.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
slimdog
-
Posts
816 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by slimdog
-
-
"I cannot return home because I was sentenced to two years' imprisonment," he said, adding that the case against him would be valid for another decade.
I will like to verify with all bros & sis on the quote mention above that if a suspect is wanted without a trial yet or sentenced for a jail term, is it true that he/she will be granted padron in 15years time if the police cannot catch him?
So in this case, Thaksin, is he able to get away with the law in 15 years time eventhough he is sentence to two year jail?
Advise needed.
:huh:The statute of limitations for the offense is 10 years, in this case, the date starts from the date of conviction, the court has the power to extend the statute, (as they did in the case of Vattana Asavahame, where they extended the term from 10 years to 15 years at sentencing). As no extension was included in the final sentencing then the 10 year statute remains in force.
Thaksin still has a few more days to appeal the verdict. But it is neccessary to provide fresh evidence which would change the original verdict. The conviction was based on three pieces of legistation:
The NCCC Act Article 100, whist this is relatively clear, there is a provision that the NCCC must have published in the Government Gazette that the Prime Minister is barred from this particular activity. Whether or not this was ever published, I have no idea, but might give some grounds for appeal.
Bank of Thailand Act, Chapter 5. This clearly states what the FIDF is and who has responsibility for it's management, oversight and legal procedures. This again is relatively clear, but makes no mention of the Prime Minister.
Finally the State Administrative Act Article 11, this is the piece of legislature which really is going to be hard to counter, as it states the Prime Minister is liable for overseeing all state administrative bodies as well as supervising administrative officials in all ministries and state agencies. The only thing Thaksin has going for him is that he only has the authority to oversee state administrative bodies with cabinet approval, not personally.
In a sense I do feel a little sorry for Thaksin in this case, as nearly a Billion US$ was given to Erawan Trust over the past 25 years by many Prime Ministers, in ALL cases the reason was purely a conflict of interest, because of who owned Erawan Trust and goes back to dear old Pa Prem (who originally established the FIDF so that he didn't have to go cap in hand to the Bank of Thailand every time a cabinet Minister tried to bankrupt the financial system) and finished with Chuan,who refused to close the Institution down and made it what is today Bank Thai. The only Prime Minister who didn't take tax payers money to bail out what was probably the most corrupt of Thailands financial Institutions but actually put money into the system is sentenced to Jail..
But TIT
-
Just watched a news cast...The court has sentenced Samak to 3 years in jail....
I know he has 30 days to appeal, (which he will), but at least a crack in the delays for justice here in Thailand.
It was actually 2 years..
I am a little bit suprised that you view this as justice. An individual was exposed as being corrupt. The BMA panel found that there was probable cause, the Police found that there was probable cause, the BMA under Apirak removed him from the executive board of the BMA (All for the same reason that was exposed), and yet the 2 people who exposed him are the ones who you believe, deserve to be thrown in Jail. In the name of Justice...
Some recent headlines involving the plaintiff:
Samart to be demoted at BMA
Several fact-finding committees have concluded that Samart was involved in bidding irregularities for road construction projects valued at Bt20 billion
source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/03/01...al_20001758.php
Samart dumped from BMA executive board
It had been widely expected that Samart would be moved due to the scandal over 16 city road projects
source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/03/02...al_20001822.php
Graft: DSI names names
The 10,000-page report in seven large cardboard boxes contains information from 63 witnesses. It implicates four senior Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) officials in specification-rigging.The road projects are worth Bt20 billion.
Officials named in the report include deputy governor Samart Ratchapolsitte
source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/02/18...al_20001161.php
-
The AEC required the defendants to pay a compensation of 1.44 Billion Baht with an annual 7.5 percent interest rate to the Office of the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund.
Interesting that 4 months after the coup the following was published:
Sak said both the Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives Ministry and the Office of the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund showed reluctance to file complaints against wrongdoers, including the Thaksin Cabinet and the ministry's officers, by saying they had not been harmed, despite irregularities in last government's rubber-seedling project, claiming no payment relating to the process had been made.
source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/01/27...al_30025245.php
-
Senator Ruangkrai Leekijwattana's protest makes no sense. It was approved by the senate and now he's objecting on "constitutional" grounds over an MP's right to try and influence the budget? That is part of the political and budgeting process all over the world. They should have voiced their objections in the senate.
Maybe the budget is indeed bad. I don't like deficits and am a firm believer that a government owes it to the people to pay off existing debt. However, that doesn't make this unconstitutional. The MPs did what they were elected to do. If he disagrees with the budget then he should do what other politicians do; vote against it, propose an alternative or amendments.
Sounds to me like he didn't get his porkbarrel share of perks.
My understanding is that it is a little bit more complicated than that, but still makes little sense..
Once the annual appropriations bill (Budget), has been passed in it's first reading, ammendments can only be made by parliament, either from proposals from the Ad Hoc Budget Committee, or directly from MP's. From what I understand, no new items may be included, but certain items can have their amounts ammended:
(1) money for payment of the principal of a loan;
(2) interest on a loan;
(3) money payable in accordance with the law.
Now my understanding is that the Finance Minister in his capacity as an MP ammended certain figures in relationship to item (2), as certain interest rates changed as a result of the global markets. However because he would (or his department would) benefit from the changes it's illegal, as Article 164 states:
In the review by the House of Representatives or a committee, any proposal,
submission of a motion, or commission of an act that results in the direct or indirect
involvement of members of the House of Representatives, senators, or members of a
committee in the use of the appropriations shall not be permitted.
So the Finance Minister is obliged by law to make provisions for debt repayment and interest, but once the Provision has been made (Budget proposal), he can't change it. Anyone else can, but not the person who actually understands why such an ammendment is needed.
-
Panellists at yesterday's session failed to include war veterans, he added.
And parliament excludes people who do not have degrees..........
Why is that???
Basically it excludes anyone who does not have money from standing to Parliament.
The requirement that members of parliament need to hold degrees was not included in the 2007 Constitution.
The only people who need degrees are:
Cabinet Members
Members of the Senate
-
Also, the Joint Communique states clearly in points 4 and 5 that the document has no bearing or jurisdication on future territorial claims or final borders and is purely for conservational purposes.
The joint communique states no such thing.
Item 4 of the communique states:
Pending the results of the work of the Joint Commission for Land Boundary (JBC)
concerning the northern and western areas surrounding the Temple of Preah Vihear,
which are identified as N. 3 in the map mentioned in Paragraph 1 above, the
management plan of these areas will be prepapred in a concerted manner between the
Cambodian and Thai authorities in conformity with the international conservation
standards with a view to maintain the outstanding universal value of the property.
Such management plan will be included in the final management plan for the Temple
and it's surrounding areas to be submitted to the World heritage Centre by 1st February
2010 for the consideration of the World heritage Commitee at it's 34th session in
2010;
Item 5 states:
The inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage list shall be
without prejudice to the rights of the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Kingdom of
Thailand on the demarcation works of the Joint Commission for Land Boundary (JBC)
of the two countries
So a more accurate interpretation would be:
the Joint Communique states clearly in points 4 and 5 that the Inscription of the Temple has no bearing or jurisdication on future territorial claims or final borders (Item 5), but does clearly state that there are areas of dispute as identified as N3 on the Map (Item 4)
Full copy of the Joint communique can be found at:
-
Domestically it could be an issue but I am not an expert on the specific technicalities of either country's political systems regarding this matter.
But the whole UNESCO thing does not count for squat in terms of territorial sovereignty.
According to the remit and scope of UNESCO there are no tangible implications under international law with regards to border claims when a designation is made - it cannot be used by either side as justification for or support sovereignty.
Regardless of the Unesco side, Thailand's Constitutional court has ruled that the Joint Communique is an International Treaty between Thailand and Cambodia. The reason that I posted the piece was to question why would certain people within Thailand be so adament that the "Treaty" be torn up.
For the first time Cambodia has formally accepted there is a disputed area, and that the map used at the ICJ would/could be superceded. Considering the reasons for giving sovereignty of the Temple to Cambodia, it would at least give Thailand some ammunition if the matter was ever brought up either at the UN or ICJ, to actually demand that this "ammunition" is torn up seems almost unbelievable.
It certainly doesn't appear to me, to be in Thailand's best interest to do anything other than to formally introduce this "Treaty" to Parliament for ratification.
-
A lot has been stated regarding the joint communique which former Foreign Minister Noppadol signed as part of the application for Cambodia's listing of Preah Vihear as a world heritage site, some have even suggested that Noppadol should be tried for treason..
It was therefore slightly interesting, (At least for me, to read the following), from a Cambodian blog:
CAMBODIA AND THAILAND JOINT COMMUNIQUE
Originally, Thailand was opposed to Cambodia’s proposal to UNESCO for the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List. Thailand objected to the languages and maps in the document that Cambodia submitted to UNESCO showing the contested areas surrounding Preah Vihear as belonging to Cambodia. In order to enlist Thailand’s support, Cambodia agreed to put aside her claim to the disputed areas around the Temple of Preah Vihear. A Joint Communiqué was signed on 18 June 2008 by H.E. Deputy Prime Minister Sok An, representing Cambodia, and by H.E. Minister of Foreign Affairs Noppadon Pattama, representing Thailand. The Representative of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Assistant Director-General for Culture Françoise Rivière, was the witness. The Joint Communiqué is presented herein.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JOINT COMMUNIQUE
After the Joint Communiqué was signed, the Thai Constitutional Court voted 8-1 on 8 July 2008 that the Joint Communiqué signed by Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama to endorse Cambodia’s application to inscribe the Temple of Preah Vihear as World Heritage List was unconstitutional. The ruling stated that "The government must consult and get approval from Parliament before signing treaties with foreign countries." As a result of this ruling, the Thai government withdrew her support for Cambodia in all matters related to the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. In spite of Thailand’s objection, the UNESCO approved to inscribe the Temple of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage List at the 32nd session meeting in Quebec, Canada, on 7 July 2008.
It seemed that Cambodia and Thailand had the same philosophy but two completely different objectives. The philosophy from both sides was to divide and conquer. Cambodia was interested in getting UNESCO to list the Temple of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage Site first and deal with the issue of the territorial dispute around Preah Vihear later. On the other hand, Thailand was mainly interested in Cambodia to exclude the territorial dispute from the application to UNESCO.
The objective from the Cambodian government was to expect that the UNESCO approval to inscribe the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List was a tacit way of legitimizing Cambodia’s claim for the disputed areas around Preah Vihear. However, from the Thai government’s point of view, the signature of the Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister on the Joint Communiqué was considered a breakthrough that opened the door for Thailand to reclaim the disputed areas around Preah Vihear that she had lost at the International Court of Justice on 15 June 1962.
The first question now ensued.
Since the Thai government withdrew her support for Cambodia’s application to UNESCO for the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List, would the Joint Communiqué that was signed by the Thai Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama become null and void? It requires two persons to tango.
The second question ensued.
Was the Joint Communiqué signed by Deputy Prime Minister Sok, Un-Constitutional under Cambodian’s laws? Like Thailand, does the government of Cambodia require consultation and approval from the Parliament before any treaties can be signed with foreign governments? A treaty deals with the national security of the nation. Therefore, it is too important for the government alone to decide it without consultation and approval from the Parliament.
The third question ensued.
Even though Cambodia did not recognize the claim by Thailand concerning the disputed areas around the Temple of Preah Vihear, would the Joint Communiqué somewhat give credence to Thailand’s claim?
Paragraph 3 in the Joint Communiqué is very disturbing because it says that the map shown in Figure 14 supersedes other maps, specifically the “Schéma Directeur pour le Zonage de Preah Vihear” and all the “core zone” mentioned in all graphics.
Does this mean that the Cambodian government rejects the map from the French-Siamese Commission Frontier1907 Line?
Paragraph 4 is also disturbing because it conforms to the claim by Thailand concerning the disputed area, which is on the west and north of the Temple of Preah Vihear (Figure 15).
The Joint Communiqué cannot be left in its current format and understanding because it is more detrimental to Cambodia but more advantageous to Thailand. Like the Thai, The Cambodian Constitutional Court must declare that the Joint Communiqué was unconstitutional to avoid further challenges from Thailand. Cambodia territorial integrity is more important than the listing of the Temple of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO.
Note: I have slightly (2 instances) edited the original, but only for spelling.
Original can be found at:
http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2008/07/preah...r-heritage.html
-
PAD proposing to change one article in the Constutution
You dont see the irony...
In 1992 Chamlong went onto the streets in order to change just one article of the constitution, and that was that the Prime Minister must be elected from Parliament. How many people died to get this included in the Constitution...
In 2008 Chamlong is again back on the streets, and the only article in the constitution that he says can be changed is that the Prime Minister doesn't need to come from Parliament...
Personally I call it f###ing ironic
-
Best call the ER of the best local hospital. Please can someone confirm that PEP is available in Thailand. I have a friend who did it in the US after getting an accidental needle from an HIV infected man he was providing care for. He had to take the meds for a long time and it was very expensive (thousands of dollars). It worked in the sense that he didn't get infected, but that doesn't prove he would have got infected if he hadn't done the PEP protocol.
These are heavyweight drugs. You don't just pop one and then go out and have unprotected sex.
Very well put..
Whilst PEP is available, they are strictly prescribed, generally to hospital workers, although if a long term partner was involved then a doctor might be persuaded. I am not to sure of any new drugs available, certainly combid 300 is classified as a PEP, although this would be taken for a period of about 28 days, I guess that a combination Viread/Lamivudine would probably have a similar PEP effect, although almost certainly for a similar period. It should also be noted that any current PEP treatment will come with the possibility of serious side effects, including toxity, pancreatitus, nausea, diarrhea, kidney stones etc. There have also been cases when even after taking a course of prescibed PEP, medical workers exposed to the virus still went on to test possitive for hiv...
-
That's the first I've heard about Thaksin's lawyers representing the parents and teachers even after re-reading all I can find on the subject. Where did you hear this?
Can't remember, in one of the first articles on the issue.
Are you refering to this ?
The PAD leaders charged that the petition was politically motivated. They believed it was a ploy to disperse their protest because the plaintiffs' lawyer, Methee Jaisamut, is a younger brother of Supachai Jaisamut, a deputy spokesman of the People Power party (PPP).
-
How many of you read the actual UNESCO document that shows the agreement? It is not a treaty, nor is it a legal contract. All it was was an agreement that the site had importance. There is no discussion or agreement of ownership. Despite the assumptions of some, this agreement was public and was not secret. I think if people dig deep enough they will see some pressure brought to bear by academics and religious figures in an attempt to protect what is a remarkable artifact. The UNESCO designation will allow funds to be given to preserve the site. This could not be achieved without the agreement. Those are the rules. Continued bickering would have meant a deterioration of the temple beyond preservation thresholds.
Geriatrickid
The Constitutional court ruled treaties are defined by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, which states:
“treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed
by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and
whatever its particular designation;
My understanding of this definition is that any agreement which Thailand makes with another country, regardless of what it is about, e.g Territorial, Jusidictional, Economic, Commercial etc is regarded as a treaty, and as such will have to in future go before Parliament and if voted in favour of, presented to the King for signature.
A_Traveller
The reason I believe that Noppadon signed the original "Treaty" in Paris, was that to not do so would have been unconstitutional. This (I believe) is because the previous government had agreed in Principle to UNESO tosupport Cambodia's application. So refusing to support it may well have contravened Article 82 of the present Constitution.
Plus
My reason for stating that it was not unconstitutional under the 1997 Constitution was due to a statement in the Thai press by Meechai Ruchuphan, which stated the clause 190/5 as the only reason for the unconstitutional verdict in the court. As that clause was not in any previous constitutions. Maybe your understanding of the Constitutions of Thailand is better than mine, in which case I appologise for saying you were wrong...
OMR
You asked about who people think will be the next Foreign Minister?
Banharm Silpa_Archa, is perhaps a long shot but would serve Samak's needs. Love or hate him, the vertically challenged one has held most of the top positions in this country, Prime Minister, Interior Minister even Finance Minister. The Democrats would be hesitant about attacking him, Thailand would have someone of stature (figuratively speaking) during the ASEAN meetings, he is not under any legal problems, other than Party dissolution, but even that would not bar him from being in the Cabinet.
-
^^^ That is not my understanding. The Court judgement was in two parts, firstly all the Judges found that the joint communique was equivalent to a treaty under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969. Secondly, 8 of the 9 adjudged the communique required parliament's approval before being signed under Article 190 of the charter.
On the basis of the first judgement then the joint communique would be subject to the previous constitution, since it implicitly affected the jurisdiction of the State [Article 224 of 1997]. Therefore the action itself, given the tortuous context, could, in my view be subject to constitutional challenge under the preceding constitution.
Regards
I would be most interested to read were Thailand lost any Jurisdiction.
-
Signing international agreements without passing through the parlament was an offense under 1997 constitution as well.
What Noppadon signed, would not have needed parliamentry approval under the 1997 Constitution
As an issue affecting sovereingty and national security it would have, not the same as FTAs.
Article 224 (Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2550)
A treaty which provides for a change in the Thai
territories or the jurisdiction of the State or requires the
enactment of an Act for its implementation must be approved
by the National Assembly.
The agreement signed by Noppadon, did not in any way shape or form Change the Territorial or Jurisdiction of the state, and no Acts were needed for it's implimentation.
The reason that it was ruled un-constitutional was because it was judged to have extensive impacts on national
economic or social security. Something that was added into the new Article (190), but certainly didn't exist in the 1997 Constitution, or any other of the previous constitutions for that matter.
Edited for spelling..
-
Signing international agreements without passing through the parlament was an offense under 1997 constitution as well.
The PPP government hardly use parliament for anything as we se from the first session where absolutely nothing was done in parliament. Same as the old TRT one who inspite of having amonster majority in parliament just used cabinet decrees instead of parliament for everything. In terms of democracy that practice was a retrograde step. What the arrogant and politically naive Noppadol did was just an extension of it. This ruling aprt from ridding us of bad suit man will hopefully also serve to remind government that parliament has a role in democracy.
Noppadol had no choice but to resign as he had breached the highest law of the land. The question remains that as the whole cabinet also endorsed this illegal bypassing of parliament should they also have to resign? Not saying that they will or anything as they have to make sure their dodgyish budget gets through to advantage them for any forthcoming election. Somethings change in Thailand but nothing really changes.
The constitutional court announcement has many far reaching consequences, and it is for sure that Parliament and the general public will have a far larger say in what does and doesn't happen both in and out of the country, and this will make somethings a lot more difficult , as just about every agreement made with a foreign country, whether it be about visa's, flights, embassies, selling or buying produce or raw material will now have to pass through a parliamentry and possibly a public hearing.
-
Signing international agreements without passing through the parlament was an offense under 1997 constitution as well.
What Noppadon signed, would not have needed parliamentry approval under the 1997 Constitution
-
BANGKOK, July 8 (TNA) - Thailand's Supreme Court Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions opened trial Tuesday against ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra on malfeasance charges in connection with the Bangkok land case.
The former prime minister became the first defendant in the case, charging malfeasance, focused on the Bangkok Ratchadaphisek land scandal in which his wife, as second defendant, was alleged to have purchased the property at a questionably low price of Bt 772 million (US$26 million) from the Bank of Thailand's Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF) in 2003 while he was in office.
Ousted by a September 2006 military coup for alleged corruption and abuse of power, Mr. Thaksin and his wife have denied any wrongdoing.
The deposed premier pleaded not guilty before the court in March and requested the court's permission to not appear at all hearings in relation to the case.
The trial began in Mr.Thaksin's absence with four key witnesses giving testimony to the court, the first among them was former prime minister Banharn Silpa-archa, leader of the Chart Thai Party, a coalition partner in the current six-party coalition government led by Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej.
Both Mr. Banharn and former prime minister Chuan Leekpai testified that during their tenure as prime ministers, they had neither authority nor influence over any decision of the Bank of Thailand's FIDF since oversight of the agency's jurisdiction lay with the central bank. (TNA)
-
Location on Google Earth is:
14 23' 33"N 104 40' 50" E
-
Does that go for the Senate as well (indeed was that requirement ever there for Senators pre '07)?
Both the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions stipulate that a candidate for the Senate must have not less than a Bachelor's degree or it's equivalent. In the 2007 Constitution this applies to both selected and elected senators
-
The only major change that should be made to the eligibility for standing for office is the scrapping of the ridiculous rule that MPs must have a degree.
Only members of the cabinet need a degree. The requirement that all MP's need to be graduates was never included in the 2007 Constitution
-
The CTX case has always been a very strange case. It has been in the news for years ever since the Democrats deputy leader Alongkorn Pollabutr brought it up back in 2005.
A few days after the coup, there was an announcement that charges would be filed within days... After that it has been brought up on a monthly basis, always with headline that charges would be filed within a week or so...
From what I have read about it ,the story was that when GE wanted to purchase Infusion, they carried out a full audit of the companies books and found some irregular payments, there was definate evidence of bribes in sales to China and the Philippines and there was some suspicion on dealings with Thailand and Indonessia. As the payments in China and the Philipines were almost certain, GE had by law to pass the information onto the relevent authorities.
In order to get the sale of Infusion to go through GE ended up paying what was at the time (and possibly still is) the largest settlement of a $800,000 fine to the U.S. government for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
What we are now led to believe is that, After paying this massive fine; After lobbying the American Embassy here in Thailand to help; After writing open letters to the Thai public; After scrapping the original deal and agreeing to sell the CTX system directly to Thailand without going through an agent. There was still corruption in the deal...
Either we haven't been told all the facts (more than likely) or General Electric (GE) is the stupidest company that ever existed
-
Like I said, Cases involving the Attorney General are filed seperately with the relevent court for immediate action, the court is not even allowed to review the case to see if it has merit. This is intended that there can be no political interference.
The AEC had the power to take the individual to court for many months, yet chose not to....
-
What's missing from the story is the Attorney-General himself is included in the CTX scanner case as a DEFENDANT. That just might explain the foot-dragging and derailing... just a smidgen...
The Attorney General is NOT included in the case.
That's because cases involving the Attorney General are seperate, and HAVE to be lodged directly with the Supreme Court , (without going through the OAG) for immediate action. The AEC had the power to lodge the case against the Attorney General at any time (After he took Office) upto the date their mandate finished (30th June) yet they chose not to. The same rules apply with the Prime Minister....
-
I won't call it a "lie".... but Untruth #2 for mumbu:
The Election Commission was NOT appointed by the junta... it was established BEFORE the coup... during Thaksin's "caretaker" government days.
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/EC-Selects-C...son-t83248.html
A bit harsh...
The Truth is that the current Commissioners were selected in September 2006 to take over from the previous commissioners who had finally resigned. They were selected by the Supreme Court in compliance of the rules of the 1997 Constitution, which stipulated that if any commissioner left the ECT other than by expiration of their term of office, then any replacement(s) would only continue for the remaining period (Article 143), which in this case was October 5th 2007.
On September the 20th 2006 (3.00pm) the CDRM officially announced that the Election Commission was dissolved, and the Constitution abolished, it later on the same day changed it's mind regarding the ECT, although for the 7 hours until it made it's 13th announcement (10.00pm),there was legally no Election Commission.
The Election commision was given the mandate under the 2006 (interim) constitution to take charge of both the referendum and the General Election.
When the new 2007 Constitution came into effect, it stipulated that the ECT would continue to hold office for a period of 6 years from the date that they were selected.(Article 299)
:huh:
Police Fire Tear Gas At Protesters In Front Of Parliament
in Thailand News
Posted · Edited by slimdog
There are other cases pending, and a few still under review, some are of a similar nature, e.g more a legal interpretation than a case of outright corruption, others such as the EXIM bank loan do require that a full legal scrutiny be carried out.
As for the Ratchada Land Scandal, the discission was legally correct with the information made available to the court, at a different time with a different person maybe they would have given the individual the benefit of the doubt or just imposed the maximum fine of 60,000 baht.
The Irony of the case is of course that the land was aquired through a sell of assets from what has got to be the most corrupt financial Institution Thailand has ever had the misfortune to have (Erawan Trust), which has caused more Prime Ministers (5 if memory serves me right, none of them Thaksin..) to have a conflict of interest, in bailing the "Institution" out (Total cost of approx 1 Billion US$ over 25 years) just because of who the owner was.