September 9th, 2008, 18:01
I don't believe it. I do believe it. Is Samak really being thrown out with the food scraps?
I must admit I had a little bit of admiration for him (MUCH more than his predecessor, anyway). I'm a little sorry to hear this news this early morning.
Why was Samak disqualified?
The Constitution Court on Tuesday reached an unanimous decision of 9-0 to disqualify Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej on grounds for conflict of interest relating to his involvement in two cooking shows.
The high court ruled that Samak lost his job by an individual offence, hence although his Cabinet would face a mandatory removal, it could act as the caretaker administration pending the formation of a new government.
Of the nine presiding judges, six said Samak's involvement as honourary show host has constituted a status as an employee of programme producer, Face Media Co.
Three said his involvement could be interpreted as a business partner.
The nine judges cited the intent of Article 267 of the 2007 Constitution for preempting Cabinet members, including the prime minister, from committing a conflict of interest.
Under the provision, the legal definition of being employed or the status of employee is broader than that specified in the Civil Code and relevant labour laws.
Evidence showed that Samak continued to host the two shows after he assumed office in February. Furthermore he received allowances, such as petrol expenses which could be contrued as income earnings. And he got involved with the show which is a business transaction designed to seek profits.
The Nation
I must admit I had a little bit of admiration for him (MUCH more than his predecessor, anyway). I'm a little sorry to hear this news this early morning.
Why was Samak disqualified?
The Constitution Court on Tuesday reached an unanimous decision of 9-0 to disqualify Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej on grounds for conflict of interest relating to his involvement in two cooking shows.
The high court ruled that Samak lost his job by an individual offence, hence although his Cabinet would face a mandatory removal, it could act as the caretaker administration pending the formation of a new government.
Of the nine presiding judges, six said Samak's involvement as honourary show host has constituted a status as an employee of programme producer, Face Media Co.
Three said his involvement could be interpreted as a business partner.
The nine judges cited the intent of Article 267 of the 2007 Constitution for preempting Cabinet members, including the prime minister, from committing a conflict of interest.
Under the provision, the legal definition of being employed or the status of employee is broader than that specified in the Civil Code and relevant labour laws.
Evidence showed that Samak continued to host the two shows after he assumed office in February. Furthermore he received allowances, such as petrol expenses which could be contrued as income earnings. And he got involved with the show which is a business transaction designed to seek profits.
The Nation