Next step:
Find the culprits in the PTT privatisation?
By Jon Fernquest |
PTT's labour union is filing a defamation suit against the very consumer advocates who just did the public a major service by unmasking dubious privatisation practices:
Union vice-chairman Theerapong Krisdatheera said the activists' leader Rosana Tositrakul [on the left in photo] and other consumer rights activists had made false statements alleging conflicts of interest by Mr Natakorn, PTT president Prasert Bunsumpun and Energy Minister Piyasvasti Amranand in the privatisation of PTT.
The union believes that misleading statements by the activists have "caused public misunderstanding and damage to the country."
In contrast, Matichon speaking for a good share of Thailand believes that:
1. The PTT verdict was "a lesson for power holders."
2. The people responsible for the sale "must be held accountable for any damage done for the country."
And that true justice has not yet been done:
"A small group of people, apparently with political connections, snapped up large portions of PTT shares when they were offered to the public. A large number of small investors were deprived of the opportunity to buy these shares. The Foundation for Consumer Protection and lawyers should take legal action to ensure justice of these small investors."
This is printed on thousands and thousands of copies of newspapers all over Thailand! Maybe PTT's union sue Matichon next. And why stop there? Sue me too. I agree with Matichon. And so on...ad infinitum. Should defamation suits be used to silence legitimate inquiries into the truth?
Consumer advocates believe too few assets have been turned over by PTT.
The activist spearheading the campaign, the famous Ms. Rosana declared defiantly:
"It's not over. [PTT] originally said assets of 100 billion baht were involved. Now it's 15 billion...""We are raising our concerns as Thai citizens. We are also stakeholders of the Thailand Corporation."
Ms Rosana said an independent committee should be set up to review PTT's 900-billion-baht asset portfolio to ascertain what was actually public property. PTT said the pipeline assets to be transferred to the state only included onshore pipelines on property taken by the company through expropriation when it was still the Petroleum Authority of Thailand.
Energy Minister Amranand Piyasvasti apparently believes that the threat and potential impact of protracted law suits is so great, that PTT should just turn over all its pipelines now:
"Mr Piyasvasti said that while the court had only singled out for transfer property gained from state expropriation power, he believed that the entire pipeline system should revert to state ownership."It would be worthwhile if doing so could stop [the activists] from filing more lawsuits," Mr. Piyasvasti said
In the end, the court decision was a compromise. Neither the consumer advocates, nor PTT got exactly what they wanted.
Is it time to say enough is enough with each side going back to their respective sides of the ring?
Or is it time to hunt down the culprits?
More questions:
1. Why can't the PTT president and the Energy Minister file their own lawsuits?2. Is the Energy Minister working for PTT rather than the public? Why is the PTT union defending him?
(Source: Bangkok Post, General News and Editorial, 19-12-07, temp-link-1, temp-link-2)
Vocabulary:
culprits - people guilty of a crime or wrongdoing
filing a defamation suit against - bringing legal action against someone in court because of something they said
unmasking - revealing and making visible what is hidden, making transparent
dubious - questionable, doesn't look like it is true
alleging - saying that something might have occurred
conflicts of interest - when a decision is influenced by the potential gain of one of the decisionmakers
misleading - makes people believe something that is not true
misunderstanding - wrong, incorrect understanding
Matichon - one of Thailand's major Thai language newspapers
x held accountable for y - x is punished in some way for doing bad thing y
a good share of - a high percentage of, a large fraction of
snapped up - grabbed, taken away
deprived of the opportunity to - was not allowed to do something that they should have been allowed to do
take legal action - bring a legal case against someone in court
ensure justice - make certain that everyone gets rewarded or punished according to what they actually did and deserve (for example, if you benefited illegally from the privatisation, then you should be punished)
ad infinitum - continuing on, an infinite and uncountable number of times
spearheading - leading
defiantly - showing aggression and independence by refusing to obey someone
stakeholders - people who will gain or lose from a decision (more than just the owners)
independent committee - committee that is not controlled by outside interests such as the government or business (a mixed group of experts are usually selected to ensure independence)
asset portfolio - all the different things that a company or person owns such as real estate, buildings, machines
ascertain - determine, find out what is true
singled out - given special treatment, unlike others
protracted - continuing for a very long time
expropriation - taking something away
revert to - return to, go back (to previous state or situation)
compromise - when a person gives something up (sacrifices something) in order to reach an agreement
enough is enough - idiom meaning: there really has been enough already!
respective - belonging to those just mentioned
a ring - a boxing ring (legal struggles are often like the kick boxing matches at Suan Lumpini)
hunt down - like hunting tigers hiding in the jungle, finding people who have profited from hidden deals can be difficult
