Today, a significant political development unfolded as a group of 40 acting senators petitioned the Constitutional Court to consider impeaching Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin.

 

The senators argue that Srettha has committed a severe ethical breach by appointing Pichit Chuenban as a minister attached to the Prime Minister's Office.

 

The petition centres on Pichit Chuenban, a controversial figure with a tainted past. In 2008, Pichit, who had served as a lawyer for the then-deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, was caught attempting to deliver a two-million-baht bribe hidden in food bags to Supreme Court officials. This led to his conviction and a six-month jail sentence.

 

Furthermore, the Lawyers Council subsequently revoked his licence, tarnishing his professional reputation.

 

The acting senators, who lodged the petition, believe that Srettha's decision to appoint Pichit as a minister is not only ethically questionable but also indicative of deeper issues within the administration. They argue that Srettha's actions undermine the integrity of the government and reflect poorly on his leadership.

 

 

The senators are particularly concerned about the alleged influence of Thaksin Shinawatra, the convicted former Prime Minister, and his sister Yingluck Shinawatra, herself a deposed Prime Minister, on Srettha's decisions. 

 

The appointment of Pichit is seen by the senators as a move orchestrated by the Shinawatra siblings, raising questions about the independence and ethical standards of the current administration. They assert that Srettha, despite being the public face of the government, may be acting under the undue influence of these powerful political figures.

 

The petition has sent ripples through the political landscape, sparking debates about the ethical standards expected of government officials and the broader implications of such appointments. Critics of the government argue that this move highlights systemic issues within the political structure and calls into question the legitimacy of Srettha’s leadership.

 

Proponents of the impeachment argue that allowing Pichit to serve in the government sets a dangerous precedent, potentially normalising unethical behaviour at the highest levels of power. They believe that the Constitutional Court's intervention is necessary to uphold the principles of justice and integrity in governance.

 

On the other hand, supporters of Prime Minister Srettha and his administration contend that the petition is politically motivated. They argue that the senators are leveraging historical grudges and controversies to destabilise a government that was fairly elected.

 

These supporters maintain that the Prime Minister's actions, while controversial, do not warrant impeachment and that due process should be followed.

 

As the Constitutional Court reviews the petition, the political climate remains tense. The court's decision could have far-reaching implications, not only for Prime Minister Srettha’s career but also for the broader political dynamics in the country. 

 

This unfolding situation is a reminder of the complex interplay between ethics, legality, and politics. It remains to be seen how the Constitutional Court will respond to the petition and what this means for the future of Srettha’s administration.

 

Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin. Picture courtesy: Wikipedia

 

-- 2024-05-18

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Has not the precedent already been set with the appointment of a jailed heroin smuggling criminal in the Coalition Government.As far as I am aware the military appointed Senate was perfectly happy about that.From the Sydney Morning Herald:

 

"Thammanat Prompao, a key ally of top generals and an enforcer in the coalition cabinet, was a young soldier known as Manat Bophlom when he pleaded guilty in the NSW District Court to conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of heroin with a street value of up to $4.1 million."

8 minutes ago, jayboy said:

Has not the precedent already been set with the appointment of a jailed heroin smuggling criminal in the Coalition Government.As far as I am aware the military appointed Senate was perfectly happy about that.From the Sydney Morning Herald:

 

"Thammanat Prompao, a key ally of top generals and an enforcer in the coalition cabinet, was a young soldier known as Manat Bophlom when he pleaded guilty in the NSW District Court to conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of heroin with a street value of up to $4.1 million."

Please don't remind them about that as it's nearly been forgotten 😉

2 hours ago, webfact said:

 

Today, a significant political development unfolded as a group of 40 acting senators petitioned the Constitutional Court to consider impeaching Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin.

 

The senators argue that Srettha has committed a severe ethical breach by appointing Pichit Chuenban as a minister attached to the Prime Minister's Office.

 

The petition centres on Pichit Chuenban, a controversial figure with a tainted past. In 2008, Pichit, who had served as a lawyer for the then-deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, was caught attempting to deliver a two-million-baht bribe hidden in food bags to Supreme Court officials. This led to his conviction and a six-month jail sentence.

 

Furthermore, the Lawyers Council subsequently revoked his licence, tarnishing his professional reputation.

 

The acting senators, who lodged the petition, believe that Srettha's decision to appoint Pichit as a minister is not only ethically questionable but also indicative of deeper issues within the administration. They argue that Srettha's actions undermine the integrity of the government and reflect poorly on his leadership.

 

 

The senators are particularly concerned about the alleged influence of Thaksin Shinawatra, the convicted former Prime Minister, and his sister Yingluck Shinawatra, herself a deposed Prime Minister, on Srettha's decisions. 

 

The appointment of Pichit is seen by the senators as a move orchestrated by the Shinawatra siblings, raising questions about the independence and ethical standards of the current administration. They assert that Srettha, despite being the public face of the government, may be acting under the undue influence of these powerful political figures.

 

The petition has sent ripples through the political landscape, sparking debates about the ethical standards expected of government officials and the broader implications of such appointments. Critics of the government argue that this move highlights systemic issues within the political structure and calls into question the legitimacy of Srettha’s leadership.

 

Proponents of the impeachment argue that allowing Pichit to serve in the government sets a dangerous precedent, potentially normalising unethical behaviour at the highest levels of power. They believe that the Constitutional Court's intervention is necessary to uphold the principles of justice and integrity in governance.

 

On the other hand, supporters of Prime Minister Srettha and his administration contend that the petition is politically motivated. They argue that the senators are leveraging historical grudges and controversies to destabilise a government that was fairly elected.

 

These supporters maintain that the Prime Minister's actions, while controversial, do not warrant impeachment and that due process should be followed.

 

As the Constitutional Court reviews the petition, the political climate remains tense. The court's decision could have far-reaching implications, not only for Prime Minister Srettha’s career but also for the broader political dynamics in the country. 

 

This unfolding situation is a reminder of the complex interplay between ethics, legality, and politics. It remains to be seen how the Constitutional Court will respond to the petition and what this means for the future of Srettha’s administration.

 

Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin. Picture courtesy: Wikipedia

 

-- 2024-05-18

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The court said it did not recognise Mr Thammanat's conviction because the verdict was delivered in Australia, a foreign country.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57001674

He never seems to be in the country. Likes taking trips constantly to Europe and doesn't seem to do much for the country or people here .

How did he get the job again ? 🙄🙈

2 hours ago, webfact said:

potentially normalising unethical behaviour at the highest levels of power.

Silly me, I thought that was par for the course here.

2 hours ago, webfact said:

to destabilise a government that was fairly elected.

Now, that is funny, I thought the M.E.P. won the election?

Everyone knows that since Teflon came back He has been running the Government from a chair at the back.

2 hours ago, webfact said:

to destabilise a government that was fairly elected.

Now there's a joke you can laugh at. This government was literally NOT fairly elected. Move Forward were the party fairly elected and denied by unfairly unelected Senators.

 

As for the PM - he's a joke, pushing forward the 10k digital wallet idea is a terrible plan which will just cause inflation while simultaneously increasing taxes. Robin hood maneuvers never helped a country. Good riddance if they do mange to get rid of him.

Really slick that the Thai government not allowing the guy to be PM that won the vote. It seems they put anyone in they want. Not sure why they allowed people to vote. I have my own reasons not to care for this PM.

2 hours ago, webfact said:

They argue that Srettha's actions undermine the integrity of the government and reflect poorly on his leadership.

As opposed to military coups by the "Good People" who reject the sovereignty of the Thai citizens, undermine elected governments and appoint unelected pro-coup senators. 

Thy name is Hypocrisy. 

That’ll wipe that silly smirk off his boat. Having said that, he’s only the puppet. The whole shebang needs to go. 

This is clearly a joke because it would be almost impossible to find anyone in that building who hasn't received a bung as that activity is endemic in those circles.

 

Those bringing the motion are indeed actors due to them never having received a vote and are appointees, courtesy of the corrupt previous administration.

3 hours ago, webfact said:

The petition centres on Pichit Chuenban, a controversial figure with a tainted past. In 2008, Pichit, who had served as a lawyer for the then-deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, was caught attempting to deliver a two-million-baht bribe hidden in food bags to Supreme Court officials. This led to his conviction and a six-month jail sentence.

Ooooop's

3 hours ago, webfact said:

They argue that Srettha's actions undermine the integrity of the government and reflect poorly on his leadership.

Two words that are troubling...

3 hours ago, webfact said:

This unfolding situation is a reminder of the complex interplay between ethics, legality, and politics.

It's actually not complex at all: there are no ethics, the law is subverted and politics are self-serving. It's just the grandstanding of two different groups wanting their particular brand of corruption to succeed.

Well, there you go. Fark around and find out. I love the smell of tank fumes in the morning.

none of us should be commenting.

its not our country

personally I dont care, Im not interessted

if it does not affect my life here, I dont care.

if it does affect my life here.............and i dont like it or agree with it......i will quietly leave.

Is it time to buy a lettuce 🤔

Here's an idea,, Why Not put Mr Peta into the job that the Thai people voted him to do instead of of pushing Taksins flunky onto everybody, this guy is a joke he allowed weed to be legalised and now Taksin is back he wants it criminal again such a joke. 

1 hour ago, ronster said:

He never seems to be in the country. Likes taking trips constantly to Europe and doesn't seem to do much for the country or people here .

How did he get the job again ? 🙄🙈

Maybe he is sent out of the country to allow the clan to do their wheeler dealing without any interruptions.

1 hour ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

Robin hood maneuvers never helped a country

It's how Thailand runs... local lingo it's termed "Zig-Zag"

They argue that Srettha's actions undermine the integrity of the government ….

 

I didn’t think it had an awful lot anyway.

Letting a convicted criminal who was Jared for his crimes into the government is unethical and wrong.One may expect more brown paper bag offerings in the future from a tarnished fool.

12 hours ago, nickmondo said:

none of us should be commenting.

its not our country

personally I dont care, Im not interessted

if it does not affect my life here, I dont care.

if it does affect my life here.............and i dont like it or agree with it......i will quietly leave.

I understand that Thai's must determine their own path; however, it seems to be entitled to say you don't care about the Thai people.  I won't be protesting on the streets, but I will use my voice to object to blatant corruption and injustice; it is not wrong to have empathy and sympathy.

har har, he (thaksin) overestimated the length of his Golden Leash, dummy.

Edited May 18, 20242 yr by fondue zoo

5 hours ago, webfact said:

ethics, legality, and politics

As ever democracy is not even in the frame.

 

I am alone in finding it hilarious that members of a Senate, appointed by a Military Junta, and which is currently engaged in replacing itself in an act of blatant cronyism, are bringing an impeachment case for ethical reasons!

 

😂

Just a reminder for those who get a bit carried away ... It's not strictly true that 'MFP won the election'. They won the most votes but far from a majority.

 

So it didn't take much for the fascists & reactionaries to form a temporary alliance with PT to squeeze them out of government. And here we are.

5 hours ago, webfact said:

 

Today, a significant political development unfolded as a group of 40 acting senators petitioned the Constitutional Court to consider impeaching Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin.

 

The senators argue that Srettha has committed a severe ethical breach by appointing Pichit Chuenban as a minister attached to the Prime Minister's Office.

 

The petition centres on Pichit Chuenban, a controversial figure with a tainted past. In 2008, Pichit, who had served as a lawyer for the then-deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, was caught attempting to deliver a two-million-baht bribe hidden in food bags to Supreme Court officials. This led to his conviction and a six-month jail sentence.

 

Furthermore, the Lawyers Council subsequently revoked his licence, tarnishing his professional reputation.

 

The acting senators, who lodged the petition, believe that Srettha's decision to appoint Pichit as a minister is not only ethically questionable but also indicative of deeper issues within the administration. They argue that Srettha's actions undermine the integrity of the government and reflect poorly on his leadership.

 

 

 

The senators are particularly concerned about the alleged influence of Thaksin Shinawatra, the convicted former Prime Minister, and his sister Yingluck Shinawatra, herself a deposed Prime Minister, on Srettha's decisions. 

 

The appointment of Pichit is seen by the senators as a move orchestrated by the Shinawatra siblings, raising questions about the independence and ethical standards of the current administration. They assert that Srettha, despite being the public face of the government, may be acting under the undue influence of these powerful political figures.

 

The petition has sent ripples through the political landscape, sparking debates about the ethical standards expected of government officials and the broader implications of such appointments. Critics of the government argue that this move highlights systemic issues within the political structure and calls into question the legitimacy of Srettha’s leadership.

 

Proponents of the impeachment argue that allowing Pichit to serve in the government sets a dangerous precedent, potentially normalising unethical behaviour at the highest levels of power. They believe that the Constitutional Court's intervention is necessary to uphold the principles of justice and integrity in governance.

 

On the other hand, supporters of Prime Minister Srettha and his administration contend that the petition is politically motivated. They argue that the senators are leveraging historical grudges and controversies to destabilise a government that was fairly elected.

 

These supporters maintain that the Prime Minister's actions, while controversial, do not warrant impeachment and that due process should be followed.

 

As the Constitutional Court reviews the petition, the political climate remains tense. The court's decision could have far-reaching implications, not only for Prime Minister Srettha’s career but also for the broader political dynamics in the country. 

 

This unfolding situation is a reminder of the complex interplay between ethics, legality, and politics. It remains to be seen how the Constitutional Court will respond to the petition and what this means for the future of Srettha’s administration.

 

Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin. Picture courtesy: Wikipedia

 

-- 2024-05-18

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Well, good move.

However, the gang of criminals will stay together🙏

anutin. 

It's hilarious and something about a pot and a kettle.

But it's also poor leadership of the current boss - does he know what he signs, or does he leave it all to the underlings?

This became a s..t show from the moment the election result was manipulated, now compounded by the return to Thailand of the formerPM/convicted criminal.