Yee Hoi One Twenty An incident that occurred almost ten years ago, combined with the image of one politician minister, made the nickname of ìYee Hoi one twentyî a stigma that proved difficult to lose in the minds of the public. This incident occurred just 3 days before the July 2, 2538 general election and was clearly recorded in the Supreme Court verdict (number 7562/2540. The presiding judges were Surind Nakhwichien, Preecha Chalernwanich, and Pimol Samanid). Early in the morning of June 29, 2538, police officers from the Center for the Prevention and Suppression of Influential Persons charged into house number 195/10, Naimuang sub-district, Muang district, Buriram province. The house belonged to Naruepol Siripanich (brother-in- law of Prasith Tangsrikiatkul, Buriram district 1’s candidate for member of the House of Representatives, Chart Thai party, candidate number 5. Prasith was on the same team as Newin Chidchob, candidate number 4, 94 T h e W o r k i n g s o f C o r r u p t i o n i n T h a i l a n d and Songsak Tongsri, candidate number 6) and his wife. Police acted on information received from a secret informant that a certain number of banknotes had been prepared for use in vote buying for Buriram represen- tative, candidate numbers 4, 5, and 6 from the Chart Thai party. The search resulted in the confiscation of 11.4 Million Baht cash in 100 and 20 Baht notes that had a yantra 5-shape rubber stamped around the area of the notes’ watermarks near the king’s portrait. The notes had been stapled together into sets of 120 Baht, bound together into bundles of 100 sets, placed in plastic bags, and packed in paper boxes and duffel bags, ready to be distributed or given to eligible voters according to the list of voters in the district that fell into election districts 1 and 2, Buriram province. Apart from the confiscation of over 10 Million Baht in cash, other evidence also discovered packed in paper boxes. They include staplers, staples, papers used to bind banknotes together into bundles, rubber stamps with the yantra-shape, inkpads, and 17 rolls of video recordings of the campaign speeches of Chai Chidchob and his son Newin Chidchob (position at the time of writing was that of Minister of the Office of the Prime Minister), candidates of election districts 2 and 1 respectively. Over 2,030 printed cards advertising candidates numbers 4,5, and 6 of Chart Thai party were also found along with lists of names of people in various sub-districts, names of election canvassers in each village, names of leaders, and names of those in charge in each sub-district. However, in their courtroom testimonies, both defendants claimed to have no knowledge of how the confiscated evidence (the 11.4 Million Baht in cash, etc.) came to be concealed in front of the defendants’ bedroom. They also claimed that the 11.4 Million Baht in notes came from the defendants’ debtors in order to settle their loans and from the defen- 5 Amulet 95 T h e dants’ friends and relatives in order to purchase land from Mr. Preecha W Tangsrikiatkul, uncle of the second defendant (wife). Both defendants had o r received the money in bags without checking to see their contents until the k bags were found by the police. The court believed that these claims were i n unsound. That a creditor or those who received large sums of money g would fail to look into the bags or to ascertain the amount of money they o were receiving was contrary to normal behavior. f C o In addition to this, it was difficult to believe that banknotes of 100 r and 20 Baht given to the defendants by their’ debtors, friends, and rela- r u tives all came in the same form, i.e., with 100 and 20 Baht notes stapled p t together into sets of 120 Baht, and with a yantra-shape stamped onto each i note’s watermark. Thus, the defendants’ claims did not carry weight. o n i The court saw that the defendants were arrested three days prior to n the general election, a time very close to the election date. The nature of T the banknotes confiscated was in such a way as they were ready to be h a distributed to eligible voters for the said election. i l a These things indicated that both the defendants intended to give n capital to entice voters to vote for their candidates. Both defendants had d prepared capital ñ the 100 and 20 Baht notes ñ as well as other things, stapled together and bound into bundles of 100 sets and packaged in paper boxes and duffel bags, ready to be distributed to those related to the election. These actions of the defendants were considered to be in the final stages of the process of distributing the notes to eligible voters in order to entice them to vote for the candidates who both defendants support. Such actions were very close to the final wrongdoing that would have occurred. These actions of the two defendants passed the preparation stages and were well into the implementation stage of the wrongful acts. But the acts were prevented from being carried out by police interception. Other- 96 The Workings of Corruption in Thailand wise, the defendants would have brought the scheme to fruition. Both defendants were guilty of attempting to give capital to eligible voters to entice them to vote for the candidates the defendants support. Such actions were illegal according to the Member of Parliament Election Act of 2522 Article 35(1), once the royal decree to hold elections for members of parliament had been invoked in any election area, no candidate nor any other person are permitted to engage in action(s) that might provide incentives to voters to vote for themselves or others, or to refrain from voting for any candidate. These actions include (1) arranging, proposing, or promising capital or other benefits that had monetary values to anyoneÖ Each defendant was sentenced to 1 year in prison (with immediate effect), the evidences were confiscated, and the defendants’ rights to vote were withheld for 10 years. At that time, this piece of news echoed through political circles and severely shook the future of young politicians like Newin Chidchob. But, in the end, the governments of Banharn Silpa-archa, Chuan Leekpai, and Pol.Lt.Col.Thaksin Shinawatra all warmly embraced Newin Chidchob. THE OF IN Prelude to ITV’s “Stupidity Fees” We still do not know how long it will be before the Administrative Court will rule on the petition filed by the Prime Minister Office’s Office of the Permanent Secretary to revoke the Arbitrator’s ruling that ordered the Office of the Permanent Secretary to reduce concession fees by more than 17,000 million Baht from 25,250 million Baht which ITV Company has to pay to the government, and ordered ITV to adjust its share of substantive shows from 70 percent to 50 percent. In ITV’s fight to reduce its concession fees, one reason invoked was that the concession fees they had to pay the government was so high it made them unable to compete with competitors such as Krungthep Television and Radio company, that paid concession fees for Channel 7 to the Army at very low rates. More importantly, the concession contract between Krungthep 100 T h e W o r k i n g s o f C o r r u p t i o n i n T h a i l a n d Television and the Army was (secretly?) remade in May 2541 after the Office of the Permanent Secretary made concession contracts with ITV in 2538. This is a violation of the contract between the Office and ITV. The new concession contract between Krungthep Television and the army were discreetly made. However, in mid-2541 news that the army had renewed Channel 7’s concession contract with the Krungthep Televi- sion Company spread throughout the television circle. The new contract granted concession to the company for 25 years, and the renewal was made even though the previous contract had many years remaining before its expiration. On July 17, 2541, journalists evoked the newly enacted Official Information Act of 2540 and submitted a petition to the army secretary, requesting the disclosure of all contracts between the army and Krungthep Television, from the first to the present. The petition asking the army to disclose its concession contracts could be considered the first full-scale test of the Official Information Act. As expected, the reply from the army was that the contracts ìcould not be disclosedî, citing that Krungthep Television, the concessionaire, might be adversely affected from the contract disclosures, and that the army had not yet issued rules determining the steps for the disclosure of contracts!! Reporters then petitioned the Official Information Commission (OIC), arguing that concession contracts are information that government agencies must reveal and present for public scrutiny. It took several months before the army finally revealed all the concession contracts. A lieutenant colonel whose duty it was to hand copies of the 101 T h e concession contracts to journalists quietly whispered that professional W soldiers like him did not quite agree with the lack of transparency in o r several matters handled by the army ìhigher-upsî, especially matters k related to the benefits from radio and television frequencies that the army i n own.