Legal action against former Thai MPs who did not declare assets

[webfact]

Legal action against those who did not declare assets

BANGKOK: -- The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) yesterday threatened legal action against 12 former MPs who have not declared their assets one year after stepping down from their posts.

NACC deputy secretary-general Worawit Sukboon said the agency would first send notification to 12 ex-MPs explaining that they must submit the asset declaration or face legal action.

The agency had earlier checked the assets and liabilities of the 12 people, but found nothing suspicious.

Two of the 12 ex-MPs have died since leaving office. If an MP dies before the one-year asset-declaration requirement, the executors of their estate do not have to declare their assets. If they die after one year, their offspring must submit their asset declaration.

The former MPs in question include those from the Democrat, Pheu Thai and Chat Pattana parties.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Legal-action-against-those-who-did-not-declare-ass-30253440.html


-- The Nation 2015-02-05

[NongKhaiKid]

Stop threatening, giving deadlines that are oh so flexible etc and get on with it. Set a precedent that no matter who you are you can't just do as you like, flout the law and so on.

There's a Chinese saying ' kill one in public and a hundred see ' but Thai officialdom is afraid of doing anything that one day might be used against them for similar wrongdoing.

[Tatsujin]

Am I correct in saying that when they state assets, they don't include spouses and other family members?

[smutcakes]

I really fail to see the reason for stating assets, as even in peculiar cases where it would be good to have things clarified, there does not seem to be a way to do this.

[PepperMe]

Give em a break.... They haven't hidden it all yet......................... like the others.

[chooka]

Why just former MP's in the name of happiness and reconciliation why not include all current MP's as well. It only appears like a witch hunt and personal vendetta if they don't

[h90]

Am I correct in saying that when they state assets, they don't include spouses and other family members?

and unusual rich gardeners....

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Why just former MP's in the name of happiness and reconciliation why not include all current MP's as well. It only appears like a witch hunt and personal vendetta if they don't

Seems you have joined the twist everything into a negative brigade

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I really fail to see the reason for stating assets, as even in peculiar cases where it would be good to have things clarified, there does not seem to be a way to do this.

seems you don't see reason on lots of fronts.

[WitawatWatawit]

Why just former MP's in the name of happiness and reconciliation why not include all current MP's as well. It only appears like a witch hunt and personal vendetta if they don't

Do a google, chooka. One ongoing thread you'll discover is about the general's oh-so-wealthy brother.

[Valentine]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Why just former MP's in the name of happiness and reconciliation why not include all current MP's as well. It only appears like a witch hunt and personal vendetta if they don't

Seems you have joined the twist everything into a negative brigade

This is apparently a normal legal requirement so why the witch hunt comment or is it one of the usual deflections. The current MPs have not stepped down yet.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Valentine

[jayboy]

Why just former MP's in the name of happiness and reconciliation why not include all current MP's as well. It only appears like a witch hunt and personal vendetta if they don't

Not necessary.It is a well know fact that all members of the puppet assembly, even though they have never earned more than minuscule military and bureaucratic salaries, have rich wives or inherited wealth or won the lottery.The very suggestion that they might have acquired wealth illegitimately is a disgraceful imputation.After all they are all "good people".

[Tatsujin]

Am I correct in saying that when they state assets, they don't include spouses and other family members?

and unusual rich gardeners....

... and drivers, maids, local bank officers etc etc, all of whom have been shown in the past to have been used to conceal assets.

So, essentially, this "asset declaration" is completely pointless and a waste of everyone's time unless they dig deeper.

[clockman]

Due to the slander and libel laws, and also the fact that Thailand is a violent society. The truth will never be public knowledge

[binjalin]

Why just former MP's in the name of happiness and reconciliation why not include all current MP's as well. It only appears like a witch hunt and personal vendetta if they don't

well we know one 'certain' gentleman sold land worth 600 million and then would NOT answer journalists questions? "it's a private matter" he said and THAT was THAT

"witch hunt"? "personal vendetta"? good gracious, sir, how could you think such a thing? this is just "Thainess" and spreading "happiness" to those 'on message' and "miseryness" to those that are not

[siampolee]

Binjalin post # 15

Well we know one 'certain' gentleman sold land worth 600 million and then would NOT answer journalists questions? "it's a private matter" he said and THAT was THAT

"witch hunt"? "personal vendetta"? good gracious, sir, how could you think such a thing? this is just "Thainess" and spreading "happiness" to those 'on message' and "miseryness" to those that are not

Well we know one 'certain' lady who bought land worth millions at a knock down price and then would NOT answer journalists questions? "it's a private matter" she said and THAT was THAT

"witch hunt"? "personal vendetta"? good gracious, sir, how could you think such a thing? this is just "Thainess" and spreading "happiness" to those 'on message' and "miseryness" to those that are not

Edited February 5, 2015 by siampolee

[binjalin]

Binjalin post # 15

Well we know one 'certain' gentleman sold land worth 600 million and then would NOT answer journalists questions? "it's a private matter" he said and THAT was THAT

"witch hunt"? "personal vendetta"? good gracious, sir, how could you think such a thing? this is just "Thainess" and spreading "happiness" to those 'on message' and "miseryness" to those that are not

Well we know one 'certain' lady who bought land worth millions at a knock down price and then would NOT answer journalists questions? "it's a private matter" she said and THAT was THAT

"witch hunt"? "personal vendetta"? good gracious, sir, how could you think such a thing? this is just "Thainess" and spreading "happiness" to those 'on message' and "miseryness" to those that are not

so two wrongs DO make a right!!! interesting to see that your ethics extend to one person doing wrong makes it all OK for another - extraordinary posting

[billd766]

Why just former MP's in the name of happiness and reconciliation why not include all current MP's as well. It only appears like a witch hunt and personal vendetta if they don't

Q How many current MPs are there today?

A None.

Therefore your question is superflous and a waste of time.

Also under Thai law ALL MPs of whatever party have to declare their assets including that of their immediate families.

Didn't you know that?

The MPs include former members of the PTP, Democrat and Chart Pattana parties if you had bothered to read the original post.

Please try to keep up.

[rubl]

Why just former MP's in the name of happiness and reconciliation why not include all current MP's as well. It only appears like a witch hunt and personal vendetta if they don't

Not necessary.It is a well know fact that all members of the puppet assembly, even though they have never earned more than minuscule military and bureaucratic salaries, have rich wives or inherited wealth or won the lottery.The very suggestion that they might have acquired wealth illegitimately is a disgraceful imputation.After all they are all "good people".

For one there are only former MP's and no current MPs. The NLA members (with NLA representing parliament and Senate) have declared assets. Same for the Cabinet members.

The rest is just the usual 'negative waves'.

BTW end of last Month we had the CDC stating

"Kamnoon also pointed out some notable differences in the characteristics of independent organisations under the new constitution compared with the previous charter, including requiring all chiefs of such bodies to declare their assets publicly and a change in the framework of selection panels. "

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/CDC-to-make-NACC-more-powerful-30252896.html

[billd766]

Why just former MP's in the name of happiness and reconciliation why not include all current MP's as well. It only appears like a witch hunt and personal vendetta if they don't

well we know one 'certain' gentleman sold land worth 600 million and then would NOT answer journalists questions? "it's a private matter" he said and THAT was THAT

"witch hunt"? "personal vendetta"? good gracious, sir, how could you think such a thing? this is just "Thainess" and spreading "happiness" to those 'on message' and "miseryness" to those that are not

At the very least he did NOT change the law just before he sold his company and therefore did not pay ANY taxes when AIS was sold to Temasek as one former PM did.

[siampolee]

Binjalin post # 17

So two wrongs DO make a right!!! interesting to see that your ethics extend to one person doing wrong makes it all OK for another - extraordinary posting

As a matter of interest would you be so kind to point out where I made an exception to any other parties or individuals.

Plainly you are an erudite person who see's content in posts that isn't actually there.

Or possibly you have a tender spot if comments are made that seem disagree with your agenda.

In truth I was agreeing with the latter part of your post, see below in the quote boxf

"witch hunt"? "personal vendetta"? good gracious, sir, how could you think such a thing? this is just "Thainess" and spreading "happiness" to those 'on message' and "miseryness" to those that are not

[rubl]

Am I correct in saying that when they state assets, they don't include spouses and other family members?

As far as I know former MPs need to declare

- their own assets

- assets of legal wife or husband (as applicable)

- assets of legal charges like under-age children, mentally infirm parents, etc., etc.

Assets are about anything of value like house, cars, watches, land, off shore bits and pieces.

[rubl]

Binjalin post # 15

Well we know one 'certain' gentleman sold land worth 600 million and then would NOT answer journalists questions? "it's a private matter" he said and THAT was THAT

"witch hunt"? "personal vendetta"? good gracious, sir, how could you think such a thing? this is just "Thainess" and spreading "happiness" to those 'on message' and "miseryness" to those that are not

Well we know one 'certain' lady who bought land worth millions at a knock down price and then would NOT answer journalists questions? "it's a private matter" she said and THAT was THAT

"witch hunt"? "personal vendetta"? good gracious, sir, how could you think such a thing? this is just "Thainess" and spreading "happiness" to those 'on message' and "miseryness" to those that are not

so two wrongs DO make a right!!! interesting to see that your ethics extend to one person doing wrong makes it all OK for another - extraordinary posting

Indeed, indeed.

2014-10-31

"The prime minister himself has 128 million baht in assets."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/772798-pridiyathorn-is-the-richest-in-prayut-cabinet/

or if all his family is added which is not normal practise when declaring ones 'own' assets

"As per the declaration, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has net assets worth 128 million baht, including 12 watches and nine guns, while his family's combined assets, including those of his father, brother and children, is 466mn baht"

Edited February 5, 2015 by rubl

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Why just former MP's in the name of happiness and reconciliation why not include all current MP's as well. It only appears like a witch hunt and personal vendetta if they don't

Not necessary.It is a well know fact that all members of the puppet assembly, even though they have never earned more than minuscule military and bureaucratic salaries, have rich wives or inherited wealth or won the lottery.The very suggestion that they might have acquired wealth illegitimately is a disgraceful imputation.After all they are all "good people".

"It is a well known fact".

So share the supporting facts.

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Binjalin post # 15

Well we know one 'certain' gentleman sold land worth 600 million and then would NOT answer journalists questions? "it's a private matter" he said and THAT was THAT

"witch hunt"? "personal vendetta"? good gracious, sir, how could you think such a thing? this is just "Thainess" and spreading "happiness" to those 'on message' and "miseryness" to those that are not

Well we know one 'certain' lady who bought land worth millions at a knock down price and then would NOT answer journalists questions? "it's a private matter" she said and THAT was THAT

"witch hunt"? "personal vendetta"? good gracious, sir, how could you think such a thing? this is just "Thainess" and spreading "happiness" to those 'on message' and "miseryness" to those that are not

so two wrongs DO make a right!!! interesting to see that your ethics extend to one person doing wrong makes it all OK for another - extraordinary posting

That's not what the poster said, not at all, just your usual spin and twist with some lack of truth. All just to suit your negative agenda.

[binjalin]

Binjalin post # 17

So two wrongs DO make a right!!! interesting to see that your ethics extend to one person doing wrong makes it all OK for another - extraordinary posting

As a matter of interest would you be so kind to point out where I made an exception to any other parties or individuals.

Plainly you are an erudite person who see's content in posts that isn't actually there.

Or possibly you have a tender spot if comments are made that seem disagree with your agenda.

In truth I was agreeing with the latter part of your post, see below in the quote boxf

"witch hunt"? "personal vendetta"? good gracious, sir, how could you think such a thing? this is just "Thainess" and spreading "happiness" to those 'on message' and "miseryness" to those that are not

then you were unclear as to your intention as I read it as justifying what he has done by saying "what she has done" I, personally, am against ALL corruption (even if it's by Santa Claus)

The thread is not about 'her' it's about the government which is led (dominated?) by a certain General

[rubl]

Binjalin post # 17

So two wrongs DO make a right!!! interesting to see that your ethics extend to one person doing wrong makes it all OK for another - extraordinary posting

As a matter of interest would you be so kind to point out where I made an exception to any other parties or individuals.

Plainly you are an erudite person who see's content in posts that isn't actually there.

Or possibly you have a tender spot if comments are made that seem disagree with your agenda.

In truth I was agreeing with the latter part of your post, see below in the quote boxf

"witch hunt"? "personal vendetta"? good gracious, sir, how could you think such a thing? this is just "Thainess" and spreading "happiness" to those 'on message' and "miseryness" to those that are not

then you were unclear as to your intention as I read it as justifying what he has done by saying "what she has done" I, personally, am against ALL corruption (even if it's by Santa Claus)

The thread is not about 'her' it's about the government which is led (dominated?) by a certain General

Actually the thread is about the NACC threatening former MP's who haven't yet declared their assets one year after becoming a former MP. MP's are indicated as formerly belonging to Democrat Party (all resigned remember) and Pheu Thai Party and Chart Pattana Party. The former MPs are not named it would seem.

BTW on the 9th of December, 2013 all remaining MPs became former MP's as that day PM Yingluck dissolved the House.

Edited February 5, 2015 by rubl

[jayboy]

Why just former MP's in the name of happiness and reconciliation why not include all current MP's as well. It only appears like a witch hunt and personal vendetta if they don't

Not necessary.It is a well know fact that all members of the puppet assembly, even though they have never earned more than minuscule military and bureaucratic salaries, have rich wives or inherited wealth or won the lottery.The very suggestion that they might have acquired wealth illegitimately is a disgraceful imputation.After all they are all "good people".

For one there are only former MP's and no current MPs. The NLA members (with NLA representing parliament and Senate) have declared assets. Same for the Cabinet members.

The rest is just the usual 'negative waves'.

BTW end of last Month we had the CDC stating

"Kamnoon also pointed out some notable differences in the characteristics of independent organisations under the new constitution compared with the previous charter, including requiring all chiefs of such bodies to declare their assets publicly and a change in the framework of selection panels. "

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/CDC-to-make-NACC-more-powerful-30252896.html

The NLA do not represent the Parliament and Senate, nor the people of Thailand.They are all appointees of the military government.The declaration of assets is however welcome though even this does not explain how so many officials/military on tiny salaries can accumulate huge wealth.There is no mystery how say K.Yingluck became wealthy nor is there about Abhisit or Korn.(We know enough about their history and background, legitimate in all three cases).But about the majority of the NLA we can only speculate.

[rubl]

Why just former MP's in the name of happiness and reconciliation why not include all current MP's as well. It only appears like a witch hunt and personal vendetta if they don't

Not necessary.It is a well know fact that all members of the puppet assembly, even though they have never earned more than minuscule military and bureaucratic salaries, have rich wives or inherited wealth or won the lottery.The very suggestion that they might have acquired wealth illegitimately is a disgraceful imputation.After all they are all "good people".

For one there are only former MP's and no current MPs. The NLA members (with NLA representing parliament and Senate) have declared assets. Same for the Cabinet members.

The rest is just the usual 'negative waves'.

BTW end of last Month we had the CDC stating

"Kamnoon also pointed out some notable differences in the characteristics of independent organisations under the new constitution compared with the previous charter, including requiring all chiefs of such bodies to declare their assets publicly and a change in the framework of selection panels. "

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/CDC-to-make-NACC-more-powerful-30252896.html

The NLA do not represent the Parliament and Senate, nor the people of Thailand.They are all appointees of the military government.The declaration of assets is however welcome though even this does not explain how so many officials/military on tiny salaries can accumulate huge wealth.There is no mystery how say K.Yingluck became wealthy nor is there about Abhisit or Korn.(We know enough about their history and background, legitimate in all three cases).But about the majority of the NLA we can only speculate.

I guess you never read the Interim Constitution?

Anyway, the topic is on a few former MPs who were supposed to declare their assets one year after becoming a former MP and still didn't do it.

PS you mention three names out of 500 constituency and party list MPs we had. About the other 497 we can only speculate ?

Edited February 5, 2015 by rubl

[jayboy]

Why just former MP's in the name of happiness and reconciliation why not include all current MP's as well. It only appears like a witch hunt and personal vendetta if they don't

Not necessary.It is a well know fact that all members of the puppet assembly, even though they have never earned more than minuscule military and bureaucratic salaries, have rich wives or inherited wealth or won the lottery.The very suggestion that they might have acquired wealth illegitimately is a disgraceful imputation.After all they are all "good people".

For one there are only former MP's and no current MPs. The NLA members (with NLA representing parliament and Senate) have declared assets. Same for the Cabinet members.

The rest is just the usual 'negative waves'.

BTW end of last Month we had the CDC stating
"Kamnoon also pointed out some notable differences in the characteristics of independent organisations under the new constitution compared with the previous charter, including requiring all chiefs of such bodies to declare their assets publicly and a change in the framework of selection panels. "
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/CDC-to-make-NACC-more-powerful-30252896.html

The NLA do not represent the Parliament and Senate, nor the people of Thailand.They are all appointees of the military government.The declaration of assets is however welcome though even this does not explain how so many officials/military on tiny salaries can accumulate huge wealth.There is no mystery how say K.Yingluck became wealthy nor is there about Abhisit or Korn.(We know enough about their history and background, legitimate in all three cases).But about the majority of the NLA we can only speculate.

I guess you never read the Interim Constitution?

Anyway, the topic is on a few former MPs who were supposed to declare their assets one year after becoming a former MP and still didn't do it.

PS you mention three names out of 500 constituency and party list MPs we had. About the other 497 we can only speculate ?

You miss the point.The three politicians I mentioned are all wealthy.They are simply examples of well off ex MPs where there is no serious suggestion their wealth is other than legitimate.This is in contrast to a very large number of appointed lackeys in the puppet assembly where we simply have no idea whether their wealth is legitimate or not - particularly as most of them have never had other than paltry salaries.You are probably right that many former party list/ constituency members would not stand close inspection.But I thought this government was meant to be setting an example on transparency and the fight against "unusual wealth".So far only the zealots and the foolish would consider any progress has been made.