in the first place.
More from a parliamentary cretin
jonfernquest just can’t get things in perspective. jonfernquest says the blog should be dismissed because:
1. It is very selective in the news pieces it posts.
Which blog isn’t? So we should be dismissive of all blogs? This is a silly comment.
2. Already has its mind made up about most issues.
jonfernquest seems to think NM is monolithic in the opinions expressed. That is simply untrue. There has been, and continues to be, plenty of different opinions at NM. That the two major NM bloggers (AW and NF) tend to express strong positions is what blogs are about and are blogs because they invite readers to respond.
3. Stresses photos
What on earth does this mean? The photos from Oct 7? Goodness, every newspaper site and every Thailand-related blog I saw had tons of photos. What’s the issue? jonfernquest could easily read other non-photo blogs if he feels visually challenged.
By the way, I do not think that Connors is dismissive of NM but disagrees with some perspectives. So what’s wrong with that? He has his own blog and has strong opinions there, many of which I can disagree with as well. Isn’t that the point of this?
Ashley South on liberal-democratic interventions
No mention of the willpower sapping Iraq war? Or Niall Ferguson’s exhuberant Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire (2004) that argued that such interventions were feasible and was subsequently proved wrong?
In and out strategies with 50 million plus states outside your sphere of influence? Rather, try webs of economic dependence created by doing business together over long periods of time. Such shared interests have drawn countries as diverse as Thailand and Korea closer to the western way of doing things.
More from a parliamentary cretin
Johnfernquest:
The point was not that this blog is necessarily scholarly, it was that a scholar (Connors) should not dismiss its readers as being uninterested in other points of view.
Where did you get the idea that this blog should be (to simplify) inclusive, without a point of view, and without photographs? (Do you have a problem with photos in general, or just that one posting about Oct. 7? I believe that this blog linked to other sides showing a PAD one-sided set of photos as well, or at least had excerpts from their propaganda booklet.)
One verdict on Thaksin
Sidh-
Where were you when General Surayud couldn’t account for the title to his palatial compound in a national park, where he is not even entitled to receive a deed to the land?
Let’s see, which is the worse crime: Thaksin being married to Pojaman(in essence, that was the crime), who the court ruled bought the land legally or Junta-appointed illegally installed Prime Minister Surayud, an unusually rich millionaire general, who is holding an illegal title without any evidence of where his funds came from on a soldier’s salary.
One verdict on Thaksin
Ralph, while we wait for the detailed judgment to be published – which will answer your question – can you just simply answer mine on “conflict of interests”? There’s no barking up the wrong tree here as this is what the Ratchada land case is about at the very least – the wife of an incumbent prime minister buying government owned/controlled prime real estate.
Alright, so you are not Aussie – if you are American just put President Bush and his wife in place of PMRudd and Therese Rein. If you are British, just put Gordon Brown and his wife etc…etc… Let’s be honest here, I don’t think “conflict of interest” and its legal mitigation is a Thai creation and I suspect you know much more about this than I do (I am Thai, it is relatively rather new and I have learnt a lot in my 10+ years in Australia).
What happened on 7/10/2008?
Portman: Thanks. That gives me a better idea of what went on. Still seems odd that a law that prohibits political office holders and their spouses from transacting business with state agencies ends up being interpreted as negligence. Is there no other court that could rule on Potjamarn breaking the NCCC Act?
One verdict on Thaksin
For Portman – “I can’t see any convincing argument put forward here as to why it was legal and even desirable for a prime minister’s wife to be involved in a transaction with a state agency, regardless of whether the price was below, above or at the market price.” That may be true. So how come she got off? It does seem odd, but as I have tried to convey to Sidh, I haven’t seen the judgment (but would like to).
One verdict on Thaksin
Sidh: I have no knowledge of events in Australia that you refer to. If you hadn’t told me that Therese Rein was Rudd’s wife, I’d have not known. I do not follow Australian politics at all. So you are barking up the wrong tree. My question was essentially: how can you decide that the judgment was rigorous if the verdict is not available in detail? Any idea when and where the judgment will be published?
More from a parliamentary cretin
Amberwaves wrote: “And that would also be a more useful exercise. Beating up on the simplifying, sanctimonious Western press isn’t very difficult, and seems more like a venting of frustrations than a scholarly pursuit.
BTW, it’s sort of discouraging that a scholar would be dismissive of this blog and its readers with the comment – mistaken, in my opinion..”
“Sanctimonious” in that most “news” articles in the foreign press end up being strongly opinionated op-ed pieces.
Dismissive of this blog because:
1. It is very selective in the news pieces it posts.
2. Already has its mind made up about most issues.
3. Stresses photos (what exactly doaction photos of riots prove? particularly when they are restricted to one street in a particular part of town), character assassination/ad hominem attacks (against Sonti, for instance), cheerleading.
Scholarly? Hardly.
Blood rather than ballots
Andrew 24 “the numbers do suggest that relatively small movements in voting patterns could make a big difference.” Yes, I agree. I’m only pointing out that, if you look at the whole result systematically, then those “small movements” could change it in very varied ways.
In the Post this week, Korn claimed that the DP has done this kind of analysis and knows which regions/constituencies to target. Add that together with Abhisit’s consistent call for a house dissolution, it looks very positive.
But this week I heard a wonderfully Byzantine explanation of what is truly behind this. Plot goes like this: a. Parliament is dissolved; b. skeletons in the closet of three ECT members are revealed, resulting in dissolution of ECT; c. no election can now be held so a new (DP) government is formed answerable to the Senate.
Now I don’t give this rumor any more credence than the other however many heard last week. But, if it does come about…..
One verdict on Thaksin
I can’t see any convincing argument put forward here as to why it was legal and even desirable for a prime minister’s wife to be involved in a transaction with a state agency, regardless of whether the price was below, above or at the market price. Thaksin’s spousal consent signature on the standard Lands Dept transfer form made it impossible for him to deny knowledge of his wife’s transaction and he clearly failed to take any action to prevent the unethical purchase.
Re the Burma Exim Bank loan case. I don’t think the court can procede with this case unless Thaksin is present for the first hearing. If it is ever heard, it might hinge on ownership and control of Shin Corp, the parent company of Shin Sat. This might in turn hinge partly on who owned and controlled the shares held by the BVI company, Ample Rich, and held by UBS’ Singapore branch. Thaksin has produced documents to show that the BVI company’s shares had in fact been transferred to his children but this was likely to have been just an internal company document, since BVI companies don’t need to register share transfers with a central registrar, and therefore unreliable. Ample Rich seemed a weak link in the Shin Corp nominee shareholding structure and the planning for the sale to Temasek. It seems likely that the original plan was to sell Ample Rich to the buyer with the shares still in it. The original ownership would probably have not come under scrutiny and Ample Rich could have perhaps used the Singapore domicile of UBS’ branch to avoid capital gains tax for an off market transaction under the double tax treaty without having to its declare ultimate Thai ownership. Selling to Temasek made things more difficult as they would certainly have refused to buy a BVI company as part of the transaction, whereas most other buyers would not have had a problem with it and would rather have liked the structure for providing them with a large block of foreign registered shares and saving a lot of brokerage commission. As it was, the Shinawatras were forced to transfer the shares to Thaksin’s children and put the block through SET as a big lot local board transaction on the day of the sale. This created a paper trail that has already created problems for them with the Revenue Department and has the potential to cause more problems in the Exim Bank loan case.
Perhaps they will be lucky in that Thai investigators seem to have very little clue about overseas company law, especially in offshore jurisdictions. Even Democrat Korn “Shadow Boxer” Chatikavanich spent a long time barking up the wrong tree on this one, thinking there were two Ample Rich’s, one registered in the BVI and the other in England. He overlooked the obvious possibility that a clerk had seen the word “British” and duly inscribed the word “angrit” in the registration document without looking any further.
One verdict on Thaksin
Ralph, while awaiting the full judgment – which part of the verdict is not warranted?
And just to make sure our understandings of “conflict of interest” are not different – two test questions:
1) Assuming you are Australian, if Therese Rein, PMRudd’s wife, buys a 5 hectare piece of prime real estate in Sydney’s CBD owned/controlled by the federal government today (or while Rudd is in power) – is that a conflict of interest? Would Australians on the street view that as normal?
2) Assuming Therese Rein still controls her job-search business (I can’t remember exactly what business). PMRudd’s cabinet approve a government to government loan to Indonesia and they use that money to buy services from Rein’s business. Is that a conflict of interest? Would Australians on the street view that as normal? “All above board mate”…
You sound like someone who know the legalities of this thing well. Do illuminate us on how Australian law would deal with the two case that I raise. I may naively thought the Thai judiciary has set new precedents that I am proud of. Ralph can give me a reality check and see how far we are from ‘best practice’…
Interview with Professor Duncan McCargo
it is interesting to note that now Chamlong calls his political platform as “New Politics”.
did he “borrow” this term from Duncan ? 😉
brief remark about “academics” – being academics doesn’t necessary make them an experts, nor more objective than non-academics. in fact, I suspect that “academics” are more remote from the ordinary people due to their scholarly (and therefore social) position. to me “academics” appear to be just a PASSIVE observers, more like a bunch of those who is “sitting on the fence and pretend to be able to score more goals”. in reality though, they have never being able to step forward and try to do something practical, instead of only talking and philosophizing. I mean – who of them has ever tried to run for elections ? for reply I will not accept some silly excuse like “they are neutral” – because they are highly partisan ! so, they only talk, and do nothing practical.
great leaders like Ghandi or Mandela, or Bolivar were not academics.
the only Thai PM whom I really respect was Anand Panyarachun – but he neither was an “academic”, more like a diplomat and partly a businessman.
so, Thai “academics” must play more active role in country’s future. and that should be expressed in actions, not words ! if they are so clever and smart and know better – why then no one of them makes a bold move and embarks on campaign to win the support of Thais and get ELECTED and leads this country towards a betterment ? otherwise their talks do not make them any better than taxi drivers or farmers or housewives, who also do a lot of talking, perhaps even more shrewd than those “academics” only in name and superficial designation ….
PAD, consumed democracy and self-dramatization: A comparative view from Taiwan
“I am appalled at the lack of critical thinking skills exhibited by the supposed upper stratas of Thai society such as doctors, pilots, “scholars”, media editorialists, government and military officials, etc.” >> Exactly!
More from a parliamentary cretin
More “institutional cretinism” rises its ugly (or beautiful) head!?
The Nation (October 22, 2008):
“As a first step toward a solution, the PAD should withdraw from the Government House, which its supporters have occupied for the past seven weeks. … The judgement should serve as a catalyst for further political reform and improvement of governance and accountability.”
Bangkok Post (October 23, 2008):
“In Thai society, things seem to be breaking apart. More and more activists and academics are calling for a true review of the attitudes of those who are siding with the PAD. They are encouraging people to think twice before attending a political rally, to stop blindly supporting the PAD, to put an end to the mobs and to prevent another coup at all costs. Gradually, critics of the ideology and approach of the PAD core leaders are making their voices heard. They are spreading the message that any change must be made through democratic and constitutional means; that neither side should be allowed to continue waging violence and setting the scene for military intervention and an undemocratic regime change.”
What happened on 7/10/2008?
Ralph Cramden, The NCCC Act prohibits political office holders and their spouses from transacting business with state agencies for obvious reasons. The FIDF is a state agency (that among other things administers assets purchased with taxpayers’ money from failed financial institutions.) Thaksin knew that his wife was bidding for the land in the FIDF’s auction and failed to prevent it. As prime minister and husband of Potjaman he had a duty to prevent this breach of the NCCC Act. Since he did not, he knowingly facilitated a violation of the Act and was found guilty of a conflict of interests and negligence. He was not found guilty of malfeasance or corruption, which would have drawn a heavier prison sentence up to 10 years, because he did not purchase the land himself. Potjaman was acquitted because she was not a political office holder and, as such, was not under the jurisdiction of the court. Since Potjaman herself did not commit a crime under the jurisdiction of the court, there were no grounds to confiscate the land or the funds used to purchase it. Possibly the FIDF will initiate legal action to have the transaction annulled and recover the land.
Potjaman should consider extremely herself lucky that she did not fall under the jurisdiction of the court. Otherwise, she could have drawn a much heavier prison sentence than Thaksin and the land and the funds used to purchase it could have been confiscated. Hopefully the loophole that spouses of political office holders cannot easily be prosecuted for their violations of the NCCC Act is one that future constitution drafters will plug. That is not to say that the NCCC Act is not a huge step in the right direction in setting out a simple legal framework for the enforcement of minimal standards of behavior by political office holders.
More from a parliamentary cretin
I read and re-read the article, “Parliamentary Cretinism of the Commentariat”, then I sense that the author did not have faith in ‘average’ Thai citizen. That is the impression I can get from the article and some comments here.
Thai political system might not “functions like any other electoral democracy” but that does not means we have to abandon(in this case destroy) the system. We, Thai citizen as a whole, just need to learn how to control politician through Law and regulation. This is a slow and painful process without ‘shortcut’ (or another terms ‘new political system’).
If majority of Thai People elect crook politicians, let them run a house and government, let them slip pass the country’s ‘legal’ system, then let us be. I am sure we can learn somethings from our mistake.
We remain a ‘developed country’ for the past 50 years under military dictator, aristocracy, semi democracy and a short period of democracy. I would like to give representative democracy a try since I have faith in ‘average’ citizen of Thailand.
Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.
George Bernard Shaw
Whither Thai democracy?
My dear Khun Wutikrai,
It is sad that, it took you so long to realise that the people behind the PAD are royals / Military and democratic party. I have enunciate this several months ago at the start of the PAD actions, particularly at the bangkok Post commentary pages. The finance for the PAD is mainly supported by Sondhi – the media mogul. It doesn’t take much to see from the obviously propaganda like “news” that the Thai press put out that the media owners are also behind this.
I say it is sad because, an obviously educated Thai like yourself has difficulty seeing through the smoke and mirrors, then the ordinary Thais will have a thougher time. having said that, don’t despair. Unless. Thailand deteriorate into civil war, things will eventually recover and the masses will prevail
What happened on 7/10/2008?
Portman, this seems like the wrong thread for this, but let me get it straight, especially as I am yet to read the full judgement, and I take it that you have because you conclude that “Supreme Administrative Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders is to be commended for a very sound and just judgement yesterday.”
From what you say, there was a conflict of interests for a prime minister’s wife to buy land from the FIDF. Therefore the court was not in a position to convict Thaksin of corruption, but they gave him a relatively light sentence for… what? At the same time, the court was fair in acquitting Potjaman and not confiscating the land or the funds used to purchase it. Does that mean taht the sale has been allowed and completed?
Is that all correct? If so, can you imagine why others think the decision sounds strange and contrived? What’s missing here? There must be more to the decision.