On the 19th December 2003, The FIDF announced the results of an auction for a 33 rai plot of land near to the Thailand Culture Center. Bank of Thailand assistant Governor, Sawangjit Jaiyawat (นางสว่างจิตต์ จัยวัฒน์) announced that three groups had put in bids for the plots, Land and House Plc, Noble Development Plc and Pojaman Shinawatra. Their bids were:
Pojaman Shinawatra - 772,000,000 baht
Land & Houses Plc - 730,000,000 baht
Noble Development - 750,000,000 baht
After the announcement, Sawangjit had to defend the FIDF over the price of the sale, however she stated that the price was higher than the Land department estimate by 5%, and she also stated that holding the land did nothing for the fund.
It was not for a further 5 months, that opposition politicians decided to use the purchase as an attack on the government. Constitutional requirements meant that the opposition didn't have sufficient numbers to directly censure the Prime Minister; however they did have sufficent numbers to censure any other Cabinet Minister. As a result of this they censured the newly installed Finance Minister, Somkid Jatusripitak (สมคิด จาตุศรีพิทักษ์), the Minister who now indirectly oversaw the FIDF.
On the 2nd day of a censure debate, Democrat MP, Arkom Engchuan (อาคม เอ่งฉ้วน) took centre stage at the censure debate alleging that Pojaman Shinawatra benefited from the allegedly non-transparent sale of 13 prime land plots on Thiemruammitr Road by the Financial Institutions Development Fund the previous year. Arkom alleged that ambiguous procedures in the FIDF's land sale, with the alleged sole intention to sell the plum site - close to the Thailand Cultural Centre and a new subway station - to Khunying Pojaman.
The FIDF was questioned about its rush to sell the land plots, and the irregular conditions of the auction.
Somkid hit back, saying there was no irregularity."Khunying Pojaman joined the auction on her own to show her sincerity. She has the right, as a Thai national".
Arkom questioned:
- Why there was no minimum price set ?
- Why 2 rai, or 1,013 square wah, was cut off when the site was put for a second bid ?
- Why Pojaman Shinawatra was the only bidder ?
- Why a 100 million baht deposit was required for the second bid, yet only 10,000 baht was required for the previous e-auction ?
- Why the Land department didn't hold onto the land for a further month, which would ensure a higher Land department valuation of 20 per cent ?
- Why the FIDF didn't wait for a further month to sell the land when the transfer fee would be restored back to the 2 per cent fee ?
- Why the FIDF sold the land at a considerable discount compared to the market value ?
Once Arkom was completed with his allegations, Somkid read a statement from the FIDF Manager, Sawangjit Chaiyawat to try and clarify the points raised.
Later that day, Bank of Thailand Governor, MR Pridiyathorn Devakula (ม.ร.ว.ปรีดิยาธร เทวกุล) also defended the sale, stating that the FIDF had not set a minimum price, as all of the previous bidders for the plots had complained about the high price asked, and stated that Pojaman won the bid, because she put in the highest bid.
However Arkom insisted that there were irregularities, "Due to (former) Minister Suchart's neglect, the FIDF sold the land at a cheaper-than-usual price. The bidding procedures were also carried out in a way to benefit connected parties," he said.” Minister Somkid was not the finance minister while this land was sold. But as the finance minister now, he should have spotted these irregularities and corrected them".
A few days following the censure debate, Senator Chirmsak Pinthong announced that he was planning to file a complaint with the NCCC. Chirmsak stated that in his opinion, the purchase violated the NCCC Act article 100. Preecha Suwannathat,a NCCC law drafter said the deal was a "contract" and thus a legal violation, however former NCCC member, Sawat Orrungroj said the case of Pojaman was about "someone offering the highest bid" in a land auction and therefore should be legal. This was also the opinion of Somchainuk Engtrakul, permanent secretary for finance, who said the FIDF had examined all related laws before the auction and not found any prohibition.
No further reports are available to show whether the complaint was ever filed.
