whybother

That's a confusing response. The PM was a civilian, and it is debatable if the military ever took orders it didn't like from Thailand's civilian leadership.

My point on impeachment is that in the rest of the world people who are no longer in office aren't impeached. That was the case in Thailand until the current junta started making up the rules as it went.

The PM was a "political office holder" (ie PM). He wasn't an ordinary citizen.

If the army don't take orders from civilians, then how can Abhisit be charged with ordering the army to carry live ammunition?

"

1. Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment.

"

So 90 people die and charges are dropped, in a manner that at least one Thai legal scholar finds inexplicable. 2 people die and a junta with an agenda files charges and the Prayuth fan club celebrate.

The CIVILIAN charges were dropped. The civilian court said that the courts for political office holders should deal with them. Seeing as Abhisit was the PM that seems to be the right place to deal with it, not the civilian courts.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Payback will never happen for the families of those farmers who sadly ended their lives out of desperation last year. But some justice is now being served.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Farmers-call-time-on-Yinglucks-rice-farce-30226779.html

Try telling the truth. The protest leaders campaigned for those with deposits with the banks to withdraw their money if they lend it to the government to pay back the farmers. Anyone should be indicted for any farmer death its Suthep and his gang. Plus the fact that I look at any farmer who took his own life because of the debt and left his family and children with this debt is a coward.

Would you rather the banks break the law and the people with money in the bank lose it all?

I'm not surprised at all that there is no such thing as collective prosecution in Thailand, but I'm puzzled why you bring the topic up.

There is such a thing as selective enforcement of the law in Thailand, which is implemented by selective prosecution. It's naive to maintain otherwise.

Your final sentence puzzles me. Is non-involvement in anti-government attacks illegal?

Well the usual round-and-round going I see.

So, the NACC to give the OAG to charge former PM Somchai for "abuse of power". Actually the NACC might already have given the same to get Abhisit/Suthep charged, but they were told to butt out as the DSI wanted the OAG to charge the duo for "premeditated murder" in the Criminal Court. Late last year the court threw it out and suggested to the OAG to follow the correct procedure, do the charging at the Supreme Court first if they thought they'd have a case.

Now you may call that selective and you would be right. Rumour has it the DSI and Tarit were ordered.

As for my 'final' sentence, you probably are not in the mood for some mild sarcasm.

Cheers,

uncle rubl

Actually it was more of a back and forth, until you inserted your strange "might have already" speculation.

Did you miss the part about the person who's judgment on law you are challenging: "Somlak Judkrabuanphol, an adviser at the commission who is also a law professor and a former Supreme Court judge..."

So what? Abhisit to be charged as private person for ordering the army to commit premeditated murder for him is OK and a simple impeachment based on facts no one denies for a lady who only talks about political motivation is NOK ?

Now we have former PM Somchai to be charged with "abuse of office", to be charged at the correct court. If the DSI being pressured by 'unknowns (like golf caddies and charter writing Pol. Captains) hadn't pressured the OAG to go for "premeditated murder as private persons" with the Criminal Court, the NACC and OAG together might already have had the charges for "abuse of office" ready for the former PM Abhisit and his Dept.

So, poor former PM Somchai, no one seem to care about him.

Refresh my memory, where did you get this information that Abhisit is going to be charged with premeditated murder?

Also, can you explain how a person no longer in office can be impeached under a suspended constitution? In most countries it would be considered absurd to impeach an elected official no longer in office. To many people the Yingluck impeachment appears to be the junta making up rules in order to get at people it doesn't like.

Abhisit WAS charged with premeditated murder "as a civilian". The charges were dismissed because the court said that any charges should be dealt by the courts for political office holders.

like the ones who played a hand in the Murder of 90 Demonstrators in 2010 oh no they've been acquitted

Im puzzled at you attitude towards the Junta , do you have Thai kids here? would you like them growing up in a non democratic , Military run country with no freedom of speech and "Attitude adjustment" for those who don't tow the line ?

1) 90 demonstrators weren't killed. 10 or so soldiers and a couple of civilians were killed by protesters.

2) Abhisit and Suthep were acquitted of murder "as civilians". If you can tell me how they could be guilty of murder as civilians, that would be interesting. Of course, given this current decision, that should lead the way to them being charged for "abuse of power" in their official positions, which IIRC is already under way.

I guess if Yingluck can be impeached as PM while a civilian, then Abhisit can be found guilty as a civilian while PM. The illogic should work in both directions, or is there bias going on?

She isn't being charged AS a civilian. She is being charged for something she did AS PM by the courts that deal with cases against holders of political office.

Abhisit was charged with premeditated murder for orders he gave to the army to carry live ammunition AS a civilian IN civilian courts, not AS the PM.

Also, if you're suggesting that Yingluck shouldn't be charged because she is no longer PM, then you would also agree that Abhisit shouldn't be charged because he is no longer PM.

You do realize there is a difference between criminal charges and impeachment, do you?

You do understand there is a difference between giving orders to the army as PM and doing it as a civilian?

like the ones who played a hand in the Murder of 90 Demonstrators in 2010 oh no they've been acquitted

Im puzzled at you attitude towards the Junta , do you have Thai kids here? would you like them growing up in a non democratic , Military run country with no freedom of speech and "Attitude adjustment" for those who don't tow the line ?

1) 90 demonstrators weren't killed. 10 or so soldiers and a couple of civilians were killed by protesters.

2) Abhisit and Suthep were acquitted of murder "as civilians". If you can tell me how they could be guilty of murder as civilians, that would be interesting. Of course, given this current decision, that should lead the way to them being charged for "abuse of power" in their official positions, which IIRC is already under way.

I guess if Yingluck can be impeached as PM while a civilian, then Abhisit can be found guilty as a civilian while PM. The illogic should work in both directions, or is there bias going on?

She isn't being charged AS a civilian. She is being charged for something she did AS PM by the courts that deal with cases against holders of political office.

Abhisit was charged with premeditated murder for orders he gave to the army to carry live ammunition AS a civilian IN civilian courts, not AS the PM.

Also, if you're suggesting that Yingluck shouldn't be charged because she is no longer PM, then you would also agree that Abhisit shouldn't be charged because he is no longer PM.

How dare they try to take the airport back from the criminal yellows shirts who held thousands of foreign tourists hostage including children and infants. These mongrel caused great pain and anguish to many people from around the world. I had an appointment in Melbourne that I couldn't make and lost a few thousand dollars because of the lowlife yellows. Many tourists were extremely grateful that they were freed and able to get home after the government acted. The government were the good guys and the heros in the eyes of tourists and the yellows were seen as evil thugs.

These charges don't have anything to do with "taking back the airport". These charges are related to protests outside parliament well before the yellow shirts went to the airport.

like the ones who played a hand in the Murder of 90 Demonstrators in 2010 oh no they've been acquitted

Im puzzled at you attitude towards the Junta , do you have Thai kids here? would you like them growing up in a non democratic , Military run country with no freedom of speech and "Attitude adjustment" for those who don't tow the line ?

1) 90 demonstrators weren't killed. 10 or so soldiers and a couple of civilians were killed by protesters.

2) Abhisit and Suthep were acquitted of murder "as civilians". If you can tell me how they could be guilty of murder as civilians, that would be interesting. Of course, given this current decision, that should lead the way to them being charged for "abuse of power" in their official positions, which IIRC is already under way.

Maybe these "Lawmakers" should leave Law Making to the professionals.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Hmmm......political motivation remains unclear..........

Even me, with my small brain, can assure you Chief that the red activists are back to their old tricks.

Hope you get them and don't only put them for "attitude adjustment" but throw them in jail.

You come from the land of great philosophers - perhaps apply your small brain a little more to the question of who benefits from this? It very much is not the reds. There's a principle called Occam's Razor which says that the most obvious answer is usually the correct one - the obvious one is defined by who benefits.

There is a reason the army is having to publicly deny and deny involvement today - and few seem to be buying that denial.

The red shirts could gain from this bombing because extending martial law gives them more ammunition against the government.

Until the government say "look, there was the Paragon bombing" as an excuse to continue martial law, they're not getting anything out of it.

They've said "it's not political", so they can't now use it as excuse.

Then don't.

If you did please explain how the street protest didn't lead to Yingluck's caretaker status in the first place, or how Suthep didn't threaten the banks while there was still some debate over the loans or how the PDRC didn't sometimes just resort to outright violence to impede the sale of rice http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/protesters-stall-rice-auction

There was no debate over the loans. A care-taker government is NOT allowed to borrow money. The banks may have thought "but Yingluck will be in power again", but that doesn't make lending money to a care-taker government legal.

I'm appalled listening to various articles suggesting that the government planted the bombs.

They have no need of doing that.

They are in power, they can prolong martial law as long as they feel fit.

This is the doings of the red activists trying to unstabilize the government.

But we know about them and the scum they are.

They have be littering Thailand for many years now.

But how did these bombs succeed in unstabilising the government from a redshirt point of view..?

I'm not saying I'm buying into conspiracy theories that it was the junta behind this, but at least with that you can see some logical pattern- a small explosive placed in a major venue specifically designed not to harm anyone but attract maximum media exposure leading to a hoped increase support of government crackdowns on redshirts for safety...

But from the redshirt view..? What would they gain from these explosions except to increase the heat on themselves..? Like I'm saying, I'm not discounting it- but it seems like a strange step to take.

Extending martial law could also play into the red shirts hands. If the junta government was to withdraw martial law, and actually move towards early 2016 elections, what would the red shirts have to complain about?

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I wonder if the current incumbents will be furnishing their 'financials' for scrutiny?

11 millions only? Man, I would make better use of that 617 mils to make more money. When is the good junta going to declare their assets to the public?

They did last October.

It's kind of curious though, how AFP always mentions the rice pledging scheme as funneling money to Thaksin's base among NE farmers. But somehow, they conveniently seem to forget it was YL's government's failure to actually pay those farmers what they were owed that led to a lot of the protests at the time.

It was Thaksin's OTHER supporters and cronies -- not the common people farmers -- who didn't end up having to wait months to get their substantial serving from the gravy train.

While others will conveniently forget it was the street protests, disruption of elections and threats of legal backlash that meant Thai commercial bank withheld the loans.

It was the law that meant the Thai commercial banks withheld their loans. A care-taker government is not allowed to take on new debt. The banks are not allowed to give loans to care-taker governments.

But if the price had stayed as it was when she was elected it would have been self-funded.Capture.PNG

If that's the case, why did they even need the scheme?

Like the Thai oil fund, if you wait long enough, eventually the account will turn positive.

The oil fund loss billions just as recent as last year. Now, due to a sudden drop in oil price, it is billions positive.

The rice fund could be 700 billion negative, but a sudden increase in rice price could turn the situation, and Yingluck could gain billion instead of loss,

But "waitforusalso" is suggesting that price was already high enough for the scheme to be self funding. If it was already self funding, then they didn't actually need the scheme in the first place.

Given that the OP is taken word for word from the Bangkok Post (except for the "Source Phuket News/Spectrum"), are we allowed to link to the actual article?

But if the price had stayed as it was when she was elected it would have been self-funded.Capture.PNG

If that's the case, why did they even need the scheme?

Nope, I was serious. They misled the country. In fact, lied to the country. Suthep wanted the government to step fown so fresh elections could be held. Government stepped down and Suthep violently stopped the elections so there could be a coup. Prayuth told everybody he has ne desire to be PM. Then elected himself PM. Elections promised 2015. Now 2016. It'll never happen. In the meantime the tourist industry is down the toilet. Prayuth is putting his cronies in the top government positions and forbade freedom of speech. All of this has cost the country billions of baht. I could go on but you get my drift. They should be impeached too. But that will never happen as he will write laws into the consitution absolving himself and all of his mates from being charged should a democratic process every happen again in Thailand.

Suthep wanted the government to resign. They didn't resign.

Yes they did resign, They stepped down but stayed on as caretaker government until an election could be held - which is what they're obligated to do by law. Then Suthep prevented the election (probably because he knew they would win as they will in the next election but that's not the point). A government cannot just say bye-bye and walk away leaving the country with no government and empty offices, lol!!

If Yingluck had resigned, she would have no longer been PM. They didn't resign. They dissolved parliament for elections. That made Yingluck care-taker PM. If she had resigned, she wouldn't have been any sort of PM.

Suthep wanted the government to resign. They didn't resign.

didn't resign?

what do you call dissolving parliament and calling elections?

I call it dissolving parliament and calling elections. I don't call that resigning. If she had resigned, she wouldn't be PM, care-taker or otherwise.

Nope, I was serious. They misled the country. In fact, lied to the country. Suthep wanted the government to step fown so fresh elections could be held. Government stepped down and Suthep violently stopped the elections so there could be a coup. Prayuth told everybody he has ne desire to be PM. Then elected himself PM. Elections promised 2015. Now 2016. It'll never happen. In the meantime the tourist industry is down the toilet. Prayuth is putting his cronies in the top government positions and forbade freedom of speech. All of this has cost the country billions of baht. I could go on but you get my drift. They should be impeached too. But that will never happen as he will write laws into the consitution absolving himself and all of his mates from being charged should a democratic process every happen again in Thailand.

Suthep wanted the government to resign. They didn't resign.

The party she led had the most votes in the 2011 election. If that isn't qualification enough for you then you clearly are not democrats.

By the way, what are Prayuth's qualifications for the position of PM?

Getting the most votes doesn't mean you're qualified.

Assize of ex-politicians affects national reform

I don't think that the size of Yingluck's backside will affect national reform.