Charter court accused of overlooking questioned raised by Pheu Thai in Prayut’s Army residence case

By THE NATION

 

Prasert Jantararuangtong

 

Prasert Jantararuangtong, secretary-general of opposition Pheu Thai Party, told the press on Wednesday that his party has done its best by suing the premier for continuing to live in an Army residence after retiring as Army chief in September 2014.

 

The Constitutional Court, however, ruled unanimously on Wednesday that Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has not violated the charter by staying on in his Army residence and can remain in office.

 

Prayut was accused of violating Articles 184 and 186 of the Constitution that forbid a minister from “receiving any special money or benefit from a government agency, state agency or state enterprise apart from that given by the government agency, state agency or state enterprise to other persons in the ordinary course of business”.

 

In his court testimony, Prayut argued that his security team had advised him to continue living in the Army residence for his safety. Hence, he said, the lawsuit should be dismissed.

 

Moreover, the court was told that as a former Army chief, Prayut deserves the honour and security the residence provides.

 

The residence is within the First Infantry Battalion of Royal Guards compound on Vibhavadi Rangsit Road.

 

Prasert said the court’s verdict was not in line with the facts his party had put forward, especially the question why this prime minister requires extra security when former premiers had lived in their official residence without requiring any special protection.

 

He said he was also concerned about verdicts in similar cases in the future, adding that Pheu Thai will also look into the so-called Army reforms claimed to have been put in place by former commander in chief General Apirat Kongsompong.

 

In the evening, Prasert was invited to join a talk show on Thairath TV anchored by Jomquan Lopetch to discuss the verdict, as well as the PM conflict of interest.

 

In the show, the secretary-general pointed out that Prayut would have been found guilty if the court focused on the Constitution instead of Army regulations.

 

He said Prayut currently holds a political post rather than one in the military, which means he should come under the purview of the Constitution, not Army regulations.

 

However, Paiboon Nititawan from the ruling Palang Pracharath Party, who presented the other side in the show, insisted that Prayut had every right to stay on in the Army residence because he was once a soldier.

 

Thai social media, meanwhile, was full of comments slamming the verdict and Thailand’s judiciary for finding Prayut “not guilty” even though he had blatantly violated the country’s supreme law.

 

Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30399024

 

-- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2020-12-03

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

14 minutes ago, webfact said:

However, Paiboon Nititawan from the ruling Palang Pracharath Party, who presented the other side in the show, insisted that Prayut had every right to stay on in the Army residence because he was once a soldier.

 

Sums up the political situation Thailand in 2020 very well.

18 minutes ago, webfact said:

However, Paiboon Nititawan from the ruling Palang Pracharath Party, who presented the other side in the show, insisted that Prayut had every right to stay on in the Army residence because he was once a soldier.

 

A soldier who illegally overthrew  an elected government (treason) to get into power, and he gets the right to stay in an army residence ! 

Edited December 3, 20205 yr by Thaiwrath

19 minutes ago, Thaiwrath said:

 

A soldier who illegally overthrew  an elected government (treason) to get into power, and he gets the right to stay in an army residence ! 

He was the head of the army. What's bizarre about that?

Treason is also judged by the current laws and constitution. You know, that thing that majority voted in favour of, whether they knew what's in it or (more likely) couldn't be more ignorant about it.

Returning to the 1997 constitution that Phuea Thai wishes for would require majority of voters to favour it in a new referendum. Only if that succeeds and constitution changes, they could charge Prayuth with treason.

Right now, the protesters are in situation where they could be in significant trouble with the law, given the current constitution. At about the same scale as what you're pushing for Prayuth to be charged with.

Quote

Prayut was accused of violating Articles 184 and 186 of the Constitution that forbid a minister from “receiving any special money or benefit from a government agency, state agency or state enterprise apart from that given by the government agency, state agency or state enterprise to other persons in the ordinary course of business”.

 

So do Army Regulation supersede the Constitution?

  It is just farcical that he is allowed to stay in an army residence, when he is no longer in the army. Yet again Thailand and Thai laws are made to look ridiculous, it is supposed to have a constitution, but is being overlooked just to get Prayut off, sad, sad day for Thailand, but hey he and his bunch dont care about the constitution, or the people of this country, just duck and dive, and twist things to suit their own ends.

41 minutes ago, webfact said:

Prayut had every right to stay on in the Army residence because he was once a soldier.

Oh, really, Mr. Paiboon? So... does that right also extend to the rest of Thailand's armed forces members? Should they ALL be entitled to continue occupying military housing after they retire from the armed forces -- because they "were once soldiers"?

 

And how about that whole army of government bureaucrats? Can they also continue staying in government-owned housing after their retirement -- and entirely for free? Because that is EXACTLY what you are implying with your strange reasoning, Mr. Paiboon.

12 minutes ago, Misterwhisper said:

Oh, really, Mr. Paiboon? So... does that right also extend to the rest of Thailand's armed forces members? Should they ALL be entitled to continue occupying military housing after they retire from the armed forces -- because they "were once soldiers"?

 

And how about that whole army of government bureaucrats? Can they also continue staying in government-owned housing after their retirement -- and entirely for free? Because that is EXACTLY what you are implying with your strange reasoning, Mr. Paiboon.

 

I have a feeling this 'special' rule only applies to the 'good people'.

 

 

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Thai social media, meanwhile, was full of comments slamming the verdict and Thailand’s judiciary for finding Prayut “not guilty” even though he had blatantly violated the country’s supreme law.

The supreme law is not for a supreme person.  It is for those less supreme.  A multi tier legal system must be on the check list of those under 30 years old. 

1 hour ago, webfact said:

In the show, the secretary-general pointed out that Prayut would have been found guilty if the court focused on the Constitution instead of Army regulations.

The Constitutional Court does not concern itself with matters related to the constitution. That became clear when said court decided not to rule on premier Prayuth and his ministers not making the oath of loyalty to uphold the constitution as dictated by the constitution.  So of course the court had to put army rules and regulations as the most important factor on this case. 

This is going to get more interesting 

 

Question I was a soldier can I get military housing?

I am willing to teach English to the kids in the community.

21 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

This is going to get more interesting 

 

Question I was a soldier can I get military housing?

I am willing to teach English to the kids in the community.

Army regulations state that ex militairy personnel must vacate their army housing within 180 days.  However personnel who has served the army and nation exceptionally well are exempt and can stay as long as they wish as a reward.  Prayuth can do no wrong, he is a true blessing for the country and thus everything is perfectly okay... 

What an interesting spin on things.

 

I "once was a pub patron". Does that mean I now have the right to move in and live there? 

If my understanding is correct, the CC ruled that because something was permitted by Army Regulations, despite it being against the Constitution, it was in fact legal- so the Army regulations take precedent over the Constitution.

 

Rhetorically could the Army then just make any old regulations, like they can skim 50% off every budget, or they dont need to abide by the Constitution and they would in fact be permitted to do so?

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Prasert Jantararuangtong, secretary-general of opposition Pheu Thai Party, told the press on Wednesday that his party has done its best by suing the premier for continuing to live in an Army residence after retiring as Army chief in September 2014.

Government/military/constitution Prayut rules them all.

Disappointed, but saved 10 baht....

He probably needs extra protection because he is hated by many

So will Thailand now see a situation were all military residencies will be inhabited by ex-soldiers who will never move out once retired?

That being the case, the army will have to build a lot more new homes or they have nowhere to house currently serving soldiers - I guess the precedence has been set.????

No surprise here,.... Next... 

14 hours ago, webfact said:

In his court testimony, Prayut argued that his security team had advised him to continue living in the Army residence for his safety. Hence, he said, the lawsuit should be dismissed.

Cant  be  true as he's loved by the entire  nation of  gullibles  , surely ......surely?

5 hours ago, DaveCW said:

build a lot more new homes

I  once  saw a home of an enlisted  man's  army  accommodation, it was  pretty damn grim

They probably won't overlook how unusually wealthy they have become ????

 

 

 

 

17 hours ago, webfact said:

 

In the show, the secretary-general pointed out that Prayut would have been found guilty if the court focused on the Constitution instead of Army regulations

Exactly. The CC previously decided not to rule on Prayut’s oath omission because they said it didn’t come under their jurisdiction. Now they’re passing the buck again by having their rules superseded by the army’s. 
 

The laws and the constitution don’t apply to the junta. This isn’t a democracy in any sense of the word. The 1% in power here are absolutely repugnant and shameless. It’s now becoming more and more obvious that the protestors are in the right and doing their civic duty. 

With this bunch of corrupt Muppets the consitituion is just a ream of words with no meaning and everything Army is the last word, as you would expect in a dictatorship.

Unless of course the constitution fits their purpose.

18 hours ago, DirtyHarry55 said:

 

So do Army Regulation supersede the Constitution?

Currently the Army regs. supersede all and everything at the whim of napolean and his cohorts - get used to it as it's here to stay for the immediate future. 

 

"Don't you know who I am?" 

Edited December 4, 20205 yr by Artisi