I Can Beat Preah Vihear Charges : Noppadon

[webfact]

I can beat Preah Vihear charges : Noppadon

By The Nation

Published on October 1, 2009

I can beat Preah Vihear charges : Noppadon

Noppadon Pattama was optimistic yesterday he would be cleared of criminal and impeachment charges relating to the wrongful signing of the Cambodian-Thai joint communique on Preah Vihear temple last year.

"So many past indictments by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) have been dismissed by the courts," he said.

The NACC ruled on Tuesday to prosecute him and former prime minister Samak Sundaravej on suspicion of a lapse of duty, under Article 157 of the Criminal Code. They were accused of pushing through the controversial joint communique which was subsequently rejected and voided by the Constitution Court as well as the Central Administrative Court.

Noppadon - who was foreign minister at the time - insisted the NACC was prejudiced by relying heavily on evidence supplied by his opponents and those in the anti-Thaksin camp.

The joint communique was not a treaty, as claimed by opponents. It was a first document in which Cambodia duly recognised the existence of the disputed area surrounding the temple, he said, denying the allegation about sanctioning the Cambodian claim to the Thai territory.

He said he was prepared to fight the legal battle in the Supreme Court and the impeachment proceedings in the Senate.

Noppadon said ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra gave him the moral support to clear his name. Samak, who is in hospital for cancer treatment, also gave him encouragement through an aide, he added.

Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban said the government would allow justice to run its course without interfering in the matter.

In his message posted on Twitter, Thaksin said the NACC had gone overboard in trying to fault Noppadon.

As part of the indictments, the NACC cited evidence from the National Security Council on the intentions of Noppadon and Samak relating to the joint communique. Based on the evidence, it concluded the two wanted to help Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen boost his popularity ahead of the polls.

The NACC expressed shock and dismay the two were willing to risk Thai territorial integrity for the political gain of a foreign leader.

Reacting to the evidence obtained by the NACC, NSC secretary general Thawil Pliensri said he remained sceptical Samak had actually instructed Noppadon to help Hun Sen.

"The story is beyond belief and I never heard Samak tell Noppadon to act in such manner," Thawil said, insisting he was at the NSC meeting on the temple issue.

He admitted, however, there was no taped record of what transpired between Samak and Noppadon.

Thawil's predecessor Lt General Surapol Phuenaiyaka was the key witness in the NACC inquiry.

Pheu Thai MP Jatuporn Prompan said the NACC had been unfair in indicting Noppadon and Samak.

The two were not responsible for losing the Thai territory to Cambodia but Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his fellow Democrats were, Jatuporn claimed.

He insisted the two had tried to safeguard the Thai borders while Abhisit neglected to defend the disputed area in spite of a road constructed by Cambodia 250 metres inside Thai soil.

-- The Nation 2009/10/01

[hammered]

Jatuporn with his statements this year is increasingly becoming a clown or would be if he werent such an odious person.

The NSC stuff is interesting.

Noppadol will have trouble with this case as the constitutional and administrative courts have already ruled on the constitutionality and technicality leaving him very little room for an out. He would probably be better served to just fess up and say I did wrong but I didnt intend it to harm Thailand as some claim. However, Noppadol is a loyal servant to others and owes.

Edited to add:

Interesting that Surapol was the main witness as he has always been liniked to Thaksin.

Interesting that Abhisit's choice as NSC head, Tawil, stays clear of this.

This is an indiictment and not a conviction so the accused have a chance to clear themselves although Samak's case would seem a lot stronger than Noppadol's

Edited October 1, 2009 by hammered

[animatic]

Sounds like a new category:

Delusional Semantics.

[slimdog]

Noppadol will have trouble with this case as the constitutional and administrative courts have already ruled on the constitutionality and technicality leaving him very little room for an out. He would probably be better served to just fess up and say I did wrong but I didnt intend it to harm Thailand as some claim. However, Noppadol is a loyal servant to others and owes.

One thing to bear in mind..

Even after the Constitutional court ruled that the Joint Communiqué was un-Constitutional, all the Foreign Ministers who have taken their positions after Noppadol have resisted the demand to make the joint communiqué Null and Void.

Noppadol and Samak will have two separate cases to answer:

A Senate hearing to determine whether to retroactively remove both Samak and Noppadol from office under Article 274 of the Constitution, and ban them from office for 5 years.

A Supreme Court hearing to determine whether Noppadol and Samak used their Positions to the benefit of either themselves or others.

For the Senate hearing, the defence will include prior approval of the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs, The Council of State and The National Security Council. Additionally neither individual is currently a Minister, and both are currently under a 5 year ban. It would also give far greater reason to cancel the Joint Communiqué, which is something the MFA seems to be very reluctant to do, probably because Paragraphs 3 & 4 are seen as being in Thailands best interest, especially if the case ever does go into any International hearing.

The Supreme Court hearing would have to prove that someone benefitted from the Joint Communiqué in an illegal manner. For that they will need some documentation, either bank accounts to prove financial reward, or contracts to prove commercial rewards, either for themselves or others. Supreme Court hearings have other issues as well, as by law every verdict must be accompanied by a written opinion by each of the Justices which must be published. Again, it may be the case that a guilty verdict against Noppadol and Samak could be used against any of Thailand's claim to the disputed land.

For Noppadol, I see him as welcoming the move, as he has already been convicted in the court of public opinion, and for him it probably is the only way he can see of changing that.

For Samak, If current rumours are correct, then he may well not be around long enough to be indicted let alone see the inside of the Senate or Courthouse.

[CelticBhoy]

I can beat Preah Vihear charges : Noppadon

The prick couldn't beat an egg.

Noppadon said ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra gave him the moral support to clear his name. Samak, who is in hospital for cancer treatment, also gave him encouragement through an aide, he added.

-- The Nation 2009/10/01

Fine, upstanding supporters he has.

[AussieFarang]

A Kingdom of Fools dancing on a house of cards.

Happy to be out of it.

Sorry for the money I left behind.

[dominique355]

What a sad display of utter chaos! Who is running this country? The Government or the courts or some special investigation panel?

Ministers and MP should have immunity form prosecution for what they do or say in their role as member of the government or parliament, otherwise a government, a country cannot be run anymore. Then the courts will run it, because there can always be someone dissatisfied and willing to file a complaint.

You may agree or not with what a minister or a government decides, but that's not up to the courts to decide about that. The democratic principle would request the next elections to take care of that.

[way2muchcoffee]

Ministers and MP should have immunity form prosecution for what they do or say in their role as member of the government or parliament, otherwise a government, a country cannot be run anymore.

I disagree. When, in the course of their duties, a member of parliament or cabinet, or any other government officer violates the law, especially constitutional law, they should be prosecuted. If the security of the country relies on that particular government officer there may be reason to delay the judicial proceedings until their term of office is completed.

Edited October 1, 2009 by way2muchcoffee

[dre1247]

A Kingdom of Fools dancing on a house of cards.

Happy to be out of it.

Sorry for the money I left behind.

You are not really out of it, you still curious and reading about it 5555

[TAWP]

What a sad display of utter chaos! Who is running this country? The Government or the courts or some special investigation panel?

Ministers and MP should have immunity form prosecution for what they do or say in their role as member of the government or parliament, otherwise a government, a country cannot be run anymore. Then the courts will run it, because there can always be someone dissatisfied and willing to file a complaint.

You may agree or not with what a minister or a government decides, but that's not up to the courts to decide about that. The democratic principle would request the next elections to take care of that.

This has to be one of the most inane posts i have read in this forum since...a couple of days ago.

So you are actually proposing that any illegal activities, while on duty as an MP or a minister, somehow falls outside the jurisdiction of the courts and can only be handled by voting out an full party from office a couple of years later? So if a cabinet member murders your family you would be alright with only having the option of trying to get, for example, a majority party out of office? You have just made it legal for a majority to perform genocide, as long as they employ MPs to do their tasks...

Any, partial or full, immunity of MPs are infact the tell-tale signs of a banana-state. That they infact already has it here and in several states close to us is already sad. But that you actually support it and seemingly wanna amend it to full immunity? Wow...