Pheu Thai slams PM’s ‘out of control’ powers after reshuffle

[webfact]

Pheu Thai slams PM’s ‘out of control’ powers after reshuffle

By The Nation

 

Anusorn Eiamsa-ard

 

Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha should have thought twice before using his absolute Article 44 powers to transfer the director-general of the Department of Employment, a Pheu Thai Party figure said on Thursday.

Anusorn Eiamsa-ard, the party’s acting deputy spokesperson, said the use of the power was “out of control” to the point that Labour Minister General Sirichai Distakul, whom had been appointed by Prayut himself, could not tolerate the decision and decided to lead his team’s resignations.

 

On Wednesday, Prayut used his sweeping powers to issue an order to move the department’s former director-general, Varanon Peetiwan, to the post of deputy permanent secretary of the Labour Ministry.

 

The order was followed by the sudden resignation of Sirichai and three others from the ministry.

 

Anusorn called on Sirichai to explain the reasons for his resignation, aside from speculation about the slow registration of migrant workers.

 

The new migrant law promulgated in June was partially suspended after turmoil in the labour market, related to articles that would punish employers who hired unregistered foreign workers with Bt400,000 to Bt800,000 fines per worker.

 

Employers have until the end of the year to register all of their workers before the law is fully enforced.

 

Anusorn said the new requirement could increase the capital burden for employers despite the decelerating economy. “The government can’t just blame this on civil servants, but should also take responsibility,” he added.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30330658

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-11-02

 

[seajae]

problem is they are all lazy and no one wants to lift a finger to do anything, I think its actually good to see the one in charge being held responsible for lack of effort of his department. Hopefully this is the start of holding the top dogs responsible when they do not follow through, would be great to actually make them do their jobs, whether it works or not will be interesting.

[smutcakes]

16 minutes ago, seajae said:

problem is they are all lazy and no one wants to lift a finger to do anything, I think its actually good to see the one in charge being held responsible for lack of effort of his department. Hopefully this is the start of holding the top dogs responsible when they do not follow through, would be great to actually make them do their jobs, whether it works or not will be interesting.

If you need section 44 to do it, then this is not an option for Civilian Governments, as they do not have those powers.

 

if they were bothered about holding top dogs responsible there is a certain interior minister who needs looking at. In addition for this case there is no actual reason given for the removal. One paper speculates that there were bribes being paid. Will there be an investigation?

[Eric Loh]

Power cliques are forming in the junta government. It's not performance but conformance. Article 44 abrupt sacking robbed that individual from the due diligence process. It's an embarrassment and a loss of face. Not good for the morale of that ministry. Resignation of the Labour minister and his team is indirect telling junta PM that he is wrong. He has loss control and allow some to influence him. It will only get worse. 

[Ossy]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

The order was followed by the sudden resignation of Sirichai and three others from the ministry.

Anusorn called on Sirichai to explain the reasons for his resignation, aside from speculation about the slow registration of migrant workers.

Like everything else in Thailand, since the Junta's invisible and ineffective administration and its cling-on disease swept through Govt. House, employment reform, like law & disorder, education and road-safety, is just so slow, so pitifully  . . . SLOW!

Edited November 2, 2017 by Ossy
punctuation

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, smutcakes said:

If you need section 44 to do it, then this is not an option for Civilian Governments, as they do not have those powers.

 

if they were bothered about holding top dogs responsible there is a certain interior minister who needs looking at. In addition for this case there is no actual reason given for the removal. One paper speculates that there were bribes being paid. Will there be an investigation?

 

I thought it was reported, and also on a TVF post, that he was sacked because he was held responsible as department director for the lack of progress on registering migrant workers from neighboring countries? 

 

As for civilian governments - well Thaksin hired and fired minions at will during his (and his puppets) years of power. How many cabinet re-shuffles were there during the PTP regime - 6 or 7? And every time Yingluck insisted they were the best ones for the job - knowledge, talent, and skill and carefully selected!

 

No difference between them. No matter whose in control. Your either in favor or out.

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Ossy said:

Like everything else in Thailand, since the Junta's invisible and ineffective administration and its cling-on disease swept through Govt. House, employment reform, like law & disorder, education and road-safety, is just so slow, so pitifully  . . . SLOW!

 

So please tell us, with referenced examples, just where and how it was better before?

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Power cliques are forming in the junta government. It's not performance but conformance. Article 44 abrupt sacking robbed that individual from the due diligence process. It's an embarrassment and a loss of face. Not good for the morale of that ministry. Resignation of the Labour minister and his team is indirect telling junta PM that he is wrong. He has loss control and allow some to influence him. It will only get worse. 

 

So you advocate not holding people responsible for failing to do their job?

[newcomer71]

3 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I thought it was reported, and also on a TVF post, that he was sacked because he was held responsible as department director for the lack of progress on registering migrant workers from neighboring countries? 

 

As for civilian governments - well Thaksin hired and fired minions at will during his (and his puppets) years of power. How many cabinet re-shuffles were there during the PTP regime - 6 or 7? And every time Yingluck insisted they were the best ones for the job - knowledge, talent, and skill and carefully selected!

 

No difference between them. No matter whose in control. Your either in favor or out.

Thaksin is the past excuse, time to find faults on the current clique, I guess...

[yellowboat]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

“The government can’t just blame this on civil servants, but should also take responsibility,”

Governing really is not something this government does well.  Forming discussion panels and making broad speeches lacking specifics is where they excel. 

[YetAnother]

3 hours ago, seajae said:

problem is they are all lazy and no one wants to lift a finger to do anything, I think its actually good to see the one in charge being held responsible for lack of effort of his department. Hopefully this is the start of holding the top dogs responsible when they do not follow through, would be great to actually make them do their jobs, whether it works or not will be interesting.

yes i agree, pity the top leadership here is not very strong; best of worst alternatives , prepare for another 6 or so years

[Ossy]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So please tell us, with referenced examples, just where and how it was better before?

Sorry B, I wasn't here, before. All I can say is that there is a feeling about the nation, NOW, that everything is SLOW and without the government response that it's crying out for.

[Ossy]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So please tell us, with referenced examples, just where and how it was better before?

Sorry B, I wasn't here, before. All I can say is that there is a feeling about the nation, at present, that everything is SLOW and without the government response that it's crying out for.

[baboon]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So you advocate not holding people responsible for failing to do their job?

It rather depends on who is doing the holding to responsibility, don't you think? And how they in turn can be removed...

[Jonah Tenner]

5 hours ago, newcomer71 said:

Thaksin is the past excuse, time to find faults on the current clique, I guess...

Some will use him as their excuse for the next 50 years...

[halloween]

9 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Power cliques are forming in the junta government. It's not performance but conformance. Article 44 abrupt sacking robbed that individual from the due diligence process. It's an embarrassment and a loss of face. Not good for the morale of that ministry. Resignation of the Labour minister and his team is indirect telling junta PM that he is wrong. He has loss control and allow some to influence him. It will only get worse. 

Which individual was sacked?

[jayboy]

5 hours ago, halloween said:

Which individual was sacked?

Personally I can't quite see what important principle is being invoked here.I accept I may be wrong.But if a PM decides to sack a minister where is the problem? A minister serves at the discretion of the PM.With a civil servant it's a bit different since there is a process to go through.But still ultimately a civil servant serves his minister and can be sacked for incompetence, idleness or many other reasons.If he feels procedures were not followed (frankly mostly about the legal compensation) he can seek remedy at law.In the private sector first class people are sacked or made redundant all the time.Why should the public sector be different.All these remarks apply to whichever government is in power.

[TKDfella]

I read this morning that it is rumored that the PM is thinking of replacing some military personnel with civilians. This apparently due to the resignation 'effectively immediately' mentioned above.  If that does happen that will an enormous blow to the apparent glow of confidence in military circles. Though of course the PM is military...but is he now trying to distance himself?

[Eric Loh]

6 hours ago, halloween said:

Which individual was sacked?

Using Article 44 is one big clue for immediate vacate of the DG Employment Department. Imagine going to the office and a note on your table to pick up all your personal stuffs and close the door. He was sacked. 

[hansnl]

17 hours ago, Ossy said:

Like everything else in Thailand, since the Junta's invisible and ineffective administration and its cling-on disease swept through Govt. House, employment reform, like law & disorder, education and road-safety, is just so slow, so pitifully  . . . SLOW!

Was it any better, or worse, in the government before?

I have the idea it was much slower then, or even nowhere to be seen.

[tanner89]

Pheu Thai 'slam the government', what's new, their snide sniping will continue until they have their fingers back in the till.

[Denim]

1 minute ago, tanner89 said:

Pheu Thai 'slam the government', what's new, their snide sniping will continue until they have their fingers back in the till.

 

By which time the till we have been completely emptied by the current incumbents.

[chama]

A crack in the facade? Perhaps incidents like this are driving the appearance (not sure how strong the real desire is) of a push by the PM to get elections done? 

[pornprong]

On 11/3/2017 at 9:49 AM, jayboy said:

Personally I can't quite see what important principle is being invoked here.I accept I may be wrong.But if a PM decides to sack a minister where is the problem? A minister serves at the discretion of the PM.With a civil servant it's a bit different since there is a process to go through.But still ultimately a civil servant serves his minister and can be sacked for incompetence, idleness or many other reasons.If he feels procedures were not followed (frankly mostly about the legal compensation) he can seek remedy at law.In the private sector first class people are sacked or made redundant all the time.Why should the public sector be different.All these remarks apply to whichever government is in power.

Why exactly did the Thai courts remove Yingluck from the Prime Ministership????????

 

Not for sacking a civil servant, but for transferring one.

 

Begs the question, if Yingluck was removed from office for transferring someone, what should happen to Prayuth for unilaterally sacking someone?

 

(Could the important principle have something to do with the double standards of the Thai courts?)