Thai Court Clears Thailand's Prime Minister of Corruption Charges by Phairath Khampha 31 August 2001 Thailand's Constitution Court voted on August 3, 2001 in a knife-edge decision to clear Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of graft charges, ending months of uncertainty and letting him stay in power. Judges said that by eight votes to seven the court had found Thaksin not guilty of deliberately concealing assets in the 1990s when he had a previous stint as a cabinet minister. The verdict and inconsistent application of the rule of law nevertheless left a bad taste in Thai society as it again showed that the country's economic and political elite could get away with anything just because of their position and their money. The case against Mr Thaksin was very strong. However, there has been considerable public pressure in support of Mr Thaksin. The acquittal brought Thai political reform in doubt and poses awkward questions about efforts to improve standards in public life. In another revelation indicating the corrupt decision making process in Thaksin's acquittal, the eight Constitutional Court judges whose votes acquitted Thaksin Shinawatra of concealing his wealth could not agree on a written judgment to vindicate their verdict. The Constitution Court on August 21 issued its central ruling on the Thaksin case and the 107-page statement immediately became shrouded in controversy. Despite the outcome of the trial, the top judge nevertheless slammed the Prime Minister's defence and quite openly stated that Thaksin was guilty and that, as is usual in Thailand, politics and hypocrisy got in the way of true justice. Thaksin understandably had always denied wrongdoing, saying his failure to declare all his assets was an "honest mistake". If found guilty he would have faced a five-year ban from political office -- a prospect most Thais had regarded with dread given the country's economic problems and Thaksin's popularity. Hence, it was deemed expeditious to acquit him. Thaksin spent an anxious afternoon at his office awaiting the verdict. Ahead of the decision, he told reporters he felt emotionally drained by the wait. Thailand had been transfixed by speculation over the fate of telecoms tycoon Thaksin, who swept to power with a landslide victory in a general election in January and had retained strong support in the country. Security was strengthened at the court ahead of the announcement of the verdict, with 300 police, some of them riot control officers, stationed outside. The case against Thaksin, a former telecoms tycoon with a fortune of $1.2 billion according to Forbes Magazine, hinged on millions of dollars of shares transferred to his domestic staff -- including maids, a security guard and a chauffeur -- but which were not declared by Thaksin. He said the declaration forms were unclear and his wife had transferred shares to his domestic staff without his knowledge. The question always had been: how could a man so wealthy not even know where millions of his dollars were? But this is Thailand where either corrupt, dishonestpeople are allowed to get away with saying they had incredible lapses of memory, or they let incompetent fools with poor memory lead their country. The latter seems unlikely. The head of the anti-graft agency, which led the case against Thaksin, had argued Thaksin must have known about the share transfers, and they had been an attempt to evade tax. Thai financial markets appeared to welcome the decision. The benchmark Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) composite index surged 4.19 percent, or 12.72 points, to stand at 315.95 points by 0949 GMT. The baht rose to around 45.45 per dollar from closer to 45.60 in early Asian trade. Supporters had submitted mass petitions to the court, calling for his acquittal. But Chief Judge Prasert Nasakul said that the court supposedly had resisted outside influence. "We strictly abided by the oath we take in front of his majesty the king to be unbiased," he said. "If our judgment today disappointed you I humbly apologise because we have to abide by the law and constitution," he added. Even one of the dissenting judges in the 8-7 decision said that the court had been unmoved by popular opinion. "We made our judgment in accordance with the evidence and facts we have. I congratulate the prime minister even though I am in a minority," said Judge Mongkol Saratan. The judges had been widely expected to find Mr Thaksin guilty, but to back-date his ban to the date of the offence, leaving him debarred from politics for only 16 months in a compromise decision. But pressure from the likes of former prime minister Prem Tinsulanonda forced them to find him not guilty. So much for justice and true democracy in Thailand. Thai political reform in doubt The verdict was seen as a worrying setback to the country's political reform process. The corruption case against the hugely-popular billionaire prime minister was seen as a litmus test of the country's commitment to cleaning up its notoriously murky political life. It now appears that Thailand again failed that test and that the intentions are hypocritical at best. Reformist intentions A reformist constitution passed in 1997 set in train a series of reforms aimed at rooting out Thailand's money politics which only protect the interests of the country's economic and political elite. Ordinary people are kept powerless and at near-pauper levels. The intention was to break the influence of the corrupt elite who have long dominated Thai public life. Among its achievements was the 2000 conviction - by the same constitutional court which acquitted Mr Thaksin - of the then-Interior Minister, Sanan Kachornprasart. He was found guilty of misrepresenting his financial assets and forced to resign his post. Many, however, saw this as simply a Machiavellian manoeuvre to remove a thorn from the side of certain very powerful people. But when they embarked on the case against Mr Thaksin, the court's 15 judges quickly found themselves under enormous pressure. On the one hand, there were the warnings of liberal commentators who argued that a guilty verdict was essential in order to prove that no one was above the law, and to signal that the clean-up of Thai politics remained on track. Given that the facts - if not the circumstances - of the case were unchallenged by Mr Thaksin's lawyers, many observers felt a guilty verdict should have been inevitable, but this is Thailand after all. Pro-Thaksin campaign But in the end, the clamour of Mr Thaksin's followers proved irresistible. Many ordinary Thais wanted to disbelieve the charges levelled at the man they elected to office by a landslide in January. A noisy pro-Thaksin campaign saw millions of signatures collected in petitions. Prayer ceremonies were held, attracting thousands of people demanding his acquittal. More ominously, some of the judges involved in the case received anonymous threats of reprisals if they delivered a guilty verdict. Earlier that same week, rumours began circulating that the same judges had received millions of dollars in bribes in return for an acquittal. It seems that true deomocracy and justice do not exist in Thailand. This was ample evidence of this fact. Protest threat Adding to the tension were none-too discreet warnings of street protests if Mr Thaksin were evicted from office. Given the coups and other upheavals Thailand had experienced in past decades, these were threats many took seriously. Now there were sighs of relief on many sides, not least in financial markets where the political uncertainty cast a heavy pall over Thailand's flailing attempts at economic recovery. But the worries over the longer-term prospects for political reform will not be easily allayed. Already that same week, there had been much comment about a separate affair involving the speaker of parliament, Uthai Pimchaichon, who refused to resign from his post, despite receiving a suspended jail sentence for malfeasance in office, after he lost three separate appeals in the case. One leading Thai academic as said that the acquittal of Mr Thaksin had certainly lead the international community to lose faith in the Thai political system. "Nothing is worse for a country that being perceived to have an ineffective rule of law," he said. "And this time it has certainly been so." Majority judges cannot agree - Reasons behind 8-7 acquittal too diverse In another revelation indicating the corrupt decision making process in Thaksin's acquittal, the eight Constitutional Court judges whose votes acquitted Thaksin Shinawatra of concealing his wealth could not agree on a written judgment to vindicate their verdict. Four of the eight-Kramol Thongthammachart, Pan Chantarapan, Jumpol na Songkhla and Sak Techacharn-argued that Article 295 of the charter, which penalises political office holders who lie about their wealth, was not applicable to the prime minister. The others-Preecha Chalermvanich, Jul Atirek, Suchinda Yongsunthorn and Anand Ketwong-were of the opinion Mr Thaksin had not intended to hide his assets. The seven other judges agreed Article 295 could be applied and ruled Mr Thaksin had intended to withhold information about shares worth billions of baht held in other people's names. The split in their opinions stalled the writing of a common verdict. Mr Preecha said the court had made a mistake by not first getting agreement from all 15 judges on whether Article 295 could be applied to a former holder of a political post. "We did not vote on that point. That's our mistake," he said. "We were forced by the situation to quickly issue a verdict. But we had not completely thought out an excuse for defending our verdict." Mr Preecha said the majority had agreed throughout deliberations that Article 295 could be applied to the prime minister. When it came to voting, judges were asked if they considered Mr Thaksin guilty or not. "And eight people said he was not," he said. "But we are not sure why he is not." Mr Suchinda said the common ruling should say Mr Thaksin was acquitted because the court found he did not intend to hide his assets. Citing Article 295 could create a problem as only four of the 15 judges believed it was not applicable in the Thaksin case, Mr Suchinda said. "This is politically untenable under the circumstances," he said. He then challenged the National Counter Corruption Commission and the Senate to determine if judges really were bribed to favour Mr Thaksin. Mr Kramol insisted that opinions that Article 295 could not be applied because Mr Thaksin had already left office when he disclosed his financial figures in late 1997 must also be written down. Mr Kramol, however, apparently was blowing hot and cold. On August 3, the judge agreed to change his opinion that Article 295 could not be applied and sided with the four who found Mr Thaksin did not intend to hide his wealth. That would have brought to five the number of judges who did not cite Article 295 in acquitting Mr Thaksin-a majority within the majority. Suvit Theerapong, who was in the minority, said checks on the unusual wealth of politicians would be powerless if Article 295 could not be cited against ex-political office holders. Article 295 was related to Article 292, which requires they declare their assets and debts to the graft commission one year after leaving office. "If Article 295 can't be used, that means Article 292 also can't be used, meaning authorities would be unable to trace movements of assets," he said. "It also means that the country's political and economic elite had won a precendence that would aloow them to continue to steal the nation's wealth." Constitutional Court president Prasert Nasakul denied Mr Thaksin's accusation he had shown partiality in the way he read out the verdict. He said he was not prejudiced. Opposition leader Chuan Leekpai said the court was duty-bound to clear up any suspicions about its verdict, which differed from a precedent the court had set earlier. A divided nation The verdict in the Thaksin case has divided the nation. Even though Article 268 of the Constitution says rulings by the Constitution Court affect the entire government, there was nothing to stop the public from criticising its decisions. Many intellectuals and commentators attacked one of the judges in the case who revealed the verdict to the press 10 minutes prior to the official announcement by the head of the Constitution Court. This was seen as very unbecoming conduct. Several people reported that the judge in question was afraid the chief judge might not announce the verdict as agreed when the full bench conferred and voted. That is, the chief judge had said that in accordance with the law Thaksin was guilty. Butthe other judge decided to respect the command given to the bench by Thailand's kingmakers. On top of this, one judge rejected suggestions that the assets and bank accounts of the judges should be checked because of rampant reports of bribery. If this allegation were to be proved true, it would be another great blow to political reform in Thailand. Some news commentators pointed out that the chief judge seemed very frail and tense while announcing the verdict and that obviously he was under duress and being forced to go against what in his heart he knew should be right. He was under heavy pressure from the other judges. He almost forgot to deliver the final verdict. Only when a reporter inquired how the judges voted did he briefly give the result and immediately closed the news conference. Yet, in the case of Senator Prayuth Mahakijsiri, everything was perfectly clear. A reasonable majority of the judges voted for a guilty verdict to the charge of concealing his assets while holding a political post. He was barred from politics for five years. In Thaksin's case, the vote was on a knife-edge. Eight judges said not guilty, seven said guilty. The reaction was inevitable. Now it was the duty of independent agencies like the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) or the Senate to probe the findings as obviously there strong coercion played into the outcome. Only the truth would restore the Thai public's faith in the judiciary. A probe would probably cause a lot of inconvenience to the judges. However there was no other way to deal with this problem. All of the judges, as well as their family members and close aides, would have to be investigated. The movement of their assets, their meetings and travel prior to the day of the verdict would have to be examined. They must be able to prove that they had in no way distorted the case or reached their judgement under the influence of connections to one side or the other. It is true that there were a number of weird and suspicious events in the court a few weeks prior to judgement day. The court demanded officials install new digital telephones for all judges and beef up security measures in court. A number of experts felt that some judges feared that their controversial contacts could be leaked if their telephones were tapped. Obviously there were a lot of issues about what exactly happened. In the days prior to the verdict, some dubious stories appeared on Internet web boards and in some pro-Thaksin publications such as Manager and Matichon - speculation about the verdict that was too close to be true--they forecast exactly the outcome. Even on the day, reports flooded the stock market that Thaksin would win the case, which led to a boost to the SET index and the baht exchange rate. Many correspondents reported that Thaksin, who looked pale in the morning, had taken on an air of exhilaration early in the afternoon well before the verdict was read out. It was difficult to ignore these stories hence the growing controversy. In addition to this, another judge came forward to defend the verdict saying Article 295 of the Constitution should be strictly interpreted because the definition of "a political individual" in the article might have had a negative affect on Thaksin. This the judges had done. In saying this, he added to the confusion over the judgement and exposed a lack of thorough knowledge amongst the judges on the law's intent--a bad sign for Thailand's judicial system. It was understandable that individuals interpret laws according to their own experience. However, these discrepancies should not apply to this case because the Constitution Assembly which drafted the Constitution in 1998 had already vividly interpreted the intent of the law in a white paper booklet which was distributed to people from all walks of life. The Constitution Assembly clearly stated the purpose of this article was to force individuals who had political posts to be as transparent as possible. It allows for an individual's assets to be audited both during and after holding a post. If the judge in question interpreted the law to allow Thaksin to escape punishment for wrongdoing because, in his view, the article did not apply to the prime minister as he had already left the post some years before the new Constitution was introduced, this would be ridiculous. It would undoubtedly show that the judges chose to deliver the verdict with an eye to the benefit of the defendant rather than the spirit of the law. This made it very hard for them to avoid harsh criticism. Thais now need to regain the trust of the country's judiciary in the rule of law and adhere to the current political reforms which arose from the personal sacrifice of many in years past. They need an accountable government and cabinet members to rule the country, not dishonest or untrustworthy people who will do anything necessary to remain in power and steal from the nation. Everyone should be equal before the law. The authorities concerned must investigate this case swiftly. Various independent organisations, such as the Ombudsman, were under fire because their reliability and effectiveness are deteriorating. As the saying goes, "where there's smoke, there's fire". If the reports were just rumours, life would return to normal. If they were true, the judges must resign. The prime minister also would be dishonoured and no longer fit to govern the country. Court's credibility questioned - A puzzling decision, say charter writers Two former charter writers questioned the credibility of the Constitutional Court over its decision to clear Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of assets concealment charges. Amorn Chantarasomboon and Thongbai Thongpao were addressing a seminar on the role of independent organisations under the constitution. Mr Amorn said it was unclear why the judges, who had different views about mistakes in an assets statement filed by Mr Thaksin, then deputy premier, finally voted 8-7 to acquit him. He doubted people could continue to trust these judges or rely on the criteria for selecting them. "Eight judges found Mr Thaksin not guilty. Four of them said Mr Thaksin had no intention to do that [conceal his assets], while the four others said Article 295 could not be applied. I want to know how these two reasons could be combined into eight votes," he said. Mr Amorn said the court should have voted on whether Article 295 was applicable before considering other points, to prevent any legal ambiguity. Mr Thongbai, a lawyer and senator, said the fact the court made different rulings in two similar cases, one involving Mr Thaksin and the other former Thai Rak Thai list-MP Prayut Mahakijsiri, could damage its credibility. Why was Mr Prayut found guilty although he was not a political office holder when he filed his assets statement which was found to be faulty, while Mr Thaksin was found not guilty even though he was a deputy prime minister when he declared his assets, he said. "I am confused. It was against tradition for the court to declare its ruling orally before finishing its written version of the verdict. "I think the Constitutional Court's legal procedures need to be revised," Mr Thongbai said. "something very fishy has happened." Banned politicians aim to oust eight judges over assets ruling - Sanan points to strong discrepancies Nine politicians serving a five-year political ban for concealing their assets said they would try to oust the eight Constitutional Court judges who ruled in favour of the prime minister. Maj-Gen Sanan Kachornprasart, the former Democrat secretary-general, said they were gathering evidence to back a petition to be submitted to Senate Speaker Manoonkrit Roopkachorn. A campaign would be launched to gather 50,000 signatures, he said, and MPs would be asked to back a motion to the Senate to remove all eight judges from office. Maj-Gen Sanan said the ruling of the eight judges to clear Thaksin Shinawatra showed strong discrepancies in the legal basis they used in similar cases and the application of the rule of law. A law to be just had to be applied equally to all people, not differently between ordinary people and the elite. "The verdicts issued by the judges showed the treatment for the nine previous cases was far from fair and transparent. It also showed a lack of sound legal bases," Maj-Gen Sanan said. He was barred from political office for five years when the court in 2000 upheld a National Counter Corruption Commission ruling that he did not borrow 45 million baht from an automobile dealer as declared in his financial statements. The eight others serving the five-year ban were Anand Sawastananond, Chatchai Sumetchotemetha, Mahusen Masuyi, Kosol Srisang, Sukhum Cherdcheun, Jirayu Charasathian, Sumet Upolthian and Prayut Mahakijsiri. Maj-Gen Sanan said previous verdicts should be reviewed because the manner in which Mr Thaksin escaped punishment was "obscure". He said only one precedent should be set for all assets concealment cases. Mr Prayut also battled a wealth concealment charge but lost. "The court said one thing about one person but another thing about another person. That's not right," Maj-Gen Sanan said. He said his legal team would consider the possibility of checking the court's transparency through the Senate. Maj-Gen Manoonkrit said he would look into the transparency of the court judges if the previously-banned politicians asked him to do so. He said the Senate could proceed with the petition if it fell within Article 189 of the charter, which empowers senators to investigate independent organisations thought to be guilty of malfeasance. 11 judges say Article 295 applies The common verdict in Thaksin Shinawatra's hidden assets case stated that 11 of the 15 judges agreed Article 295 was applicable to the prime minister. Suvit Theerapong, one of the seven judges who found Mr Thaksin guilty, said it was necessary to end lingering doubts over whether his acquittal was based on the same standards the court used to determine other wealth concealment cases. Article 295 of the constitution empowers the National Counter Corruption Commission to investigate holders of political posts suspected of falsely declaring their assets and debts. The prime minister was the only politician charged by the commission to have been found not guilty. The opinions of the 11 judges were clearly stated, together with their names. The second part of the verdict stated eight judges found Mr Thaksin did not intend to conceal his wealth and seven others found he deliberately hid his assets. The opinions of both sides also were given. Controversy on judges' reasoning The Constitution Court on August 21 issued its central ruling on the Thaksin case and the 107-page statement immediately became shrouded in controversy. The ruling stated that Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was "not guilty" under Article 295 of the Constitution because the National Counter Corruption Commission could not provide solid proof he was aware of his household employees' massive stockholdings. Thaksin had told the court during his historic trial that his wife had transferred shares to the servants without his knowledge. The logic employed by the court in order to to make the ruling favourable for Thaksin was immediately questioned, because the judges, also on August 21, issued their central ruling on a similar case, but decided to find that defendant guilty. Talk about hypocrisy and a lack of justice. In finding Thai Rak Thai member Prayuth Mahakitsiri guilty of hiding some of his assets, the court rejected Prayuth's claims that the undeclared wealth belonged to his wife and that she had hidden it from him. So which is it, one might question. "Husband and wife are supposed to take care of each other and they must be aware of each other's financial status and assets," the court ruling on Prayuth said. This logic was completely missing from the Thaksin ruling. Adding to the apparent double-standard, the court, for the first time, concluded in the Thaksin ruling that the prime minister was "not guilty" under Article 295. Central rulings on all similar cases in the past concluded that defendants "intended" to conceal their assets, thus violating the article. Legal experts said the court's unprecedented conclusion was aimed at avoiding major political trouble that could have stemmed from the differing opinions of the eight judges whose rulings acquitted Thaksin. The "majority" judges were split into two camps that used two quite different methods of reasoning to arrive at a not guilty verdict. Four of them thought Article 295 could not be applied to Thaksin, because he was not a "political office holder" at the time the NCCC launched its investigation - therefore "intent" was irrelevant. The other four said Article 295 did apply, but they ruled Thaksin had no intention of hiding his assets. "If the central verdict concluded that Thaksin 'did not intend' to cover up his wealth, then someone could demand a serious re-counting of the vote," an expert told The Nation. "And if we really count the 'intend or not intend' vote, the number will be seven against four in favour of a guilty decision." The Thaksin ruling also endorsed a defence claim that his wife's financial secretary was to blame for the failure to declare the servants' stockholdings. Pojamarn, Thaksin's wife, might not have known that the secretary did not include the shareholdings on her asset list, the court said. One of the seven minority judges - those who believed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was guilty of asset concealment - publicly criticised the central ruling on August 21, while the opposition Democrat Party immediately established a high-level committee to scrutinise it. In a public statement, Justice Amorn Raksasat said he deplored the fact that the central ruling failed to mention the minority judges' arguments that Thaksin was indeed guilty. "This will make the general public think that the minority judges had no good reasons at all [for] finding the defendant guilty," the statement said. Amorn said that while the central ruling, the shortened version of which ran to five pages, would be accompanied by each judge's individual ruling, very few people would go through 1,500 pages of documents to see what each judge thought about the case. But perhaps more important, said Amorn, was the central ruling's "unclear" statement regarding the issues of Article 295, intent and how the votes were counted to arrive at the verdict. "When the court verbally announced the verdict on August 3, the technical aspects and facts about the cases were clearly separated," Amorn's statement said. "The public was clearly informed that four judges ruled that Article 295 could not be applied while another four ruled that evidence presented at the trial was not enough to prove the defendant's alleged intent to hide his assets. But the central ruling covers 26 pages on the issue of intent while only half a page was spent mentioning that four judges believed Article 295 could not be invoked."All 15 judges signed the central ruling. The Democrats' scrutinising committee comprised key party members including Abhisit Vejjajiva, Marut Bunnag, Jurin Laksanavisit, Anan Anantakul and Banyat Bantadtan. Top judge slams PM’s defence Constitution Court president Prasert Nasakul on August 31 released a strongly-worded summary of his 37-page individual ruling that found Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra guilty of intentional asset concealment. Prasert, one of the seven minority judges who found Thaksin guilty, stated in his individual ruling that it was not acceptable for the prime minister to blame everything on a helpless personal secretary, and that transferring shares to one’s servants unmistakably indicated dishonest purposes. The court president’s ruling centred on several key legal issues. First, Thaksin, a deputy prime minister in the Chavalit Yongchaiyudh government, had a constitutional duty to declare his wealth to the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) in 1997. The defence argument that Thaksin was no longer an office holder when he filed his assets statement was deemed irrelevant. In accordance with Article 317 of the Constitution, Thaksin remained in office during the transition period for the promulgation of the charter. Thaksin, the country’s chief executive, should have displayed integrity and responsibility in his testimony to the Constitution Court instead of putting the blame on “a small woman” who served only as a personal secretary, Prasert observed. Secondly, Article 295 was applicable to Thaksin and all other office holders according to precedents set by the court’s past rulings on assets declaration cases. The defence argument that Thaksin’s nominee holding was an accepted business practice could derail political reform if it were to be accepted as a valid excuse to withhold information from the NCCC. The defence argued that nominee holdings, arranged after he had made a blank transfer of his properties to the care of his wife, were widely practised in the business world. And there were no laws nor ethical standards that banned such practice. But the court president found this argument very disturbing. “The essence of politics is a noble act of sacrificing self-interest. An aspiring politician can never identify the public interest if he or she still clings to self or vested interest. “ The heart of political reform is to nurture politicians who uphold sound moral principles and aspire to observe stricter dharma than other laymen. “While the country is in need of this new breed of politicians to tackle its economic and social woes, how can a man, pledging to be the country’s saviour, fulfil his mission when he is still keeping his ‘old way’ of safeguarding his selfinterest?” Thirdly, Thaksin, qualified to assume the post of deputy prime minister, should have had the mental and intellectual capacity to fill out his assetsdeclaration form. The defence argument that the form was confusing was unacceptable. The defence had inappropriately raised a semantic question when it argued that the Constitution had failed to clearly define the term “own properties” to include those held by nominees. The Civil and Commercial Code had clearly defined this term and its definition had been accepted by the entire legal profession. Finally, evidence indicated that Thaksin had full knowledge of his properties held by nominees between 1987 and 1999. He began designating nominees in 1987 and knew of at least one share transaction through nominees done in 1999, after he had entered politics. He publicly admitted that he owned the Alpine Golf Course although he later told the court that a company, SC Estate, was the owner--he effectively lied. By concealing his wealth held by nominees, Prasert said, Thaksin acted to further his selfinterest and thus recklessly disregarded cultural, moral, and political values. The judge also attacked the defence’s use of Thaksin’s overwhelming election mandate to counter charges of asset conceal¬ment. “The 11 million people don’t know the truth behind the assets case. Only the accused, his spouse, and two personal secre¬taries do,” Prasert said in his ruling. “What the accused did (transferring shares to servants) shows that he is a product of the past. He still thinks the same old way and acts the same old way, like other businessmen in the Thaistyle capitalist system. “He only propagated that he had achieved enormous business success through honest means, but he never explained exactly why he managed such a big success in such a short period of time. Nor did he explain how he would solve the conflict of interest stemming from his own fortune and that of the country,” he said.