Deconstructing Nophakhun Limsamarnphun: Mouthpiece of the Government in its Case Against Thaksin

Web of suspicious transactions the Shinawatra legacy

Nophakhun Limsamarnphun

nop1122@yahoo.com


The Nation

Criminal charges filed by state officials this week against deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife over their alleged failure to disclose their shareholdings in SC Asset Plc, as well as the controversial Bt772-million purchase of a prime plot of Bangkok land from the state while Thaksin was in office, have helped shed more light on how the ex-premier could have blatantly broken several laws in the past.

I love how The Nation always accepts the government's position without question. In the US, there are dozens of court television shows on TV. The news media here doesn't accept the prosecutors case as if it is the truth. Normally both sides of the case are challenged by attorneys. But,The Nation's columnists believe their job is to propagate the government's position to the public. Has anybody been interviewed to challenge the prosecutor's case or at least question motives or evidence? Nope.

First, the latest legal action once again underlines the fact that the assets of Thaksin, his spouse and his children were falsely declared on several occasions when they were required by National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) law to make a proper disclosure.

Why didn't the news media investigate Thaksin's assets before? Under the Freedom of Information Act, The Nation could have looked up Thaksin's companies, his asset declarations, etc and done the math.

In the case of SC Assets Plc, the Department of Special Investigations also charged Thaksin and his spouse of concealing their actual holdings in the listed firm, thus violating the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) law. This time, the nominees included Win Mark, Value Investment Mutual Fund, Overseas Growth Fund and the Offshore Dynamic Fund. Previously, Ample Rich and other nominees were used in the Bt73-billion tax-free sale of Shin Corp to Temasek Holdings of Singapore that led to Thaksin's downfall. Thaksin and his spouse also allegedly hid their Shin Corp holdings until the assets were sold in early 2006.

Again, where was the news media?

Second, the allegations that Thaksin abused his power while in office are now stronger. In the Ratchadaphisek land deal, prosecutors told the court that the ex-premier violated Section 100 of the NCCC law, which bars state officials and spouses from entering into contracts with the state, including bidding for a state-owned property.

Why is The Nation spinning for the prosecutor? Regardless, I don't think Pojaman should have been buying property from the state while her husband was in power. But, I think as Bangkok Pundit pointed out elsewhere, she paid market value.

In addition, prosecutors believe that unfair competition led to the November 25, 2002 transaction in which the ex-premier's wife outbid two other rivals. For instance, the construction of high-rises on the 33-rai site was not allowed prior to the bidding. However, the ban was lifted after the ex-premier's wife won the bidding.

Was there a direct proven relationship between the change in zoning and Thaksin's influence? Also, why aren't the bureaucrats who approved all these dubious changes being interviewed by The Nation?

In the case of Shin Corp, the allegations of abuse of power are based on the fact that the market capitalisation of the Shinawatra family's holdings jumped from just over Bt20 billion to Bt73 billion over the five-year period Thaksin was in power.

If Thaksin had never become prime minister, does the possibility exist that the value of the Shin Group would have increased? Yes.

For instance, the Board of Investment granted substantial tax breaks to Shin units, such as Shin Satellite, resulting in a sharp rise in the market value of holding firm Shin Corp before it was sold to Tema-sek at a huge profit of nearly Bt50 billion for the Shinawatra family. Given this, many state agencies and market authorities appear to have been obviously disabled during the Thaksin years, including the Revenue Department for its failure to collect a huge amount of taxes on the Bt73-billion Shin sale; the SEC and the Stock Exchange of Thailand for failing to take against SC Asset Plc; and the Financial Institutions Development Fund for approving the sale of state-owned land to the ex-premier's wife.

If all of this were true, who are those people who colluded with the Shinawatras in this criminal conspiracy? Why aren't the bureaucrats being charged? Why isn't The Nation interviewing them?

Now that the ex-premier is about to take over the Manchester City football club, relevant authorities, such as the Anti-Money Laundering Organisation, may have to investigate his sources of funding for the transaction following the freeze of his assets amounting to over Bt50 billion in Thailand.

I actually agree with this. If there is undeclared money socked away in foreign bank accounts that was purposely kept hidden from the government, then that should be investigated.

The Assets Examination Committee (AEC) took the first action on June 11 by freezing Bt52 billion of Thaksin's money in 21 bank accounts. On June 18, the AEC found that Bt8.8 billion was taken out from June 4 to June 8. On June 20, it issued another order, freezing an additional Bt4.9 billion. Hence, a total of Bt57 billion out of the Bt73 billion in proceeds from the sale of Shin Corp is already frozen as authorities are tracing the remaining Bt16 billion.

Guess what? The same thing happened after the 1992 coup. What happened? The AEC was declared unconstitutional

Deconstructing Nopakhun: New Constitution Closes Loopholes of 1997 Charter

WATCHDOG

Draft charter closes loopholes for graft, conflict of interest

Nophakhun Limsamarnphun

nop1122@yahoo.com

The Nation


Dr Sombat Thamrongthanya-wong, a member of the National Legislative Assembly and president of the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA), told me the other day that the just-released first draft of the new constitution appears to be better than the 1997 version on at least two key points.


According to Dr Komson Potikong, one of the 35 charter-writers, five articles of the first draft of the new 2007 charter - from Article 256 to Article 260 - are devoted to plugging the loopholes previously exploited by public-office holders. In short, the charter will explicitly state that the prime minister, Cabinet members, MPs and senators are required to transfer their assets to trustees as designated by law prior to taking office, so that their private interests are clearly separate from those of the public.


I think this is a good proposal, but it would depend on how these trusts are organized. Before the elections will there be a mad rush to the lawyer's office in order to make billionaires out of
maids, drivers and obscure cousins of politicians? Before they all slap each other on the back and congratulate each other, where is the fine print? Also, they should have a clause concerning "honest mistakes."

On the appointment of members of key independent bodies such as the Constitution Court and the Election Commission, both of which were embroiled in controversy during the last days of the Thaksin regime, Sombat said the new charter would give the judiciary the lead role in nominating candidates to sit on such bodies.

According to the first draft of the 2007 charter, all Supreme Court judges (whose total number is less than 100) will convene to select three of their judges to be candidates for the Constitution Court, while Supreme Administrative Court judges will also convene to select two of their number as candidates for the same court.

Then the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court will each nominate another two candidates, making a total of nine candidates to sit on the Constitution Court.

The list of all nine candidates will then go to the Senate for final approval. The Senate can only accept or reject the entire list of candidates. Under the 1997 charter, the 200-member Senate was more powerful, as it was empowered to hand-pick candidates, resulting in widespread lobbying and alleged corruption.

This is an interesting proposal. It isn't very democratic in the sense that the people(or their elected representatives) have much as say over the picking of judges, but that is normal in most countries.

What I like about this is that it forces consensus by many judges on who should serve on the highest court in the land, and the Senate must confirm the list.

The judges who do get picked will have to have a lot of respect from their peers. And I doubt any judge will have enough money to bribe themselves into the top job. Personally, if it were me, I don't even know if I would want the hassle of campaigning for a spot on the Supreme Court. It seems like a thankless job and it will have added responsibilities under this new constitution. I hope these guys are getting decent pay raises.

With all that being said, I don't have much faith in the judiciary. Many of the problems that we had during the Thaksin era happened because the judiciary was weak and probably corrupt.

They didn't do much as a check against the executive in the past, so I don't have much faith they will be much better in the future.

Lastly, considering that the judiciary is taking on so many executive responsibilities, it is only fair that judges should be held to public scrutiny and be allowed to be criticized, and they should have to declare their assets also.

Deconstructing Nophakhun Limsamarnphun: More BS Artistry from The Nation's Finest

WATCHDOG

A half-baked democracy in the offing for year's end

Dr Anek Laothamatas, the former leader of the Mahachon Party, gave me the impression the other day that a half-baked democracy was in the offing when the polls come later this year.

He said that the military would continue to pull the strings from backstage once the top brass stepped down from their official posts.

Why shouldn't it be? The Privy Council and the Junta will be the final voice on all matters until long after the death of King Bumibol, which was a main factor in having the coup in the first place. The military will be in charge until after King Bumibol dies and after all the post death cremation ceremonies are over, which could take years. Then after the coronation of the new queen or king or nobody, the military will have to be in the driver's seat because it is the only institution in Thailand with the guns. The first couple years of the tenth reign (or republic) will be shaky, because there is no political force in Thailand that can stabilize the country. The military has to be in charge by default.

At Thursday's seminar entitled "Thailand: Future Path", held by the Sasin Graduate School of Business Administration and Matichon newspaper, Anek told the audience that the majority of Thais apparently felt they had won a brief respite when the military staged the coup to oust the elected, though polarising Thaksin regime on September 19, 2006. Then, he said, they felt somewhat disappointed that the Surayud government really had not lived up to high expectations in running the country over the past four months. The Surayud government is kind-hearted, but it's not decisive.

Majority? Anyway you look at it, the majority supported Thaksin. Surayud is worthless because he is a general without any factions or loyalty outside the military. His power doesn't come from the people, only from the junta and the palace. The bureaucracy doesn't listen to him, because it is waiting for Thaksin, their patron, to come back.

Many Thais share the opinion that the future is rather cloudy and that the democratic struggle will be protracted as the military will remain the predominant player, albeit informally, for quite some time. This is likely to be the situation for at least two years following the dissolution of the Council for National Security (CNS) later this year.

See what I wrote above concerning end of reign, post-reign politics.

On the new constitution, Anek says that one of the ultimate objectives is to ensure that once it is promulgated, it is not torn up again any time soon. The last charter lasted nearly 10 years. Basically, this means determining how best to accommodate the universal values of democracy in the Thai political context. A very Western democratic charter would not last, he warns.

Constitutionalism is a joke in Thailand. Any new Constitution will be torn up, because Thais have no respect for the rule of law, especially those in power, and the masses and the middle class could give two shits if a million more constitutions are ripped to shreds by the military. When has there ever been a Western democratic charter in Thailand? Never. The last charter was written by Thais for Thais. Again, it failed. I would argue, however, that the problem is never the Constitution, but rather the people who live under that Constitution who are the problem. Iraq has a lovely Constitution, and that hasn't done the Iraqis any good. What is democracy in a Thai political context? More bullshit. More feudalism. More corruption.

Anek has long championed the notion of twin political forces - urbanites and rural folk - and this proved to be the case last September after urbanites essentially joined forces to oust the Thaksin regime, which was still popular in rural areas. This being the case, Anek says, reconciliatory politics is increasingly unavoidable in the Thai context.

What kind of bullshit is this? The urbanites kicked out Thaksin. The peasants still love him. Where is the coalition? What the fuck does reconciliatory politics in a Thai context mean?

Globalisation and the sufficiency-economy model are good examples of populist policies as exemplified by the previous Thaksin regime that may have to be substituted for what he calls a progressive welfare regime.

More bullshit. What does this sentence mean? How does shit like this get published?

After all, a patronage-based society and a truly Western-style democracy do not fit together seamlessly.

They don't fit well together at all. A patronage system is antithetical to democracy. Who are these idiots?

As the next polls are likely to be held by year's end, all politicians and political parties will have to factor in the military's upcoming predominant role.

Duh.

Dr Chai-anan Samudavanija, a veteran political scientist who spoke at the same event, believes that democratic reforms will take place slowly over the next two to three years, during which technocrats and bureaucrats will be more powerful politically as political parties will need them to help run the country.

Again, what does this mean? From what we have seen lately, the bureaucrats can't be trusted and their expert advice and knowledge seems to be worthless. And the politicians are the same old faces, so why shouldn't they know how to cheat the state as well as in the past?

During this period, he said, royal initiatives on the sufficiency-economy model will replace populist policies. Politics will be less sensational and will move at a slower speed than in the past five to six years.

Somkid will re-package Thaksinomics into Juntanomics and call it Sufficiency Theory.

On the economic front, Dr Supavud Saicheua of Patra Securities noted that the new constitution, which is supposed to be ready for a referendum around July of this year, would be a key measure of Thailand's political situation in the eyes of foreign investors. If its contents have the potential for increased political stability, the new charter will likely boost foreign investment, he says, and the political risks in Thailand will reach their peak around the second quarter of this year when the Constitution Court rules as to whether any political parties should be disbanded for breaking electoral law.

Why would foreign investors trust this government? How many coups and constitutions have there been? And why should foreigners trust the economic reforms that cheat foreigners out of their money in order to feed Thais waiting at the trough?

For the past four months, foreign investors' sentiment towards Thailand has not been favourable, given that the Surayud government has been perceived internationally as attempting to get rid of the remnants of the previous regime and overthrow its economic policies.

Look at the dishonest reframing in this sentence. Khun Nop is saying that foreign sentiment is against the Surayud government because he got rid of the remnant of previous regime and its economic policies. Where is the evidence for this? Perhaps foreign sentiment is against the present government because of its proactive policies to damage the interests of foreigners, and perhaps they are perturbed because this government is a military dictatorship without any legal legitimacy, and perhaps they are not happy with the Thai media's right wing nationalist propaganda campaign that dumps all of Thailand's problems on the heads of the evil farang.

The Foreign Business Act revisions proposed to the National Legislative Assembly, the 30-per cent reserve requirement on foreign capital inflow and the Public Health Ministry's plan to break the patents of certain drugs for humanitarian reasons are among the measures often cited by the international media as examples of how the Thai government no longer welcomes foreign investment.

Look at the dishonest reframing in this sentence. Again, Khun Nop distorts the bad reaction of the foreign community to mean what he wants it to mean. Also, there is a difference in distinction between cheating foreigners and welcoming foreign investors.

I love how Nop says that the Thai government is stealing US IP for "humanitarian" reasons.

Like a typical Nation journalist, Mr. Nop has no shame.

Nophakhun Limsamarnphun