Pheu Thai case not yet before NACC, says president

[webfact]

Pheu Thai case not yet before NACC, says president

By The Nation

 

National Anti Corruption Commission (NACC) president Pol General Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit said he has not yet received a case concerning 40 former Pheu Thai MPs from the NACC’s subpanel.
 

The ex-MPs are seeking clarification over whether the NACC will pursue them for abuse of authority for proposing an amnesty bill in 2013.

 

One of the ex-MPs, Worachai Hema, took the issue to the media, saying the NACC was considering whether the MPs would be charged.

 

However, the NACC president dismissed this, saying the issue had not moved as quickly as reported. The matter is with its subpanel, which is still investigating the case, he said.

 

Watcharapol also dismissed speculation that the NACC’s resolution on the case would “wipe out” Pheu Thai’s MPs, saying its investigation would follow procedures and would be accountable enough for any examination.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30336284

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-01-15

[Chang_paarp]

Democracy Thai style with selection/exclusion of future MPs under way.

 

Must be an election due soon.

[Eric Loh]

This is way above the jurisdiction of the NACC to question the separation of powers. There seem unlimited concentration of power in the NACC and their misguided checks and balances. 

[robblok]

If its corruption and if they benefited from the amnesty bill then sure they should be charged. Benefits could be money from Mr T to let this sail through the votes. Having crimes connected to them or their friends forgiven. 

 

Sure governments are free to make new laws but if they benefit those in goverment there is at least a conflict of interest and if they benefit a lot it can be called corruption.

 

Interesting times lets see where this leads. Had they just left out Thaksin in the amnesty there would be a lot less conflict of interest and cause to suspect corruption. But they did not.. and people went to the streets to protest and the government fell.

 

Not their best decision.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

This is way above the jurisdiction of the NACC to question the separation of powers. There seem unlimited concentration of power in the NACC and their misguided checks and balances. 

If you make a law that benefits yourself or others close to you and or get paid to make a certain law its corruption. Has nothing to do with separation of powers.

 

 

[Eric Loh]

14 minutes ago, robblok said:

If you make a law that benefits yourself or others close to you and or get paid to make a certain law its corruption. Has nothing to do with separation of powers.

 

 

Go read the separation of power. NACC is going outside the confines of their responsibility to try prevent MPs taking part in next election to have a better chance for the military parties. As if that is not clear. 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

Go read the separation of power. NACC is going outside the confines of their responsibility to try prevent MPs taking part in next election to have a better chance for the military parties. As if that is not clear. 

I read in the BKK post about this the PTP their point is we were government we could make all the laws we want its not up to the NACC. My point is that if the laws you make benefit yourself or people close to you then it can be classified as corruption. Now then its a case of the NACC. All the NACC has to do is prove they benefited from the amnesty (maybe got money from T for it and boom its corruption).

 

Not so strange would be the same in any country.. you can't vote on laws that benefit yourself you need to excuse yourself them from voting on them. 

[Samui Bodoh]

30 minutes ago, robblok said:

I read in the BKK post about this the PTP their point is we were government we could make all the laws we want its not up to the NACC. My point is that if the laws you make benefit yourself or people close to you then it can be classified as corruption. Now then its a case of the NACC. All the NACC has to do is prove they benefited from the amnesty (maybe got money from T for it and boom its corruption).

 

Not so strange would be the same in any country.. you can't vote on laws that benefit yourself you need to excuse yourself them from voting on them. 

 

This is the stupidest post I have ever seen on TV.

 

Every single time a government cut taxes is corruption by this definition. 

 

[robblok]

Just now, Samui Bodoh said:

 

This is the stupidest post I have ever seen on TV.

 

Every single time a government cut taxes is corruption by this definition. 

 

That is a funny one even you should know better.

There is a lot of law about this.. i guess your ignorant about it.

 

A general tax cut is something different then receiving money to vote for something or to have other direct benefits to your self or friends. Your not stupid you can work it it out. 

 

Just google it and read about it i seen it happen in my country where people don't vote because of conflicts of interests otherwise it could be seen as corruption and is for sure ethically not right. Getting paid by dear leader and voting for his amnesty is a conflict of interest for sure. 

 

At some point he was not going to be included and then this problem would not be there  but he mysteriously got included again. 

 

 

[smutcakes]

12 minutes ago, robblok said:

That is a funny one even you should know better.

There is a lot of law about this.. i guess your ignorant about it.

 

A general tax cut is something different then receiving money to vote for something or to have other direct benefits to your self or friends. Your not stupid you can work it it out. 

 

Just google it and read about it i seen it happen in my country where people don't vote because of conflicts of interests otherwise it could be seen as corruption and is for sure ethically not right. Getting paid by dear leader and voting for his amnesty is a conflict of interest for sure. 

 

At some point he was not going to be included and then this problem would not be there  but he mysteriously got included again. 

 

 

Would the head of the NACC investigating a crime committed by his old boss and the one of those who selected him in the position represent a conflict of interest? Should anyone trust anything the NACC do, say or investigate given they seemingly believe the above is okay?

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Would the head of the NACC investigating a crime committed by his old boss and the one of those who selected him in the position represent a conflict of interest? Should anyone trust anything the NACC do, say or investigate given they seemingly believe the above is okay?

No that is not ok is ethically wrong.. 

 

Do two wrongs make a right ?

 

You have seen my posts about the whole watch scandal ? 

Edited January 15, 2018 by robblok

[Eric Loh]

35 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

This is the stupidest post I have ever seen on TV.

 

Every single time a government cut taxes is corruption by this definition. 

 

or when a government approved the budget, it too can be interpreted as corruption. It is no end if the NACC interpret in a way to disadvantage their political enemies. No point explaining to Rob the process of a bill passing into law. 

[robblok]

22 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

or when a government approved the budget, it too can be interpreted as corruption. It is no end if the NACC interpret in a way to disadvantage their political enemies. No point explaining to Rob the process of a bill passing into law. 

http://www.927rock.ca/2017/12/06/councillor-faces-allegations-conflict-interest-arenaevent-centre-vote/

 

I guess it never happend somewhere else.. come on you can found countless of cases of conflict of interest and corruption in voting.

 

I can find countless of these things.. must not be too hard for you and Samui Bodoh to read up on. Just google conflicts of interests and voting.

 

Then ask yourself if getting paid by the person your giving an amnesty is a conflict of interest / corruption. 

 

 

http://www.parliament.scot/abouttheparliament/31082.aspx

 

 

Edited January 15, 2018 by robblok

[Eric Loh]

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

http://www.927rock.ca/2017/12/06/councillor-faces-allegations-conflict-interest-arenaevent-centre-vote/

 

I guess it never happend somewhere else.. come on you can found countless of cases of conflict of interest and corruption in voting.

 

I can find countless of these things.. must not be too hard for you and Samui Bodoh to read up on. Just google conflicts of interests and voting.

 

Then ask yourself if getting paid by the person your giving an amnesty is a conflict of interest / corruption. 

 

 

http://www.parliament.scot/abouttheparliament/31082.aspx

 

 

Rob, I tell you what is conflict of interest. Like the NLA passed a bill to extend all 9 NACC officials for another 9 years although it was unconstitutional and 2 of the officials don't qualified. 

 

As for the continous rambling of getting paid, you have the evidence or just shooting off some internal frustration about PTP. 

[robblok]

32 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Rob, I tell you what is conflict of interest. Like the NLA passed a bill to extend all 9 NACC officials for another 9 years although it was unconstitutional and 2 of the officials don't qualified. 

 

As for the continous rambling of getting paid, you have the evidence or just shooting off some internal frustration about PTP. 

You act like two wrongs make a right you constantly try to excuse one thing with an other.  That a conflict of interests happens somewhere does not mean it does not have to be punished. 

 

There was a big conflict of interest here and maybe even corruption depending if they can prove the payments. The payments have been common knowledge I am sure it can be proven. 

 

I think there is a conflict of interest too about the watches i made my opinion there quite clear. You on the other hand NEVER ever go against the Shins no matter how wrong they are. I guess that says enough. 

Edited January 15, 2018 by robblok

[smutcakes]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

No that is not ok is ethically wrong.. 

 

Do two wrongs make a right ?

 

You have seen my posts about the whole watch scandal ? 

So you trust an agency that seemingly cannot even understand or do the right thing in an ethical situation a 10 year old would understand to investigate complex corruption cases? And that is without taking into consideration the massive vested interests and conflicts of interest.

[robblok]

46 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

So you trust an agency that seemingly cannot even understand or do the right thing in an ethical situation a 10 year old would understand to investigate complex corruption cases? And that is without taking into consideration the massive vested interests and conflicts of interest.

For me its clear as day that the vote was to get dear leader back because he mysteriously got added after almost everyone agreed a normal amnesty for the lower people would be acceptable. So its clear as day they acted unethical even corrupt.. its not really that hard to prove. They only need to show the connection and how money flowed from big T to his minions and done. 

 

As for the NACC having vested interest that shows in the watch scandal. It shows that the NACC is far from perfect but its all we got and this 10 year old event was one of the catalysts to bring down the YL goverment. So its quite a big thing with many people not agreeing with those actions. So its a good thing they look into it.

 

Believe me I would prefer a non bias anti corruption agency.. but that its bias does not mean it cannot investigate cases of suspected corruption because others don't get punished. If that is what you wall there is no law at all just anarchy. Give me a semblance of law over non law at all. I prefer non bias law but that wont happen in Thailand for a long time. 

 

Once in power they all try to get their people on the right places and influence things. Thaksin did it YL did it the Democrats did it the junta has done it and is doing it. Its how the game is played here. It was wrong when Thaksin did it its wrong now buts its all we have. Thaksin got away with countless things because he had the right people at places.. only when they were gone did the criminal cases begin. Who knows the junta might get in trouble later too.  

[scorecard]

4 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Go read the separation of power. NACC is going outside the confines of their responsibility to try prevent MPs taking part in next election to have a better chance for the military parties. As if that is not clear. 

 

Good news...

[candide]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

I read in the BKK post about this the PTP their point is we were government we could make all the laws we want its not up to the NACC. My point is that if the laws you make benefit yourself or people close to you then it can be classified as corruption. Now then its a case of the NACC. All the NACC has to do is prove they benefited from the amnesty (maybe got money from T for it and boom its corruption).

 

Not so strange would be the same in any country.. you can't vote on laws that benefit yourself you need to excuse yourself them from voting on them. 

?

In the BP article, nowhere is corruption cited. It is never alledged that they are suspected of having been paid or received another benefit. They are investigated for abuse of authority in proposing a law. As I understand they are accused of proposing a law they had apparently no right to propose (which goes beyond my understanding as I have never seen that type of accusation before).

[robblok]

13 minutes ago, candide said:

?

In the BP article, nowhere is corruption cited. It is never alledged that they are suspected of having been paid or received another benefit. They are investigated for abuse of authority in proposing a law. As I understand they are accused of proposing a law they had apparently no right to propose (which goes beyond my understanding as I have never seen that type of accusation before).

What do you think abuse of power means.. and what do you think the Nacc investigates .. corruption.

 

The payments is my take on it how the Nacc could possibly go. If they can link the payments of dear leader to this amnesty its more then just abuse of power its corruption. Just think a bit out of the box candide. 

 

Everyone knows this was a conflict of interest with dear leader his amnesty.. ad money and its corruption. 

 

There is a reason all the Thais took to the streets to dispose of YL after the amnesty story. That is not because it was a clear thing granting Thaksin amnesty.. more that it stunk.

Edited January 15, 2018 by robblok

[candide]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

What do you think abuse of power means.. and what do you think the Nacc investigates .. corruption.

 

The payments is my take on it how the Nacc could possibly go. If they can link the payments of dear leader to this amnesty its more then just abuse of power its corruption. Just think a bit out of the box candide. 

 

Everyone knows this was a conflict of interest with dear leader his amnesty.. ad money and its corruption. 

 

There is a reason all the Thais took to the streets to dispose of YL after the amnesty story. That is not because it was a clear thing granting Thaksin amnesty.. more that it stunk.

I don't think the NACC is only concerned by corruption case in the current context. For example it has been judged that only the NACC was allowed to investigate the Abisith/Suthep case which has nothing to do with corruption. The scope of the NACC is whatever its masters want it to be.

As the Amnesty Bill concerning also Thaksin, it's obvious. Does it make it a crime to propose such a law? The law was non-discriminatory for all parties involved and I don't remember it has been found as unconstitutional.

Some Thais (not all) protested against it, it was their right to do so. But it does not make it a crime either.

Edited January 15, 2018 by candide

[robblok]

10 hours ago, candide said:

I don't think the NACC is only concerned by corruption case in the current context. For example it has been judged that only the NACC was allowed to investigate the Abisith/Suthep case which has nothing to do with corruption. The scope of the NACC is whatever its masters want it to be.

As the Amnesty Bill concerning also Thaksin, it's obvious. Does it make it a crime to propose such a law? The law was non-discriminatory for all parties involved and I don't remember it has been found as unconstitutional.

Some Thais (not all) protested against it, it was their right to do so. But it does not make it a crime either.

The main reason for the bill was to include Thaksin.. everyone (almost) agreed a amnesty for the lower echelons was a good idea. When they added Thaksin it was certainly unethical and a conflict of interest. That is something that can be investigated, in other countries it would have breached the laws of conflict of interest too. Especially in how the name mysteriously appeared. So only have to prove Thaksin funded these guys and its corruption. Easy steps. 

 

As for the NACC its a bad organisation but its all we got and it does not make this case any less a (possible) crime then it is. I hope they all get punished for this huge conflict of interest (proven if you read laws of other countries you will see its a conflict of interest).. and maybe corruption (if they can find the proof they need.. i really hope so). 

 

Not some Thais.. a huge amount of Thais enough to bring down the government even among the reds there were many not agreeing with his name on the list. And by his selfishness torpedoed the amnesty for the lower echelons and made the way clear for the junta to take over the country.