Democrats To Target Yingluck And Surapong For Impeachment

[webfact]

Thai opposition makes legal complaint against FM

BANGKOK, August 18, 2011 (AFP) - Thailand's opposition on Thursday filed a complaint with the police against the new foreign minister, accusing him of illegally helping fugitive former leader Thaksin Shinawatra.

The move against Surapong Tovichakchaikul is the latest legal step taken by the elite-backed Democrat Party against the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Thaksin's younger sister.

"A court sentenced Mr Thaksin to two years in jail and an arrest warrant has also been issued for him on terrorism charges," the head of the Democrats' legal team, Wirat Kalayasiri, told AFP.

"But Mr Surapong helped him by talking to Japan," he added, referring to the minister's assistance for Thaksin to obtain a visa from the Japanese authorities.

Wirat said the opposition will also seek the support of at least 125 lawmakers for a petition seeking the removal of Surapong from office.

Thaksin, who served as Thai prime minister between 2001 and 2006 before being deposed in the coup, has been living in self-imposed exile in Dubai to avoid a two-year jail term for corruption.

His allies made a comeback in a general election last month that could potentially pave the way for the return of the former telecoms billionaire, who is hailed by many poor Thais but reviled by the royalist elite.

Just days after the poll win, the Democrats launched a legal bid with the Election Commission to have Yingluck's Puea Thai party disbanded on the grounds that banned politicians were involved in its campaign.

Thailand has been plagued by frequent political unrest since the 2006 coup, culminating in protests by Thaksin's "Red Shirt" supporters last year which prompted a military crackdown that left more than 90 people dead.

The previous government accused the fugitive of bankrolling the demonstrations and inciting unrest, and a Thai court last year approved an arrest warrant for him on terrorism charges in relation to the rallies.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2011-08-18

[Lite Beer]

Off Topic Post Deleted.

[ozzieman05]

If Section 192 has been broken

This means the law has been broken

If the Dems do their job then it is their job so seek punishment for breaking the law

No one is above the law

And the job of the dems is to make sure that the Government do their duty

[TAWP]

Basically what is happening is that PTP are indicating they are going to use popular will to undo everything the coup brought - 2007 charter - and the establishment are not confident at all (read realise they havent got a hope in hell) they can democratically beat this, so the establishment of which once again the Dems show they are part are going into desperate meltdown mode of anything we can possibly do to delay or scupper this happening.

Why do you hate democracy and the parliamentary process?

Edited August 18, 2011 by TAWP

[patjem]

I'm sure that the Dems are doing what they think is best for the country - throwing it into political turmoil, destabilising the Govt, preventing them from doing anything that might be good for the country. After all, first and foremost, the LAW must be upheld, regardless of the consequences for the country as a whole. I'm sure many posters here would agree.

We differ in our opinions oft, but I agree with several of your points in this post, namely that the law needs to be upheld, regardless of consequence. I believe AV was forced to play a difficult hand last May in order to uphold law and order in the capital when a threats and bombings started being carried out by a renegade group who were trying to throw the country into political turmoil. Where I question your statement is the claim that the Dem. party have such a policy to encourage such behavior, given their all- out efforts to prevent escalating chaos by said group of renegades last year. Due to the distracting situations that appear to have prevented them from proving their worthiness as an emphatic government, we cannot conclude whether they would manage to do be effective leadership. To quote you, which I heartfeltly agree with you on, "After all, first and foremost, the LAW must be upheld, regardless of the consequences for the country as a whole", I have reason to have confidence in a Thai Dem government during difficult political times, but the jury is out on whether a PTP government can take the heat: I guess we're likely to find out in the near future.

[TAWP]

Wasn't it the dems that allowed Thaksin to leave the country in the first place after his conviction?

Please correct me if I am wrong on this

You are wrong, as surely you know.

[pagallim]

If Section 192 has been broken

This means the law has been broken

If the Dems do their job then it is their job so seek punishment for breaking the law

No one is above the law

And the job of the dems is to make sure that the Government do their duty

Pathetic post. The 'Dem's' didn't do their job, which is why they are now in opposition. Section 192 is a part of the 2007 Constitution, and accredits the King with the right to remove titles and recall decorations. A little bit like the conviction of Thaksin for providing his signature as consent for his wife (required by Thai law) to purchase property by auction, for land which the Senate found on 2 occasions was not owned by Government (i.e. the FIDF is/was not part of Government), but for which he was convicted of 'abuse of power' (note, not corruption as continually gets reported in the press).

[spidermike007]

Pretty amusing post. Did anyone in the democratic party see fit to pursue any corruption charges during the years they were in power? Against anyone? While Malaysia, India, Indonesia, China, Singapore, and other neighbors are going after the rot in their own houses, the democrats see fit only to go after the new administration (sour grapes anyone?) due to the potentially improper influence on Japan for a visa, for the old man. Well, we all knew the old man was going to get favorable treatment, and eventually be pardoned, and allowed to return. The successful election outcome was all that was needed to insure that. Now, the democrats are all concerned about honesty, and propriety. That is very funny. After spending two years insuring that dozens of guys made millions of dollars on military contracts, and other crony contracts, now let's pursue the other guys.

[shadiadi]

Democrats acting democratically again??

They haven't been properly elected into office in over 10 years. I guess if the only way in is a non democratic way then so be it. It's sad really that the democrats are trying to act like playground bullies to get their own way. The people have spoken and elected who they want. Let the people decide at the next election and stop causing trouble.

[TAWP]

Democrats acting democratically again??

They haven't been properly elected into office in over 10 years. I guess if the only way in is a non democratic way then so be it. It's sad really that the democrats are trying to act like playground bullies to get their own way. The people have spoken and elected who they want. Let the people decide at the next election and stop causing trouble.

Going through the proper parliamentary process is bad? Better to disable checks and balances and put ones relatives into position of control, yeah?

[rametindallas]

The PTP can't really be complaining about the use Democrats use of impeachment.

http://www.nationmul...cs_30097666.php

I don't think the PTP are complaining. They probably expected it - with good reason.

All of this impeachment talk will be as effective for the Dems as it was for the PTP - ie it is just an attempt to derail the working of the rival political group with no concern towards building support among the electorate.

For the PTP the futility of calling for impeachment may not have been such a setback given their existing support among voters, but for the Dems, they really need to do better than mirroring the behavior of the PTP whilst evidently needing to bring more hearts and minds to their side.

Does anyone know of any politician being successfully "Impeached"?

CA Governor Gray Davis

Non that I know of in Thailand, but in the U.S. both presidents Nixon and Clinton were successfully impeached with the former resigning and the latter greatly embarassed.

[rametindallas]

Wasn't it the dems that allowed Thaksin to leave the country in the first place after his conviction?

Please correct me if I am wrong on this

You are wrong.

The government at the time was led by the People Power Party (a Thai Rak Thai re-incarnation) under Thaksin's brother-in-law, Somchai Wongsawat.

Both Thaksin and his then-spouse Potjaman were free on bail. They requested to leave the country for a short trip in order to attend the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Beijing. They then didn't return to Thailand, but flew straight to the U.K.

Thaksin was convicted and sentenced in absentia, i.e. after he had jumped bail and effectively exiled himself (like every 'innocent' person would do). Potjaman was acquitted, but Thaksin received 2 years.

It is so difficult having a discussion with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. For some, it seems their 'belief' is as valid as 'fact'.

[rubl]

Pretty amusing post. Did anyone in the democratic party see fit to pursue any corruption charges during the years they were in power? Against anyone? While Malaysia, India, Indonesia, China, Singapore, and other neighbors are going after the rot in their own houses, the democrats see fit only to go after the new administration (sour grapes anyone?) due to the potentially improper influence on Japan for a visa, for the old man. Well, we all knew the old man was going to get favorable treatment, and eventually be pardoned, and allowed to return. The successful election outcome was all that was needed to insure that. Now, the democrats are all concerned about honesty, and propriety. That is very funny. After spending two years insuring that dozens of guys made millions of dollars on military contracts, and other crony contracts, now let's pursue the other guys.

Pretty amusing indeed. Did anyone in the TRT/PPP/PTP party see fit to pursue ....

The Dem's are not clean, but far less so than the Pheu Thai party. The 'old man' may get favorable treatment, in prison I hope. Now Pheu Thai si still not concerned about honesty and propriety. This was not about k. Thaksin, read my lips 'this is not about k. Thaksin'.

Honesty has to start somewhere, ask Robert A. who just said

"Thailand’s ICC Deception

It has been brought to our attention that an invitation has been sent around by the National Human Rights Commission to various persons to attend a seminar today on the subject of the “International Criminal Court and Thai Society: from political argument to the policy of the state” (see full text of the letter below).

Upon reading the “program” of this event it is transparent that the organisers of this seminar on the International Criminal Court are undoubtedly attempting to deceive the Thai people in the most appalling manner. One thing needs to be made very clear – contrary to the line chosen by the persons involved in this event, our application to the International Criminal Court (ICC) is still very much “live” and has an absolutely sound legal basis."

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/?p=917

The forwarding of the arrest warrant for k. Thaksin to Interpol seems more 'alive' than the application to the ICC

Edited August 18, 2011 by rubl

[whybother]

Does anyone know of any politician being successfully "Impeached"?

CA Governor Gray Davis

....... and any Thai ones?

[whybother]

The Thai Criminal Code Section 192 (which is what the dems are filing charges under) states:

Section 192 Whoever, harboring, hiding or assisting with any means the person escaped from the lawful custody under the power of the Court, inquiry official or official empowered to investigate the criminal cases so as to such person may not be arrested, shall be imprisoned not out of three years or fined not out of six thousand Baht, or both.

It will be interesting to see the interpretations of this section,

Did the FM help him escape arrest by assisting taksin with a visa? Probably not as he wouldn't have returned to Thailand had the visa not been issued.

Is the FM setting a good example and keeping with the spirit of the Criminal Code - No.

Negligent - Very much so

"assisting with any means the person escaped from the lawful custody"

Thaksin is "the person escaped from the lawful custody" and the FM assisted him. Open and shut case, IMO.

[kraplung]

This is just a continuation of the farce that is Thai third world politics. You just have to learn to live with it. Of course PT were playing fast and loose but the Democrats hardly busted a gut to follow the court ruling either.

[travelingmike]

Lets say for fun ,Bush sr. was convicted in court(after he had fled the country knowing he would go to jail), and then Bush jr. while President called ....say Germany or England to ask if his father could come visit their country -even though he had a warrant in the usa and would serve time if here. Some of you dont think this would be impeachable? I am all for letting the new pm do her job while following the law.

[ozzieman05]

If Section 192 has been broken

This means the law has been broken

If the Dems do their job then it is their job so seek punishment for breaking the law

No one is above the law

And the job of the dems is to make sure that the Government do their duty

Pathetic post. The 'Dem's' didn't do their job, which is why they are now in opposition. Section 192 is a part of the 2007 Constitution, and accredits the King with the right to remove titles and recall decorations. A little bit like the conviction of Thaksin for providing his signature as consent for his wife (required by Thai law) to purchase property by auction, for land which the Senate found on 2 occasions was not owned by Government (i.e. the FIDF is/was not part of Government), but for which he was convicted of 'abuse of power' (note, not corruption as continually gets reported in the press).

Ha ha

Abuse of Power and Corruption, seem to me to be the same things

If you had read my earlier Post you would read when the new Government got in, I was one of those who wanted to give them a chance,

But unlike you I believe no one is above the Law

[Buchholz]

Lets say for fun ,Bush Sr. was convicted in court(after he had fled the country knowing he would go to jail), and then Bush Jr. while President called ....say Germany or England to ask if his father could come visit their country -even though he had a warrant in the USA and would serve time if here. Some of you don't think this would be impeachable? I am all for letting the new pm do her job while following the law.

A reasonable and rationale analogy. Thanks.

Yingluck and Surapong should be impeached for aiding and abetting a criminal fugitive.

.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Buchholz

[KKvampire]

The Democrat party is a sad party of sore losers. Where Yingluck should really file charges for human rights abuses Assad style against Abhisit and Suthep she did nothing. Even the people in Bangkok find the Democrat party a sad party and believe that they will make it 6 in a row this time with even less seats. Just 17% of the Bangkok voters support the loser party in this. The remaining seems to be on the Yingluck side or don't know..

O dear some folk are really out of touch , Fantasist

[lannarebirth]

[

I'm sure that the Dems are doing what they think is best for the country - throwing it into political turmoil, destabilising the Govt, preventing them from doing anything that might be good for the country. After all, first and foremost, the LAW must be upheld, regardless of the consequences for the country as a whole. I'm sure many posters here would agree.

You've got it backwards. It is the rule of law that brings stability, stabalizes governments, and reduces turmoil. What contempt you must have for Thai people to think they are not deserving of that.

[hammered]

[

I'm sure that the Dems are doing what they think is best for the country - throwing it into political turmoil, destabilising the Govt, preventing them from doing anything that might be good for the country. After all, first and foremost, the LAW must be upheld, regardless of the consequences for the country as a whole. I'm sure many posters here would agree.

You've got it backwards. It is the rule of law that brings stability, stabalizes governments, and reduces turmoil. What contempt you must have for Thai people to think they are not deserving of that.

So why arent the coupmeisters in jail?

A law can never be in conflict with what the majority want over a period of time. That is why and quite rightly the government are going to put constitutional changes to the people. The first one being a choice of 1997 over 2007 charters. Stability isnt laws that the majority dont agree with being used to undermine their democratic choices while never being used against the other side. That use of law destroys stability, destabilizes democracy and brings turmoil as we have already seen. If that use of law isnt changed things are only going to get worse. It seems the Dems and their masters havent learnt this yet. I really hope we see charter change before anymore dissolutions so we can avoid instability

[rixalex]

A law can never be in conflict with what the majority want over a period of time.

Are you sure about that? How much longer need we wait for non-payment of taxes to be made legal then?

Stability isnt laws that the majority dont agree with being used to undermine their democratic choices while never being used against the other side.

When previously making this statement about laws only being used against one side, you used to include the word "perception". No longer you do, it seems.

Perhaps having repeated the sentiment so much, you have started believing it yourself?

[hammered]

A law can never be in conflict with what the majority want over a period of time.

Are you sure about that? How much longer need we wait for non-payment of taxes to be made legal then?

Stability isnt laws that the majority dont agree with being used to undermine their democratic choices while never being used against the other side.

When previously making this statement about laws only being used against one side, you used to include the word "perception". No longer you do, it seems.

Perhaps having repeated the sentiment so much, you have started believing it yourself?

I dont think you will find my statement is that controversial. I have even discussed this with a couple of senior military officers and even they werent going to peddle a line that decisions were not political in nature although they hoped that after Thaksins election victory as it was described by them a short while ago that instability could be avoided if he didnt interfere in things he shouldnt interfere in. I of course didnt delveinto what that meant.

[rixalex]

I dont think you will find my statement is that controversial. I have even discussed this with a couple of senior military officers and even they werent going to peddle a line that decisions were not political in nature although they hoped that after Thaksins election victory as it was described by them a short while ago that instability could be avoided if he didnt interfere in things he shouldnt interfere in. I of course didnt delveinto what that meant.

I wasn't questioning certain decisions being political in nature, i was questioning your assertion that all decisions have been against one side, and never against the other.

Decisions have gone both for and against all sides, at varying times. It may be true that more decisions have gone against one side than the other, but it may also be true that that side has been guilty of offending more frequently.

[hammered]

I dont think you will find my statement is that controversial. I have even discussed this with a couple of senior military officers and even they werent going to peddle a line that decisions were not political in nature although they hoped that after Thaksins election victory as it was described by them a short while ago that instability could be avoided if he didnt interfere in things he shouldnt interfere in. I of course didnt delveinto what that meant.

I wasn't questioning certain decisions being political in nature, i was questioning your assertion that all decisions have been against one side, and never against the other.

Decisions have gone both for and against all sides, at varying times. It may be true that more decisions have gone against one side than the other, but it may also be true that that side has been guilty of offending more frequently.

To date the dems have dodged the bullet every time while the Thaksin party has fallen every time. Thats the one Im refering to

[metisdead]

Posts using derogatory nicknames of a well known politician will be deleted. If you don’t want your post to be deleted, use people’s names correctly.

[lannarebirth]

[

I'm sure that the Dems are doing what they think is best for the country - throwing it into political turmoil, destabilising the Govt, preventing them from doing anything that might be good for the country. After all, first and foremost, the LAW must be upheld, regardless of the consequences for the country as a whole. I'm sure many posters here would agree.

You've got it backwards. It is the rule of law that brings stability, stabalizes governments, and reduces turmoil. What contempt you must have for Thai people to think they are not deserving of that.

So why arent the coupmeisters in jail?

A law can never be in conflict with what the majority want over a period of time. That is why and quite rightly the government are going to put constitutional changes to the people. The first one being a choice of 1997 over 2007 charters. Stability isnt laws that the majority dont agree with being used to undermine their democratic choices while never being used against the other side. That use of law destroys stability, destabilizes democracy and brings turmoil as we have already seen. If that use of law isnt changed things are only going to get worse. It seems the Dems and their masters havent learnt this yet. I really hope we see charter change before anymore dissolutions so we can avoid instability

You can't bring leaders of armed forces to trial within the country the alleged infraction occured. That's what The Hague is for. Has anyone brought charges?

Of course a law can be in conflict with a majority view. I'd like to pay lower taxes as would the majority of the people I know. There was a time when the majority of people used to think that it was okay to exploit others of a different race or exploit women or beat children. The truth is people are terribly flawed and even more so if they are a "majority". That's why laws were created. If we only did what the majority thought was right at any given moment there would be no justice system at all.

Never heard of "Tyranny of the majority"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Edited August 19, 2011 by lannarebirth

[rixalex]

I dont think you will find my statement is that controversial. I have even discussed this with a couple of senior military officers and even they werent going to peddle a line that decisions were not political in nature although they hoped that after Thaksins election victory as it was described by them a short while ago that instability could be avoided if he didnt interfere in things he shouldnt interfere in. I of course didnt delveinto what that meant.

I wasn't questioning certain decisions being political in nature, i was questioning your assertion that all decisions have been against one side, and never against the other.

Decisions have gone both for and against all sides, at varying times. It may be true that more decisions have gone against one side than the other, but it may also be true that that side has been guilty of offending more frequently.

To date the dems have dodged the bullet every time while the Thaksin party has fallen every time. Thats the one Im refering to

I see. Well if the details of all the cases were exactly the same, that would be very revealing. They weren't.

[lazygourmet]