As a result, allegations of conflicts of interest as well as corruption abound.

Former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, ousted in the September 19 coup, was a case in point.

Thirapat, a founding member of the Thai Rak Thai Party, recalled that Thaksin was advised as far back as 1997 that he should come clean by clearly separating his personal interests from those of the public before he took up the premiership.

This could be done by transferring the bulk of his multibillion-baht personal assets, which were then under his own name, his spouse's name, his children's names and numerous nominees, to a "blind trust" so that the wealth could be managed professionally and independently of the conduct of his upcoming public office.

According to the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) law, holders of public office, including the premier and ministers as well as their spouses and children under the age of 21, are not allowed to hold more than 5 per cent of a listed company's shares. Any holdings above the 5-per-cent limit must be transferred to a blind trust.

The law sounds reasonable, but it was unequivocally shunned by Thaksin and company. In fact, no politician has ever used a blind trust since the law became effective in the late 1990s. Likewise, Thaksin and company opted for other means to manage their wealth, the consequences of which proved politically lethal.

In Thirapat's opinion, Thai politicians lack the courage to be fair and transparent while holding public office. They fear that their wealth will be completely locked up in a trust if they follow the law strictly. Instead, they resort to moving their assets to their children who are over 21 and therefore not subject to the law governing declaration of assets.

In the case of the deposed premier, the Bt73 billion proceeds from the sale of his family's majority stake in Shin Corp to Temasek Holdings of Singapore, which eventually led to the September 19 coup, did not show up on the accounts of Thaksin, his spouse or his underage daughter. The funds went to the two other older children, who are not governed by the NCCC law.

Yet, the figures do not lie. The former premier's own declaration of assets, as of March this year, showed that his wealth was more than Bt2 billion less than the amount he declared at the start of his first term as premier more than five years ago. In other words, he got significantly poorer while holding the public office.

On the other hand, Thaksin's son Panthongtae and daughter Pinthongta - who are both over 21 and not required to declare their wealth - must have reaped a huge profit from the Shin Corp sale, based on the sharp difference between the market value of their stock holdings five years ago and the price at which it was sold early this year.

In hindsight, there are probably several reasons why the former premier did not transfer his wealth to a trust as required by law.

First, he probably had no such intent from the outset, even though Thai Rak Thai's founders stated this matter in their original declaration, according to Thirapat.

Second, even if Thaksin did intend to do so, it would already have been too late, as he was accused by the NCCC - just prior to the 2001 general election - of hiding large amounts of assets in the names of a housemaid and a chauffeur.

When this landmark lawsuit went to the Constitution Court in late 2001 shortly after his landslide election victory, Thaksin admitted to committing what he called an "honest mistake" in his asset declaration. The court then acquitted him with a controversial 8-7 ruling.

Third, revealing and handing over his assets to a trust could lead to tax and other related issues.

Fourth, the assets would be tightly locked away as long as he was in office.

And finally, it wouldn't have been possible for him to have the cake and eat it too.

 Nophakhun Limsamarnphun

 nop1122@yahoo.com