Bangkok Gov sues auditor for going public with corruption allegations

[webfact]

Bangkok Gov sues auditor for going public with corruption allegations

By Sasiwan Mokkhasen, Staff Reporter 

   

The ‘Bangkok Light of Happiness’ show seen Dec. 31 in front of Bangkok City Hall.

 

BANGKOK — Bangkok Gov. Sukhumbhand Paribatra sued a top government auditor Tuesday for publicly implicating him in collusion over a lavish city event.

 

A lawyer for Sukhumbhand went to the Criminal Court on Tuesday to file suit against Auditor General Pisit Leelavachiropas over a May 3 news conference at which he alleged the two-term governor made under-the-table deals to pay emergency funds to a vendor for a 39 million baht light show for the new year.

 

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/crimecourtscalamity/courts/2016/08/03/bangkok-gov-sues-auditor-going-public-corruption-allegations/

 

-- Khaosod English 2016-08-03

[sharecropper]

More legal idiocy - seriously, the country is in a terrible mess, even ignoring its current 'Political' plight.

[Thian]

So Hongkong/Singapore/Tokyo can have zillions of led-lights but Bangkok not???

 

[Fookhaht]

25 minutes ago, Thian said:

So Hongkong/Singapore/Tokyo can have zillions of led-lights but Bangkok not???

 

Yes, if they're paid for by business/commerce.  Not out of the taxpayers' pockets.  Duh.  

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Libel and defamation should NOT be a criminal offense.

 

They should be civil offenses to be adjudicated in civil courts.

 

Until Thailand changes its law on this, the country is never going to get out of its rut of corruption and abuses.

 

Right now, any time anyone becomes a whistle-blower to expose abuses, particularly if the whistleblower is an average citizen without influence, they can expect a criminal case to be lodged against them by the accused party and have to defend it or face going to prison.

 

[seajae]

this is one of the problems in Thailand, when someone is exposed for graft/corruption they immediately take the person who accused them to court, in the real world they could only do this if they were innocent. Here they can do it even when they are guilty because they lose face, really pathetic when you think about it, they see nothing wrong with their corrupt practices but get upset because it makes them look bad when the truth comes out.

Edited August 3, 2016 by seajae

[waldroj]

Sukhumbhand's last hurrah???

 

First he claims that Pisit (the Auditor General) did not have the legal authority to hold a news conference which he said created a false impression that he ( Sukhumbhand) was engaged in corrupt practices. Then, his lawsuit asked the court to order the Auditor General to publicise a verdict in his (Sukhumbhand's) favour in 11 newspapers for 30 days.

 

Unfortunately, Thailand does not have comprehensive whistleblowing protection legislation to protect government officials who are subjected to intimidation and legal action by powerful superiors for simply doing their job.

 

It's interesting to note that Sukhumbhand is not accusing the Auditor General of the standard "tool" of the rich and powerful here in Thailand - defamation!

 

Had Sukhumbhand have tried that approach, one would think the Auditor General would be easily able to counter any accusation against him by using Section 329 of the Thai Criminal Code (Good Faith Statement) - see http://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/criminal-code-defamation-sections-326-333/:

 

In fact, Sukhumbhand may actually be chasing the wrong person if the Auditor General has done his job correctly. Instead of chasing Pisit, perhaps he should be pursuing the National Counter Corruption Commission if the Draft Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2016 is to be applied in this case. Section 244 of this document says:

 

Where there is reasonable evidence to believe that the spending of State funds is in a manner of corruption, deliberate performance of duties or exercise of powers contrary to the Constitution or laws,..., and where in such cases the Auditor General has no power to proceed in any way, the Auditor General shall inform the National Counter Corruption Commission,..., for acknowledgement and further proceed according to the respective duties and powers thereof.

 

If all else fails, one would think that the Auditor General (as a public sector whistleblower) would still have pretty strong case for protection under the Witness Protection Law Section 8 (1) as this case involves serious allegations of corruption (see https://www.unodc.org/cld/document/tha/2003/witness_protection_act_b.e._2546.html).

 

Defiant to the end, Sukhumbhand, maintains that he would only step down if found guilty by the NACC - he may yet get his wish!