webfact Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Pheu Thai: Former Bangkok Governor to Face Corruption Charges The Pheu Thai government insists the former Bangkok Governor must be responsible in the controversial purchase of firefighting equipment by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. Pheu Thai MP for Mahasarakam, Yuttapong Jarussatien said the Pheu Thai Party has reached a consensus for Interior Minister Yongyuth Wichaidit to finalize the case about the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, or BMA's, deal with the Steyr Daimler-Puch company from Austria. Previously, the BMA had a deal to purchase fire trucks and fire boats from the company but it was not a binding agreement. Therefore, the Office of National Anti-Corruption Commission declared a verdict to let the BMA return their products while the company will be required to pay the BMA and the government back. Yuttapong added that former Bangkok Governor Apiruk Kosayothin may claim in the Supreme Court that he is innocent of graft and blasted the Pheu Thai government instead. Meanwhile, Pheu Thai deputy spokesman Jirayu Huangsap yesterday added that the cabinet has instructed the Interior Ministry to prepare fire trucks and equipment to handle possible fire in the winter and approaching dry season. Moreover, it instructed the BMA to drag on canals as a preventive measure against flooding next year. -- Tan Network 2012-01-04 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 The NACC said that he shouldn't be charged. But a political party has reached a consensus that he should be. Is Yongyuth the prosecutor? Does that mean that Apirak has been charged, or are the PTP going to instruct the someone else to charge him. Yuttapong added that former Bangkok Governor Apiruk Kosayothin may claim in the Supreme Court that he is innocent of graft and blasted the Pheu Thai government instead. Did Yuttapong [a Pheu Thai MP] blast the Pheu Thai government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DP25 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Balls the size of coconuts on these guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdoom6996 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 The NACC said that he shouldn't be charged. But a political party has reached a consensus that he should be. Is Yongyuth the prosecutor? Does that mean that Apirak has been charged, or are the PTP going to instruct the someone else to charge him. Yuttapong added that former Bangkok Governor Apiruk Kosayothin may claim in the Supreme Court that he is innocent of graft and blasted the Pheu Thai government instead. Did Yuttapong [a Pheu Thai MP] blast the Pheu Thai government? It was the governments fault. Wrong priorities. And this guy was no more incompetent than the present government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 This was all under Samak at the time if I recall. Apirak asumed control of Bangkok once the deal had been done. I must confess that Aphirak won my admiration when the TRT shenanigans burst into public view and he resigned to clear his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaipod Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Pheu Thai must be looking for some bunny to take the rap, Apirak came into this deal after the deal actually went through . What happens to the ones who originally set the buying of the fire trucks up ,I'm sure Mr Polkin (TRT ) has a lot to do with it he was the interior minister at the time and signed for them to be purchased . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimjim Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I wonder under what authority they can order a foreign company to return their money for products already delivered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Moruya Posted January 4, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted January 4, 2012 I wonder under what authority they can order a foreign company to return their money for products already delivered. Under the ancient German law of Habeas Aeroplanum. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derifo Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 This was all under Samak at the time if I recall. Apirak asumed control of Bangkok once the deal had been done. I must confess that Aphirak won my admiration when the TRT shenanigans burst into public view and he resigned to clear his name. Correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derifo Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I wonder under what authority they can order a foreign company to return their money for products already delivered. Under lieland's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbamboo Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Those firetrucks, overpriced scanners, out of date submarines, an airship(!)....... the list goes on and so does the mismanagement of precious funds that could be better spent elsewhere. Edited January 4, 2012 by bigbamboo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Those firetrucks, overpriced scanners, out of date submarines, an airship(!)....... the list goes on and so does the mismanagement of precious funds that could be better spent elsewhere. What's wrong with spending money on firetrucks? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginjag Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Those firetrucks, overpriced scanners, out of date submarines, an airship(!)....... the list goes on and so does the mismanagement of precious funds that could be better spent elsewhere. What's wrong with spending money on firetrucks? They also have powerful pumps-to redirect water. But not a fat lot of good in Bkk traffic. Update establishments to have power fire hoses to knock out fires at the onset-rather than wait for 2 hours with a truck stuck in traffic. maybe having the large up to date tower type, and stationed near most of the largest buildings. But on the subject here more, how on earth do these guys in the said government have the audacity to claim another person is corrupt. 555555 Ha Ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I wonder under what authority they can order a foreign company to return their money for products already delivered. Under the ancient German law of Habeas Aeroplanum. Steyr-Daimler Puch is an Austrian company based in Graz, Austria. It is not German. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siampolee Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Indeed the dishonesty and the corruption in the P,T.P and its previous incarnations are unbelievable. The culprit in the matter was the now deceased Samak, that abusive foul mouthed fascist who presided over the original deal with his buddy Thaksin who arranged the, " lets swap the fire trucks for boiled chicken complete with bird flu " as barter payment at the time. Indeed a sorry comment on the current administration who it seems are ignoring the normal legal processes yet again in their relentless crusade to establish a one party dictatorship. the dirty laundry is for the time being still in the house however the time will come when the P.T.P. and its dirty laundry are going to be hung out to dry, the sooner the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SICHONSTEVE Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 This was all under Samak at the time if I recall. Apirak asumed control of Bangkok once the deal had been done. I must confess that Aphirak won my admiration when the TRT shenanigans burst into public view and he resigned to clear his name. That is correct!! Thaksin's notorious brother-in law Samak signed it off when he was Bangkok Governor before him. He encouraged the slaughter of 46 left-wing student protesters at Thammarat University in 1976 who he termed as communists. When questioned by CNN he denied that he ordered the slayings saying "only one of them was intentionally killed" - so that's alright then!!! He formed the 'later disbanded' People's Power Party and was ousted by PAD effectively and through accepting expenses for a cookery program laughably - he died of liver cancer which is the only decent thing he did in his life!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Samak wasn't Thaksins legal brother-in-law, he was perhaps more a 'brother-in-arms'. Don't forget that Samak was involved in the student-killings in -76 and denied anymore than 2 people died - not that Red Shirts seem to care, even if they claim root in the -76 movement...but I guess that's because Samak was on the 'right' side, so he couldn't be criticized... And here I thought right is right, no-matter what side someone gets their paychecks from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOODLOVER Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I wonder under what authority they can order a foreign company to return their money for products already delivered. Under the ancient German law of Habeas Aeroplanum. Steyr-Daimler Puch is an Austrian company based in Graz, Austria. It is not German. I think they may be referring to a situation where an airplane was held pursuant to payment of a claim. If so, funny if not i'm lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emptyset Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Samak wasn't Thaksins legal brother-in-law, he was perhaps more a 'brother-in-arms'. Don't forget that Samak was involved in the student-killings in -76 and denied anymore than 2 people died - not that Red Shirts seem to care, even if they claim root in the -76 movement...but I guess that's because Samak was on the 'right' side, so he couldn't be criticized... Well, Samak was criticized for his remarks by some of those currently on the red side, who were involved in the 76 student movement, Chaturon, Jaran, several red leaning academics etc. But most ordinary red shirts (though the red shirts weren't even called red shirts when Samak made those comments), don't claim their roots are in the leftist movements of the 70s and probably know little about what happened in 76. I don't think many details about it were known to most of the country at the time of the event. So it's not surprising that they didn't turn against Samak en masse. Only the ex-communists and former students from the 70s generation were concerned. But Samak was only a temporary ally anyway, and there are people as equally (or more) involved in the events of 76 on the anti-Thaksin side too. Samak wasn't part of the massacre directly, nor did he 'order' it as some people seem to think. He was a major right-wing propagandist, regularly encouraging hatred towards students on TV. Also, Thaksin is hardly Samak's 'brother in arms' either. Did Thaksin even have any dealings with Samak before he chose him for PM candidate? I mean the whole point of choosing Samak was that Thaksin thought an establishment man like Samak would help patch things up between him and the elite. Obviously he was wrong, and when he realized that Samak was both useless and not particularly inclined to go out of his way to help him, he got rid of him at the first opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krading Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I wonder under what authority they can order a foreign company to return their money for products already delivered. Under the ancient German law of Habeas Aeroplanum. Steyr-Daimler Puch is an Austrian company based in Graz, Austria. It is not German. Well, some of us got the joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I wonder under what authority they can order a foreign company to return their money for products already delivered. Under the ancient German law of Habeas Aeroplanum. Steyr-Daimler Puch is an Austrian company based in Graz, Austria. It is not German. It wasn't the Austrians who confiscated the aeroplane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dap Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I wonder under what authority they can order a foreign company to return their money for products already delivered. Under the ancient German law of Habeas Aeroplanum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siampolee Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Did Thaksin even have any dealings with Samak before he chose him for PM candidate? Thaksin did indeed act as Samaks patron on a number of occasions, he actually presented Samak with a brand new Jaguar for. " services rendered' some 6 - 8 years ago. The pair of them were as thick as thieves,. Samak was and Thaksin still is about as straight as a waiters corkscrew. A fine attribute for their combined screwing activities of the electorate and indeed the truth that the pair of them indulged in along with their cronies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Yet again the calumny that is TRT/PPP/ PTP raises it's rotten core and regurgitates one more fit of vengeful fallacy and abuse. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 The Austrian company rep was supposed to have been summoned to the court to testify back on Jan. 30. But I haven't heard or seen any news on further developments in the case...in terms of any decision by the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Yai Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) I have read quite a good deal about the case in Question in the past , to me it stinks of desperation by the PTP to try and find a "fall guy". for their shortcomings. Edited March 4, 2012 by Colin Yai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sing_Sling Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I wonder under what authority they can order a foreign company to return their money for products already delivered. Under the ancient German law of Habeas Aeroplanum. Steyr-Daimler Puch is an Austrian company based in Graz, Austria. It is not German. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now