• 
• 

Published on September 5, 2007

The fate of Bangkok Governor Apirak Kosayodhin over his questionable role in the fire-trucks procurement scandal remains undecided, following the Assets Examination Committee's (AEC) decision on Monday to instruct its investigative panel to review its decision in favour of him for a second time.

The panel has been given two weeks to complete the review.

In his latest recommendation, panel chairman Prasert Bunsri stuck to his stance in defending Apirak, in that the deputy Democrat Party leader had provided documents showing that the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) had no negotiating leverage in the Bt6.687-billion contract after the deal was struck with Austrian manufacturer Steyr Daimler Puch.

Another argument repeatedly used by Apirak was that he had opened a letter of credit as mandated jointly by a Cabinet decision and the Interior Ministry - which supervises the BMA - otherwise the relationship between the Thai and Austrian governments would have been adversely affected.

However, AEC sources said they had documents proving that Apirak had opened the letter of credit despite his knowledge that the project to order 315 fire trucks and 30 fire boats was overpriced - and despite realising the letter of credit would fully validate the deal and place the BMA at a disadvantage.

In a public interview in April 2006, Steyr deputy CEO Mario Minar stated clearly that the BMA had other options to secure the fire trucks at lower prices by choosing other manufacturers, if Apirak thought its asking price and the vehicles' specifications were too high.

Minar said Article 9 of the BMA-Steyr deal stated that the BMA would commit itself to the deal after the letter of credit was opened. This clearly shows that Steyr could not impose any civil obligation on the BMA if the letter of credit was not made available.

There is also a glaring irregularity involving Apirak's role in the documentation process.

The order by former Bangkok governor Samak Sundaravej, who was Apirak's immediate predecessor, that a letter of credit be opened clearly states the vehicles would be shipped to Thailand "from a European port/or European airport and/or any place in Thailand".

But after Apirak opened the letter of credit, the phrase "or any place in Thailand" was left out of the contract, meaning that Steyr would need to deliver the trucks - partly produced in Thailand by Mitsubishi before being shipped to Austria for final assembly - to a European port or a European airport before shipping them back to Thailand.

Although the sources did not explain how the missing phrase would benefit or affect Apirak, its legitimacy certainly affected the main banking process in the contract: that the Krung Thai Bank needed to contact Austria's Reiffeisen Zentral Bank Oesterreich, which serves Steyr, to ask it on January 21, 2005 to put the phrase in question back into the contract before they could begin any business correspondence.

Worse still, an Interior Ministry investigation into the matter has completed its conclusion and is reportedly not in favour of Apirak.

It has questioned why he failed to submit his query to the Council of State or the Office of the Attorney-General if he needed counselling over his role in securing the letter of credit, in terms of its legitimacy.

Apirak also failed to inspect the prototypes of the fire trucks after they were made, although he could have asked to do so, before Steyr began its full-scale manufacturing of all the 315 vehicles and 30 vessels.

The BMA had the right under a Civil Code to call off the deal if the prototypes did not meet the specifications stated under the contract.

Apart from Samak, the AEC has implicated four other people for their roles in the procurement process: former interior minister Bokhin Bhalakula, former deputy interior minister Pracha Maleenont, former director of the BMA's Fire and Rescue Department Pol Maj-General Athilak Tanchookiat, and Somsak Khun-ngern, a secretary to Pracha.

In terms of criminal liability, the Department of Special Investigation implicated Apirak along with six other people in its investigation report submitted to the National Counter Corruption Commission on July 12, 2006.

If he is to find in favour of Apirak again, Prasert's panel will need to come up with an even better defence.

Worse, given the available evidence, Apirak could face yet another AEC probe soon.

Chularat Saengpassa

 The Nation