Legal action against former Thai MPs who did not declare assets

[maidee]

can they just die "on paper" ...how much does that cost ? can involve an insurance fraud or two on the way to sponsor the new life

[khunken]

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.

Actually it's the zealots & idiots who knock or are blind to what progress has been made.

There is no law to force MPs or the current equivalent to go beyond declaring their assets. How the assets are acquired is not a requirement but apparently some think that it should be different now & it's not difficult to see the (biased) reason why.

No, I've not seen any claim that the NLA or any current assembly are setting an example on transparency. What they, purely an interim body, are doing is attempting to set rules for future governments to be more transparent than they have been, which shouldn't be hard.

[NeilSA1]

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

No, but ... hi lighting the two 'wrongs' gives a more balanced view.

[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.

Actually it's the zealots & idiots who knock or are blind to what progress has been made.

There is no law to force MPs or the current equivalent to go beyond declaring their assets. How the assets are acquired is not a requirement but apparently some think that it should be different now & it's not difficult to see the (biased) reason why.

No, I've not seen any claim that the NLA or any current assembly are setting an example on transparency. What they, purely an interim body, are doing is attempting to set rules for future governments to be more transparent than they have been, which shouldn't be hard.

What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.Even zealots must agree that it would be better for politicians to demonstrate that wealth had been acquired legitimately.Some elected politicians ( by no means all) were able to do that - or at least did not become objects of curiosity on the subject.The current batch - none of them elected or with any kind of democratic mandate - are generally unable to demonstrate how they became wealthy.The fact it is not legally necessary is neither here nor there given the battle against corruption is a main policy objective.If you think this is any kind of example for the future you have a strange set of values.Even partisans of the current set up must admit the hypocrisy is staggering.

[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

"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"

And let's not forget that she and hubby knew very well that what they involved in was illegal.

[rubl]

Actually it's the zealots & idiots who knock or are blind to what progress has been made.

There is no law to force MPs or the current equivalent to go beyond declaring their assets. How the assets are acquired is not a requirement but apparently some think that it should be different now & it's not difficult to see the (biased) reason why.

No, I've not seen any claim that the NLA or any current assembly are setting an example on transparency. What they, purely an interim body, are doing is attempting to set rules for future governments to be more transparent than they have been, which shouldn't be hard.

What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.Even zealots must agree that it would be better for politicians to demonstrate that wealth had been acquired legitimately.Some elected politicians ( by no means all) were able to do that - or at least did not become objects of curiosity on the subject.The current batch - none of them elected or with any kind of democratic mandate - are generally unable to demonstrate how they became wealthy.The fact it is not legally necessary is neither here nor there given the battle against corruption is a main policy objective.If you think this is any kind of example for the future you have a strange set of values.Even partisans of the current set up must admit the hypocrisy is staggering.

Oh boy, even zealots will agree that with the NLA members we are not talking about politicians. Apart from the fact that the topic concentrates on "former MPs" who failed to declare assets they had one year after becoming 'former' MPs.

The tangled web we weave seems to concentrate instead on trying to position the NLA and members as parliament with MPs which should adhere to even stricter rules than previous parliaments and occupants while in the same breath claiming that said NLA and members do not represent parliament. Others even call the setup illegitimate. Now how can one demand an illegitimate and non-recognised organisation to adhere to proper democratic rules while demainding it goes away as soon as possible is somewhat beyond me.

Next we will organise a discussion group on how to democratically elect junta members

BTW "are generally unable to demonstrate how they became wealthy". Any information on the other 497 former MP's we had while Ms. Yingluck was PM ? Were they not wealthy, or perfectly able to explain much to your satisfaction? Care to share the information you may have?

Edited February 5, 2015 by rubl

[khunken]

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.

Actually it's the zealots & idiots who knock or are blind to what progress has been made.

There is no law to force MPs or the current equivalent to go beyond declaring their assets. How the assets are acquired is not a requirement but apparently some think that it should be different now & it's not difficult to see the (biased) reason why.

No, I've not seen any claim that the NLA or any current assembly are setting an example on transparency. What they, purely an interim body, are doing is attempting to set rules for future governments to be more transparent than they have been, which shouldn't be hard.

What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.Even zealots must agree that it would be better for politicians to demonstrate that wealth had been acquired legitimately.Some elected politicians ( by no means all) were able to do that - or at least did not become objects of curiosity on the subject.The current batch - none of them elected or with any kind of democratic mandate - are generally unable to demonstrate how they became wealthy.The fact it is not legally necessary is neither here nor there given the battle against corruption is a main policy objective.If you think this is any kind of example for the future you have a strange set of values.Even partisans of the current set up must admit the hypocrisy is staggering.

More of a hypocritical web that is being woven there. I never stated my opinion on whether it would be better or not for lawmakers to demonstrate legitimate wealth. All I stated was the legal requirement.

Actually it would be better but how practical or credible it would be is another story. None of the previous MPs did any demonstrating about their wealth and a number were objects of curiosity as is currently the case. If you have a suggestion regarding how asset acquisitions can be verified and how long & how many extra staff it would take, go ahead & make it. No, don't bother as it's just pie in the sky.

However I don't think the present legislators should be put on any pedestal in detailing how their assets were acquired. I doubt very much that any country's MPs are subject to such legal scrutiny.

Actually the strange thinking is a ridiculous statement that the interim bodies are supposed to be setting an example over and above what went before. Somewhat like setting up straw men.

[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

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.

before you get all twisted up and tangled in you brain, did I for one moment refer to a single political party?

Appology accepted.

Ok I take your point that the Junta is not a government and are exempt from being scrutinised for corruption.

[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

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".

[/quot

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 P.M will lead by example and declare all his wealth, if he has any as he was only a soldier and you don't get rich marching up and down.

[rubl]

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 P.M will lead by example and declare all his wealth, if he has any as he was only a soldier and you don't get rich marching up and down.

The PM declared his assets and the NACC published the details a few weeks later, like they do with all MP's, Senators, NLA members, Cabinet members and PMs

""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""

Now back to those 10 (plus two dead) former MP's who didn't declare the assets they had a year after becoming 'former' MPs.

[Nemesis7]

Ban them from participating next election and the message will be conveyed automatically in future.

[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

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.

Actually it's the zealots & idiots who knock or are blind to what progress has been made.

There is no law to force MPs or the current equivalent to go beyond declaring their assets. How the assets are acquired is not a requirement but apparently some think that it should be different now & it's not difficult to see the (biased) reason why.

No, I've not seen any claim that the NLA or any current assembly are setting an example on transparency. What they, purely an interim body, are doing is attempting to set rules for future governments to be more transparent than they have been, which shouldn't be hard.

What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.Even zealots must agree that it would be better for politicians to demonstrate that wealth had been acquired legitimately.Some elected politicians ( by no means all) were able to do that - or at least did not become objects of curiosity on the subject.The current batch - none of them elected or with any kind of democratic mandate - are generally unable to demonstrate how they became wealthy.The fact it is not legally necessary is neither here nor there given the battle against corruption is a main policy objective.If you think this is any kind of example for the future you have a strange set of values.Even partisans of the current set up must admit the hypocrisy is staggering.

Which current bunch of MPs would that be?

AFAIK there are actually NO MPs and there have not been since Yingluck dissolved parliament in December 2013.

[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.

before you get all twisted up and tangled in you brain, did I for one moment refer to a single political party?

Appology accepted.

Ok I take your point that the Junta is not a government and are exempt from being scrutinised for corruption.

Why would I apologise to you? Especially as you were the one to mention current MPs which is what I was responding to.

I wouldn't expect or accept an apolgy from you so I won't bother to ask for one.

[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

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.

before you get all twisted up and tangled in you brain, did I for one moment refer to a single political party?

Appology accepted.

Ok I take your point that the Junta is not a government and are exempt from being scrutinised for corruption.

Why would I apologise to you? Especially as you were the one to mention current MPs which is what I was responding to.

I wouldn't expect or accept an apolgy from you so I won't bother to ask for one.

Thank you for confirming that there are no current members of Parliament. It is the Army and nothing more than a band of soldiers running the country. At least we see things the same.

[billd766]

before you get all twisted up and tangled in you brain, did I for one moment refer to a single political party?

Appology accepted.

Ok I take your point that the Junta is not a government and are exempt from being scrutinised for corruption.

Why would I apologise to you? Especially as you were the one to mention current MPs which is what I was responding to.

I wouldn't expect or accept an apolgy from you so I won't bother to ask for one.

Thank you for confirming that there are no current members of Parliament. It is the Army and nothing more than a band of soldiers running the country. At least we see things the same.

We do and sometimes from the same side.

I really don't think the General and his merry mob can screw it up worse than the "professional politcians" have over the last 20 or 30 years. They probably need more practise to achieve that.

[rubl]

Why would I apologise to you? Especially as you were the one to mention current MPs which is what I was responding to.

I wouldn't expect or accept an apolgy from you so I won't bother to ask for one.

Thank you for confirming that there are no current members of Parliament. It is the Army and nothing more than a band of soldiers running the country. At least we see things the same.

This seems to conflict somewhat with your post #6 where you asked

"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 "

BTW we do have NLA members with the NLA representing both parliament and Senate. Just read the Interim Constitution

"Section 6. There shall be the National Legislative Assembly, consisting of not more than two hundred and twenty members as appointed by the King from the persons of Thai nationality by birth of not less than forty years of age in accordance with the recommendation of the National Council for Peace and Order.

The National Legislative Assembly shall act as the House of Representatives, the Senate and the National Assembly."

http://lawdrafter.blogspot.de/2014/07/translation-of-constitution-of-kingdom.html?m=1

[kieran2698]

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

No, you are wrong, it must include assets of spouse and minor children.