War of words over Yongyuth in House

Ong-art made the opening salvo, asking from the House floor whether Yongyuth had been punished for serious disciplinary offences in connection with the Alpine land case in 2002.

 

At the time, Yongyuth was an Interior Ministry deputy permanent secretary. The National Anti-Corruption Commission ruled two weeks ago to mete out disciplinary punishment because Yongyuth had refused to comply with a Council of State ruling to revoke the two land title deeds in order to remove the monastic-donated plots from the market. 

 

In rebuttal, Chuchart said he had promptly given the green light for the ministry’s civil service sub-commission to discharge Yongyuth with retroactive effect to before his retirement on September 30, 2007.

 

“I know the law and I complied with the NACC ruling within the 30-day deadline,” he said.

 

Ong-art then asked why the sub-commission had claimed Yongyuth was never a disciplinary offender by citing the 2007 Exoneration Act enacted to mark His Majesty’s 80th birthday.

 

Chuchart replied that he was unaware of such a claim, citing that the sub-commission report was about discharging Yongyuth and not about clearing his name.

 

He said the Democrats and other critics raised illusory charges about how the government had tried to make a lopsided interpretation of clemency provisions even though neither the judiciary nor the agencies concerned had opined about Yongyuth’s status to hold his seats in the House and the Cabinet.

 

“I have never heard the NACC say anything about Yongyuth remaining in the Cabinet,” Chuchart said, claiming the punishment was meant for when Yongyuth was in the civil service.

 

Ong-art again took the floor to make a veiled attack on former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who he believed had masterminded saving Yongyuth’s job in exchange for past favours to keep the Alpine plots on the market.

 

In his rebuttal, Chuchart said the issue at hand was about legal provisions pertaining to Yongyuth and not about a behind-the-scenes conspiracy.

 

He said he did not know why the main opposition party wanted to politicise the Alpine case.

 

“I don’t know your game but mark my words, the plots in question are monastic-donated land and will eventually be debated in Parliament,” he said in reference to the settlement of the legal issues involved.

 

In regard to the Pheu Thai Party’s petition to review Yongyuth’s job status, Election Commission chairman Apichart Sukhagganond said he would not make prejudicial comments on the issue.

 

The EC will complete the checks as soon as possible and he will make his comments then, he said.

 

Under the prescribed procedures, the EC will commence its work by verifying whether the petition was under its purview. If so, then it would form a fact-finding panel before drawing a conclusion.

 

There have been calls from Thepphanom Namlee, who claims to be a red-shirt leader from Surin, for Yongyuth to resign, arguing that Yongyuth’s defiance to cling to office might lead to litigation to disband the ruling party.

 

Red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan said he did not know Thepphanom and that red-shirt chairwoman Thida Thawornseth did not name him as leader of the Surin chapter.

 

“I don’t know why Thepphanom made such a demand,” Jatuporn said, adding that Yongyuth has been doing a good job serving the ruling party and the government.