Speaker's share deals 'not done to hide wealth'

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont yesterday defended himself against suspicion he has been trying to conceal his wealth.

Somsak, also president of the Parliament, confirmed an Isra News Agency report that he held 1.02 million shares in Dhipaya Insurance Plc worth about Bt102 million.

He said he had obtained the shares after leading a group of investors to acquire the insurance company.

Somsak said he had his brother-in-law hold the shares for him ahead of last year's general election as he had expected to be appointed to the Cabinet and such positions were subject to shareholding limits.

However, once he became House speaker - a post not subject to shareholding restrictions - he took the shares back, but when he learned that the insurance firm was entering into an agreement with certain state agencies, he decided to transfer the shares to his daughter.

"I have acted straightforwardly and in a transparent manner. I explained to the NACC [National Anti-Corruption Commission] about having other people hold the shares for me," Somsak said.

In relation to reports he also held shares in other firms in the music and health industry, Somsak said he had forgotten the details because these companies closed down several years ago. "I will have to find the relevant documents."

He also defended himself against an allegation by Democrat MP Thaworn Senneam that he made unfair rulings as House Speaker. Thaworn petitioned with the Senate, accusing Somsak of violating Article 125 of the charter, which requires that speakers of the two Houses remain impartial.

"It's normal for someone in my position to be criticised. People who closely follow what I am doing will find that this allegation is not correct. I have always followed the Constitution in performing my duty," Somsak replied.

-- The Nation 2012-06-20

On and on and on it goes.

An honest mistake surely....

What is the point of asset statements when you can give your shares to someone, and then just "take them back" later? How does that remove any conflict of interest?

Sent from my shoe phone

Why is the "House speaker - a post not subject to shareholding restrictions". The person responsible for setting the agenda of the house, controlling debate has no restrictions on what companies he owns shares in unless it can be shown that they have entered into contracts with the government. He can push agendas that help those companies get their contracts and then just pass his shares off to the family for a while.

Why is the "House speaker - a post not subject to shareholding restrictions". The person responsible for setting the agenda of the house, controlling debate has no restrictions on what companies he owns shares in unless it can be shown that they have entered into contracts with the government. He can push agendas that help those companies get their contracts and then just pass his shares off to the family for a while.

That's what happens when you have a series of constitutions whose chief design characteristic is to protect criminal activity.

"Somsak said he had his brother-in-law hold the shares for him ahead of last year's general election as he had expected to be appointed to the Cabinet and such positions were subject to shareholding limits."

BINGO. Off to jail you go.

He said he had obtained the shares after leading a group of investors to acquire the insurance company.

Above sentence by Somsak explains it all. I read: I did a company a favor and they gave me shares in return.

Most Thai politicians are so corrupt. The hold shares (trough their friends, maids and family members) in numerous companies.

A few regulations need tightened up there for sure - how many MP's sitting in the cabinet have done exactly the same thing - very easy to expose the lot of them

This guy should be jailed - he just admitted concealing his financial position twice by deception <deleted>

A few regulations need tightened up there for sure - how many MP's sitting in the cabinet have done exactly the same thing - very easy to expose the lot of them

This guy should be jailed - he just admitted concealing his financial position twice by deception <deleted>

Yes, but he's been very forthright about concealing them so he's an honorable man.

And all this is just normal par for the course, why is anyone even thinking such situations would ever get corrected here?

I can't see a big problem here, if Thaksin can do it then it must be ok. I'm positive PPD will be ok with it.

What is the point of asset statements when you can give your shares to someone, and then just "take them back" later? How does that remove any conflict of interest?

Sent from my shoe phone

Surely putting assets in someone elses name and hiding them is asset concealmant? You should either sell the shares if there is a conflict of interest or else decline the position. No one is ever forced into politics..... apart from Yingluck of course!

Why wouldn't they be corrupt? Even the most blatant thievery is swept under the carpet and none are prosecuted much less jailed. Even our expat political experts should be able to see that.

it seems always a brother sister mother father or inlaw that suddenly gets to hold their wealth ... why rich people want to be in power? why did he acquire 1 million shares worth 100 million ? just to help a take over

yeah right

I'm shocked. Will no one defend the speakers honest mistake.

He doesn't seem to have too much support on here.

Whcih of them is next to be exposed?

Concealing stock shares coming on the heels of his impending impeachment procedures spells dark days ahead for Somsak.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Senate-forwards-impeachment-motion-against-Somsak--30184374-showAds1.htm