Article in the Telegraph (9-12-2010)
Today there would finally be clarity regarding the investigation into alleged abuses at the Embassy in Bangkok. De Telegraaf had the scoop and was able to tell that everything was wrong. They were also proud to mention that thanks to the whistleblower who called in the Telegraaf, everything had gained momentum and this led to an investigation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Given the news value of these 'facts', I thought I should also put this on the blog. So far little going on. Until I heard a completely different version on the website of the NOS (radio 1) in which correspondent Michel Maas shed light on the matter. Because I rate the NOS and Michel Maas higher than the Telegraaf, I thought it necessary to put something right for the readers of Thailandblog.
Some quotes from the radio report
You can listen to the report yourself. The link to the report is at the bottom of this post. I've worked out some quotes.
Michel Maas: “I have seen a letter from the Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It contains a list of all matters and the result of the research that has been done. The conclusion of that letter is that nothing is wrong at the embassy in Bangkok".
When asked where this unrest comes from, Michel Maas replies: “The ambassador will leave, but he will not leave now. In their own words, not because of the allegations that have been made. He is resigning for personal reasons and only in six months. But that, according to the information that I have received has nothing to do with this matter.”
Michael continues: “The unrest is due to a fired ex-employee who got his revenge in this way. By sending allegations to The Hague. This came out. The man largely made up his story.”
Michel Maas concludes: “the ambassador follows his wife who is going to work abroad. As a result, he leaves his post in Bangkok a year earlier. To be able to stay with his family”.
Foreign Affairs
It is time for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to open up. If the ambassador Tjaco van den Hout and the embassy staff cannot be blamed, they must now be cleared of all blame quickly.
It would therefore be a reason for me never to use the Telegraaf as a source again.
With compliments to Thailandblog and especially to Peter for his extremely fast information. We wait to see how it all turns out.
Well too late…. when I read your blog posting with Telegraaf as source reference, I already thought “Yes, but it comes from the Telegraaf!”
So there is already something going on, only that is being covered with the cloak of love (and with Dutch tax money).
Via the ANP:
THE HAGUE (ANP) – The Dutch ambassador to Thailand, Tjaco van den Hout, is leaving his post in Bangkok early “for reasons of his own.” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs says this in response to reports in De Telegraaf.
The reason is an investigation by the ministry after reports from a whistleblower about abuses at the embassy. It would be fraud related to passport applications and naturalizations.
The investigation has shown that although some of the reports are incorrect, "things have nevertheless happened that cannot be tolerated", according to a spokesperson. The department has therefore taken 'appropriate measures'. The ambassador, as chief de poste responsible for the state of affairs at his embassy, has decided to give up his post prematurely, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Clearly then, that's a deal! Ambassador has to go, but they don't let him lose face in public.
It looks like that yes. In addition, I can imagine that if he had already decided this for himself, you are no longer 100% sharp. Perhaps he was already winding down. When the cat is away, the mice dance.
Dear Peter,
The ambassador's wife was ambassador for Estonia in the Netherlands. When they arrived in Bangkok, they already indicated that after his term the roles could turn. He houseman and she ambassador for Estonia somewhere in the world.
This now occurs 1 year earlier, so all suggestions from De Telegraaf and others are suspicions and lies on which De Telegraaf runs. Sad that this is the largest newspaper in the Netherlands. Also says something about the readers!
Your plan to never use De Telegraaf as a source again seems very sensible to me.
Alexander, in the above response I base myself (and as far as I see Peter too) on an ANP report and on a statement by a spokesperson for foreign affairs.
He is in Thailand where losing face is a shame. But something like this is also a shame between countries. So it is neatly formulated diplomatically and that is the end of it. One day we will read somewhere (long time) how the fork really worked.
Dear Peter,
Then just reacted.
For the record: it was not De Telegraaf that commissioned an investigation based on messages from a former employee. It was the leadership of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague that made that assessment and took that decision.
That the then employee would have been hateful, had loads of butter on his head or other such terminology: it was all possible. The fact is that BuZa started the investigation based on this man's claims. And an investigation into an embassy is news. The reasons behind that research are even more so.
De Telegraaf has recorded and published the reasons that prompted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to carry out the investigation. Those were the employee's claims.
The results of the research are also clear. The letter mentioned by the ambassador indeed states that there are no abuses. What the ambassador does not indicate is that the letter adheres to the framed government definition of the word abuse, as laid down in the 'Decree on reporting suspected abuse to the government and the police'.
Elsewhere in the letter it is clearly stated what the investigation team found at the embassy. These may not be official abuses in the formal sense of the word, as defined in the Decree, but it is in any case clear to the Secretary-General in The Hague that many things cannot be tolerated and measures had to be taken. be taken.
Mr Van den Hout also knows that his early departure is the result of the findings of the investigation. After all, this was communicated to him at the department in The Hague. It could be good or bad. Let's hope for him that he doesn't jeopardize the elegant solution by wrongly blaming De Telegraaf.
Indeed, the reporting could have been different. For example, look at the way in which correspondent Michel Maas of NOS and de Volkskrant tackled the case. Apart from the fact that the errors in his basic information are almost hilarious, it is clear to read and hear that Maas has quite a bit of trouble maintaining his balance vis-à-vis Van den Hout and the embassy, who helped him so much after the shooting incident in Bangkok. captured. Literal text: 'There is nothing going on at the embassy in Bangkok'. Good night.
Sincerely,
John van den Dongen
The Telegraph
Dear Johan,
First of all, thank you for responding on behalf of De Telegraaf and for using the blog to explain matters and make your views clear. Good to see that social media provides transparency and a clear discussion.
Of course there are facts that do not lie, such as the embezzlement of a large sum of money by a Thai employee. Someone will also have to bear his / her responsibility for this.
Mr Van den Hout had already announced at an earlier stage that he would not be serving his term of office. I cannot judge whether this choice has to do with the outcome of the investigation.
I share your comment about Michel Maas' reporting. Especially now that a spokesman for the Ministry of BuZa has announced that, I quote: "some of the reports are incorrect, but that "things have nevertheless happened that cannot be accepted".
Mr. Maas literally said: “I have seen a letter from the Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It contains a list of all matters and the result of the research that has been done. The conclusion of that letter is that nothing is wrong at the embassy in Bangkok”.
Now it turns out that the above is not the full version.
The impression that De Telegraaf gives, however, is that everything was/is wrong at the embassy, which has not emerged from the investigation. A nuance was in order, however.
Regards,
Peter Jansen
Dear Peter,
The nuance you ask for is in last Thursday's paper. I have communicated to the public what the investigation team has found, how the top of the ministry assesses these findings and what the consequences are.
That these observations (passing on sensitive information to Dutch criminals, tampering with passports, the lack of guidance and correction of consular employees) do not fall under the official government definition of 'misconduct', so be it. Just say what you call it.
As you write, Van den Hout states that he had already indicated at an earlier stage that he would not serve his term of office. This was completely unknown to me. That is why I just checked this with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague just to be sure.
A spokesperson for the departmental top literally says: “We are not aware that Mr Van den Hout intended to end his term of office earlier.”
So, you still have exclusive news on the site.
With all due respect, I'll leave it at that, because I have a newspaper to fill. As a weblog you should not think about the fact that you will soon be without new annoying discussion material from De Telegraaf.
Sincerely,
John van den Dongen
Dear Johan,
Thanks for the explanation and the exclusive news. Unfortunately, your colleague Michel Maas does not want to respond. Shame.
Perhaps Mr Van den Hout would like to respond? Hear and hear. I assume he also reads this excellent blog.
I must admit, your explanation sheds a different light on the matter. The question always remains whether there are still puzzle pieces missing. It is up to the readers of this blog to draw their own conclusions.
That annoyance only applies if facts are not correct. If facts are correct, then it is good journalism.
Regards,
Peter
where there is smoke there is fire! What interest does the telegraph have in lies? nix. This could otherwise be punishable slander,
Here in Bangkok, many people already knew that Van den Hout would follow his Latvian wife if she were appointed ambassador. No one knew when, probably not even Van den Hout. Things may have accelerated due to recent circumstances.
It is remarkable that Van den Dongen does not say a word about the so-called whistleblower who himself was guilty of improper practices and who, after being dismissed from the Telegraaf, sounded the alarm aggrieved. The newspaper for awake Netherlands is guaranteed to put its readers to sleep again in the future.
Where there's smoke, there's fire I call a clear example of reversed burden of proof. You are guilty if you cannot prove that you are innocent.
it is precisely that reversed burden of proof that Thailand can talk about. The example country of the Thais (USA) also use this method. Even in our beautiful NL, this method is used by the tax authorities. This is for your information.
Give a tip to Wikileaks, maybe the truth will come out!
Boy, what a bloated state!
A quote from Elsevier's website:
According to a source who has an email from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it appears that Van den Hout had been planning to leave for some time. He made the decision 'separately from the alleged abuses', according to the email.
The study leave of his wife, a diplomat from Latvia, will end in mid-2011 and Van den Hout will return to Riga with her and their daughter.
In the investigation, all alleged abuses are debunked. Shortly after completion of the investigation, Van den Hout announced that he was leaving as ambassador.
The timing of Van den Hout to announce his departure seems rather unfortunate. The announcement coincides exactly with the publication of the research in various media.
Although all accusations of ex-employee Van B. are declared unfounded in the Foreign Affairs report, things were still not in order at the embassy.
For example, it appears that the ambassador did not respond appropriately to an embassy employee who forged his ex-partner's passport and maintained contacts with criminals. He also once searched Van B.'s office, which, according to the reporters, was not against the law, but also not convenient. The working relationship between Van B. and Van den Hout was already seriously disrupted at that time.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on Thursday that it had taken 'appropriate measures' in connection with these errors.
Source: http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Nederland/283634/Rapport-Geen-fraude-bij-Nederlandse-ambassade.htm
The Ambassador Mr. Van Der Hout was (is) a refreshing appearance with his “open talk” on the website of the embassy. Finally pictures of it
employees and their area of work.
Each embassy receives regular "visits" from Buza or everything acc. the rules expire.
So far nothing new. De Telegraaf is a fast newspaper (not mine) but makes
in case of a rumor. Indeed, they are usually the first…
Later, of course, other media will be added that meanwhile claim something else: easy enough, more information has now become available.
I have (in 24 years) had a criticism about the (Thai) employees who treat you like that
try to fob off as quickly as possible but demand it from a Dutch employee
speaking always worked.
Let's honor (our) embassy.
Frank