The Nation
The crisis in Thailand is set to take another major turn in the next few days, and this time it will relate to our neighbour to the northwest when the Supreme Court wraps up its hearing on ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's frozen Bt76 billion in assets.
The prosecution hopes its final blow will arrive next Tuesday.
Former foreign minister Surakiart Sathirathai will testify as a state witness, purportedly to provide the final piece of the jigsaw, proving Thaksin's failure to be honest about his assets was no honest mistake.
The prosecution is confident it has what is needed to prove Thaksin did not relinquish control of his business empire as legally and constitutionally as required when he served as prime minister.
Waratchya Srimachand, assistant secretary-general of the Securities and Exchange Commission, has told the court there was reliable evidence to prove Thaksin had concealed his massive shareholding in the telecom business - something he was supposed to have given up as head of the government.
Her testimony corroborates findings by the Assets Examination Committee, whose origin has been decried by the Thaksin camp, because it was set up after the September 19, 2006 coup.
The court has reviewed financial documents allegedly indicating stock transactions involving obscure "nominee" firms that held shares in Thaksin's telecom empire were endorsed by the man himself, not his children or even his wife.
The hearing has revisited the infamous Ample Rich and Win Mark. Yet all fishy transactions involving the nominee companies can only prove Thaksin was concealing his assets - an offence that is not enough to justify the seizure of his wealth. The prosecution must prove Thaksin not only failed to give up control of his businesses, but also helped them through suspicious government policies or decisions.
This is where Surakiart comes in. There were several dubious moves made by his government cited by the prosecution, not least the telecom excise tax scheme that greatly affected the industry's playing field, and a few witnesses have testified about them. The ex-foreign minister, though, is being tipped as a star witness because he used to work in the Thaksin Cabinet and was once seen as someone who had the former PM's trust.
Surakiart is expected to testify about the circumstances behind the Thaksin Cabinet's decision to grant controversial Export-Import Bank of Thailand loans to the Burmese junta, or more specifically how the loans jumped from Bt3 billion to Bt4 billion. The money, as has been widely reported, was to be partly used to pay for equipment and services provided by Shin Satellite.
What Surakiart tells the court will be crucial, and testifying the same day will be Klanarong Chantik from the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
These two will be the final witnesses in the case, and the court will conclude the hearing if it does not feel the need to hear more testimony. This means a verdict will most likely come next month, ending a long, painful chapter on Thailand grappling with a very unfamiliar issue: conflicts of interest.
Whatever the verdict is, it should not be mistaken as the beginning of an end. All it will do is simply close one episode, after which many things can happen. Thailand was very immature when the patriarch of one of the biggest business empires was allowed to take political power despite his questionable baggage. With the Supreme Court set to issue a ruling about those mistakes and their costly consequences, the environment is oddly familiar - the nation does not seem to have grown very much since.
The prosecution hopes its final blow will arrive next Tuesday.
Former foreign minister Surakiart Sathirathai will testify as a state witness, purportedly to provide the final piece of the jigsaw, proving Thaksin's failure to be honest about his assets was no honest mistake.
The prosecution is confident it has what is needed to prove Thaksin did not relinquish control of his business empire as legally and constitutionally as required when he served as prime minister.
Waratchya Srimachand, assistant secretary-general of the Securities and Exchange Commission, has told the court there was reliable evidence to prove Thaksin had concealed his massive shareholding in the telecom business - something he was supposed to have given up as head of the government.
Her testimony corroborates findings by the Assets Examination Committee, whose origin has been decried by the Thaksin camp, because it was set up after the September 19, 2006 coup.
The court has reviewed financial documents allegedly indicating stock transactions involving obscure "nominee" firms that held shares in Thaksin's telecom empire were endorsed by the man himself, not his children or even his wife.
The hearing has revisited the infamous Ample Rich and Win Mark. Yet all fishy transactions involving the nominee companies can only prove Thaksin was concealing his assets - an offence that is not enough to justify the seizure of his wealth. The prosecution must prove Thaksin not only failed to give up control of his businesses, but also helped them through suspicious government policies or decisions.
This is where Surakiart comes in. There were several dubious moves made by his government cited by the prosecution, not least the telecom excise tax scheme that greatly affected the industry's playing field, and a few witnesses have testified about them. The ex-foreign minister, though, is being tipped as a star witness because he used to work in the Thaksin Cabinet and was once seen as someone who had the former PM's trust.
Surakiart is expected to testify about the circumstances behind the Thaksin Cabinet's decision to grant controversial Export-Import Bank of Thailand loans to the Burmese junta, or more specifically how the loans jumped from Bt3 billion to Bt4 billion. The money, as has been widely reported, was to be partly used to pay for equipment and services provided by Shin Satellite.
What Surakiart tells the court will be crucial, and testifying the same day will be Klanarong Chantik from the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
These two will be the final witnesses in the case, and the court will conclude the hearing if it does not feel the need to hear more testimony. This means a verdict will most likely come next month, ending a long, painful chapter on Thailand grappling with a very unfamiliar issue: conflicts of interest.
Whatever the verdict is, it should not be mistaken as the beginning of an end. All it will do is simply close one episode, after which many things can happen. Thailand was very immature when the patriarch of one of the biggest business empires was allowed to take political power despite his questionable baggage. With the Supreme Court set to issue a ruling about those mistakes and their costly consequences, the environment is oddly familiar - the nation does not seem to have grown very much since.
No comments:
Post a Comment