"what Thaksin Had Done Wrong"

[JacknDanny]

It looks like a thankless task

I agree and it's not made any easier by trolls on various internet forums trying to make it harder.

[younghusband]

I agree and it's not made any easier by trolls on various internet forums trying to make it harder.

Ahhh... the trolls dressed up in suits vigorously playing the broken records? Yes. they are a pesky bunch but they don't fool me.

With respect you might want to think again about the correct meaning of "troll".My understanding is it someone who posts provocatively with the main intent of generating a response, rather than carrying the debate forward.It is clear that recently the word "troll" is being applied by some to posts that do not comply with their particular view or which provides evidence which does not fit in with that view.It reminds me of my university days when any expression of thought which did not fit in with the then common new left consensus was descibed as "fascist".

For both supporters and opponents of Thaksin please remember that there is a legitimate debate to be had, and no one interpretation that overrides all other views.My personal view is that he was a greedy and foolish politician, but with some elements of real strength.I further believe that his administration was far superior to the present incompetent and illegal government.But it is of course just my opinion.

[jumnien]

younghusband,

I agree with you, well put. Guess that makes me a troll, too!

[Gary A]

Thailand WAS a democracy. Thailand HAD a constitution. What does it have now? That constitution was written specifically to control corruption. Previous governments make Thaksin look like a choir boy. It appears that many of the farangs on this board are as jealous as the corrupt politicians and generals who wanted him out. The Thai people have been through the previous corrupt governments and measured Thaksin by what they have now versus what they had before.

The bottom line is that Thaksin should have been permitted to serve out his term. If he was as corrupt as some people would like you to believe, there were provisions in that constitution to remove him from office. He was very wealthy and stopped some important wannabe big shots from getting even more wealthy by stealing even more from the people just as they always had in the past. Thaksin's biggest problem was that he was smarter than the rest of the crooks and they could do nothing about it. Did Thaksin manipulate the laws for his own gain? Of course he did. Did he outsmart the other crooks? Of course he did and that is precisely what caused BIG problem. He did it legally.

The coup was very wrong and a huge mistake. Unfortunately in time everyone will find out just how wrong it really was. The old saying, better the devil that you know rings very true.

[Meerkat]

The coup was very wrong and a huge mistake. Unfortunately in time everyone will find out just how wrong it really was. The old saying, better the devil that you know rings very true.

Agreed, and I'll add another saying too. Be careful what you wish for.

Whilst I have little doubt that Thaksin was as bent as a three-bob note, it astounds me that so many people here really believe that the pre-TRT days were political sweetness and light, Thaksin was the devil incarnate, and now it's all going to be peaches and cream again.

With the military believing themselves the only true arbiters of right and wrong under the King, democracy has been set back decades.

[younghusband]

Deputy Prime Minister and Industry Minister Kosit Panpiemras:

"My idea of sufficiency economy which means that we would like to add quality in to the development process...

It's the same objective that makes development more sustainable and add the better, stronger risk management and add more importance to things like governance and quality of life..."

Please wait a little longer for encyclopedia definition.

I await the encyclopedia definition with interest but in the meantime will go with the definition of the Economist, ie "new age waffle".

[Siripon]

Thailand WAS a democracy. Thailand HAD a constitution. What does it have now? That constitution was written specifically to control corruption. Previous governments make Thaksin look like a choir boy. It appears that many of the farangs on this board are as jealous as the corrupt politicians and generals who wanted him out. The Thai people have been through the previous corrupt governments and measured Thaksin by what they have now versus what they had before.

The bottom line is that Thaksin should have been permitted to serve out his term. If he was as corrupt as some people would like you to believe, there were provisions in that constitution to remove him from office. He was very wealthy and stopped some important wannabe big shots from getting even more wealthy by stealing even more from the people just as they always had in the past. Thaksin's biggest problem was that he was smarter than the rest of the crooks and they could do nothing about it. Did Thaksin manipulate the laws for his own gain? Of course he did. Did he outsmart the other crooks? Of course he did and that is precisely what caused BIG problem. He did it legally.

The coup was very wrong and a huge mistake. Unfortunately in time everyone will find out just how wrong it really was. The old saying, better the devil that you know rings very true.

Thaksin emasculated the constitution, there were no checks and balances left because he ensured through money that he would not be called to account.

When unsure he simply passed laws as decrees bypassing Parliament.

Gary, Thaksin dissolved Parliament himself! With a majority of 75%!

Why didn't he just answer the questions in Parliament?

I think we have to be careful with the use of the word 'legal'. The Constitutional Court decided that it was legal for Thaksin to put millions of baht into accounts in the names of his gardener, maid, driver and servants and then call it 'an honest mistake'. He hadn't intended to hide his assets!

It was legal when the government changed the concession law enabling AIS to pay a reduced concession to TOT by considering that payment as tax.

Thaksin wasn't smarter, Chirmsak was onto his game a long time ago with his booklets' Getting on to Thaksin'.

Sonthi Limthongkun saw through him and exposed his misdeeds to the middle class.

But Thaksin was more shameless, greedier and more arrogant than any other crook.

I

[Gary A]

The constitution is the document that guides the country. It was written by academics, business people, military people and politicians. Was it perfect? Obviously not. That's why there were provisions to amend it. You don't simply scrap the document, depose the democratically elected leader to start over because the elected leader outsmarted some of the others. Never before was I really uncomfortable with any Thai government, but I AM now. There have been more quick knee jerk decisions made in the past few months than I have ever seen before.

[lukamar]

When unsure he simply passed laws as decrees bypassing Parliament.

You can't hold a burning candle in each hand and say one is not burning. The CNS is decreeing Thailand to death on a daily basis. In fact the CNS even decreed they were exempt from any wrong doing and decreed themselves "immunity". It's OK for them but not OK for Thaksin? In a true Democracy that is oppressed the masses become a groundswell and force out the oppressors. Is that the "Undercurrents" the present dictators keep worrying about? My feeling is, it is the populace and not deposed politicians that will cause them no end of grief soon. Once the majority of people turn against a government the government has no hope. look what a couple of percent caused to happen. Wait a while until the economy is in the dumpster and they still can't pin anything substantial on anyone then the crap will hit the curtain.

And I agree with Garry.

[Siripon]

When unsure he simply passed laws as decrees bypassing Parliament.

You can't hold a burning candle in each hand and say one is not burning. The CNS is decreeing Thailand to death on a daily basis. In fact the CNS even decreed they were exempt from any wrong doing and decreed themselves "immunity". It's OK for them but not OK for Thaksin? In a true Democracy that is oppressed the masses become a groundswell and force out the oppressors. Is that the "Undercurrents" the present dictators keep worrying about? My feeling is, it is the populace and not deposed politicians that will cause them no end of grief soon. Once the majority of people turn against a government the government has no hope. look what a couple of percent caused to happen. Wait a while until the economy is in the dumpster and they still can't pin anything substantial on anyone then the crap will hit the curtain.

And I agree with Garry.

They had to decree themselves immunity because they broke the constitution and they knew that, obviously they don't claim to come from an election! They did what they did because Thaksin's corruption had forced a crisis, they were an emergency.

In fact I have never known a coup be so welcomed in Thailand although Thaksin came from the people, as he always reminds everyone, yet he refused to follow the rules of democracy regarding checks and balances.

He should relax, if he is innocent he will have nothing to fear, and even if he's guilty he shouldn't worry too much as his accomplices in the civil service are doing their best to delay investigations to save their hides.

The populace will wait and when the next election comes they will vote for their local figures as always, whatever party they run under.

[Songpong]

Intersting list. The only problem is proving it. Proving that men in uniform have appoited their friends in state enterprises and have breached the trust of their sharholders is much easier. How about trippling the economic growth? Or having been able to reduce the death of infants in half? Having been able to reduce the tea money that the friends of the couptakers asked for a place in university or demonstration schools? having supplies the poor with microcredit (not a bad thing given the nobel prize this year), or having been able to help out the poor when their was a disaster (Have not yet seen a hirake in uniform this time, maybe they were too busy). Or what about having reduced the number of children addicted to drugs. And did Thaksin not get his satellite license from the last military government, as well the mobile phone license? Some people must have profitted? It is so easy to make a list, substantiating is much more of a headache.

Wait till that other general Chavalit makes a list about those other generals, that would be more fun.

By the way what happened with the freedom of speech, that Sondhi could use to criticize Thaksin? Why aren't we treated with the same courtesy?

Just wondering

I'd really be quite interested to know what this idiot is rambling on about. Is there any substance behind it or not? References to more information on any of the points mentioned would be interesting. Without such references I take it that he is just making it up for whatever reason makes him tick. Particularly interesting is the comment that supplying the poor with microcredit is in some way linked to receiving a nobel prize. I want to see that. And just what is that wonderful fellow Chavalit up to these days?

Edited January 16, 2007 by Songpong

[sriracha john]

Geez... 70 of Thaksin's cronies in yesterday's report on the rubber scam and now, today, 36 of his cronies in the airport scam... He's got quite a big gang this Thaksin guy does.... and this is only 2 of the 13 cases on-going against him.

AOT names 36 in graft cases

The Airports of Thailand (AOT) yesterday incriminated 36 people for alleged corruption in the underground power line system procurement and the CTX bomb-detection machine.

Assets Examination Committee (AEC) member Amnuay Thantara said the AOT sent their representatives to the AEC to lodge a complaint against 14 suspects for alleged involvement in the purchase of the underground power line system and 22 suspects in the CTX bomb-detection purchase.

The two cases are among 13 corruption cases the AEC is examining.

AOT president Chotisak Asapaviriya had earlier lodged the complaint with the AEC, but failed to incriminate any suspects.

Yesterday's move came after AOT board chairman General Saprang Kalayanamitr, who is deputy secretary-general of the Council for National Security (CNS), ordered the AOT to incriminate the suspects.

*It's a shame that AOT President Khun Chokemysack doesn't have the gumption to do his job and has to be ordered to do so.*

Among the 22 suspects in the CTX corruption case are deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, former transport minister Suriya Jungrungreangkit, Srisuk Chandrangsu the former AOT board chairman, Wichai Jungrakkiat, a Revenue Department senior official who was among five state officials fired, for his failure to collect tax in the Shin Corp sale.

Among the 14 suspects in the underground power line system are Suriya, Srisuk, General Somchai Somprasong.

Meanwhile, the Financial Institutions Development Fund, the financial-rescue arm of the Bank of Thailand, yesterday lodged a complaint against Thaksin and his wife Khunying Pojaman over the Bt772-million land purchase scandal.

*ah yes, mustn't forget about Pokemon in all this current hubbub over husband Thakky's multiple shady dealings... She's no slouch herself when it comes to skimming off the funds.*

AEC chairman Nam Yimyaem said he would endorse three investigative panels to start the investigation proceedings as soon as possible.

After all the panels are established, the suspects will be allowed to object to the appointment of any members of the investigative panels.

Nam said his committee has also prepared a process to have investigative panels probe Thaksin overseas.

The Nation

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It should be no wonder these investigations are going to have to take some time to complete.... there's just so damm many of them involving so many of Thakky's Homeboy Posse.

[lukamar]

They had to decree themselves immunity because they broke the constitution and they knew that, obviously they don't claim to come from an election! They did what they did because Thaksin's corruption had forced a crisis, they were an emergency.

So let me get this straight. You think it's OK for the Junta to break the law, take over the country at gunpoint and give themselves immunity because someone is accused of being corrupt. I could point my finger at you and call you a pedophile but it does not make it so. I've yet to see any charges but lots of posturing and finger pointing. When he's charged and convicted in an open trial monitored by an outside body fine but there is little chance any of the group on the Junta's hit list would get a trial the junta cannot manipulate. They have done exactly what Thaksin did, control the police, the media and the courts, can you not see that. They have even managed to piss-off it's neighbors, cause havoc with investors, smudge the Thai reputation and the list goes on, and they have accomplished all that in a few short months. Has to make you wonder what other gems they have in store for the country.

Edited January 16, 2007 by lukamar

[Tony Clifton]

They had to decree themselves immunity because they broke the constitution and they knew that, obviously they don't claim to come from an election! They did what they did because Thaksin's corruption had forced a crisis, they were an emergency.

So let me get this straight. You think it's OK for the Junta to break the law, take over the country at gunpoint and give themselves immunity because someone is accused of being corrupt. I could point my finger at you and call you a pedophile but it does not make it so. I've yet to see any charges but lots of posturing and finger pointing. When he's charged and convicted in an open trial monitored by an outside body fine but there is little chance any of the group on the Junta's hit list would get a trial the junta cannot manipulate. They have done exactly what Thaksin did, control the police, the media and the courts, can you not see that. They have even managed to piss-off it's neighbors, cause havoc with investors, smudge the Thai reputation and the list goes on, and they have accomplished all that in a few short months. Has to make you wonder what other gems they have in store for the country.

How about negotiations with the Association of Foreigners in Thailand? How's that going?

[lukamar]

How about negotiations with the Association of Foreigners in Thailand? How's that going?

It's been slow since the Caretaker Government and slower since the coup, but we have been working with the Joint Chambers. We have opted to take a back seat at the moment due to the situation and see what happens, like a lot of people. Thanks for asking and giving us a plug, which I'm not allowed to do on this site..

[sriracha john]

...and now we leave the news from inside Canada to the news inside Thailand:

Nam's progress report

Nam Yimyaem, who heads the Assets Examination Committee (AEC), paid a visit to Council for National Security chairman General Sonthi Boonyaratglin yesterday.

Before leaving his office, Nam told reporters he would offer New Year's wishes to the junta leader and expected to discuss with Sonthi the progress of the AEC in investigating corruption charges against ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra and his Cabinet members.

Another AEC member, Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka, also joined the meeting with Sonthi at Army headquarters, according to Nam.

Sonthi had on Monday cancelled his appointment with Nam at the AEC office as apparently Nam was too busy.

- The Nation

--------------------------------------------

Yes, indeed, Nam is certainly kept busy sifting through the heaps of garbage left from the previous government.

[sriracha john]

AEC ready to meet Thaksin abroad for CTX hearing

BANGKOK - Thailand's Assets Examination Committee (AEC) is ready to go abroad to enable ousted Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to testify in person regarding the corruption case in which he is allegedly involved, AEC member Amnuay Thantara said on Thursday.

However, Mr. Amnuay said it depends on Mr. Thaksin himself whether he wishes to testify in person before the inquiry sub-panel or not. If he does, the sub-panel will ask the AEC to approve its travel. But if he does

not, there is no need to do so.

Mr. Amnuay commented when asked about the possibility of a hearing outside the kingdom on the corruption case in connection with the overpriced purchase of CTX 9000 bomb scanners for Suvarnabhumi airport in which 23 persons -- including Mr. Thaksin -- were earlier implicated by the AEC fact-finding panel.

Mr. Thaksin, in self-imposed exile abroad since the September 19 coup, made his wishes to return to Thailand to defend himself known through his lawyers.

However, the military Council for National Security (CNS) and the interim government have reiterated it is not yet an appropriate time for the ousted premier to come back, citing their concern for the national security.

Mr. Amnuay said the notion of letting Mr.Thaksin testify in person abroad stemmed from the AEC's wish to provide justice to all parties concerned.

The CNS has made it clear that Mr.Thaksin can't return to the kingdom during this period of time due to security concern. So, it deems it necessary for the inquiry panel to meet him abroad.

Shinawatra family legal chief Noppadol Pattama welcomed the proposed AEC option, saying it is a good idea. He also noted that his legal team are prepared to defend the case.

- MCOT

[slimdog]

ASC pushes for filing of graft cases

"The ASC has said the agency was a damaged party because the Thaksin cabinet in 2003 resolved to take the 1.44 billion baht out of the RRAF's rubber export project budget, which was against the law.

But RRAF director-general Nopadol Suanprasert said the board had not yet approved the budget to run the project. Therefore, it was not sure whether the agency was the damaged party."

Full story: http://www.bangkokpost.net/News/23Jan2007_news01.php

[sriracha john]

Still so many questions

One year after the Shin Corp scandal broke out, many questions are left unanswered, writes Korn Chatikavanij, Democrat Party member.

One year on from the historic deal between the Shinawatra family and Temasek Holdings, the official Singaporean investment arm, the fallout continues with no end in sight.

Deal of the Century

At the time, the deal represented for many the crystallisation of all the abuses of the Thaksin administration - all designed to add value to his listed companies.

The public was finally presented with a number - the now infamous Bt73.3 billion - and rightly asked how was this possible. Unfortunately, the answers were not pleasant. The deal was possible because of a series of policies designed to aid and abet Shin Corp companies, ranging from illegal amendments of concession terms to waivers of tax payments be it customs duty on imported satellite equipment to excise tax obligations on mobile phone revenues.

It was possible also because the Revenue Department sided with the family in allowing them to get away with not paying income tax in a series of transactions dating back to 1999 right up to the day before the Temasek deal itself.

It was possible because the Telecom Act was amended to allow the foreign ownership limit to rise from 25 per cent to 49 per cent - one day before the transaction.

It was possible because the Shinawatra family colluded with Temasek in setting up an ownership structure that the Commerce Ministry has subsequently concluded was illegal.

Furthermore, it may have been possible because Thaksin had always illegally owned the shares sold to Singapore and, perhaps worst of all, was in a position to make formal and informal side agreements with Singapore to assure them of future benefits related to the transaction.

Why else would the Cabinet have approved a tax incentive scheme in December 2005, weeks before the deal was announced, that debilitates its future tax revenues and primarily benefited Advanced Info Service (AIS)? Why else, indeed, would Singapore continue to show through its actions that it remains more than friendly to Thaksin, regardless of the sentiments of the current government?

Of all Thaksin's abuses, if the extrajudicial drug killings and Tak Bai atrocities symbolised his disregard for the rule of law and human rights, then the Shin Corp transaction symbolised his greed and lack of proper ethics.

Yet there remain more important questions that await answers:

1. Who really owned the shares sold to Temasek? We all know that it would have been illegal for Thaksin to have owned or controlled shares as a prime minister, and none of us believe that his son, Panthongtae, was the real owner (especially after his recent testimony to the Assets Examination Committee). Were shares of Ample Rich ever properly transferred to his son and daughter? How were the shares "bought" by Ample Rich from Thaksin ever paid for? Were the dividends received by Ample Rich from Shin Corp between 2003 and 2005 ever paid to Panthongtae? And even if they were, to whom did Panthongtae pass them on?

2. Will Temasek confirm that it dealt with Panthongtae as the decision-maker, or did it meet with either Thaksin or his wife, Khunying Pojaman, to negotiate the deal?

3. When UBS in Singapore reported to the Thai Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under rule 264-2 that Ample Rich had acquired additional shares, it did so because the 5-per-cent limit was triggered. However, the trigger only occurred because the Ample Rich shares were combined with another 5.4 million shares held in a private account at UBS. Did UBS do this because both blocks of shares belonged to the same owner? Why does the SEC not take a hard line on this question?

4. These same UBS private accounts bought Shin Corp shares throughout the negotiation period between Shinawatra and Temasek. Were they involved in insider trading?

5. Yingluck Shinawatra sold shares in AIS consistently between October 2005 and January 2006 at an average price of Bt105. She was subsequently a signatory to the sale to Temasek on January 23, 2006. The tender-offer price for minority shareholders of AIS was set at Bt75, and other AIS shareholders never again saw their share price as high as the price sold by Yingluck. The Stock Exchange of Thailand had amazingly said this was not insider trading. The SEC said nothing until after the coup in September, when it said it was still "investigating". Are we going to hear a result? Or will the SEC continue to see which way the wind blows?

6. The SEC controversially allowed a waiver to Temasek from tendering for shares in iTV and Shin Satellite. The SEC gave the reason that the waiver was given because Temasek was targeting AIS and not these two companies. However, regardless of intention, ownership has passed on to Temasek and one year on they have not done anything with these companies they apparently did not want. Given Temasek's intransigence on this matter, and to be fair to minority shareholders, the SEC should make Temasek conduct a tender at a price based on the transaction date of a year ago.

7. Once the courts confirm the Commerce Ministry's assertion that Temasek is illegally controlling Shin Corp, how will this issue be resolved?

Since the structure used to acquire shares from the Shinawatra family that fateful day a year ago was illegal, the courts may be in a position to rule that the transaction be declared null and void. That would mean that the shares bought from the Shinawatra family reverts back to them, and Temasek can sue the family for a return of its money. The acquisition from the investing public cannot fairly be reversed, however, and so Temasek would remain a 40 per cent-plus owner of Shin Corp - within the legal limits.

I would then hope that the unfair concession amendments that were made at the state's expanse all be reversed, with the levying of any penalties that the courts deemed fair and reasonable.

This would be a fair result - and certainly better than a scenario whereby Thaksin is allowed to get away with the ill-gotten gains from the sale, or to be in a position to acquire back shares from Temasek (as forced sellers) at a deep discount to the price received a year ago.

- The Nation

[slimdog]

POJAMAN DEAL

Fund 'was not aware' it sold land plot for loss

Sale to former PM's wife was 'above the appraisal price'

The Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF), an arm of the Bank of Thailand, said it did not report its loss from a land sale on Ratchadaphisek Road in a report to the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) because the AEC subcommittee had not informed the fund about the amount of the loss.

Chanchai Boonritchaisri, a senior director of the central bank's Legal and Litigation Department, said the fund could not figure out whether it had suffered any loss from the sale, because it had sold the land plot at a price higher than the appraisal price. Hence, it could cite the damage figure in the report only when it was informed of the figure by the AEC.

"The FIDF could not see where the loss occurred, but I didn't say there was no loss," he said.

Chanchai said other organisations might calculate appraisal prices differently than did the fund. The committee could inform the fund which standard the price should be referred to.

"We're ready to follow the AEC, but the committee will have to prove the loss in the court, because the fund will only report facts. I do not know whether the court will agree with the committee," he said.

The fund sold the land plot located at Rama IX Road to deposed PM Thaksin Shinawatra's wife Pojaman for Bt772 million in 2003, higher than the appraisal price of about Bt700 million.

The AEC claims the fund lost money in the deal, because it had bought the land from Erawan Trust Finance and Securities for Bt2 billion in 1995.

An FIDF source said the fund had paid such a high price for the land plot so as to strengthen the company, which was facing liquidity problems. It was the cheapest way to keep the company afloat at the time. In addition, the market price at the time was high in keeping with a boom in the property sector.

Chanchai said the fund willingly gave a free hand to the AEC and would not give a dissenting opinion in order to avoid conflict.

Full story: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/01/24...cs_30024938.php

Edited January 24, 2007 by slimdog

[hammered]

POJAMAN DEAL

Fund 'was not aware' it sold land plot for loss

Sale to former PM's wife was 'above the appraisal price'

The Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF), an arm of the Bank of Thailand, said it did not report its loss from a land sale on Ratchadaphisek Road in a report to the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) because the AEC subcommittee had not informed the fund about the amount of the loss.

Chanchai Boonritchaisri, a senior director of the central bank's Legal and Litigation Department, said the fund could not figure out whether it had suffered any loss from the sale, because it had sold the land plot at a price higher than the appraisal price. Hence, it could cite the damage figure in the report only when it was informed of the figure by the AEC.

"The FIDF could not see where the loss occurred, but I didn't say there was no loss," he said.

Chanchai said other organisations might calculate appraisal prices differently than did the fund. The committee could inform the fund which standard the price should be referred to.

"We're ready to follow the AEC, but the committee will have to prove the loss in the court, because the fund will only report facts. I do not know whether the court will agree with the committee," he said.

The fund sold the land plot located at Rama IX Road to deposed PM Thaksin Shinawatra's wife Pojaman for Bt772 million in 2003, higher than the appraisal price of about Bt700 million.

The AEC claims the fund lost money in the deal, because it had bought the land from Erawan Trust Finance and Securities for Bt2 billion in 1995.

An FIDF source said the fund had paid such a high price for the land plot so as to strengthen the company, which was facing liquidity problems. It was the cheapest way to keep the company afloat at the time. In addition, the market price at the time was high in keeping with a boom in the property sector.

Chanchai said the fund willingly gave a free hand to the AEC and would not give a dissenting opinion in order to avoid conflict.

Full story: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/01/24...cs_30024938.php

Maybe I have trouble following this, but it seems:

They paid 2 billion in 1995 for a bit of land worth only 700 million in 2003, but they did alright because they managed to flog it off for 772 million at that time and they are unable to see that they made a loss on the piece of land and they call themselves a financial institution! Oh and as an arm of the BoT I guess the tax payer ends up making good on these deals that do not make losses.

Can someone please correct me, as I hope I am wrong about all of this.

[sriracha john]

Attorney-General won't give advice in rubber sapling case

The Office of the Attorney-General yesterday rejected a request by the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund (RRAF) for a legal opinion on whether the agency should file a complaint over alleged corruption in the 1.44-billion-baht rubber saplings procurement project. The office said it had no authority to make a decision on whether the RRAF was a damaged party or if it should act as a plaintiff in the case. Last Friday, the ASC ordered the ministry or the RRAF, as damaged parties in the case, to file complaints against politicians and civil servants involved in the alleged scam so that an inquiry can start.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/24Jan2007_news09.php

Edited January 24, 2007 by sriracha john

[hammered]

Attorney-General won't give advice in rubber sapling case

The Office of the Attorney-General yesterday rejected a request by the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund (RRAF) for a legal opinion on whether the agency should file a complaint over alleged corruption in the 1.44-billion-baht rubber saplings procurement project. The office said it had no authority to make a decision on whether the RRAF was a damaged party or if it should act as a plaintiff in the case. Last Friday, the ASC ordered the ministry or the RRAF, as damaged parties in the case, to file complaints against politicians and civil servants involved in the alleged scam so that an inquiry can start.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/24Jan2007_news09.php

Why are so many government servants afraid to make complaints about corruption? Surely it is in the interests of the public they serve for alleged corruption cases to go to court. And we shouldnt forget that just because a case goes to court doesnt mean anyone is guilty. That is up to the court to decide. The RRAF should make the complaint and let justice take run its course.

[Barney_the_Dinosaur]

[/b]Why are so many government servants afraid to make complaints about corruption? Surely it is in the interests of the public they serve for alleged corruption cases to go to court[/b]. And we shouldnt forget that just because a case goes to court doesnt mean anyone is guilty. That is up to the court to decide. The RRAF should make the complaint and let justice take run its course.

Yes you think they would be professional.

O look a pig has just flown past the window

[hammered]

[/b]Why are so many government servants afraid to make complaints about corruption? Surely it is in the interests of the public they serve for alleged corruption cases to go to court[/b]. And we shouldnt forget that just because a case goes to court doesnt mean anyone is guilty. That is up to the court to decide. The RRAF should make the complaint and let justice take run its course.

Yes you think they would be professional.

O look a pig has just flown past the window

nice one

[Tony Clifton]

Attorney-General won't give advice in rubber sapling case

The Office of the Attorney-General yesterday rejected a request by the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund (RRAF) for a legal opinion on whether the agency should file a complaint over alleged corruption in the 1.44-billion-baht rubber saplings procurement project. The office said it had no authority to make a decision on whether the RRAF was a damaged party or if it should act as a plaintiff in the case. Last Friday, the ASC ordered the ministry or the RRAF, as damaged parties in the case, to file complaints against politicians and civil servants involved in the alleged scam so that an inquiry can start.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/24Jan2007_news09.php

Why are so many government servants afraid to make complaints about corruption? Surely it is in the interests of the public they serve for alleged corruption cases to go to court. And we shouldnt forget that just because a case goes to court doesnt mean anyone is guilty. That is up to the court to decide. The RRAF should make the complaint and let justice take run its course.

There are plenty of corrupted officials left in high positions that need to be weeded out. People at the bottom of the ladder were afraid of losing their jobs and are still are.

[sriracha john]

Attorney-General won't give advice in rubber sapling case

The Office of the Attorney-General yesterday rejected a request by the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund (RRAF) for a legal opinion on whether the agency should file a complaint over alleged corruption in the 1.44-billion-baht rubber saplings procurement project. The office said it had no authority to make a decision on whether the RRAF was a damaged party or if it should act as a plaintiff in the case. Last Friday, the ASC ordered the ministry or the RRAF, as damaged parties in the case, to file complaints against politicians and civil servants involved in the alleged scam so that an inquiry can start.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/24Jan2007_news09.php

Why are so many government servants afraid to make complaints about corruption? Surely it is in the interests of the public they serve for alleged corruption cases to go to court. And we shouldnt forget that just because a case goes to court doesnt mean anyone is guilty. That is up to the court to decide. The RRAF should make the complaint and let justice take run its course.

The same thing is going on over at the "Thaksin Linked To Wife's Suspect Land Deal" thread with the ASC having to order the FIDF to produce what they were told to provide and the FIDF complying only after they were threatened with charges of dereliction of duty.

Edited January 24, 2007 by sriracha john

[John K]

I think it is much more simple than that...

Does it hurt?

Yes.

Go to the doctor.

Are you hungry?

No.

Then no need to eat.

Did you lose money or suffer a loss in this deal?

<answer>

<reply>

Government officials should not solicit particularly if they are in the chain.

[hammered]

Or I noticed a comment by Khun Korn in his article on the Shin deal that officials should stop waiting to see what way the wind blew.

[sriracha john]

All the foot-dragging by the responsible officials mentioned above seems to be addressed by the PM:

'We'll get tough with old regime'

"Deeply entrenched vested interests will struggle to defend their special access to power and money while this interim government is committed to eradicating their influence once and for all. No one should underestimate our resolve in this matter either."

- Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont to the Joint Foreign Chambers of Commerce

The Nation