Democrats Challenge Pm On Conflict Of Interest Over Tax Refunds On House Purchases

[Lite Beer]

Democrats challenge PM on conflict of interest over tax refunds on house purchases

BANGKOK, Sept 26 - Thailand's Opposition Democrat Party said Monday it will petition the Office of the Ombudsman to press Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra on conflict of interest charges regarding her government's policy of tax refunds for first-time home buyers.

MP Wirat Kalayasiri, as chief of the party’s legal team, revealed the Democrat's latest move after the Pheu Thai-led government implemented its policy to refund tax to first-time homebuyers for homes costing less than Bt5 million.

The government earlier promised to implement the policy on purchases of homes costing less than three million baht but the price was raised to five million to draw more buyers and boost the country's real estate sector.

Those eligible to receive the tax privilege will get a tax refund of a maximum ten per cent of the house price and the tax rebate must not be over Bt500,000.

Mr Wirat said the real estate company SC Asset Corporation Plc, once owned by the prime minister, has hugely benefited from such a policy, triggering concerns of possible conflict of interest.

Although Ms Yingluck has resigned as the company's chief executive officer, Mr Wirat said, the firm selected Busaba Damapong, wife of Bhanapot Damapong, to replace her.

The Democrat MP elaborated that Mr Bhanapot is the stepbrother of Pojaman Na Pombejra, former wife of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra, and that he is also a defendant with his sister on alleged tax evasion over the sale of stocks.

Mr Bhanapot was found guilty of the charge, and the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) is also probing the case of Ample Rich share concealment scandal in which his wife has been charged, according to Mr Virat.

“As I looked through the SC Asset share structure,” Mr Wirat stated, “Mr Thaksin's two daughters hold 200 million shares each, Mr Bhanapot 31.8 million, and Ms Pojaman 18.5 million.”

The Democrat MP said that SC Asset remains a Shinawatra family business no matter how the share structure is changed.

"So the conflict of interest is connected to the violation of the Constitution, Article 279-280," said Mr Wirat. "It's about the ethics of political officeholders."

Mr Wirat said the Office of Ombudsman can proceed with its investigation without a plaintiff and can forward the case to the Office of National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) if any wrongdoing is found so that the agency could launch an impeachment process.

The Democrat legal team agreed that the case involves conflict of interest and that some in the private sectors have gained several billion baht from the policy, reaffirmed Mr Wirat.

"The party's legal team will collect more evidence and submit it to the Office of Ombudsman to investigate the matter," the opposition MP asserted. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2011-09-26

[whybother]

Impossible. A Shinawatra would never be involved in conflict of interest.

[TAWP]

They make it too easy...even a Thai journalist can find the links.

[PoorSucker]

Baah, humbug.

Let me get my new summerhouse with 500.000 baht discount.

[moe666]

That bunch just doesn't care what they do. They love to rub it in your face.

[phiphidon]

Impossible. A Shinawatra would never be involved in conflict of interest.

So, If Abhisit had done something during his term in office that benefitted CP in any way he too would be guilty of a conflict of interest? Have I got that right?

[rubl]

Impossible. A Shinawatra would never be involved in conflict of interest.

So, If Abhisit had done something during his term in office that benefitted CP in any way he too would be guilty of a conflict of interest? Have I got that right?

Maybe only. It depends on the conditions 1) modification of cabinet decision which mainly profits a single company, 2) family relation with top or main owners of said company. If that's true we would have a similar situation. So, pray tell ...

[thaicbr]

Impossible. A Shinawatra would never be involved in conflict of interest.

So, If Abhisit had done something during his term in office that benefitted CP in any way he too would be guilty of a conflict of interest? Have I got that right?

Does Abhisit's family own CP??????????????

I see Abhisit's Dad is an independent director. But then so is the K*ngs principle private secretary

Edited September 27, 2011 by thaicbr

[DP25]

Impossible. A Shinawatra would never be involved in conflict of interest.

At the anti corruption walk the other day the PM swore to avoid conflict of interests so clearly this report is a mistake

[hammered]

The questions on this would seem to be:

Are SC Asset being unfairly advantaged over other real estate companies, or should companies with any shareholder with a close (needs defining) family memeber as a serving cabinet member not be eligible for any contract coming from government?

How close does a family member have to be to count as conflict of interest?

Both these questions need to be answered particularly the second or it may be that in the future no Thai businessperson or anyone form a business family can be in cabinet. There may also be rakes of charges to be made against previous government members too depending on the ruling and assuming this isnt just a law to be used against Shins and nobody else.

[phiphidon]

Impossible. A Shinawatra would never be involved in conflict of interest.

So, If Abhisit had done something during his term in office that benefitted CP in any way he too would be guilty of a conflict of interest? Have I got that right?

Maybe only. It depends on the conditions 1) modification of cabinet decision which mainly profits a single company, 2) family relation with top or main owners of said company. If that's true we would have a similar situation. So, pray tell ...

Sorry, can't. don't you know about these draconian defamation laws.....................................:jap:

[rubl]

Impossible. A Shinawatra would never be involved in conflict of interest.

So, If Abhisit had done something during his term in office that benefitted CP in any way he too would be guilty of a conflict of interest? Have I got that right?

Maybe only. It depends on the conditions 1) modification of cabinet decision which mainly profits a single company, 2) family relation with top or main owners of said company. If that's true we would have a similar situation. So, pray tell ...

Sorry, can't. don't you know about these draconian defamation laws.....................................:jap:

Guess which finger I raise on my left hand keeping the others down

[whybother]

The questions on this would seem to be:

Are SC Asset being unfairly advantaged over other real estate companies, or should companies with any shareholder with a close (needs defining) family memeber as a serving cabinet member not be eligible for any contract coming from government?

How close does a family member have to be to count as conflict of interest?

Both these questions need to be answered particularly the second or it may be that in the future no Thai businessperson or anyone form a business family can be in cabinet. There may also be rakes of charges to be made against previous government members too depending on the ruling and assuming this isnt just a law to be used against Shins and nobody else.

I would think that it's not so much whether a company is unfairly advantaged over competitors, but whether a closely linked company would gain a large amount of government money.

[phiphidon]

That bunch just doesn't care what they do. They love to rub it in your face.

Oh I know, just when will the Democrats realise they lost the election and just get on with being the opposition.

[phiphidon]

Maybe only. It depends on the conditions 1) modification of cabinet decision which mainly profits a single company, 2) family relation with top or main owners of said company. If that's true we would have a similar situation. So, pray tell ...

Sorry, can't. don't you know about these draconian defamation laws.....................................:jap:

Guess which finger I raise on my left hand keeping the others down

Oh Cmon, Rubl, where's that famed sense of humour and decorum? Not long to the weekend...........Never had you down as a lefty, certainly not politically

[hammered]

The questions on this would seem to be:

Are SC Asset being unfairly advantaged over other real estate companies, or should companies with any shareholder with a close (needs defining) family memeber as a serving cabinet member not be eligible for any contract coming from government?

How close does a family member have to be to count as conflict of interest?

Both these questions need to be answered particularly the second or it may be that in the future no Thai businessperson or anyone form a business family can be in cabinet. There may also be rakes of charges to be made against previous government members too depending on the ruling and assuming this isnt just a law to be used against Shins and nobody else.

I would think that it's not so much whether a company is unfairly advantaged over competitors, but whether a closely linked company would gain a large amount of government money.

If the Dems go for this one. The reds could have a field day outing the companies linked to the last government and how much they made in a few deals. Maybe different relationships but the double standards frenzy this could lead to being whipped across over vast swathes of the country may see this disappear into a more not close enough relatives to Yingluck hole. In fact I wonder if there have already been ruling on what constitutes a close relative. The whole problem with this approach is that the checks and balance mechanisms are widely seen as dicredited by virtually all who keep electing Thaksins parties and to keep using them for the same purpose furthers this along with anger etc.

The purpose of this Dem counter offensive is to build anger in its own supporters as a counter to a move by PTP to target them with tax breaks for homes along with a vague hope a few court cases will derail the government and create conditions for an accident. Pure politics and nothing about moral highground

[whybother]

That bunch just doesn't care what they do. They love to rub it in your face.

Oh I know, just when will the Democrats realise they lost the election and just get on with being the opposition.

Aren't they doing what an opposition always does. Challenge the government.

[whybother]

If the Dems go for this one. The reds could have a field day outing the companies linked to the last government and how much they made in a few deals. Maybe different relationships but the double standards frenzy this could lead to being whipped across over vast swathes of the country may see this disappear into a more not close enough relatives to Yingluck hole. In fact I wonder if there have already been ruling on what constitutes a close relative. The whole problem with this approach is that the checks and balance mechanisms are widely seen as dicredited by virtually all who keep electing Thaksins parties and to keep using them for the same purpose furthers this along with anger etc.

The purpose of this Dem counter offensive is to build anger in its own supporters as a counter to a move by PTP to target them with tax breaks for homes along with a vague hope a few court cases will derail the government and create conditions for an accident. Pure politics and nothing about moral highground

Don't you think the reds would have outed companies linked to the Dems if they had the opportunity? And IIRC, they brought links up on several occasions.

[rubl]

Sorry, can't. don't you know about these draconian defamation laws.....................................:jap:

Guess which finger I raise on my left hand keeping the others down

Oh Cmon, Rubl, where's that famed sense of humour and decorum? Not long to the weekend...........Never had you down as a lefty, certainly not politically

No comment

[hammered]

If the Dems go for this one. The reds could have a field day outing the companies linked to the last government and how much they made in a few deals. Maybe different relationships but the double standards frenzy this could lead to being whipped across over vast swathes of the country may see this disappear into a more not close enough relatives to Yingluck hole. In fact I wonder if there have already been ruling on what constitutes a close relative. The whole problem with this approach is that the checks and balance mechanisms are widely seen as dicredited by virtually all who keep electing Thaksins parties and to keep using them for the same purpose furthers this along with anger etc.

The purpose of this Dem counter offensive is to build anger in its own supporters as a counter to a move by PTP to target them with tax breaks for homes along with a vague hope a few court cases will derail the government and create conditions for an accident. Pure politics and nothing about moral highground

Don't you think the reds would have outed companies linked to the Dems if they had the opportunity? And IIRC, they brought links up on several occasions.

And they'll go again and have a few more boycotts and leave the bank campaigns and raise the steaks for business. And there are a few biggies linked to the BJT too who didnt do too badly. An old political analyst told me years ago to watch what companies did well under which governments to see what the divisions and conflicts were really about. There are certain companies that always do very well under the Dems as there are under the interloper Thaksin's party.

The reality is still that for the dems and establishment to win they need to defeat a Thaksin party in an election. All the court cases, dissolutions, coups and barrack room deals just continue and raise the steaks and anger in the feud and there is absolutely no endgame in any of them. Either they win an election, they do a deal or they lose. It isnt the greatest of hands but it is all they have and winning an election looks to be pretty unlikely. Even the missus who despises Thaksin reckons Abhisit hasnt a hope in hell of that

[tlansford]

1) the Democrats' strategy is to raise hell, not to actually DO anything

2) regarding conflicts of interests, do any of you recall the Bush/Cheney administration ? That wasn't all so long ago... And we Americans like to describe ourselves as a mature democracy...

[rubl]

1) the Democrats' strategy is to raise hell, not to actually DO anything

2) regarding conflicts of interests, do any of you recall the Bush/Cheney administration ? That wasn't all so long ago... And we Americans like to describe ourselves as a mature democracy...

ad 1.) Thank you for your insight. Could you please elaborate, provide details. Mind you if this is just your opinion, that's fine, you're entitled to it, just say so.

ad 2.) True or not, a bit off topic, that's all.

Edited September 27, 2011 by rubl

[whybother]

If the Dems go for this one. The reds could have a field day outing the companies linked to the last government and how much they made in a few deals. Maybe different relationships but the double standards frenzy this could lead to being whipped across over vast swathes of the country may see this disappear into a more not close enough relatives to Yingluck hole. In fact I wonder if there have already been ruling on what constitutes a close relative. The whole problem with this approach is that the checks and balance mechanisms are widely seen as dicredited by virtually all who keep electing Thaksins parties and to keep using them for the same purpose furthers this along with anger etc.

The purpose of this Dem counter offensive is to build anger in its own supporters as a counter to a move by PTP to target them with tax breaks for homes along with a vague hope a few court cases will derail the government and create conditions for an accident. Pure politics and nothing about moral highground

Don't you think the reds would have outed companies linked to the Dems if they had the opportunity? And IIRC, they brought links up on several occasions.

And they'll go again and have a few more boycotts and leave the bank campaigns and raise the steaks for business. And there are a few biggies linked to the BJT too who didnt do too badly. An old political analyst told me years ago to watch what companies did well under which governments to see what the divisions and conflicts were really about. There are certain companies that always do very well under the Dems as there are under the interloper Thaksin's party.

The reality is still that for the dems and establishment to win they need to defeat a Thaksin party in an election. All the court cases, dissolutions, coups and barrack room deals just continue and raise the steaks and anger in the feud and there is absolutely no endgame in any of them. Either they win an election, they do a deal or they lose. It isnt the greatest of hands but it is all they have and winning an election looks to be pretty unlikely. Even the missus who despises Thaksin reckons Abhisit hasnt a hope in hell of that

Beef steaks?

[tlansford]

1) the Democrats' strategy is to raise hell, not to actually DO anything

2) regarding conflicts of interests, do any of you recall the Bush/Cheney administration ? That wasn't all so long ago... And we Americans like to describe ourselves as a mature democracy...

ad 1.) Thank you for your insight. Could you please elaborate, provide details. Mind you if this is just your opinion, that's fine, you're entitled to it, just say so.

ad 2.) True or not, a bit off topic, that's all.

Hi Rubl - for #1, it is an observation (based on information from English language news). As reported here and in the Post, the Dems have been on the attack since the election. It is a daily event with The Nation: either an old attack is repeated, or a new attack has been generated. As the examples are plentiful and you see the same news as I do, I won't list them. The second part of this strategy appears to be (note, opinion keywords) talk about Thaksin at every opportunity - at least this seems to be the tactic of The Nation.

For #2, I find it a relevant, recent, parallel in a western democracy which could be balanced against the outrage expressed here over conflict of interests in Thailand. The implication in many of the statements of outrage about corruption in Thailand is that "it doesn't work like that in my country"... but of course it does, it just looks a little different there.

In the USA we don't have the large family structures in business and it is replaced by close-knit business networks and due to the influence of $$ in USA elections, a feedback mechanism to fuel the conflict of interests. Bush/Cheney admin enacted policies based on benefiting their "buddies". The benefit to Haliburton alone, for example, makes anything done here in Thailand look like peanuts. Then there is the Oil Industry...

Everyone (here) is so upset about a housing benefit deal. Hammer made the point already, does it specifically benefit the SC company compared to others in the market? That is a good question. That it may provide benefits to the housing industry would not be a conflict of interest. The Bush Administration gave large no-bid contracts to Haliburton and no one even got their hand slapped...

[hammered]

Is it a conflict of interest that military officers seem to dominate the NBTC while also being one of the major players in the industry it supervises and having also been actively involved in closing down media outlets it didnt like? Should the Nation be reporting on this? Should the Democrat party if truly democratically minded be opposing this? Should the PTP if truly democratically minded be opposing this? Should the senate if truly democratically minded have made such selections?

Why is there less of a furore over this and indeed demands by the media and democrat party that all investigation of it be halted?

Why are some things chosen by the moral judges in the media and democrat party to go on and on about but others are not?

[YellowFeverCAD]

1) the Democrats' strategy is to raise hell, not to actually DO anything

2) regarding conflicts of interests, do any of you recall the Bush/Cheney administration ? That wasn't all so long ago... And we Americans like to describe ourselves as a mature democracy...

ad 1.) Thank you for your insight. Could you please elaborate, provide details. Mind you if this is just your opinion, that's fine, you're entitled to it, just say so.

ad 2.) True or not, a bit off topic, that's all.

His answers are;

1. ANYTHING he says is fact, just ask him and if you don't see it as fact well you must be stupid he is perfect and just ask him he'll confirm it for you.

2. Typical red tactic misdirect.. don't worry about the facts or the topic just pretend that if someone else somewhere else is doing or has done it that means this instance can't be all bad.

All in all he's a massive wanke_r

[tlansford]

1) the Democrats' strategy is to raise hell, not to actually DO anything

2) regarding conflicts of interests, do any of you recall the Bush/Cheney administration ? That wasn't all so long ago... And we Americans like to describe ourselves as a mature democracy...

ad 1.) Thank you for your insight. Could you please elaborate, provide details. Mind you if this is just your opinion, that's fine, you're entitled to it, just say so.

ad 2.) True or not, a bit off topic, that's all.

His answers are;

1. ANYTHING he says is fact, just ask him and if you don't see it as fact well you must be stupid he is perfect and just ask him he'll confirm it for you.

2. Typical red tactic misdirect.. don't worry about the facts or the topic just pretend that if someone else somewhere else is doing or has done it that means this instance can't be all bad.

All in all he's a massive wanke_r

Thanks for answering for me. Glad you know what I'm thinking. Maybe you even read my reply before posting this ??

As for what I think about the intelligence of other posters, I have no need to hide my opinions, nor do I need to hide myself behind a screen name. I am happy to comment on what a poster SAYS. If I think what they wrote was BS, then I'll say so. What I don't say is that the poster is BS, or stupid.

And thanks too... - being told that I have a massive wanke_r, I'll have to share that with my GF...