Former ThaiHealth board members cry foul against their 'unfair' dismissal



BANGKOK: -- Two former board members of the Thai Health Promotion Foundation (Sor Sor Sor) have cried foul against their abrupt dismissal by virtue of Section 44 of the interim charter, claiming that they were unfairly treated.

Mr Songkran Parkchokedee said Thursday that he didn’t understand why the special powers were invoked to get rid of the board and that they were put in the same league with other officials suspected of involvement in irregularities.

He claimed that the Office of the Auditor-General and the Government Sector Anti-Corruption Committee had cleared the ThaiHealth board of any corruption.

He said the National Council for Peace and Order which ordered their sacking might suspect that some of them were engaged in conflict of interest by holding key positions in foundations or agencies which received funding from ThaiHealth.

Applying the same standard, Mr Songkran suggested that senior government officials who are sitting in the boards of state enterprises should also be dismissed because holding dual positions also amount to conflict of interests.

Another former board member, Mr Yongyuth Wongpiromsarn insisted that he had never done anything wrong or abused his authority during his one year plus with ThaiHealth.

By invoking Section 44 against the entire board, he said that NCPO intended to deprive them of the right to defend themselves.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/former-thaihealth-board-members-cry-foul-against-their-unfair-dismissal


-- Thai PBS 2016-01-08

I would swear sometimes my posts are being monitored by the government

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/883825-thai-hospitals-fear-major-impact-of-legal-advice/#entry10272323

Applying the same standard, Mr Songkran suggested that senior government officials who are sitting in the boards of state enterprises should also be dismissed because holding dual positions also amount to conflict of interests.

AA for you, buddy...

Applying the same standard, Mr Songkran suggested that senior government officials who are sitting in the boards of state enterprises should also be dismissed because holding dual positions also amount to conflict of interests.

AA for you, buddy...

How about police and military officers being involved with political parties, holding political office, taking positions with major companies etc.

Oh sorry I see, that's perfectly OK ! ?

Applying the same standard, Mr Songkran suggested that senior government officials who are sitting in the boards of state enterprises should also be dismissed because holding dual positions also amount to conflict of interests.

AA for you, buddy...

How about police and military officers being involved with political parties, holding political office, taking positions with major companies etc.

Oh sorry I see, that's perfectly OK !

So in your free country. You don't ACTUALLY want people be free to follow their political ideas or better themselves!!!

Applying the same standard, Mr Songkran suggested that senior government officials who are sitting in the boards of state enterprises should also be dismissed because holding dual positions also amount to conflict of interests.

AA for you, buddy...

How about police and military officers being involved with political parties, holding political office, taking positions with major companies etc.

Oh sorry I see, that's perfectly OK !

So in your free country. You don't ACTUALLY want people be free to follow their political ideas or better themselves!!!

So you don't see problems with police officers being active in politics other than casting their vote, when there's elections that is.

You don't see any conflict of interests and trust them to do their duty without fear or favour no matter how much their duty may be at variance with their political views ?

Applying the same standard, Mr Songkran suggested that senior government officials who are sitting in the boards of state enterprises should also be dismissed because holding dual positions also amount to conflict of interests.

AA for you, buddy...

How about police and military officers being involved with political parties, holding political office, taking positions with major companies etc.

Oh sorry I see, that's perfectly OK !

So in your free country. You don't ACTUALLY want people be free to follow their political ideas or better themselves!!!

So you don't see problems with police officers being active in politics other than casting their vote, when there's elections that is.

You don't see any conflict of interests and trust them to do their duty without fear or favour no matter how much their duty may be at variance with their political views ?

in the US, a general is under the command of the civilian government, specifically the US president. And for an active-duty general to be on the board of any corporation would be unethical and potentially in conflict with his/her duties as a general.

Whilst i agree in principle with what this guy is saying, if you read the article in the BKK post with regards how much money some of these foundations were receiving from Thai Health where the Board of Directiors of TH were also on the Boards of the comapnies recieving the fund, it looks pretty unbelievable.

Even more so that it is actually legal.

Applying the same standard, Mr Songkran suggested that senior government officials who are sitting in the boards of state enterprises should also be dismissed because holding dual positions also amount to conflict of interests.

AA for you, buddy...

How about police and military officers being involved with political parties, holding political office, taking positions with major companies etc.

Oh sorry I see, that's perfectly OK !

So in your free country. You don't ACTUALLY want people be free to follow their political ideas or better themselves!!!

So you don't see problems with police officers being active in politics other than casting their vote, when there's elections that is.

You don't see any conflict of interests and trust them to do their duty without fear or favour no matter how much their duty may be at variance with their political views ?

I have no problem with any one being active in politics. The problem as in any country is rule of law. Actually having laws that govern how they act! Only thing I would ensure is that these people ACTUALLY do the job that they are paid for.

Applying the same standard, Mr Songkran suggested that senior government officials who are sitting in the boards of state enterprises should also be dismissed because holding dual positions also amount to conflict of interests.

AA for you, buddy...

How about police and military officers being involved with political parties, holding political office, taking positions with major companies etc.

Oh sorry I see, that's perfectly OK !

So in your free country. You don't ACTUALLY want people be free to follow their political ideas or better themselves!!!

So you don't see problems with police officers being active in politics other than casting their vote, when there's elections that is.

You don't see any conflict of interests and trust them to do their duty without fear or favour no matter how much their duty may be at variance with their political views ?

in the US, a general is under the command of the civilian government, specifically the US president. And for an active-duty general to be on the board of any corporation would be unethical and potentially in conflict with his/her duties as a general.

why?

Applying the same standard, Mr Songkran suggested that senior government officials who are sitting in the boards of state enterprises should also be dismissed because holding dual positions also amount to conflict of interests.

AA for you, buddy...

How about police and military officers being involved with political parties, holding political office, taking positions with major companies etc.

Oh sorry I see, that's perfectly OK !

So in your free country. You don't ACTUALLY want people be free to follow their political ideas or better themselves!!!

So you don't see problems with police officers being active in politics other than casting their vote, when there's elections that is.

You don't see any conflict of interests and trust them to do their duty without fear or favour no matter how much their duty may be at variance with their political views ?

in the US, a general is under the command of the civilian government, specifically the US president. And for an active-duty general to be on the board of any corporation would be unethical and potentially in conflict with his/her duties as a general.

why?

You dont see the potential problem of people sitting in the Government who have some element of control over the budget disbursement, also sitting on the board of directors of those companies receiving those funds?

I would swear sometimes my posts are being monitored by the government

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/883825-thai-hospitals-fear-major-impact-of-legal-advice/#entry10272323

Whoa, adviser to the Junta; there's a proud claim!

Applying the same standard, Mr Songkran suggested that senior government officials who are sitting in the boards of state enterprises should also be dismissed because holding dual positions also amount to conflict of interests.

AA for you, buddy...

How about police and military officers being involved with political parties, holding political office, taking positions with major companies etc.

Oh sorry I see, that's perfectly OK !

So in your free country. You don't ACTUALLY want people be free to follow their political ideas or better themselves!!!

So you don't see problems with police officers being active in politics other than casting their vote, when there's elections that is.

You don't see any conflict of interests and trust them to do their duty without fear or favour no matter how much their duty may be at variance with their political views ?

in the US, a general is under the command of the civilian government, specifically the US president. And for an active-duty general to be on the board of any corporation would be unethical and potentially in conflict with his/her duties as a general.

why?

A general who sits on the board of an arms manufacturer is in a direct conflict of interest, other corporations are murky, unless they frequently bid for DOA contracts. The problem is the US military buys everything from the civilian sector, so siting on any board raises a reasonable doubt about arm's-length sales.

Dick Cheney was the Star of Conflicts of Interest, sitting on the board of Haliburton before Iraq started, then stepping down, bot NOT giving up his stock--he directly profited from the war, which is imbecilic in scope and devious as all Hades. SO we put up a statue of him in Washington DC. On the bright side, I know where to urinate.

Applying the same standard, Mr Songkran suggested that senior government officials who are sitting in the boards of state enterprises should also be dismissed because holding dual positions also amount to conflict of interests.

AA for you, buddy...

How about police and military officers being involved with political parties, holding political office, taking positions with major companies etc.

Oh sorry I see, that's perfectly OK !

So in your free country. You don't ACTUALLY want people be free to follow their political ideas or better themselves!!!

So you don't see problems with police officers being active in politics other than casting their vote, when there's elections that is.

You don't see any conflict of interests and trust them to do their duty without fear or favour no matter how much their duty may be at variance with their political views ?

in the US, a general is under the command of the civilian government, specifically the US president. And for an active-duty general to be on the board of any corporation would be unethical and potentially in conflict with his/her duties as a general.

why?

A general who sits on the board of an arms manufacturer is in a direct conflict of interest, other corporations are murky, unless they frequently bid for DOA contracts. The problem is the US military buys everything from the civilian sector, so siting on any board raises a reasonable doubt about arm's-length sales.

Dick Cheney was the Star of Conflicts of Interest, sitting on the board of Haliburton before Iraq started, then stepping down, bot NOT giving up his stock--he directly profited from the war, which is imbecilic in scope and devious as all Hades. SO we put up a statue of him in Washington DC. On the bright side, I know where to urinate.

so therefore that is a clear conflict of interest.. What if the general was on the board of Nike?

Crybabies!

"... might suspect that some of them were engaged in conflict of interest by holding key positions in foundations or agencies which received funding from ThaiHealth."

No shit Sherlock!

"By invoking Section 44 against the entire board, he said that NCPO intended to deprive them of the right to defend themselves."

These people sat silently in approval over the last 18 months as the junta invoked Article 44 to remove government officials people from their positions based on mere secret innuendoes of misconduct. Now when it's used against them, it becomes outrageous. Their arrogance needs no pity.

Looks like the board members were right, this is not just unfair, it's part of the purge... if your group has caused problems for the junta, and gets money from ThaiHealth, bad, bad, bad, ...

so if your organization is a yellow-ish colored, junta supporting group, the self-appointed "PM" supports your organization getting money from ThaiHealth... good, good, good, ...

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/PM-tells-ThaiHealth-to-release-funds-for-Pracha-Ra-30276467.html

Applying the same standard, Mr Songkran suggested that senior government officials who are sitting in the boards of state enterprises should also be dismissed because holding dual positions also amount to conflict of interests.

AA for you, buddy...

And this has been going on with every past government. The government bureaucracy needs some urgent cleanup. Unfortunately such cleanup would short to medium term disturb the functioning of Thailand as red tape holds the country together.

Having the UN taking over for a decade might still be the best solution.