Thailand's Corrupt Prime Minister Laments 'Honest Mistakes' and Sheds Crocodile Tears by Phairath Khampha 30 June 2001 Battles tears during closing statement The tremendous constitutional battle between Thailand's prime minister and the graft commission reached its boiling point on June 18, 2001 with Mr Thaksin appearing at his hidden assets trial. The National Counter Corruption Commission had found Mr Thaksin intended to conceal his ownership of shares worth billions of baht held in the names of domestic staff and relatives. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra fought off tears on as he swore on his honour he never intended to falsely declare his assets. His financial disclosure while a minister in the Chavalit Yongchaiyudh administration might have been flawed, but he was not corrupt. "The mistakes, if any, were caused by a lack of knowledge and understanding. They were all honest mistakes," he told the Constitutional Court. Mr Thaksin said he built his wealth through honest means. "With the honour of a man who is the prime minister of Thailand, I had never intended or ever thought of hiding my assets or practising corruption," Mr Thaksin said, his voice shaking. Defending himself against criticism he tried to avoid confronting graft commission secretary-general Klanarong Chanthik in court, Mr Thaksin said he was so tied up with national problems he could not appear at the trial. Mr Thaksin said he was satisfied no one claimed the assets statements submitted by his wife, Khunying Pojamarn, who also did not report the share transfers, had made anybody's life a misery. Mr Thaksin said mistakes could have been common at the time he made his declarations, because all the rules were new and because the form used by the graft agency was confusing. The general public would not understand the difficulty faced by a political office holder who had to fill out a declaration form, he said. He had hundreds or thousands of items to declare-a task he could not do by himself. Mr Thaksin has always said his declarations were erratic because his secretaries did not know the law. The prime minister said he could not avoid responsibility. However, accusing him of deliberately concealing his wealth was unfair. "I think it is unfair to say the mistakes were intentional and were vices, and that a person who made those mistakes should be uprooted from politics," Mr Thaksin said. Legal experts told him that "intent" meant knowing that something was wrong, but still deliberately doing it. "But if we don't know this or that is wrong, and do it, that is not intent. That is carelessness or a blunder," he said. Mr Thaksin said he knew that not knowing the law could not be offered as an excuse. "But not knowing the law is different from not understanding the law," he said. "To say that anyone who does not understand the law, is confused about the form, intends to make mistakes is not right." Mr Thaksin also interpreted Article 295 of the constitution in a way beneficial to him. Under that provision, the graft commission could not bring a case against him, he contended. Article 295 could not be enforced in his case because he was not holding a political office at the time of his three assets declarations: on Nov 7, 1997, after he left the Chavalit Yongchaiyudh cabinet; after leaving office for one month on Dec 4, 1997; and after leaving office for one year on Dec 4, 1998. Article 295 states that any person holding a political position who "intends" not to declare his or her assets and liabilities or falsely discloses his or her financial figures, or conceals facts about his or her finances must be dismissed from office. Mr Thaksin said he viewed the graft commission as having intruded into his and his wife's business freedom. Digging up his past, before he entered politics, was tantamount to overly exercising monitoring authority, he said. Prime Minister Thaksin's Last Throw--Blame the Wife Again Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's last card in his Constitution Court battle against graft charges was to blame his wife for "intentionally" hiding his wealth. In his final argument, submitted to the Constitution Court on June 20, 2001, Thaksin suggested that if the judges ruled his servants' massive shareholdings were intentionally concealed, then Pojamarn Shinawatra should be considered responsible. Article 295 of the Constitution states that any political office holder who intentionally conceals his or her assets, including those of their spouse, will be banned from public office for five years. It sounded like the man was a coward and washiding behind his wife's shkirts. "As far as 'intent' is concerned, it obviously refers to the intent of the political office holder, not another person's intent," Thaksin's final argument said. "It's not right to use the intent of another person, even a spouse, to create [an] assumption that a politician required to declare assets ‘intends' to conceal them." Thaksin's report also said that 'facts' proven at the trial completed on June 18 had showed the assets in question belonged to Pojamarn. "If the accuser assumes that my spouse intentionally covered up her assets, the assumption cannot be used to judge that I intended to do it," he argued. Observers said the argument might reflect concern in Thaksin's camp that the National Counter Corruption Commission had a strong case when it came to allegations the enormous shareholdings in his servants' names were kept from auditors for clandestine reasons. Thaksin did not blame his wife when he made his "from the bottom of my heart" closing statement at the court on June 18. The event was broadcast live nation-wide and Thaksin won public praise for his emotional and "sincere" speech. Thaksin insisted he earned his assets "honestly", and only "confusion" caused by new laws led to the failure to declare all his wealth. The report emphasised his controversial assertion that Article 295, which is part of a subchapter on "monitoring the use of state power", was incorrectly applied to him.