Former finance minister Surapong faces malfeasance charge in Supreme Court

[candide]

"some members of the selection committee did not meet the legal requirements"

This again shows contempt for the majority having people that are appointed for a job that they do not meet the requirements of. We have Surapong who is a qualified doctor yet was appointed Finance minister having no background in finance (medical training does not count as experience in finance) appointing people that did not meet the requirements. It would not surprise me if this poor excuse of a government had appointed a finance analysts as the Health Minister!! Jobs for your mates!!!

This is what happens when you have a man out of his depth. They make il informed, uneducated decisions. By his own words he said "I will try to make the right decisions". Turns out he did try and he was way off the mark.

Go back to doing what you were trained in.

He eventually got an MBA from Chula....

Anyway things are quite different with the current government, as many of them got the necessary military education....

(OK, not the Finance minister)

Getting your MBA after you are no longer Finance Minister is kind of useless to the country, isn't it? Isn't it?

.

I wold love to see some renege the positions of the current govt...i.e the health minister who is a professor of health while the previous health minister was not...The current Finance minister who is a finance professional, while the previous one was a doctor...The current foreign minster who has experience in financial affairs while the previous one has experience in issuing passports to criminals..

Anyone can eventually get a degree.I can eventually understand the red shirt ethos, but, today and here and now that does not count.

Today, what maters is democracy. Unfortunately if I mention that to the 7%'ers I would be denounced, belittled and denigrated and if Khon Kean university is involved, threatened...Nice form of democracy heay?!!

Because of this reaction to me and my family is why reform is needed.

And to think a reply I got before was "You're a bad dad so you children deserve better' I would expect nothing less from a red supporter.

If the table were turned I would say "Try to respect the law and uphold democracy"

You carefully selected the ministries that were not held by generals, didn't you?

[Fab5BKK]

I'm not that surprised...

In a country where English teachers aren't qualified teachers you can't expect ministers to be fully qualified...

Are you?

OK, may be a little bit provocative

[halloween]

I would rather be a bampot than a Kool aid Junta admirer, that way I can make my own mind up, and not have it made for me

Bampot, I've not heard that expression in ages 5555

Totally agree with you about low tolerance for politicians and fools, which surprised me considering the Junta are full of them too it's a shame the Thais( speaking figuratively ) can't chose the fools to lead them isn't it?

Don't be making the assumption that because the Junta are not on my fan list, that it makes me wish the previous shower of crooks were back in office.

You must be bamboozled at some of the things your beloved Junta have come away with in recent weeks, the NRC Former General making the wild claims of brainwashing, and then the US agencies involved in subversive activities against the Junta, and TAT's very own Baghdad Bob, Kobkarn with all her mental schemes and announcements ?

Makes for a good laugh knowing that fools are everywhere eh?

I fully realise that the junta a re far from perfect, suck at PR, and have some right idiots amongst their ranks. However until proved otherwise, i will believe they are not robbing the country blind and are genuine in their wish to see real democracy in Thailand. Which allows me to cut them a little slack.

OTOH the reforms being enacted fall far short of what I would like to see in 2 major areas; the disposal of the party list system which has been the vehicle of huge abuse of democracy, the literal buying of power, and the requirement that all MPs distance themselves from all business interests and the disallowing of income other than parliamentary salary.

Some form of external costing by reputable accountancy firms of election policy would also go a long way to stopping the policy vote-buying from gullible and uneducated sections of the electorate. Democracy relies on an educated and informed populace, with a free and critical press. Until both those goals are achieved those willing to distort democracy will continue to seize power.

[halloween]

"the qualifications of some members of the selection committee did not meet the legal requirements..."

Stop for a moment and think, guys. There evidently was no problem with the appointments, rather with some members of the selection committee not being qualified. Which really begs the question, what was the actual problem (the technical detail)?

This reminds me in some respects of the criminal conviction of Thaksin. He was found guilty of signing the document that gave his wife permission to buy property, because the purchase was via a land auction conducted by a government agency (a special entity created just for the purpose of disposing of significant properties in loan default). The purchase itself was not deemed to be improper, and his wife was not convicted of any crime. But evidently, the act of spousal permission was considered to be improper influence of the purchase. I will leave it to others to explain the "logic" of this case.

But the law is the law, especially in Thailand.

Right?

After you have been here for a while you may well find out that under Thai law you and your wife are the same legal entity. Hence the NEED for his wife to obtain permission to purchase real estate.After you grasp that small fact, revisit the purchase and examine it again.

Even without that, under Thai law and in many other countries, it is illegal for government officers or their immediate families to purchase government property if only to prevent the PERCEPTION of corruption. Outsiders have no idea how much, if any, influence was exerted over the bidding process.

It's nice of his sycophants to regularly try to whitewash his image by nitpicking his conviction, but they never seem to mention the outstanding charges.

[Tatsujin]

Judging on the posts, one has first to decide which party the culprit belongs to before deciding wether that person is guilty or not !

There's a simple rule of thumb I work to here ... if it hits the news, they're guilty. If they're in any of Thaksin's parties, they're definitely guilty and they can just more straight to the sentencing.

[Tatsujin]

"the qualifications of some members of the selection committee did not meet the legal requirements..."

Stop for a moment and think, guys. There evidently was no problem with the appointments, rather with some members of the selection committee not being qualified. Which really begs the question, what was the actual problem (the technical detail)?

This reminds me in some respects of the criminal conviction of Thaksin. He was found guilty of signing the document that gave his wife permission to buy property, because the purchase was via a land auction conducted by a government agency (a special entity created just for the purpose of disposing of significant properties in loan default). The purchase itself was not deemed to be improper, and his wife was not convicted of any crime. But evidently, the act of spousal permission was considered to be improper influence of the purchase. I will leave it to others to explain the "logic" of this case.

But the law is the law, especially in Thailand.

Right?

No, he wasn't found guilty of signing a piece of paper ... he was found guilty of abuse of power and conflict of interest for allowing his wife to be involved in the purchase of the land at 1/3rd of its real value. And this was the case I believe that involved the now infamous "pastry box", a none too subtle attempt to bribe the judges. After all, hardly fair that his wife gets the chance to buy some premium land at a value so low it's laughable when those that bid a "fair" price got no chance.

And let's not forget, he's got another 5 x criminal cases awaiting him, any one of which will see him in jail for the rest of his life if he's found guilty.

They you've got things like him changing the law whilst PM to avoid paying taxes on the sale of his businesses, the transfer of shares to his children, family, maids and drivers ... the list goes on ... and on ... and on ... I'm sure you can find the real details if you do a Google search.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Tatsujin

[oneday]

More purging of the opposition.

Whack-a-mole, whack-a-mole.

[halloween]

More purging of the opposition.

Whack-a-mole, whack-a-mole.

Just the criminal element, which won't leave many, will it?

[Lupatria]

[halloween]

Are you referring to Tarit and Yingluk's perjury case?

[wabothai]

reversed reconciliation.

[Dumbastheycome]

Is there no credit to be given to a junta that is proposing and attempting to implement reforms that actually allow the average Thai a chance at the principles of democracy? And at the same time is actually improving infrastructure, beaurocratic sytems, social access, and encouraging social responsibility ? To date I have never heard Prayut claim events as happening are democratic. But I gave heard him say plenty about reforms allowing democracy to be the outcome. This junta has put out an invitation to adopt a system by way of reforms. And if it fails who would be so foolish as not cover the rear end ? Those from the past who did not do so are now retrospectively suffering the consequences of their arrogance. Surprise surprise !

[Fat Haggis]

Is there no credit to be given to a junta that is proposing and attempting to implement reforms that actually allow the average Thai a chance at the principles of democracy? And at the same time is actually improving infrastructure, beaurocratic sytems, social access, and encouraging social responsibility ? To date I have never heard Prayut claim events as happening are democratic. But I gave heard him say plenty about reforms allowing democracy to be the outcome. This junta has put out an invitation to adopt a system by way of reforms. And if it fails who would be so foolish as not cover the rear end ? Those from the past who did not do so are now retrospectively suffering the consequences of their arrogance. Surprise surprise !

No, they're pushing out reforms based on what THEY want, not what the people need, they're re writing the constitution (again) that limits the little people, and favours the traditional elite (from both sides)

Democracy based on the wishes of a Junta, are flawed, an invitation to adopt a system, oh you mean like "vote for the new charter or we stay in power longer" ?

"If you hold a referendum, we stay in power longer" ?

Yes, their democratic choices are favouring them and them alone.

You closing sentence sums up the Junta perfectly, 19 coups later, what's the old saying about history repeating itself?

[Dumbastheycome]

Is there no credit to be given to a junta that is proposing and attempting to implement reforms that actually allow the average Thai a chance at the principles of democracy? And at the same time is actually improving infrastructure, beaurocratic sytems, social access, and encouraging social responsibility ? To date I have never heard Prayut claim events as happening are democratic. But I gave heard him say plenty about reforms allowing democracy to be the outcome. This junta has put out an invitation to adopt a system by way of reforms. And if it fails who would be so foolish as not cover the rear end ? Those from the past who did not do so are now retrospectively suffering the consequences of their arrogance. Surprise surprise !

No, they're pushing out reforms based on what THEY want, not what the people need, they're re writing the constitution (again) that limits the little people, and favours the traditional elite (from both sides)

Democracy based on the wishes of a Junta, are flawed, an invitation to adopt a system, oh you mean like "vote for the new charter or we stay in power longer" ?

"If you hold a referendum, we stay in power longer" ?

Yes, their democratic choices are favouring them and them alone.

You closing sentence sums up the Junta perfectly, 19 coups later, what's the old saying about history repeating itself?

And where in history has any previous junta actually instituted reforms with input from puplically appointed committees? Yes, you will say selected )

Vote for the Caharter and we are gone...

Which "democratic" choice actually favours a select group?

19 coups yes...... but the purpose of this one goes beyond the elite of Thailand.

This one is to legitimise Thailand .

[Dumbastheycome]

The economic turnover of Thailand is second only to that of China in the SEA zone. Also like China it has never been colonized as has its neighbours. But that has been negative to the modern era of multinational trade as a benefit to the total populace. It has been controlled and ( raped) financially and socially. As the population has grown so have the problematic issues. The neighbours have suffered a fate of a different kind and economically havealso been stifled. To fit into the current international system and specifically the upcoming Asian economic group Thailand needs to curtail the historic monopolies and encourage open enterprise. If radical change takes place there will be casualties.....not just little people who hung on the coat tails of the big....but the big as well!

Deliberate ignorance is not ignorance...... it is stupidity!

[Dumbastheycome]

I'm not that surprised...

In a country where English teachers aren't qualified teachers you can't expect ministers to be fully qualified...

Are you?

OK, may be a little bit provocative

Not provocative really.... I know several English Teachers who are mostly incomprehensible . Maybe its the accent? ...........Mine!

[phoenixdoglover]

"the qualifications of some members of the selection committee did not meet the legal requirements..."

Stop for a moment and think, guys. There evidently was no problem with the appointments, rather with some members of the selection committee not being qualified. Which really begs the question, what was the actual problem (the technical detail)?

This reminds me in some respects of the criminal conviction of Thaksin. He was found guilty of signing the document that gave his wife permission to buy property, because the purchase was via a land auction conducted by a government agency (a special entity created just for the purpose of disposing of significant properties in loan default). The purchase itself was not deemed to be improper, and his wife was not convicted of any crime. But evidently, the act of spousal permission was considered to be improper influence of the purchase. I will leave it to others to explain the "logic" of this case.

But the law is the law, especially in Thailand.

Right?

After you have been here for a while you may well find out that under Thai law you and your wife are the same legal entity. Hence the NEED for his wife to obtain permission to purchase real estate.After you grasp that small fact, revisit the purchase and examine it again.

Even without that, under Thai law and in many other countries, it is illegal for government officers or their immediate families to purchase government property if only to prevent the PERCEPTION of corruption. Outsiders have no idea how much, if any, influence was exerted over the bidding process.

It's nice of his sycophants to regularly try to whitewash his image by nitpicking his conviction, but they never seem to mention the outstanding charges.

Oh, I understand the law just fine. I had to sign a paper when my wife bought a house.

I'm sorry you missed the illogic of the Thaksin situation. His wife made the purchase. Had it been illegal for her to do so, she would have been convicted of something. She was charged and found not guilty of a crime. If you can explain that, go ahead.

As for exerting influence over the sale, nobody was convicted of that, and the Bank of Thailand certified the auction (more than once in response to the legal case).

There is no whitewashing. There is a reflection on the details of his conviction. Did you wish to make a point regarding his outstanding charges?

[spidermike007]

Have not thought of Sundaravej for a long time. He was such a peach. Why didn't the Philippine CEO mention him,when she was talking about leadership skills? Thailand has had quite a lineup in past 15 years.

[phoenixdoglover]

"the qualifications of some members of the selection committee did not meet the legal requirements..."

Stop for a moment and think, guys. There evidently was no problem with the appointments, rather with some members of the selection committee not being qualified. Which really begs the question, what was the actual problem (the technical detail)?

This reminds me in some respects of the criminal conviction of Thaksin. He was found guilty of signing the document that gave his wife permission to buy property, because the purchase was via a land auction conducted by a government agency (a special entity created just for the purpose of disposing of significant properties in loan default). The purchase itself was not deemed to be improper, and his wife was not convicted of any crime. But evidently, the act of spousal permission was considered to be improper influence of the purchase. I will leave it to others to explain the "logic" of this case.

But the law is the law, especially in Thailand.

Right?

No, he wasn't found guilty of signing a piece of paper ... he was found guilty of abuse of power and conflict of interest for allowing his wife to be involved in the purchase of the land at 1/3rd of its real value. And this was the case I believe that involved the now infamous "pastry box", a none too subtle attempt to bribe the judges. After all, hardly fair that his wife gets the chance to buy some premium land at a value so low it's laughable when those that bid a "fair" price got no chance.

And let's not forget, he's got another 5 x criminal cases awaiting him, any one of which will see him in jail for the rest of his life if he's found guilty.

They you've got things like him changing the law whilst PM to avoid paying taxes on the sale of his businesses, the transfer of shares to his children, family, maids and drivers ... the list goes on ... and on ... and on ... I'm sure you can find the real details if you do a Google search.

I'm sorry you bought into that "1/3 of value" trope. That was proven to be false, as there were other auctions of comparable properties conducted by the same agency around the same time. The prices per rai were all within a fairly narrow range, indicating the market was valuing the properties consistently. These were distressed properties in a declining market, which is likely why their original mortgage holders defaulted.

There were 3 bidders in her particular auction. She was the low bidder. The other bidders also participated in other auctions. The Bank of Thailand issued written statements refuting that there was something wrong with the bid prices.

I'm not saying he wasn't guilty of breaking the law. I'm saying what he was convicted of in this case was never shown to be anything else, despite your desire to pile on additional circumstances.

[Tatsujin]

"the qualifications of some members of the selection committee did not meet the legal requirements..."

Stop for a moment and think, guys. There evidently was no problem with the appointments, rather with some members of the selection committee not being qualified. Which really begs the question, what was the actual problem (the technical detail)?

This reminds me in some respects of the criminal conviction of Thaksin. He was found guilty of signing the document that gave his wife permission to buy property, because the purchase was via a land auction conducted by a government agency (a special entity created just for the purpose of disposing of significant properties in loan default). The purchase itself was not deemed to be improper, and his wife was not convicted of any crime. But evidently, the act of spousal permission was considered to be improper influence of the purchase. I will leave it to others to explain the "logic" of this case.

But the law is the law, especially in Thailand.

Right?

No, he wasn't found guilty of signing a piece of paper ... he was found guilty of abuse of power and conflict of interest for allowing his wife to be involved in the purchase of the land at 1/3rd of its real value. And this was the case I believe that involved the now infamous "pastry box", a none too subtle attempt to bribe the judges. After all, hardly fair that his wife gets the chance to buy some premium land at a value so low it's laughable when those that bid a "fair" price got no chance.

And let's not forget, he's got another 5 x criminal cases awaiting him, any one of which will see him in jail for the rest of his life if he's found guilty.

They you've got things like him changing the law whilst PM to avoid paying taxes on the sale of his businesses, the transfer of shares to his children, family, maids and drivers ... the list goes on ... and on ... and on ... I'm sure you can find the real details if you do a Google search.

I'm sorry you bought into that "1/3 of value" trope. That was proven to be false, as there were other auctions of comparable properties conducted by the same agency around the same time. The prices per rai were all within a fairly narrow range, indicating the market was valuing the properties consistently. These were distressed properties in a declining market, which is likely why their original mortgage holders defaulted.

There were 3 bidders in her particular auction. She was the low bidder. The other bidders also participated in other auctions. The Bank of Thailand issued written statements refuting that there was something wrong with the bid prices.

I'm not saying he wasn't guilty of breaking the law. I'm saying what he was convicted of in this case was never shown to be anything else, despite your desire to pile on additional circumstances.

There's a lot more to this than you are making out ... but OK ... try this, quite a good summary of events:

http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/

[halloween]

I'm sorry you bought into that "1/3 of value" trope. That was proven to be false, as there were other auctions of comparable properties conducted by the same agency around the same time. The prices per rai were all within a fairly narrow range, indicating the market was valuing the properties consistently. These were distressed properties in a declining market, which is likely why their original mortgage holders defaulted.

There were 3 bidders in her particular auction. She was the low bidder. The other bidders also participated in other auctions. The Bank of Thailand issued written statements refuting that there was something wrong with the bid prices.

I'm not saying he wasn't guilty of breaking the law. I'm saying what he was convicted of in this case was never shown to be anything else, despite your desire to pile on additional circumstances.

If you accept that he was guilty of breaking the law, what was the point of raising the subject? IMHO the case against his wife was dismissed because it was considered that he was buying the land via the wife, which is exactly what he was doing. Also, he knew it was illegal but out of hubris, thought he could get away with it.

One of the cases yet to be heard involves almost a billion baht loaned on his orders to a company that went bankrupt shortly after. Much of that money passed through Oak's bank account. I await that trial with particular interest.

Edited July 19, 2015 by halloween