FOOTBALL CLUB BID: 'Thais fooled by Liverpool propaganda'

Published on May 27, 2004


Thaksin accused of conning public on merits of controversial investment

Academics and social critics yesterday accused Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of deceiving the public over the worthiness of the Liverpool bid, as opposition to the controversial scheme reached new heights.

Leading social critics, including Prawase Wasi and senators Thongbai Thongpao and Sopon Supapong, joined Thammasat and Chulalongkorn legal experts in denouncing the Bt4.6-billion bid, now near completion after the Liverpool Football Club yielded to the Thai demand for two board seats.

The opponents, who include some members of the independent National Economic and Social Advisory Council (Nesac), are enraged by the government's decision to finance the Liverpool deal through a special one-off lotto.

The lottery's top prize of Bt1 billion has generated much excitement, although the government has never informed the public about Liverpool's financial standing and its business potential.

Signature campaigns have been launched by some Nesac members and Thammasat University academics, who described the Liverpool scheme as unconstitutional and immoral.

Thammasat law lecturers insisted on Monday that the investment plan violated Article 87 of the charter, which allows the government to invest in businesses only to protect national interests and provide key utility services.

Yesterday, the university's economics teachers attacked the scheme over what they deem its poor profit outlook.

An open letter signed by 30 Thammasat economics lecturers said Thaksin was getting badly confused over whether he was a national leader or businessman. It said he was luring the public into the scheme through propaganda.

They said the government, while drumming up its lottery hype, had displayed serious administrative and moral shortcomings by failing to tell the public that Liverpool - though highly popular - was a club at a crossroads.

The club has sacked its coach, is trying to sign a new, expensive deal with star player Michael Owen, and much of its financial future will depend on how well the team does in next season's Champions League competition. It is also planning to build a new stadium and recruit several world-class players.

"I have no idea why Thailand should risk Bt4.6 billion in a club that saw a 61-per-cent decline in net profit last year and shareholders did not get dividends," said Thammasat lecturer Vimut Vanitcharearnthum, himself a Liverpool supporter. "It's much more worthy to invest in the prime minister's [family] business empire."

Thaksin had initially said he and some business associates would buy Liverpool with their own money. Then he said the government would finance the bid, triggering widespread criticism that forced him to take the compromise option of lottery fund-rasing.

Now he is being accused of refusing to make a personal investment because he knows the business prospects of the deal are not that good.

"In a country where a lot of people still lack basic necessities, the government must think again and again before deciding where to put Bt4.6 billion, which can do so many more useful things," said Pokpong Junvith, another Thammasat lecturer.

"To say that this is something other governments dare not do is not quite correct. The truth is it's something other governments won't waste their time on because it's simply ridiculous. This kind of self-promotion will have an adverse effect because the thinking and mentality of the Thai leaders will be on show globally."

Nantawat Boramanand, a public-law veteran at Chulalongkorn University, said Thaksin and his government were getting confused about their roles.

"Government is for looking after its citizens, not for doing business,'' he said. "Our people are in trouble and need a lot of help, but our government wants to raise public funds to buy a foreign football club."

Chulalongkorn legal experts will release an editorial on Monday via its website, stating their opposition to the bid. The views of their Thammsat counterparts will also be published on the website.

Social critic Prawase said Thaksin was crossing the line that divides state power and the pursuit of personal agendas.

Senators Thongbai and Sopon plan to support the Nesac signature campaign, whose key members have accused Thaksin of abuse of power.

Sucheera Pinijparakarn,

Sathien wiriyapanpongsa

The Nation

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

PM: We should thank Boonklee

Behind every business deal of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, there is Boonklee Plangsiri, chief executive of Shin Corp. Boonklee has even cast his big shadow over the Liverpool deal, although Thaksin called his involvement a sacrifice Thais should thank him for.

Thaksin grew annoyed yesterday when asked by reporters why Boonklee, without any political or government position, had anything to do with the Liverpool deal. It is no secret that Boonklee flew to London to negotiate the terms of the acquisition of a 30-per-cent stake in Liverpool Football Club. Boonklee is recognised as one of Thailand's foremost deal-makers.

Thaksin defended Boonklee's role, saying he was using his expertise to help the country.

"Khun Boonklee is very knowledgeable in his field. We need to use those who are capable. This is a way to protect our interest [in the Liverpool deal], not seeking personal interests. Khun Boonklee travelled abroad and paid from his own pocket to help out the country. We should thank him rather than condemn him. Do you get it?" he said.

"As for the concern of several people that it might be a conflict of interest, I want to ask where the conflict is? The conflict could only hurt the toes of the Democrats."




-->

SIDELINES: Gutter politics triumph as cronyism reigns supreme

Published on May 23, 2004
The Nation

The three-day no-confidence grilling of eight Cabinet members, which ended late on Friday night, marred by senseless protests from House hecklers, confirmed once again that our style of gutter politics remains unchanged. After three years of so-called reform, the new politics proclaimed by Thai Rak Thai party are hardly evident.

On the contrary, Thai Rak Thai MPs have become audacious in their attempts to interrupt Democrat MPs looking to take their targeted Cabinet members to task ? for misdeeds and mischief-making, systematic conflict of interest and patterns of crony capitalism designed to benefit the businesses owned by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra?s family.

Most of the accusations were directed at our CEO and his multi-billion-baht business empire. The Democrats have exposed how Cabinet members had devised the ways and means, at times not too subtly, to hand sweetheart deals to their boss?s family businesses.

Were our politics not stuck in the gutter and the majority of the populace not addled by a desire for the handouts and freebies distributed through the government?s populist schemes, our CEO and his pals would have found it difficult to survive the social and moral outrage.

Our CEO appeared only briefly during the three-day debate. He always shuns the House chamber, regarding it as the venue for routine sparring between two factions of verbal gladiators. Of course, he was attentive in the back room, sizing up the extent of the damage inflicted upon him and his family members.

The Democrats did not disappoint. They took turns telling the public how our CEO?s business interests had benefited greatly from the efforts of his friends in the Cabinet.

They described how his wife had won a land auction with two other bidders present just to dispel suspicion. The sweetheart deals, already familiar to the people who chart how our CEO?s business empire has been expanding, are truly embarrassing.

They are evidence of ugly crony capitalism. Marcos must have turned in his grave with envy. Suharto must have given a big thumbs-up for such a spectacular achievement in such a short time despite the public outrage, which was feeble compared with the naive support emanating from the gullible, rural grassroots.

The debate was no smooth sailing for the Democrats. House hecklers from the government camp were effective with their noisy protests, making the people wonder whether these Thai Rak Thai MPs, paid by taxpayers, work for the public interest or for the family of their political boss. There were reports that hecklers who rescued their patrons from tight spots could earn rewards of Bt50,000 to Bt80,000.

That?s why there were hundreds of examples of disdainful protests and heckling during the censure, even during the conclusion presented by Jurin Laksavisit, a key Democrat member, who rubbed more salt into the wounds of the censure targets and our CEO. Actually, his wrap-up did very severe damage to Thaksin and his family. It was far more effective and convincing than the charges made by other Democrats.

Thaksin did not show up to defend himself or to deny that the mentioned lucrative sweetheart deals took place. Doing so would certainly have led to a free-for-all debate about his role in such deals and how crony capitalism benefits his business empire, notably the prosperity of Air Asia and the decline of Thai Airways International and the lower revenue of the Telephone Organisation of Thailand compared with the rapid and profitable growth of his mobile phone business.

He chose his own venue to hit back at the opposition ? yesterday?s radio talk show, during which he lambasted his adversaries for distortions without saying what they were.

He did not bother to deny the accusations, or defend his honour with a point-by-point argument. Instead he sought sympathy from his supporters, telling them that the whole exercise in the House was politics as usual, with him and his family members as prime targets.

Sure the debate was a painful reality that Thaksin had to endure, despite his best efforts to dodge a censure motion against him by taking advantage of a Constitutional provision requiring at least 200 MPs to support a move against the PM.

Still, the Democrats got more than they had originally bargained for from their strategic forays behind the protective wall of hecklers. The reward was handsome after such a long wait.

What can we deduce from these three days? They were a real eye opener for many people, who now understand how crony capitalism benefits politicians in power. If they remain indifferent, it is easy to see what kind of future this country will face.

What?s more, we also see, with misery and outrage, that shamelessness and hypocrisy remain the ultimate weapons for politicians to use against adversity.

Sopon Onkgara

He stacks the table against the opposition and still complains. If that isn't chutzpah, I don't know what is.

But did they really benefit?

Published on May 23, 2004


During last week's censure debate, the opposition did its best to meticulously assemble different pieces of an information jigsaw puzzle showing how Cabinet members allegedly abused their power to benefit the business empire of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's family.

According to the opposition, government ministers gave preferential treatment to the Shinawatra family's businesses, adding to its vast fortune in the process. Even though the affected ministers gave lengthy explanations, suspicions linger in minds of the public.

A partial list of questionable deals includes:

purchasing a prime plot of land in downtown Bangkok;

amending revenue-sharing contracts between Advanced Info Service and TOT Plc;

approving the merger of three banks, which benefited the PM's son, who is a major shareholder in one of the banks;

the PM's wife's housing project, which benefited from the construction of a new road

a compromise reached between Shin Corp's iPSTAR satellite company and the Chinese government that resulted in Thailand promising to buy ships from China.

"Some charges sound convincing that the PM's family really benefited from this government, while some charges lack strong evidence," said Prayad Hongtongkham, a veteran political scientist.

Prayad said the ministers' explanations about their connections to the PM's family were relatively acceptable. But certain charges seemed to hold some weight, particularly the non-transparent sale of the prime land to the PM's wife, Khunying Pojaman.

"The land was really unusually cheap considering its prime location, and when there was only one bid, it was controversial and inappropriate," Prayad said.

Government MPs prevented the opposition from questioning Deputy Prime Minister Suchart Jaovisidha about the transaction.

Protecting Suchart from facing the debate added creditability to the opposition's charges. It also helped convince the public the allegations might lead all the way to the PM's doorstep.

"Why did they have to protect Suchart, if they have nothing to fear from the debate?" Prayad asked.

"The decision by the House speaker to only let the opposition question the ministers about their duties in their present posts will set a precedent for future debates. It could also result in governments reshuffling cabinet positions just to avoid facing accusations in an upcoming debate," said Prayad, adding that the House should reconsider this measure.

"This unusual stuff has made it probable that ex-minister Suchart might have swept something under the carpet," Prayad said.

Suriyasai Katasila, secretary general of the Campaign for Popular Democracy said the ministers' responses regarding their treatment of the PM's family's business were evasive and unclear, which made it difficult for the opposition to link these charges to third parties. As a result, the public did not get the full stories.

Even though the opposition could not censure the PM, it did not mean the premier should ignore the public's suspicions, he said

"The PM should step out and clarify the charges. If not, it will negatively affect the PM's image and credibility. It's not in the PM's interest to remain silent or to be 'untouchable'.

"The public wouldn't care about the vote because the government has the House majority, but they would certainly like to hear more explanations from the PM himself," Suriyasai said.

Thanyaporn Kunakornpaiboonsiri

THE NATION



NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE: Defiant PM slams rivals' 'mud-slinging'

Published on May 23, 2004


Wan Noor, Adisai to face NCCC inquiries; angry Thaksin says he was the real target of opposition 'lies'

The ruling Thai Rak Thai Party's panel monitoring the three-day censure debate rated as best Deputy Prime Minister Wan Muhamad Noor Matha's rebuttals to the opposition's charges.

Transport Minister Suriya Jungrungreangkit was rated poorly for his vague response to charges of abusing his authority for he benefit of the premier's family during the debates that ended Friday.

However, the premier said he saw himself as the real target of the censure debates against his eight ministers.

"Opposition members have made up stories in order to discredit me and my family. I am disheartened but I will not abandon my commitment to work hard for the people", Thaksin Shinawatra said in his weekly radio address yesterday.

Thaksin criticised the Democrats for attacking him and his family with "untrue stories" put together with piecemeal information, saying he was shocked at the outlandish lies they hurled at him.

"I have to explain to my wife and children. They now understand mud-slinging," he said.

He vowed to continue fighting poverty, strengthening the country and ensuring a better future for the younger generation.

The opposition members, he said, might rely on lies and innuendo to destroy their rivals, but he said he was confident his government would tomorrow overwhelmingly win the vote of confidence.

In another development, the National Counter Corruption Commission is scheduled to meet on Tuesday to launch inquiries into impeachment motions against Wan Noor and Education Minister Adisai Bodharamik.

The two inquiries, both of which will be headed by NCCC member Wichianchot Sukchotrat, will try to establish whether the two ministers should stand trial in the Senate.

Meanwhile, the Chat Pattana Party will vote against eight censured ministers in line with the decision of the opposition whips, party spokesman Supap Klikhachai said yesterday.

"Chat Pattana has endorsed the motion of no confidence against eight ministers and will abide by the opposition whips' decision," he said.

The vote on the censure debate is scheduled for tomorrow.

Supap ruled out speculation that his party's vote might derail a possible merger with the ruling Thai Rak Thai Party.

"One step at a time, if you will. The party is as yet in opposition," he said.

Two Chat Pattana MPs, Somchai Chatpattanasiri and Prateep Klithawet, said they would cast votes of no confidence on the grounds that the eight ministers had failed to rebut the charges against them.