Deputy Commerce Minister Suchart Chomklin finds himself entangled in a whirlwind of political intrigue and alleged scandal as he stands at the forefront of a defamation lawsuit against two members of the People’s Party (PP). The recent accusations have sparked a fierce debate, with Mr. Suchart denying any involvement and vowing to clear his name.
In a fiery address, Mr. Suchart, who once served as Thailand’s Labour Minister under the banner of the Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP), rebuffed claims made by PP MPs Rukchanok Srinork and Sahassawat Kumkong. They allege that Mr. Suchart had a hand in the highly contentious purchase of the SKYY9 Centre by the Social Security Office (SSO), a deal valued at a staggering seven billion baht.
The accusations don’t stop there. Ms. Rukchanok argues that the purchase was plagued by irregularities that led to losses in its management. She pointed out that the building’s net income, at just 40 million baht, falls dismally short of the 50 million baht management costs, igniting further controversy.
Meanwhile, Mr. Sahassawat has added fuel to the fire by claiming that during Mr. Suchart’s tenure, there were questionable internal transfers within the ministry. A close aide of Mr. Suchart was allegedly moved to a committee overseeing investments, including the acquisition of the talked-about building. Speculation about possible machinations has left the public eager for transparency.
Defiant in his response, Suchart Chomklin has made it clear that such allegations are baseless and an affront to his character. Insisting that the accusations are built on misinformation, he criticized the MPs for not using proper parliamentary channels, such as raising the issue in the House or through a no-confidence debate. This, he claims, would have been the judicious approach rather than slinging accusations infamously.
Mr. Suchart highlighted the process by which the building was appraised by a reputable company listed on the stock exchange, emphasizing that as a minister, he could not meddle with SSO investments due to conflicts of interest. Furthermore, he distanced himself from any knowledge regarding the SSO’s alleged purchase of property in the Ratchadaphisek area, suggesting these inquiries should be directed toward the SSO board.
His words took a resolute turn when he stated, “If the SSO investment isn’t proper, it should be investigated by the relevant agencies. If the investigation is carried out by people without the necessary knowledge, it could cause damage.” A courtroom decision appears to be Mr. Suchart’s desired arena for vindication, as he insisted, “This [the lawsuit] will be settled in court and there will be no negotiations.”
The tangled history of the SKYY9 Centre adds another layer to this saga. The building, abandoned during the tumultuous 1997 Asian financial crisis, was later acquired and refurbished as the Social Security Fund (SSF) amended its regulations, an act that eerily preceded the attempts to redirect funds into purchasing the property.
In this intricate matrix of accusations, schemes, and political grappling, Mr. Sahassawat added his own findings to the cauldron by stating that a trust made the building’s purchase, and a substantial chunk—around 70% of the trust—was spent on this one acquisition.
As the drama unfolds, all eyes are on the legal proceedings that promise to unravel the claims and clear the muddied waters. Meanwhile, the courtroom awaits what will surely be a compelling showdown of truths and retribution.
I think Suchart is being unfairly targeted. Politicians often use scandals to distract from real issues.
Or maybe he’s actually guilty? We need to stop turning a blind eye to corruption.
True, John. But don’t you think the timing of this accusation is suspicious?
It’s all speculative until there’s solid evidence. Let’s wait for the court’s decision.
The amount of money discussed in these dealings is astronomical. Our taxes should be put to better use.
Absolutely, this is why we need more transparency in government handling of funds.
I find it hard to believe that an ex-Labour Minister wouldn’t have insider info on such huge deals. Come on!
Exactly! If anything, we’re seeing the perfect example of political denial.
Let’s not rush to judgment. Even politicians deserve a fair trial.
Seems like a case of deflection to me. They often play the victim to avoid scrutiny.
This proves once again that politics is the dirtiest game. Nothing changes.
It’s disappointing but not surprising. Where’s the accountability?
Accountability often gets lost in the noise of these scandals.
Why don’t they make these deals public? We should have access to how our money is being used.
Totally agree. Public oversight could help prevent misuse.
Suchart claims the appraisal was independent, but weren’t they chosen by the very ministry under scrutiny?
It’s all connected somehow. An independent body should have been involved.
Misinformation is rampant in politics. I wonder what’s really true here.
Truth is often a casualty when the stakes are this high.
We’ll only know once evidence is presented in court. Until then, it’s anyone’s guess.
Even if Suchart isn’t directly involved, he must’ve known something was going on.
Politicians enjoy plausible deniability. It’s part of the game.
This is why institution reforms are crucial. We must ensure ethical governance.
Yes! Systemic changes are long overdue to prevent these scandals.
Honestly, I’m just waiting for another big scandal to take the limelight. This is getting repetitive.
Rukchanok and Sahassawat seem to have a personal vendetta. Is this really about justice?
It’s becoming evident that politics in Thailand need drastic cleaning up.
It’s a circus. But it’s vital for citizens to stay informed and demand accountability.
Regardless of who’s right or wrong, the public deserves transparency in these deals.
It’s all politics. Will anything meaningful come from these lawsuits or is it all for show?