State Of Emergency Announced In Bangkok

[blaze]

Thai PM testifies in court over cooking programmes

Article 267 of the Constitution stipulates that the prime minister is prohibited from holding any position in a partnership, a company or an organisation carrying out business with a view to sharing profit or income, or being an employee of any person.

Samak told the court that he appeared in the programmes only as an honorary guest, without seeking any compensation.

Absent a paper trail, will the courts conclude that Samak was not in violation of the Constitution?

On the surface the case seems a bit comical (the BBC announcer found it a bit amusing)- but the ramifications are tremendous- If the courts can not find evidence that article 267 was breeched and therefore find him innocent of the charge- it will be a triumph for justice in Thailand- a strict reading of the law with out bowing to expediency.

But the 'crisis' will continue.

If, again absent proof of renumeration, he is found guilty the crisis will (temporarily anyway) end- but the courts will have to show that the verdict was based on law and not political expediency.

I cant see the court finding him guilty on the little I know, and of course I may be missing a piece of obvious evidence. I also didnt think the original disolution case would result in disolution so I am probably very wrong.

Politically knocking Samak out would relieve tensions and allow for negotiations especially if it coincided with the PAD leadership surrendering to the courts on what they are accused of. I cant see treason charges going very far in all honesty but the others probably will.

On the other hand, Samak would probably see a not guilty verdict as his reign being legitimized until the advent of the second coming...

I'm not sure I understand you- but I think that Samak would regard the not guilty verdict as meaning that he is- not ---- guilty of breeching article 267. There are other charges that he has to deal with and I doubt he's stupid enough to think that a not guilty charge on this one- exonerates him from all others.

Oh- I see what you are saying- that he IS that stupid- well maybe, I don't know.

Edited September 8, 2008 by blaze

[hammered]

Thai PM testifies in court over cooking programmes

Article 267 of the Constitution stipulates that the prime minister is prohibited from holding any position in a partnership, a company or an organisation carrying out business with a view to sharing profit or income, or being an employee of any person.

Samak told the court that he appeared in the programmes only as an honorary guest, without seeking any compensation.

Absent a paper trail, will the courts conclude that Samak was not in violation of the Constitution?

On the surface the case seems a bit comical (the BBC announcer found it a bit amusing)- but the ramifications are tremendous- If the courts can not find evidence that article 267 was breeched and therefore find him innocent of the charge- it will be a triumph for justice in Thailand- a strict reading of the law with out bowing to expediency.

But the 'crisis' will continue.

If, again absent proof of renumeration, he is found guilty the crisis will (temporarily anyway) end- but the courts will have to show that the verdict was based on law and not political expediency.

I cant see the court finding him guilty on the little I know, and of course I may be missing a piece of obvious evidence. I also didnt think the original disolution case would result in disolution so I am probably very wrong.

Politically knocking Samak out would relieve tensions and allow for negotiations especially if it coincided with the PAD leadership surrendering to the courts on what they are accused of. I cant see treason charges going very far in all honesty but the others probably will.

On the other hand, Samak would probably see a not guilty verdict as his reign being legitimized until the advent of the second coming...

Mmmm. That is a good point. Whatever the decision it will be used to justify poltical ends it is not linked to. Samak after his raving I forgive you at Jonathan Head does certainly seem to be taking on the mantle of prophetic crusader and chief evangelista of the army of the chosen masters or some such thing usually reserved more for Sonthi et al. I wonder what extreme stress has done to minds that were never exactly very enlightened in the first place.

Oh well guess we sit and watch

[ubonjoe]

Thai PM testifies in court over cooking programmes

Article 267 of the Constitution stipulates that the prime minister is prohibited from holding any position in a partnership, a company or an organisation carrying out business with a view to sharing profit or income, or being an employee of any person.

Samak told the court that he appeared in the programmes only as an honorary guest, without seeking any compensation.

Absent a paper trail, will the courts conclude that Samak was not in violation of the Constitution?

On the surface the case seems a bit comical (the BBC announcer found it a bit amusing)- but the ramifications are tremendous- If the courts can not find evidence that article 267 was breeched and therefore find him innocent of the charge- it will be a triumph for justice in Thailand- a strict reading of the law with out bowing to expediency.

But the 'crisis' will continue.

If, again absent proof of renumeration, he is found guilty the crisis will (temporarily anyway) end- but the courts will have to show that the verdict was based on law and not political expediency.

I cant see the court finding him guilty on the little I know, and of course I may be missing a piece of obvious evidence. I also didnt think the original disolution case would result in disolution so I am probably very wrong.

Politically knocking Samak out would relieve tensions and allow for negotiations especially if it coincided with the PAD leadership surrendering to the courts on what they are accused of. I cant see treason charges going very far in all honesty but the others probably will.

I think If he is found quilty at least in this case he has the right of appeal to the Sumpreme court. So I am not so sure this is that big a deal.

At least he can appeal which is not the case of those that start out in the Supreme Court where there is no chance to appeal. Just another of many constitutional problems that need to be resolved.

I seem to remember reading an article related to somebody seeking political asylum that this could be the major deciding factor because international norm is that anybody found guilty should have the right to appeal.

[sriracha john]

Thai PM testifies in court over cooking programmes

Article 267 of the Constitution stipulates that the prime minister is prohibited from holding any position in a partnership, a company or an organisation carrying out business with a view to sharing profit or income, or being an employee of any person.

Samak told the court that he appeared in the programmes only as an honorary guest, without seeking any compensation.

Absent a paper trail, will the courts conclude that Samak was not in violation of the Constitution?

On the surface the case seems a bit comical (the BBC announcer found it a bit amusing)- but the ramifications are tremendous- If the courts can not find evidence that article 267 was breeched and therefore find him innocent of the charge- it will be a triumph for justice in Thailand- a strict reading of the law with out bowing to expediency.

But the 'crisis' will continue.

If, again absent proof of renumeration, he is found guilty the crisis will (temporarily anyway) end- but the courts will have to show that the verdict was based on law and not political expediency.

I cant see the court finding him guilty on the little I know, and of course I may be missing a piece of obvious evidence. I also didnt think the original disolution case would result in disolution so I am probably very wrong.

Politically knocking Samak out would relieve tensions and allow for negotiations especially if it coincided with the PAD leadership surrendering to the courts on what they are accused of. I cant see treason charges going very far in all honesty but the others probably will.

On the other hand, Samak would probably see a not guilty verdict as his reign being legitimized until the advent of the second coming...

until his next court case, whether it's hearing the appeal on his conviction and 2 year prison sentence for defamation case, or his bribery acceptance in the 6.7 Billion Baht Bangkok firetruck case, or his abuse of power case while serving as Bangkok Governor in 2004 to influence biddings on three garbage disposal projects worth 9.5 Billion Baht, or his abuse of power case involving the readmittance of ex-Interior Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung's son Duang Yoobamrung to the Royal Thai Army, or the corruption case involving his 120 Billion Baht hydro-power dam on the Mekong river.

Never mind PAD... he can't hardly keep up with his attorney meetings and court cases.

[Journalist]

Cartoonish General Pallop

Cooking television show scandal

Rice harvests in the seat of government.

Dead fish in the canal

Its all become utterly ludicrous and a pantomime. A pity Thailand can't tackle its serious issues without rendering itself a laughing stock in the process.

[sriracha john]

Thai PM testifies in court over cooking programmes

Article 267 of the Constitution stipulates that the prime minister is prohibited from holding any position in a partnership, a company or an organisation carrying out business with a view to sharing profit or income, or being an employee of any person.

Samak told the court that he appeared in the programmes only as an honorary guest, without seeking any compensation.

Absent a paper trail, will the courts conclude that Samak was not in violation of the Constitution?

On the surface the case seems a bit comical (the BBC announcer found it a bit amusing)- but the ramifications are tremendous- If the courts can not find evidence that article 267 was breeched and therefore find him innocent of the charge- it will be a triumph for justice in Thailand- a strict reading of the law with out bowing to expediency.

But the 'crisis' will continue.

If, again absent proof of renumeration, he is found guilty the crisis will (temporarily anyway) end- but the courts will have to show that the verdict was based on law and not political expediency.

I cant see the court finding him guilty on the little I know, and of course I may be missing a piece of obvious evidence. I also didnt think the original disolution case would result in disolution so I am probably very wrong.

Politically knocking Samak out would relieve tensions and allow for negotiations especially if it coincided with the PAD leadership surrendering to the courts on what they are accused of. I cant see treason charges going very far in all honesty but the others probably will.

His defense of "without seeking any compensation" could be countered that if he received remuneration in ANY form, he could be considered an employee whether he "sought" compensation or not. How firm is his belief that in none of these programs he did, did he not receive even one solitary bit of remuneration in any way, shape, or form?

Edited September 8, 2008 by sriracha john

[soundman]

Thai PM testifies in court over cooking programmes

Article 267 of the Constitution stipulates that the prime minister is prohibited from holding any position in a partnership, a company or an organisation carrying out business with a view to sharing profit or income, or being an employee of any person.

Samak told the court that he appeared in the programmes only as an honorary guest, without seeking any compensation.

Absent a paper trail, will the courts conclude that Samak was not in violation of the Constitution?

On the surface the case seems a bit comical (the BBC announcer found it a bit amusing)- but the ramifications are tremendous- If the courts can not find evidence that article 267 was breeched and therefore find him innocent of the charge- it will be a triumph for justice in Thailand- a strict reading of the law with out bowing to expediency.

But the 'crisis' will continue.

If, again absent proof of renumeration, he is found guilty the crisis will (temporarily anyway) end- but the courts will have to show that the verdict was based on law and not political expediency.

I cant see the court finding him guilty on the little I know, and of course I may be missing a piece of obvious evidence. I also didnt think the original disolution case would result in disolution so I am probably very wrong.

Politically knocking Samak out would relieve tensions and allow for negotiations especially if it coincided with the PAD leadership surrendering to the courts on what they are accused of. I cant see treason charges going very far in all honesty but the others probably will.

His defense of "without seeking any compensation" could be countered that if he received remuneration in ANY form, he could be considered an employee whether he "sought" compensation or not. How firm is his belief that in none of these programs he did, did he not receive even one solitary bit of remuneration in any way, shape, or form?

I, don't suppose "without seeking any compensation" would be a valid excuse for working without a work permit.

[paulfromphuket]

Thai PM testifies in court over cooking programmes

Article 267 of the Constitution stipulates that the prime minister is prohibited from holding any position in a partnership, a company or an organisation carrying out business with a view to sharing profit or income, or being an employee of any person.

Samak told the court that he appeared in the programmes only as an honorary guest, without seeking any compensation.

Absent a paper trail, will the courts conclude that Samak was not in violation of the Constitution?

On the surface the case seems a bit comical (the BBC announcer found it a bit amusing)- but the ramifications are tremendous- If the courts can not find evidence that article 267 was breeched and therefore find him innocent of the charge- it will be a triumph for justice in Thailand- a strict reading of the law with out bowing to expediency.

But the 'crisis' will continue.

If, again absent proof of renumeration, he is found guilty the crisis will (temporarily anyway) end- but the courts will have to show that the verdict was based on law and not political expediency.

I cant see the court finding him guilty on the little I know, and of course I may be missing a piece of obvious evidence. I also didnt think the original disolution case would result in disolution so I am probably very wrong.

Politically knocking Samak out would relieve tensions and allow for negotiations especially if it coincided with the PAD leadership surrendering to the courts on what they are accused of. I cant see treason charges going very far in all honesty but the others probably will.

His defense of "without seeking any compensation" could be countered that if he received remuneration in ANY form, he could be considered an employee whether he "sought" compensation or not. How firm is his belief that in none of these programs he did, did he not receive even one solitary bit of remuneration in any way, shape, or form?

I, don't suppose "without seeking any compensation" would be a valid excuse for working without a work permit.

I guess the free food and drink within the show counts as renumeration and the evidence was seen by millions caught red handed

[koosdeboer]

An article from the Bangkokpost

http://www.bangkokpost.com/080908_News/08Sep2008_news20.php

DEMOCRACY'S RULES

In the final analysis, aren't we all rebels to a cause?

SORAVIS JAYANAMA

Today, we are facing an urgent and direct call to act, to choose Samak Sundaravej over the People's Alliance for Democracy or vice-versa. Or we are encouraged to reject both of them, often in the name of national reconciliation, consensual politics, nonviolence, etc. Are they real choices? What do these choices exclude?

A lot of thinking is however needed first, lest our decision unwittingly buttresses the hegemonic ideological coordinates and power constellations. To search for a meaningful or potent choice let's consider a number of things.

[Plus]

Normally I (and probably the vast majority of Thai citizens) would not mind Samak cooking on TV as the spirit of the law has hardly been affected, however, this litiguous cun_t stakes the whole country on his "legitimacy" while making complete mockery of the spirit of the law in numerous other cases, so, if the court finds him guilty on technical details I won't say a word in his defence.

I wonder if that was the plan all along (if there's the conspiracy at all).

[paulfromphuket]

Normally I (and probably the vast majority of Thai citizens) would not mind Samak cooking on TV as the spirit of the law has hardly been affected, however, this litiguous cun_t stakes the whole country on his "legitimacy" while making complete mockery of the spirit of the law in numerous other cases, so, if the court finds him guilty on technical details I won't say a word in his defence.

I wonder if that was the plan all along (if there's the conspiracy at all).

well theres no such thing as a free lunch

[Tony Clifton]

Thai PM testifies in court over cooking programmes

Article 267 of the Constitution stipulates that the prime minister is prohibited from holding any position in a partnership, a company or an organisation carrying out business with a view to sharing profit or income, or being an employee of any person.

Samak told the court that he appeared in the programmes only as an honorary guest, without seeking any compensation.

Absent a paper trail, will the courts conclude that Samak was not in violation of the Constitution?

On the surface the case seems a bit comical (the BBC announcer found it a bit amusing)- but the ramifications are tremendous- If the courts can not find evidence that article 267 was breeched and therefore find him innocent of the charge- it will be a triumph for justice in Thailand- a strict reading of the law with out bowing to expediency.

But the 'crisis' will continue.

If, again absent proof of renumeration, he is found guilty the crisis will (temporarily anyway) end- but the courts will have to show that the verdict was based on law and not political expediency.

Absent proof of payment in a country champion for it's corruption and underground economy.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Tony Clifton

[Moonrakers]

Normally I (and probably the vast majority of Thai citizens) would not mind Samak cooking on TV as the spirit of the law has hardly been affected, however, this litiguous cun_t stakes the whole country on his "legitimacy" while making complete mockery of the spirit of the law in numerous other cases, so, if the court finds him guilty on technical details I won't say a word in his defence.

I wonder if that was the plan all along (if there's the conspiracy at all).

I was thinking the same thing and I don't feel that appearing on a TV show is that big a deal. But if it is this technicality that gets him out then so be it.

Kind of reminds me of Al Capone being convicted for tax fraud. They knew full well that he was guilty of many more serious crimes but did not have enough on him for that to get a conviction.

[hammered]

Thai PM testifies in court over cooking programmes

Article 267 of the Constitution stipulates that the prime minister is prohibited from holding any position in a partnership, a company or an organisation carrying out business with a view to sharing profit or income, or being an employee of any person.

Samak told the court that he appeared in the programmes only as an honorary guest, without seeking any compensation.

Absent a paper trail, will the courts conclude that Samak was not in violation of the Constitution?

On the surface the case seems a bit comical (the BBC announcer found it a bit amusing)- but the ramifications are tremendous- If the courts can not find evidence that article 267 was breeched and therefore find him innocent of the charge- it will be a triumph for justice in Thailand- a strict reading of the law with out bowing to expediency.

But the 'crisis' will continue.

If, again absent proof of renumeration, he is found guilty the crisis will (temporarily anyway) end- but the courts will have to show that the verdict was based on law and not political expediency.

I cant see the court finding him guilty on the little I know, and of course I may be missing a piece of obvious evidence. I also didnt think the original disolution case would result in disolution so I am probably very wrong.

Politically knocking Samak out would relieve tensions and allow for negotiations especially if it coincided with the PAD leadership surrendering to the courts on what they are accused of. I cant see treason charges going very far in all honesty but the others probably will.

His defense of "without seeking any compensation" could be countered that if he received remuneration in ANY form, he could be considered an employee whether he "sought" compensation or not. How firm is his belief that in none of these programs he did, did he not receive even one solitary bit of remuneration in any way, shape, or form?

He received 80,000 baht for the programs according to the maker but as an honorium not salary. Not sure what that means legally.

[Meerkat]

More about Hong Kong system, it's relevant to "new politics" that everyone mentions in every other post, so it's not totally off topic.

First direct elections were held in 1991, but only 30% of the Legislative Council. It's not like China abolished universal suffrage there.

Correct - the lack of democracy in HK was a(nother) dark stain on British colonialism. Chris Patten as Governor tried to increase direct elections but was hampered at all stages by China (China had a huge diplomatic influence on HK even pre-handover) and the best he could do was the limited set-up. Patten was called "son of a thousand whores" by the Boss in Beijing for his efforts. I was lucky enough to have spoken to Patten on the subject whilst he was Governor there (in a purely social context); were it up to him, they'd have had full direct elections from the word go. China had said that they would roll back any efforts towards more democracy after the Handover but an unhappy compromise was reached. He considered it a national shame, and a personal failing, that he couldn't do more for Hongkongers in that regard.

Now 50% of the council is directly elected.

Correct. China has promised to allow full direct elections/elected Chief Exec going forward. IIRC initially it as going to be 2002, then 2007, then 2012, then 2017, now 2020 at the earliest. Don't bet on it though. However the overall direction over the last few decades (and certainly the people's wish for the future) has been towards more direct elections, not less.

Hong Kong has long been a darling of Asian democracy, though situation has obviously deteriorated after Chinese takeover. Still, in 2005 Hong Kong was listed No 2 in Asia after Japan. Thailand was 6th.

I assume you're taking your data from the ARDA survey. This was a self-assessment survey, not one done by an independent overseeing body. As such, it was HK residents who ranked themselves second. Given that direct elections in HK were still a relatively new phenomenon in 2005, the result is not all that surprising (Hongkongers are rightly proud of their increased representation since the days of pre-Patten British rule). HK's (British-modelled) rule of law and comparatively corruption-free environment give much weight to that too. Interesting to note that Singapore came second-last, soundly beaten by Thailand and only beating Burma! I'm no fan of the political system there, but that ranking seems odd.

Does the HK system help prevent the "wrong" people from getting in? Not IMO; the functional constituencies are largely made up of fat-cats rather than proper representatives and often speak for management/owner rather than worker (when they can be bothered to speak at all), whilst those who care more for society as a whole come from the geographical ones, including some truly good people (Anson Chan, Martin Lee and Emily Lau come to mind). Shock. The leader of the financial sector seat, bank-owner David Li, was recently fined USD 8.1 million for insider trading by the US SEC. He resigned from Cabinet, but not from the House. Sounds familiar...

People here are missing the principal fact - unelected legislature in itself does not mean the end of democracy, Hong Kong might have it under Chinese influence and still be more democratic than any other country in the region.

It is one of the central tenets of a free and fair democratic environment. Instead of doing away with full direct elections, how about trying to fix the other central tenets of democracy (as seen by the ARDA) instead? Trial by jury, eliminating corruption and increasing transparency throughout the entire system strike me as more worthwhile goals than what the PAD propose. Impossible to achieve? Thailand will never know until it tries. The emboldened EC is a step in the right direction (I'd like to see stiffer individual penalties and no collective punishment though), but there are still valid issues with the lack of transparency in the judiciary (questioning some court decisions being seen as Contempt of Court for starters.)

One poster said that Hong Kong history is different from Thai. Yeah, but since iThai history has nothing in common with Europe or the US, the western democratic model shouldn't even be considered here. Different history, different solutions, right?

Democratic systems (in the larger sense, not just omov elections) by far tend to correlate to healthier economies and happier people (politically I mean). It's not always the way but it's a case of having to find exceptions to the rule.

New politics is not "codified" - it's just a starting point for a wider discussion on political reform, reform that should be enacted by civil society, not PAD itself.

Correct, but the PAD's musings on "New Politics" all include selected/appointed Members to a varying degree and sanctioned involvement in government by the unelected and opaque military. They are the central tenets of this awful idea.

Fresh elections without meaningful reform will not solve the underlying problem - Thai politics has been taken over by greedy, corrupt thieves who don't leave any space for the genuine democracy to grow. "New politics" is just one idea how to exclude these leeches from governing process altogether and give the power to the people.

It is targetting the wrong area. Were the PAD truly interested in a better Thailand, they'd attack corruption throughout the entire country in all ways, shapes and forms, not just against its political foes. Limiting direct elections would in no way reduce the potential for corruption anyway; when someone wants the job, and it's up to others either to elect - or select - them in, it'll always be there.

[Moruya]

Whilst I find the whole cooking show to be like something out of a Tom Sharpe novel, there are 2 angles here.

Was Samak in a position where he had a conflict of interest and stood to gain financially from his role as TV cook?

Was he in a psoition where he gained 'politically' from his role?

The answer to the first question is that he probably gained comparatively little

The answer to the second is that he abused his position regularly by making political statements that did not belong in a cooking show.....

Would this have happened in Piemberg?

[sriracha john]

As a warm-up appearance prior to addressing UN General Assembly... he shows up in court

Constitution Court Hands down Ruling on Samak's Cooking Show Case Tomorrow

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej surprised the media by turning up in person to testify to the Constitution Court on his television cooking show case. The premier was reported to be in a relaxed mood, but declined to speak to any reporters before he entered the courtroom.

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej earlier hinted that he won’t testify in person for his cooking shows case, but will instead submit written testimonial documents to the Constitution Court. The court is in the process of reviewing the possibility of the premier violating the Constitution by hosting a cooking show called “Chim Pai Bon Pai” or “Tasting while Grumbling”.

PM Samak began hosting "Chim Pai Bon Pai" and "Yok Khayong Hok Mong Chao" programmes before he became prime minister in late January this year and continued to host the shows until mid-May, when criticism grew over the matter.

Article 267 of the Constitution prohibits the prime minister and other ministers from holding any position in a partnership, a company or a profit-oriented organisation, or being an employee of any person.

The two shows have now been suspended following a complaint that he violated the Constitution that bans the prime minister from being an employee of any person or corporation to prevent conflicts of interest. The case has been forwarded to the Constitution Court.

In a surprised move, PM Samak turned up in person to testify to the court as today is the last hearing for the case before a ruling is handed down. Reporters said the premier seemed to be in a relaxed mood but declined to speak to any reporters before he entered the courtroom.

It was later reported that the premier maintained he's innocent and that his hosting of the TV shows did not violate the Constitution as he did not demand salary from Face Media, which produced the shows. He said he received monetary renumeration everytime he hosted the show, which constitutes freelancing rather than being an employee of the company.

The Constitution Court will hand down its ruling for this case tomorrow at 2 pm.

- TOC / 2008-09-08

[sriracha john]

Samak denies cooking show broke law

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej on Monday denied charges that he had broken the constitution by hosting a television cooking show while also serving as premier, claiming the programme had been done on a freelance basis.

He was responding to charges made in May by a group of Thai senators, who charged Samak with violating the constitution by continuing his job as a TV presenter on his personal cooking show, Chim pai, bon pai (Tasting and Complaining), after he had been appointed prime minister on Feb 6.

Samak appeared before the Constitution Court Monday to refute the charges.

"I consulted with legal counsel after I became prime minister, and they all agreed it was not a breach of the constitution if I was not a regular employee of a company," he told the court.

He said he had only hosted the show a few times after becoming prime minister and only on a freelance basis.

"I did it because I liked doing it," Samak said. "I was the first TV presenter to do my cooking right in the market, and it was delicious too."

Under Thailand's 2007 constitution, no elected politician is allowed to hold a second job while in office. The clause was designed to avoid conflicts of interest.

Samak, 73, a veteran politician with more than four decades of experience in Thailand's tempestuous politics, is also an accomplished cook.

- DPA

[Plus]

Unless the corridors of power are filled with more or less honest people, there will be no progress in any other public sphere. Since Thaksin came to power Thai politicians desire for complete control has grown exponentially. Parlamentary control, Senate contorl, media control, judiciary control, academia control - they want it all. Current bunch are just as greedy, though not as successful.

If you want to reform Thai society, you should start from cleaning up the politics.

I know some people are for a complete history and society overhaul but it's simply not possible. If you want to start somewhere - it's the politics, not traffic cops or Customs Dept.

>>>>

According to Economist's own Democratic index that emphasises electoral democracy, Hong Kong is still ahead of Thailand.

ARDA index takes broader criteria than that, like civil rights and media freedom and participation and representation. Freedom House (Econimist index) talks about rules and regulations (like trial by a jury) , rather than actual experience.

Obviously, HK system works for its people. Everybody knows that.

[h90]

Thai PM testifies in court over cooking programmes

Article 267 of the Constitution stipulates that the prime minister is prohibited from holding any position in a partnership, a company or an organisation carrying out business with a view to sharing profit or income, or being an employee of any person.

Samak told the court that he appeared in the programmes only as an honorary guest, without seeking any compensation.

Absent a paper trail, will the courts conclude that Samak was not in violation of the Constitution?

On the surface the case seems a bit comical (the BBC announcer found it a bit amusing)- but the ramifications are tremendous- If the courts can not find evidence that article 267 was breeched and therefore find him innocent of the charge- it will be a triumph for justice in Thailand- a strict reading of the law with out bowing to expediency.

But the 'crisis' will continue.

If, again absent proof of renumeration, he is found guilty the crisis will (temporarily anyway) end- but the courts will have to show that the verdict was based on law and not political expediency.

I cant see the court finding him guilty on the little I know, and of course I may be missing a piece of obvious evidence. I also didnt think the original disolution case would result in disolution so I am probably very wrong.

Politically knocking Samak out would relieve tensions and allow for negotiations especially if it coincided with the PAD leadership surrendering to the courts on what they are accused of. I cant see treason charges going very far in all honesty but the others probably will.

His defense of "without seeking any compensation" could be countered that if he received remuneration in ANY form, he could be considered an employee whether he "sought" compensation or not. How firm is his belief that in none of these programs he did, did he not receive even one solitary bit of remuneration in any way, shape, or form?

He received 80,000 baht for the programs according to the maker but as an honorium not salary. Not sure what that means legally.

I think that means that he didn't pay income tax for it :D

[sriracha john]

Constitution Tribunal to announce verdict on PM’s case tomorrow

Trial of the premier’s case concerning the hosting of two TV shows has ended. The Constitution Tribunal will announce the verdict tomorrow (September, 9th) at 14.00 hrs.

The nine Constitution tribunal judges took the bench to review the allegation filed against Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej by the Senate and the Election Commission (EC). The two parties request the tribunal to terminate the prime minister and defense minister status of Samak who hosted two TV shows, “Chim Pai Bon Pai” and “Yok Khayong Hok Mongchao”.

The premier appeared before the judges and affirmed that he had received a payment each time he hosted the shows and denied getting paid monthly salaries.

Samak said he had consulted his hosting jobs with a legal team of Face Media Co., Ltd. which produces the programs and it had confirmed that he could host the shows without violating the Constitution.

The premier informed the judges that he quit the jobs immediately after he had been criticized and said he does not know sponsors of the shows personally and has no power in the management of the company.

Meanwhile, Face Media President Sakchai Kaewwanneesakul testified in the same direction with the premier. The trial ended at around 11.30 hrs today and 15 minutes later Constitution Tribunal Chairman Chat Chonlawon announced that the tribunal will announce the case’s verdict tomorrow.

- ThaiNews / 2008-09-08

[h90]

Whilst I find the whole cooking show to be like something out of a Tom Sharpe novel, there are 2 angles here.

Was Samak in a position where he had a conflict of interest and stood to gain financially from his role as TV cook?

Was he in a psoition where he gained 'politically' from his role?

The answer to the first question is that he probably gained comparatively little

The answer to the second is that he abused his position regularly by making political statements that did not belong in a cooking show.....

Would this have happened in Piemberg?

It would be indeed strange, that with all his wrong doing, just the cooking show would brake his neck....

It is really a minor thing in compare to all the other cases.

[sriracha john]

His defense of "without seeking any compensation" sham gets weaker by the moment... funny bit about asking the company hiring him if it was legal and they said "Sure!".... reminiscent of foreign employees here asking their company if it's ok to work without a work permit... "Sure!"

Cooking show adds to Thailand PM's troubles

BANGKOK, Thailand - Thailand's prime minister defended himself Monday against accusations he violated the constitution by hosting a televised cooking show while in office, potentially the most damaging of a line of troubles confronting him.

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, who denies that he violated the constitution by working for a private company, would be forced to resign if found guilty by the Constitutional Court.

The trial comes on top of a defamation suit and three corruption charges he faces, and as anti-government protesters continue their nearly two-week-old occupation of the grounds of his office complex, demanding his resignation.

The court was expected to give its verdict in the cooking show case Tuesday. If Samak is ordered to resign by the court, it would indirectly end the political deadlock caused by the anti-government protesters, who have virtually paralyzed the government for nearly two weeks.

"By making a quick decision, the court will help a lot in resolving the political crisis," said Suwat Apaipakdi, a lawyer for a group of senators who filed the petition against Samak in the case.

"If the court rules that Prime Minister Samak is disqualified from holding office, then the political crisis will automatically cease," he said.

Before taking office seven months ago, Samak hosted a popular TV cooking show called "Tasting and Complaining," a mix of traditional Thai cooking and rants on the subjects of Samak's choice.

Samak made a few appearances on the show after becoming prime minister, prompting the petition by the senators on grounds that a prime minister is not allowed under the constitution to work with private companies.

Samak, who testified for about an hour Monday, told the court that he only received an honorarium from the television company.

"I was hired to appear on the program and got paid from time to time. I was not an employee of the company so I did not violate the law," Samak said.

He said the television company paid for his transportation. "I presented the cooking show and got paid for my acting," said Samak.

Samak was earlier indicted by the National Counter Corruption Commission, an autonomous body, which then forwarded the case to the Constitutional Court.

Sakchai Khaewwaneesakul, the managing director of the company that produced the cooking show, testified in support of Samak, saying it paid him $2,300 for the four shows.

"The presenters of our shows are not our employees, but we pay them honorariums," he told the court.

The case is the latest embarrassment for Samak, who has not been able to enter his office, the Government House, since protesters stormed the compound Aug. 26. Despite facing emergency rule in Bangkok, the protesters have refused to leave.

A new mediation effort by Senate Speaker Prasopsuk Boondet was due to start Monday. He is scheduled to meet with the opposition leader and the heads of the six political parties in Samak's ruling coalition government.

The anti-government campaign is led by the People's Alliance for Democracy, a loose-knit group of royalists, wealthy and middle-class urban residents, and union activists. They accuse him of corruption and violating the constitution. They say his party won general elections in December 2007 by buying votes.

The independent Election Commission ruled last week that Samak's People's Power Party committed electoral fraud in the polls and should be dissolved. The case is also expected to end up in the Constitution Court.

Apart from the cooking show charge, Samak also has been accused of defamation by Bangkok's deputy governor, Samart Rajpholasit. A lower court sentenced Samak to three years in jail, and an appeals court is expected to rule Sept. 25 on whether to uphold the sentence.

If the court does that, Samak would have to quit immediately.

In addition, Samak faces at least three corruption charges that have not reached the courts yet.

Samak was scheduled to deliver a speech to supporters in the northeastern province of Udon Thani later Monday. Anti-government protesters were expected to gather there, raising fears of violence.

Associated Press / 9 minutes ago

[h90]

quote from TOC

PPP Proposes for Emergency Decree to Be Effective Only at Govt House

UPDATE : 8 September 2008

In stead of the entire Bangkok, a People Power party MP proposes that the Emergency decree be declared only at Government House.

PPP Chiang Mai MP Surapong Tovichakchaikul is calling for PM Samak Sundaravej to lift the Emergency decree. Surapong says he believes the declaration of decree has damaged the Thai economy.

But the Chiang Mai MP adds the Emergency decree should remain in place at specific areas such as the Government House, Makawan Bridge and the Dusit district. Surapong says he disagrees with lifting the Emergency decree entirelly because then the military won't be able to maintain control of the rally.

Surapong adds that if the Emegency decree is declared only at the Government House, Thailand may go down in the the world-famous Guinness Book of Records as the first and only country to have declared a state of emergency at the government headquarters. Unjokingly, the Chiang Mai MP says the 'world record' may help attract more tourists to the country.

end quote

Maybe Emergency decree only on Sondhi and Chamlong?

maybe another entry in the guiness book of records....the government with the smallest brain size.....

[ando]

Seems like a good excuse to abolish democracy. --- The PM hosts a cooking show. Meanwhile, armed thugs are allowed to take over government property and run rampant in the streets. Is there any hope for this country?

[Thanh-BKK]

Seems like a good excuse to abolish democracy. --- The PM hosts a cooking show. Meanwhile, armed thugs are allowed to take over government property and run rampant in the streets. Is there any hope for this country?

Yeah.

Just that these "armed thugs" were neither armed nor thugs until the REAL armed thugs from the DAAD showed up. Then they (PAD) at least armed themselves, they're still not thugs yet - THAT is a government position.

Thanh

[Thanh-BKK]

Has any of you actually ever experienced how this sort of situation goes in Europe?

Here we have a somewhat peaceful sit-in at the government house (essentially public property, so why shouldn't "the public" be there??) and it only got violent when "the other site" marched up, intoxicated, under police escort, weapons in hand.

In Europe, you'd have one group against the other, BOTH against the police and all of them against every piece of property they can get their hands on - broken windows, looted shops, cars up in flames. Ok it won't last two weeks but which version do you prefer??

Best regards.....

Thanh

[Artisi]

Seems like a good excuse to abolish democracy. --- The PM hosts a cooking show. Meanwhile, armed thugs are allowed to take over government property and run rampant in the streets. Is there any hope for this country?

Yes there is hope, all it takes is to remove the corrupt players from politics and bring in fair elections, free of vote buying, free of pressure from local thugs, free to vote for your prefered candidate.

This would be a good start to putting Thailand on the road to having a fairly elected government.

[ando]

It seems to me a lot of people here are missing the point about the current conflict. This is not a battle against Thaksin, Samak, the PPP or the TRT.

It is a battle where by a minority want to overturn a democratic system in favour of a grossly socially inequitable feudalistic form of government.

Thailand is a corrupt country relative to western democracies. It is a developing democracy moving from a feudal system through an absolute Monarchy to a democratic Monarchy. There will be winners and losers in such a change. However, the power-brokers of today wish to turn back the clock to a more archaic form of government which is generally not accepted in western countries which have already undergone this political evolutionary process in past centuries.

The sins of Samak or Thaksin are not an issue here. They can be dealt with by the courts. What really is at stake here is Thailands future as a developing democracy and its future in developing from a basically third world country into a modern economic world partner.

Its far too easy (and emotive I would add) to focus on the politically "hot" topics of the day and to not see the bigger picture.

[h90]

It seems to me a lot of people here are missing the point about the current conflict. This is not a battle against Thaksin, Samak, the PPP or the TRT.

It is a battle where by a minority want to overturn a democratic system in favour of a grossly socially inequitable feudalistic form of government.

Thailand is a corrupt country relative to western democracies. It is a developing democracy moving from a feudal system through an absolute Monarchy to a democratic Monarchy. There will be winners and losers in such a change. However, the power-brokers of today wish to turn back the clock to a more archaic form of government which is generally not accepted in western countries which have already undergone this political evolutionary process in past centuries.

The sins of Samak or Thaksin are not an issue here. They can be dealt with by the courts. What really is at stake here is Thailands future as a developing democracy and its future in developing from a basically third world country into a modern economic world partner.

Its far too easy (and emotive I would add) to focus on the politically "hot" topics of the day and to not see the bigger picture.

It is a battle against Samak and Thaksin and nothing else.