Samak Found Guilty By Court, Must Resign

[JoeInSurin]

In the UK if it seemed a minister was in breach of regulations, however trivial, the civil service machine would warn the offending minister and the matter would be nipped in the bud.In the case of the PM this warning would be carried out by the Cabinet Secretary.

Samak had been warned before and was now convicted, just like any court in the West would convict him, given the evidence. I had my wife translate a lot of the judges comments, when he was reading the judgement and the judgement seemed perfectly fair. (The whole reading of the judgement was broadcast live on ASTV. In full, without being chopped up). Maybe, if they translate it into English one day, you will see for yourself.

You may not like what happened, but as far as the law is concerned, it was perfectly fair.

He was charge with "conflict of interest". What did they state was the conflict between being PM and the cooking show?

it has nothing to do with cooking, i hope your not playing dumb here, but being employed by another institution while being a PM is the case. and as we all know that employment or work in thai constitution or law is defined very broadly this is also the reason why you cannot paint your own house, mow your own lawn, etc. without having a work permit.

Not trying to play dumb. I agree if the law was just "no work allowed" but the verdict was quoted as "The court reasoned that the Constitution was aimed to prevent conflicts of interest on part of Cabinet members so Samak had violated in the intention of the charter although he host the programmes on part-time basis." If you look up the definition of "conflict of interest" it would not fit the verdict.

might be because the definition of 'conflict of interest' in english is not the same as they defined in thai 'ผลประโยชน์ทับซ้อน' (phon prayot thap son) on which 'thap son''' really means overlapping. this is more likely that it falls to the category that you can only have one job ie. as a PM to perform your duties imapartially.

i guess we can't really understand thai law unless we know the language itself...

Actually, it seems pretty simple to me.

If you are PM you are the biggest source of power in the country (on paper). For you to recieve money from any other job your judgement on subject(s) affecting that other job is tainted.

You can no longer take objective decisions. And even if you could, people will always think you ruled that way because you recieved money from them.

This is what we call: 'Conflict of interest'.

btw, does this give Samak a criminal record? And if so, can a person be PM with a criminal record?

I understand and agree with your definition. My question is what judgement can you make as PM that would affect the cooking show? If there is nothing that can be affected then what is the conflict of interest?

[sriracha john]

How about Thaksin's niece for PM, she's from PPP...

Surapong Adamant New PM Must Be from PPP

During a press conference after a meeting with Chart Thai Party Leader Banharn Silpa-archa, People Power Party Deputy Leader Surapong Suebwonglee insists a new premier must be a member of the PPP.

Surapong says the Chart Thai Party will give its support to the party with the most number of MPs in Parliament to form government.

- TOC / 10 September 2008

Edited September 10, 2008 by sriracha john

[JoeInSurin]

In the UK if it seemed a minister was in breach of regulations, however trivial, the civil service machine would warn the offending minister and the matter would be nipped in the bud.In the case of the PM this warning would be carried out by the Cabinet Secretary.

Samak had been warned before and was now convicted, just like any court in the West would convict him, given the evidence. I had my wife translate a lot of the judges comments, when he was reading the judgement and the judgement seemed perfectly fair. (The whole reading of the judgement was broadcast live on ASTV. In full, without being chopped up). Maybe, if they translate it into English one day, you will see for yourself.

You may not like what happened, but as far as the law is concerned, it was perfectly fair.

He was charge with "conflict of interest". What did they state was the conflict between being PM and the cooking show?

He took money from a media company that makes product regulated by his governments agencies.

Clear cut conflict of interest. The AMOUNTS make no difference legally.

What products does the media company make that are regulated by the government?

[jdinasia]

In the UK if it seemed a minister was in breach of regulations, however trivial, the civil service machine would warn the offending minister and the matter would be nipped in the bud.In the case of the PM this warning would be carried out by the Cabinet Secretary.

Samak had been warned before and was now convicted, just like any court in the West would convict him, given the evidence. I had my wife translate a lot of the judges comments, when he was reading the judgement and the judgement seemed perfectly fair. (The whole reading of the judgement was broadcast live on ASTV. In full, without being chopped up). Maybe, if they translate it into English one day, you will see for yourself.

You may not like what happened, but as far as the law is concerned, it was perfectly fair.

He was charge with "conflict of interest". What did they state was the conflict between being PM and the cooking show?

it has nothing to do with cooking, i hope your not playing dumb here, but being employed by another institution while being a PM is the case. and as we all know that employment or work in thai constitution or law is defined very broadly this is also the reason why you cannot paint your own house, mow your own lawn, etc. without having a work permit.

Not trying to play dumb. I agree if the law was just "no work allowed" but the verdict was quoted as "The court reasoned that the Constitution was aimed to prevent conflicts of interest on part of Cabinet members so Samak had violated in the intention of the charter although he host the programmes on part-time basis." If you look up the definition of "conflict of interest" it would not fit the verdict.

might be because the definition of 'conflict of interest' in english is not the same as they defined in thai 'ผลประโยชน์ทับซ้อน' (phon prayot thap son) on which 'thap son''' really means overlapping. this is more likely that it falls to the category that you can only have one job ie. as a PM to perform your duties imapartially.

i guess we can't really understand thai law unless we know the language itself...

Actually, it seems pretty simple to me.

If you are PM you are the biggest source of power in the country (on paper). For you to recieve money from any other job your judgement on subject(s) affecting that other job is tainted.

You can no longer take objective decisions. And even if you could, people will always think you ruled that way because you recieved money from them.

This is what we call: 'Conflict of interest'.

btw, does this give Samak a criminal record? And if so, can a person be PM with a criminal record?

I understand and agree with your definition. My question is what judgement can you make as PM that would affect the cooking show? If there is nothing that can be affected then what is the conflict of interest?

The law states that you cannot be an employee or partner in a business, what judgement? Hmmm appointments to public office/board of directors? Helping change laws to benefit your employer/partner etc etc etc?

[animatic]

Please spare me from the holy Hippocratic statements about the Thai courts and the democracy finally working by ousting the PM on a juristic technicality.

If this was true the PAD leaders would long ago have been imprisoned for being the catalysts to the last military coup, the Generals would have been imprisoned for illegal overthrowing the Government forcing the Thais to accept a new constitution and for lining their pockets while in power.

Someone else ( for some reason I cant seem to remember the name ) would have been imprisoned for making the same kind of property deals on an almost daily basis making them some of the richest people on earth, that Thaksins wife was convicted of.

And the present PAD rally would have been broken up by court order long ago and the responsible imprisoned, if the rally lasts to the end of the month it will have cost the Thai society 40 to 60 Billion Baht according to economical analysts.

Now the PAD supporters is hoping that if the cooking farce don't do the trick then at least the defamation case against Samak will do the job, this will after all be the final prof that the repeat offender Samak is rotten to the core.

In the midst of all this all these PAD fans seems to have been struck with collective amnesia.

March 27-2007 Case 1. Sondhi Limthongkul convicted to 2 years in jail for defamation.

March 8-2008 Case 2. Sondhi Limthongkul convicted to 9 month in jail for defamation.

Not forgotten, just not really relative to context.

He is NOT running the country as the government.

He is a private citizen. And remember his convictions were

while fighting theses same people in government.

Fighting a more than usually corrupt 'powers that be'.

This is a play out of Thaksin's sue anybody that disagrees with you tome.

"I am the government, you can't criticise me."

And this is another reason PAD is risking much personal freedoms,

they want to put a stop to this 'suit happiness' that has parallized

any checks and balances in the country.

No one dared air dirty laundry for fear of a billion baht suit.

What's good for the goose.

[Smithson]

has parallized

any checks and balances in the country.

There were never checks and balances under any govt. I can't believe posters are trying to have an intelligent discussion about who is right or wrong in Thai politics. The whole thing is rotten with shamelessness, conflicts of interest, corruption...

It's all about pigs at the trough, don't you realize?

[animatic]

In the UK if it seemed a minister was in breach of regulations, however trivial, the civil service machine would warn the offending minister and the matter would be nipped in the bud.In the case of the PM this warning would be carried out by the Cabinet Secretary.

Samak had been warned before and was now convicted, just like any court in the West would convict him, given the evidence. I had my wife translate a lot of the judges comments, when he was reading the judgement and the judgement seemed perfectly fair. (The whole reading of the judgement was broadcast live on ASTV. In full, without being chopped up). Maybe, if they translate it into English one day, you will see for yourself.

You may not like what happened, but as far as the law is concerned, it was perfectly fair.

He was charge with "conflict of interest". What did they state was the conflict between being PM and the cooking show?

He took money from a media company that makes product regulated by his governments agencies.

Clear cut conflict of interest. The AMOUNTS make no difference legally.

What products does the media company make that are regulated by the government?

Television shows aired on public airwaves.

[Smithson]

In the UK if it seemed a minister was in breach of regulations, however trivial, the civil service machine would warn the offending minister and the matter would be nipped in the bud.In the case of the PM this warning would be carried out by the Cabinet Secretary.

Samak had been warned before and was now convicted, just like any court in the West would convict him, given the evidence. I had my wife translate a lot of the judges comments, when he was reading the judgement and the judgement seemed perfectly fair. (The whole reading of the judgement was broadcast live on ASTV. In full, without being chopped up). Maybe, if they translate it into English one day, you will see for yourself.

You may not like what happened, but as far as the law is concerned, it was perfectly fair.

He was charge with "conflict of interest". What did they state was the conflict between being PM and the cooking show?

He took money from a media company that makes product regulated by his governments agencies.

Clear cut conflict of interest. The AMOUNTS make no difference legally.

What products does the media company make that are regulated by the government?

Television shows aired on public airwaves.

It's all a bit late in the day to get ethical isn't it? Conflict of interest is the norm here, why else would ppl go into politics, everyone knows that, just ask any Thai (even the ones deemed to uneducated to vote)

[JoeInSurin]

Television shows aired on public airwaves.

What laws can he change as PM to affect the cooking show to his benefit?

[h90]

In the UK if it seemed a minister was in breach of regulations, however trivial, the civil service machine would warn the offending minister and the matter would be nipped in the bud.In the case of the PM this warning would be carried out by the Cabinet Secretary.

Samak had been warned before and was now convicted, just like any court in the West would convict him, given the evidence. I had my wife translate a lot of the judges comments, when he was reading the judgement and the judgement seemed perfectly fair. (The whole reading of the judgement was broadcast live on ASTV. In full, without being chopped up). Maybe, if they translate it into English one day, you will see for yourself.

You may not like what happened, but as far as the law is concerned, it was perfectly fair.

He was charge with "conflict of interest". What did they state was the conflict between being PM and the cooking show?

He took money from a media company that makes product regulated by his governments agencies.

Clear cut conflict of interest. The AMOUNTS make no difference legally.

The amounts are huge if you compare them with the salary of an usual thai labor.

[Smithson]

In the UK if it seemed a minister was in breach of regulations, however trivial, the civil service machine would warn the offending minister and the matter would be nipped in the bud.In the case of the PM this warning would be carried out by the Cabinet Secretary.

Samak had been warned before and was now convicted, just like any court in the West would convict him, given the evidence. I had my wife translate a lot of the judges comments, when he was reading the judgement and the judgement seemed perfectly fair. (The whole reading of the judgement was broadcast live on ASTV. In full, without being chopped up). Maybe, if they translate it into English one day, you will see for yourself.

You may not like what happened, but as far as the law is concerned, it was perfectly fair.

He was charge with "conflict of interest". What did they state was the conflict between being PM and the cooking show?

He took money from a media company that makes product regulated by his governments agencies.

Clear cut conflict of interest. The AMOUNTS make no difference legally.

The amounts are huge if you compare them with the salary of an usual thai labor.

How much was he paid? Do you think he will now retire and go back to the cooking show?

[Plus]

It's a matter of principle.

You can't be a PM and hold a second job, there no modalities - "it's an innocent cooking show", "I'm a part time employee only", "the money is honorarium" (more like honorerium for Samak), "the money goes to charities", "I'm not obliged to do it EVERY week" and so on.

Yes, cooking sounds innocent, but who is to decide what is innocent and what is not, and at what point - when they apply for a job? Should the courts check every job application and every contract and if everybody strictly follows the contract? Or shoud they check when someone brings up the complaint?

There's a reason the law is firm on this - it would be a bloody mess otherwise.

All five hundred lawmakers might start making money on the side tomorrow and all would claim it's all innocent, and every fuc_ker would get three appeals all the way to the Supreme Court.

[animatic]

Television shows aired on public airwaves.

What laws can he change as PM to affect the cooking show to his benefit?

The whole shooting match of TV access for the producers,

easy transfers from production to air or interminable delays, paperwork and fees,

decisions from Ministry of Information about censorship, and more.

The government here has a TON of leverage over TV shows and production.

And that ALL translates to MONEY.

So it's NOT 'The Cooking Show" but the company

and companies behind it that would hope to benefit

from a compliant and properly stroked PM.

He can say go hard on them or go easy,

don't do as I ask and I replace your boss,

this is Thailand after all.

Power from the top

and kow towing moves up hill,

patronage moves downhill.

Why should it EVER be too late in the day to apply ETHICS?

Edited September 10, 2008 by animatic

[Plus]

Prasopsuk ends role as mediator

and

He said that he would like to give opportunities to political parties to solve the situation, so now it is the responsibility of the members of parliament to proceed with their work to end political problems.

Full article from the Post at: http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=130549

It certainly look slike pressure is being applied to move on from Samak. First the business community and now the senate/negotiation leader

Samak was only one part of the problem. The fact that the PPP so readily wants to see him back (whether it happens or not) shows the ethical standards they operate under. Moreover, there is little doubt that that the people who voted the PPP into office would be willing to vote them right back into office again should the house be dissolved. This system has to change or this merry go round will continue.

The merry go round will inevitably continue. The only thing that could break the logjam would be a defection of PPP MPs ....

"New politics", anyone?

That would exclude vast majority of the current bunch from running in the first place.

[Old Man River]

Prasopsuk ends role as mediator

and

He said that he would like to give opportunities to political parties to solve the situation, so now it is the responsibility of the members of parliament to proceed with their work to end political problems.

Full article from the Post at: http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=130549

It certainly look slike pressure is being applied to move on from Samak. First the business community and now the senate/negotiation leader

Samak was only one part of the problem. The fact that the PPP so readily wants to see him back (whether it happens or not) shows the ethical standards they operate under. Moreover, there is little doubt that that the people who voted the PPP into office would be willing to vote them right back into office again should the house be dissolved. This system has to change or this merry go round will continue.

The merry go round will inevitably continue. The only thing that could break the logjam would be a defection of PPP MPs ....

"New politics", anyone?

That would exclude vast majority of the current bunch from running in the first place.

I am seeing a level of frustration in Bangkok that I haven't seen before. People who don't even support the PAD are thinking new politics. Could happen.

[Smithson]

It's a matter of principle.

You can't be a PM and hold a second job, there no modalities - "it's an innocent cooking show", "I'm a part time employee only", "the money is honorarium" (more like honorerium for Samak), "the money goes to charities", "I'm not obliged to do it EVERY week" and so on.

Yes, cooking sounds innocent, but who is to decide what is innocent and what is not, and at what point - when they apply for a job? Should the courts check every job application and every contract and if everybody strictly follows the contract? Or shoud they check when someone brings up the complaint?

There's a reason the law is firm on this - it would be a bloody mess otherwise.

All five hundred lawmakers might start making money on the side tomorrow and all would claim it's all innocent, and every fuc_ker would get three appeals all the way to the Supreme Court.

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, fair enough. But let's not confuse principles with (Thai) politics. Every fuc_ker is making money on the side. Surely you don't think they're doing it for the good of the country?

[ThNiner]

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, fair enough. But let's not confuse principles with (Thai) politics. Every fuc_ker is making money on the side. Surely you don't think they're doing it for the good of the country?

Even if "every fuc_ker is making money on the side", it doesn't make it right. The judges did the right thing yesterday by setting a precedent.

[hammered]

Prasopsuk ends role as mediator

and

He said that he would like to give opportunities to political parties to solve the situation, so now it is the responsibility of the members of parliament to proceed with their work to end political problems.

Full article from the Post at: http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=130549

It certainly look slike pressure is being applied to move on from Samak. First the business community and now the senate/negotiation leader

Samak was only one part of the problem. The fact that the PPP so readily wants to see him back (whether it happens or not) shows the ethical standards they operate under. Moreover, there is little doubt that that the people who voted the PPP into office would be willing to vote them right back into office again should the house be dissolved. This system has to change or this merry go round will continue.

The merry go round will inevitably continue. The only thing that could break the logjam would be a defection of PPP MPs ....

"New politics", anyone?

That would exclude vast majority of the current bunch from running in the first place.

I am seeing a level of frustration in Bangkok that I haven't seen before. People who don't even support the PAD are thinking new politics. Could happen.

Business people must be completely fed up with them all by now. The government are not doing anything that looks like what a government should do ie run the country, deal with problems instead they are looking like a bunch of guys trying all they can to stay in power while letting the country fall apart having completely mishandled what were small protests against them. That plus a demonstrable lack of ethics rather than any PAD protest is what will end up undermining the government and even allowing a complete reworking of the democratic system if the government arent careful.

A while ago I read a few scenarios for how PPP would implode. One was that those that financially support PPP (and there are more than Thaksin) would find business hurt so much they would withdraw financial support from PPP. Dont know if it will happen but one thing is for sure, something has to give.

[larvidchr]

Please spare me from the holy Hippocratic statements about the Thai courts and the democracy finally working by ousting the PM on a juristic technicality.

If this was true the PAD leaders would long ago have been imprisoned for being the catalysts to the last military coup, the Generals would have been imprisoned for illegal overthrowing the Government forcing the Thais to accept a new constitution and for lining their pockets while in power.

Someone else ( for some reason I cant seem to remember the name ) would have been imprisoned for making the same kind of property deals on an almost daily basis making them some of the richest people on earth, that Thaksins wife was convicted of.

And the present PAD rally would have been broken up by court order long ago and the responsible imprisoned, if the rally lasts to the end of the month it will have cost the Thai society 40 to 60 Billion Baht according to economical analysts.

Now the PAD supporters is hoping that if the cooking farce don't do the trick then at least the defamation case against Samak will do the job, this will after all be the final prof that the repeat offender Samak is rotten to the core.

In the midst of all this all these PAD fans seems to have been struck with collective amnesia.

March 27-2007 Case 1. Sondhi Limthongkul convicted to 2 years in jail for defamation.

March 8-2008 Case 2. Sondhi Limthongkul convicted to 9 month in jail for defamation.

Not forgotten, just not really relative to context.

He is NOT running the country as the government.

He is a private citizen. And remember his convictions were

while fighting theses same people in government.

Fighting a more than usually corrupt 'powers that be'.

This is a play out of Thaksin's sue anybody that disagrees with you tome.

"I am the government, you can't criticise me."

And this is another reason PAD is risking much personal freedoms,

they want to put a stop to this 'suit happiness' that has parallized

any checks and balances in the country.

No one dared air dirty laundry for fear of a billion baht suit.

What's good for the goose.

I see you stay true to your avatar "animatic" so far the fact is that all this has been very one sided with the Army, Police the wealthy elite, allegedly backed by somebody connected with the Royals, using all and every dirty trick in the book to brake the hold on Government that the rural poor have trough their political representatives, this view on the events is backed by every single outside professional independent observers of Thai politics.

The small but very loud number of foreigners living in Thailand who has forgotten what is the cornerstone of their own wealth and privileged lives is a constant source of amazement, but then again they still come here and buy property on the face value of real estate agents sales pitch without seeking independent legal advise, something they would never even contemplate doing in their own country's, then they marry 20 year old Thai girls and genuinely believes it is true love aso. aso. aso. It is in the water me thinks

Regards

[onethailand]

What laws can he change as PM to affect the cooking show to his benefit?

How about amending the Constitution to allow public officials to hold other jobs and interests in businesses? Which would obviously mean that the public officials will use their power to benefit themselves...

I'm a little confused as to why you are even questioning the fact. As minor a transgression as it might appear to some, it still poses a conflict of interest.

[Plus]

Don't forget that the government has a very limited impact on the economy. Politically they can screw it big time, but when it comes to details, even the most optimistic policies are just a drop in the ocean - the economy is too big, the policies are too small, and most of the real work is done by civil service, not by government ministers. Those bureaucrats are not easily afflicted by political turmoil.

In fact Thailand would do rather well without ANY government for at least half a year.

[Radius]

In the UK if it seemed a minister was in breach of regulations, however trivial, the civil service machine would warn the offending minister and the matter would be nipped in the bud.In the case of the PM this warning would be carried out by the Cabinet Secretary.

Samak had been warned before and was now convicted, just like any court in the West would convict him, given the evidence. I had my wife translate a lot of the judges comments, when he was reading the judgement and the judgement seemed perfectly fair. (The whole reading of the judgement was broadcast live on ASTV. In full, without being chopped up). Maybe, if they translate it into English one day, you will see for yourself.

You may not like what happened, but as far as the law is concerned, it was perfectly fair.

He was charge with "conflict of interest". What did they state was the conflict between being PM and the cooking show?

it has nothing to do with cooking, i hope your not playing dumb here, but being employed by another institution while being a PM is the case. and as we all know that employment or work in thai constitution or law is defined very broadly this is also the reason why you cannot paint your own house, mow your own lawn, etc. without having a work permit.

Not trying to play dumb. I agree if the law was just "no work allowed" but the verdict was quoted as "The court reasoned that the Constitution was aimed to prevent conflicts of interest on part of Cabinet members so Samak had violated in the intention of the charter although he host the programmes on part-time basis." If you look up the definition of "conflict of interest" it would not fit the verdict.

might be because the definition of 'conflict of interest' in english is not the same as they defined in thai 'ผลประโยชน์ทับซ้อน' (phon prayot thap son) on which 'thap son''' really means overlapping. this is more likely that it falls to the category that you can only have one job ie. as a PM to perform your duties imapartially.

i guess we can't really understand thai law unless we know the language itself...

Actually, it seems pretty simple to me.

If you are PM you are the biggest source of power in the country (on paper). For you to recieve money from any other job your judgement on subject(s) affecting that other job is tainted.

You can no longer take objective decisions. And even if you could, people will always think you ruled that way because you recieved money from them.

This is what we call: 'Conflict of interest'.

btw, does this give Samak a criminal record? And if so, can a person be PM with a criminal record?

I understand and agree with your definition. My question is what judgement can you make as PM that would affect the cooking show? If there is nothing that can be affected then what is the conflict of interest?

Food laws

Health codes

Media laws

I can go on, but it is actually besides the point.

The point is that because of conflict of interest a PM cannot be employed elsewhere. Even if this is a trivial business.

First of all, you never know how a trivial business can become not so trivial afterall.

And second: If they allow this then the PM can take up other jobs as well.

[Smithson]

Don't forget that the government has a very limited impact on the economy. Politically they can screw it big time, but when it comes to details, even the most optimistic policies are just a drop in the ocean - the economy is too big, the policies are too small, and most of the real work is done by civil service, not by government ministers. Those bureaucrats are not easily afflicted by political turmoil.

In fact Thailand would do rather well without ANY government for at least half a year.

Very true, the Baht is hardly affected.

I think the best answer is the 97 constitution with amendments. New politics is scarier than the present mess.

[lifeisrandom]

I think Andrew Walker over at New Mandala says it best:

Hosting a cooking show = GUILTY

Launching a coup and tearing up the constitution = NO PROBLEM

what an over simplification

that idiot should have his fake degree and fake credentials stripped

[sjaak327]

It's a matter of principle.

You can't be a PM and hold a second job, there no modalities - "it's an innocent cooking show", "I'm a part time employee only", "the money is honorarium" (more like honorerium for Samak), "the money goes to charities", "I'm not obliged to do it EVERY week" and so on.

Yes, cooking sounds innocent, but who is to decide what is innocent and what is not, and at what point - when they apply for a job? Should the courts check every job application and every contract and if everybody strictly follows the contract? Or shoud they check when someone brings up the complaint?

There's a reason the law is firm on this - it would be a bloody mess otherwise.

All five hundred lawmakers might start making money on the side tomorrow and all would claim it's all innocent, and every fuc_ker would get three appeals all the way to the Supreme Court.

You can explain this all you want, fact is that in a normal democracy, such a rule doesn't exist. Do you really believe that someone like George W Bush, doesn't have any additional income one way or another. What about holding shares of companies for instance, not a problem in a western democracies. Whoever drafted this rule, hasn't been thinking. If he was, then surely a clear conflict of interest should have been shown by the courts. Of course there isn't a clear confilict of interest, hence the conviction is a joke.

[animatic]

has parallized

any checks and balances in the country.

There were never checks and balances under any govt. I can't believe posters are trying to have an intelligent discussion about who is right or wrong in Thai politics. The whole thing is rotten with shamelessness, conflicts of interest, corruption...

It's all about pigs at the trough, don't you realize?

Certainly is,

and that doesn't mean you can't roll even 1% of that back.

Doesn't mean they shouldn't TRY to clean things a bit.

The people of Issan will benefit from this in the end

rather than JUST be abused by it as always,

but with a patina of help for them. that ends up

ruining many of their lives anyway.

Edited September 10, 2008 by animatic

[Smithson]

has parallized

any checks and balances in the country.

There were never checks and balances under any govt. I can't believe posters are trying to have an intelligent discussion about who is right or wrong in Thai politics. The whole thing is rotten with shamelessness, conflicts of interest, corruption...

It's all about pigs at the trough, don't you realize?

Certainly is,

and that doesn't mean you can roll even 1% of that back.

Doesn't mean they shouldn't TRY to clean things a bit.

The people of Issan will benefit from this in the end

rather than JUST be abused by it as always,

but with a patina of help for them. that ends up

ruining many of their lives anyway.

How? Sure they won't be subjected to future PMs hosting cooking shows, however I can't see a pattern emerging that will lead to politicians being honest.

[younghusband]

It's a matter of principle.

You can't be a PM and hold a second job, there no modalities - "it's an innocent cooking show", "I'm a part time employee only", "the money is honorarium" (more like honorerium for Samak), "the money goes to charities", "I'm not obliged to do it EVERY week" and so on.

Yes, cooking sounds innocent, but who is to decide what is innocent and what is not, and at what point - when they apply for a job? Should the courts check every job application and every contract and if everybody strictly follows the contract? Or shoud they check when someone brings up the complaint?

There's a reason the law is firm on this - it would be a bloody mess otherwise.

All five hundred lawmakers might start making money on the side tomorrow and all would claim it's all innocent, and every fuc_ker would get three appeals all the way to the Supreme Court.

When you start expressing even the slightest criticism for 1. the gang of criminals that launched an illegal coup and tore up an excellent constitution and 2.The lawlessness of the PAD rabble, it might be possible to take your post seriously.(but even then perhaps not because the offence is so trivial).

Seriously, do you not recognise even the tiniest bit of hypocrisy in what you say?If you were to say that it was your belief that Samak needs for the country's sake to be removed and if it takes a piece of nonsense to do this so be it,I could respect that.(In fact I thought this is wwhat you were saying in an earlier post)

[stupidfalang]

PPP meet Banharn to find new PM

By The Nation

People Power Party's deputy leader Somchai Wongsawat and secretary general Surapong Suebwonglee hold a meeting with Chart Thai Party leader Banharn Silapa-archa on Wednesday morning.

The meeting came a day after Samak Sundaravej was disqualified from the premiership at the order of the Constitution Court.

Somchai and Surapong were expected to discuss about new prime minister who will be voted in the parliament on Friday. Both were also expected to confirm that Chart Thai is still a coalition party in the government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banharn_Silpa-Archa

Checkit out for yourself...

[animatic]

It's a matter of principle.

You can't be a PM and hold a second job, there no modalities - "it's an innocent cooking show", "I'm a part time employee only", "the money is honorarium" (more like honorerium for Samak), "the money goes to charities", "I'm not obliged to do it EVERY week" and so on.

Yes, cooking sounds innocent, but who is to decide what is innocent and what is not, and at what point - when they apply for a job? Should the courts check every job application and every contract and if everybody strictly follows the contract? Or shoud they check when someone brings up the complaint?

There's a reason the law is firm on this - it would be a bloody mess otherwise.

All five hundred lawmakers might start making money on the side tomorrow and all would claim it's all innocent, and every fuc_ker would get three appeals all the way to the Supreme Court.

You can explain this all you want, fact is that in a normal democracy, such a rule doesn't exist. Do you really believe that someone like George W Bush, doesn't have any additional income one way or another. What about holding shares of companies for instance, not a problem in a western democracies. Whoever drafted this rule, hasn't been thinking. If he was, then surely a clear conflict of interest should have been shown by the courts. Of course there isn't a clear confilict of interest, hence the conviction is a joke.

Moderators this is in context because it is in direct comparison of laws.

GWB assets are put into a blind trust to be managed by others.

In THEORY it means they don't control it.

It really doesn't work for a Dick Cheney who KNEW he put 750 million in Haliburton in his trust,

and made it earn MUCH more, so it wouldn't get sold logically.

But they can not work for a company.

SAME.

AND for ones that produces products sold or regulated by the goverment or it's agencies.

SAME.

So you can't argue this rule doesn't exist in other countries.

Companies try to use PACs political action comitees and many devices to get around this,

mostly at election times. With the PRECISE aim to control how their businesses are regulated.

The thai's don't seem to have gotten this subtile yet....