 |
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
| HOT: Background of Thaksin's 76 Billion Baht Asset Seizure Case | ||||||||||||||
| UPDATE : 22 February 2010 | ||||||||||||||
|
|
The 76 billion baht assets seizure case of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has wind down to a close. TAN Network takes a look at the background of the case. The case has been one of the great controversies for the Thai society as both his supporters and opponents number in the millions. Fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's supporters have been, for the past several years, trying to prove his innocence and restore his power. His opponents, on the other hand, have been trying to prove his guilt and keep him away from politics. Because of these controversies, many Thais have chosen sides and thus, conflicts have occurred at every level of the society. The extreme difference of opinions has led to several confrontations and even to the deaths of his opponents and supporters alike at the hands of one another. The verdict of the Supreme Court's division for political post holders is believed by many to hold the fate of Thaksin's political career. For this reason, there are great speculations surrounding the case, as the nation awaits the court's ruling. The ruling will be made by the Supreme Court's division for political post holders. The court consists of nine Supreme Court judges who were elected by the judges on the Supreme Court's committee. A verdict from this court is final and must be absolutely accepted by all parties without any further dispute. The case itself has two important elements to it. The first is to prove that Thaksin and his divorced wife Pojaman Damapong were the real owners of around 48 percent of the shares in Shin Corp during his first term as prime minister. This would mean proving that their son, Panthongtae Shinawatra, their daughter Pinthongta Shinawatra, Thaksin's sister Yinglak Shinawatra and Bannapoj Damapong, Pojaman's step brother, were all proxies of Thaksin and Pojaman in owning Shin Corp. If the court ruled that Thaksin and Pojaman were indeed the real owners of Shin Corp and that their accused family members were proxies, then Thaksin would have violated numerous constitutional articles, including one which says that political post holders and their families are not allowed to own shares in any private company that receives concessions from the state. If the court ruled that Thaksin was indeed guilty of the first element of the case, it could then continue to the second element. The second element consists of five different accusations, all of which are policies involving corruption. This means that if the court rules that Thaksin and his wife are guilty of covering up their ownership of Shin Corp by using their family members as proxies, it would be possible that the policies implemented during his time as prime minister were for the benefit of his company. The policies Thaksin is accused of using his political power to create and/or change during his term all allegedly led to massive increases in Shin Corp's profits and also resulted in huge losses to the government. The first accusation is reducing the concession fee for AIS. The Telephone Organization of Thailand or TOT's cut of the concession fee for prepaid cellular mobile phone operators from 25 percent of total revenue to 20 percent directly benefited AIS. It is estimated that the state lost over 70 billion baht in revenue from AIS. The benefits of this misconduct has led to AIS's extraordinary growth, from around 23,000 users in 1999 to over 17 million users in 2006. This led to a dramatic increase in its share value which became so high, it exceeded market value. The second issue is altering the roaming agreement with AIS so that the state would be the one to cover the costs. This new agreement cost the state over 31 billion baht. The third issue is passing legislation to change the mobile concession fee to excise tax. During his term, Thaksin's administration changed the law to turn mobile concession fees into excise tax. This misconduct gave Shin Corp an unfair advantage over other competitors who have to pay a ten percent excise tax. The biggest loss was to consumers, as the cost of telecommunications should have been seven to ten percent less, if it were not for this legislation. The last issue is granting a loan to the Myanmar government to purchase equipments and services from Shin Satellite. The original agreement to provide four billion baht in loans from the Export-Import Bank to aid in development was increased to five billion, so that the additional one billion could be used to purchase goods and services from Shin Satellite. Thaksin himself gave the order to the foreign minister at the time to alter the agreement. However, the minister refused to proceed with the order, so Thaksin had to give the order himself and brought the issue into the Cabinet meeting. The Cabinet later gave in to Thaksin's request. Considering these two elements, why is it then that the attorney general sees fit to seize 76 billion baht of Thaksin's asset? Where does the 76 billion baht figure come from? The 76 billion baht is the amount of money gained when Thaksin's family members, or proxies, sold Shin Corp to Singapore's Temasek Holding. This means that if the court rules Thaksin guilty of both the first and second elements, then the 76 billion baht would have been money gained by selling a company that is abnormally rich, by using political influence and policies based corruption. In other words, the 76 billion baht is money earned from corruption. There are many opinions surrounding whether the whole 76 billion baht should be seized if he is found guilty. His supporters argue that even if the court is to rule that he is guilty, it would be unfair to seize the whole 76 billion baht because some part of the money was there before he took office as prime minister. Others believe that the whole 76 billion baht should be seized because of two arguments. First of all, if Thaksin is found guilty in the second element, the amount of loss he caused to the state would have, by far, exceeded 76 billion baht. With that in mind, not only should it be seized because of corruption, but also as compensation to the state. The second argument is simple, comparing the case to a thief robbing a bank and getting caught. What happens then? Does he walk free after the money he stole is returned? That would mean he is not punished in the slightest. What usually happens is that the money stolen is taken back, his guns and vehicles that were used as tools in the robbery are seized, and he is put in jail. Whatever the verdict is, it will no doubt be inscribed in Thai history, marking a new phase in Thai politics, and hopefully, settling the conflicts in our society. |
||||||||||||
Go to Top  |
||||||||||||||
 |
|
| 2009 © TAN Network. All rights reserved.
|
