University Lecturer To Sue Thai Govt For Mishandling Flood Crisis

[KeyserSoze01]

The professor can file as many law suits as he likes. All the defense (government) will have to do is plead ignorance. The judge will have no choice but to agree and dismiss the case.

[webfact]

Abhisit backs group set to sue the govt

The Nation

The opposition leader yesterday warned the government against having its supporters take a stand against the group planning to sue ruling politicians for their alleged failure to manage flooding. Abhisit Vejjajiva, leader of the Democrat Party and former prime minister, said a confrontation like this would only lead to further political conflicts.

He said the government should be ready to undergo scrutiny by the civic sector and get ready to explain its alleged mismanagement of the crisis. Abhisit said the group - led by Chulalongkorn University economist Narong Phetprasert - had every right to sue those they believe are responsible for the disaster.

"Many people believe that this ongoing flood problem cannot be blamed on nature alone and has something to do with management as well. People have incurred damages that far exceed the government's planned compensation," Abhisit said.

The opposition leader said that though the authorities insist that more rainstorms than expected had hit the country, the government also stuck by its policy of retaining water in upstream dams for irrigation.

Abhisit also urged the government to place less focus on politicking, especially in relation to the ongoing flood crisis in the capital.

"I appeal for the government to stop politicising issues. They keep blaming the BMA, when in fact, they should work together to help the people. This is not the time to get involved in a political conflict. The government should stop playing political games if they want to win public confidence," he said.

Abhisit also said that he did not think it was time for Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to step down or dissolve the House of Representatives.

"It's the time to deal with the crisis. Political uncertainty will not benefit the country," he said.

"The prime minister should show her efficiency in running the country and ensure unity in management and communication. This is the time to win confidence from Thais and the world community," he advised.

Narong, leader of the group that plans to sue the state, said yesterday that he would speak to the Lawyers' Council of Thailand on Monday about the scope of the action.

He said the group's legal advisers agreed that initially it was possible for the group to file administrative, criminal and civil cases against the authorities, adding that the council had agreed to help them take their cases to court.

Narong said many people affected by the flooding supported his plan to sue the government. He said that though nature was partly to blame for the crisis, the government should also be held responsible for its poor management that resulted in severe floods in many areas of the country.

"The government knew there would be a lot of water this year, but it didn't do anything to reduce the volumes. Floods were chest-high in some areas and that pointed to mismanagement of water," the academic said.

-- The Nation 2011-11-12

[Docno]

A little more about (and another perspective on) what the real story might be...

http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/

To quote: " We couldn’t imagine much from Narong Phetprasert, a founder of the Fascist-like neo-nationalist movement a decade or more ago, being take seriously"... and it goes on.

[geriatrickid]

Former PM Abhisit's over confidence in backing this apparent proxy will come back to bite him on his buttocks. A good defense counsel will bring up the inherited legacy issues. It will be too easy to point out that the government officials at the Royal Immigration Department etc were Abhisit and military junta appointees. Collateral damage will befall the army as its role at the initial stages will have to be reviewed as part of the case. The army doesn't like criticism nor public review of its activities. More importantly, this type of litigation is frowned upon by the very same people Mr. Abhisit counts upon for funding and succor. The same ineptness that cost him the election will make him and his party look bad. Attaching his name and party to the plaintiff case will cause this litigation to quickly descend into political side taking. Any merits of the case will be overshadowed by the public perception of politicking.

Good move Mr. former PM.

Edited November 12, 2011 by geriatrickid

[Markaew]

Abhisit backs group set to sue the govt

The Nation

The opposition leader yesterday warned the government against having its supporters take a stand against the group planning to sue ruling politicians for their alleged failure to manage flooding. Abhisit Vejjajiva, leader of the Democrat Party and former prime minister, said a confrontation like this would only lead to further political conflicts.

-- The Nation 2011-11-12

"said a confrontation like this would only lead to further political conflicts"

Is anyone else as sick as I am of this lack of logic and common sense in these politicians statements? It sounds like outright fantasy. Of course if you defend yourself against an attack it will further conflicts. If you initiate a fight then someone responds. Did Abhisit think his political opponents are going to just lay down and just let him roll over them? Apparently Abhisit does.

[hammered]

Former PM Abhisit's over confidence in backing this apparent proxy will come back to bite him on his buttocks. A good defense counsel will bring up the inherited legacy issues. It will be too easy to point out that the government officials at the Royal Immigration Department etc were Abhisit and military junta appointees. Collateral damage will befall the army as its role at the initial stages will have to be reviewed as part of the case. The army doesn't like criticism nor public review of its activities. More importantly, this type of litigation is frowned upon by the very same people Mr. Abhisit counts upon for funding and succor. The same ineptness that cost him the election will make him and his party look bad. Attaching his name and party to the plaintiff case will cause this litigation to quickly descend into political side taking. Any merits of the case will be overshadowed by the public perception of politicking.

Good move Mr. former PM.

Indeed the opposition should not have backed this move as they have undermined any political neutrality.

There is also another issue, that unless a specific law has been broken, it is the people and not a judge who should decide on government performance (seperation of powers). If there is to be any interpretation of whether the crisis was mishandled or by who at a political level, that is surely beyond a courts jurisdiction. It is unlikley that any compensation can be awarded without it being clear things were mishandled. You cant just say I lost X because of the floods and the government must pay. Who is going to make that decision? It would have massive repercussions and being highly questionable from a democratic standpoint. That is why many countries have sovereign immunity rules although Thailand does not as far as government deartment although not government property go, it is going to open the door for pro-demcoracy groups to attack this move especially now the move has been overtly politicised by the opposition. Then again maybe creating division is the purpose. After all no division suits the status quo which is the current government whereas division always creates opportunity for those with no power.

[nurofiend]

>snip

Then again maybe creating division is the purpose. After all no division suits the status quo which is the current government whereas division always creates opportunity for those with no power.

and that's all they can bank on really IMO

[DoctorG]

It will be interesting to see what actual points of law are used to support this action. Lack of competence and negligence are different, but unfortunately can bring the same result.

[puntmeister]

Former PM Abhisit's over confidence in backing this apparent proxy will come back to bite him on his buttocks. A good defense counsel will bring up the inherited legacy issues. It will be too easy to point out that the government officials at the Royal Immigration Department etc were Abhisit and military junta appointees. Collateral damage will befall the army as its role at the initial stages will have to be reviewed as part of the case. The army doesn't like criticism nor public review of its activities. More importantly, this type of litigation is frowned upon by the very same people Mr. Abhisit counts upon for funding and succor. The same ineptness that cost him the election will make him and his party look bad. Attaching his name and party to the plaintiff case will cause this litigation to quickly descend into political side taking. Any merits of the case will be overshadowed by the public perception of politicking.

Good move Mr. former PM.

Indeed the opposition should not have backed this move as they have undermined any political neutrality.

There is also another issue, that unless a specific law has been broken, it is the people and not a judge who should decide on government performance (seperation of powers). If there is to be any interpretation of whether the crisis was mishandled or by who at a political level, that is surely beyond a courts jurisdiction. It is unlikley that any compensation can be awarded without it being clear things were mishandled. You cant just say I lost X because of the floods and the government must pay. Who is going to make that decision? It would have massive repercussions and being highly questionable from a democratic standpoint. That is why many countries have sovereign immunity rules although Thailand does not as far as government deartment although not government property go, it is going to open the door for pro-demcoracy groups to attack this move especially now the move has been overtly politicised by the opposition. Then again maybe creating division is the purpose. After all no division suits the status quo which is the current government whereas division always creates opportunity for those with no power.

If it can be proven that the flooding was intensified by the government's failure to properly manage the water - specifically, retaining excessive amounts of water, when they knew, or should have known, the risks - then they should be held liable.

It would/will be a complex case, as there's a natural disaster element to it, as well as negligence from a long list of entitites (making it difficult, legally, to assess blame).

[Nisa]

I've always admired Abhisit but the heading of this article alone made me lose enough respect for him to not want to read the entire things. Now is just no the time for this BS, grand standing and making this crisis about party and politics.

[sparebox2]

So Mark is suggesting suing BMA M.L Sukhumpan ? His own party member?

[Crushdepth]

Make sure, not only sue Thai Government, they must also sue Bangkok Metropolitan Authority and the other agencies too. Also sue the person who called the people to block the water since beginning during June.

He should probably sue God (any god).

[puntmeister]

It will be interesting to see what actual points of law are used to support this action. Lack of competence and negligence are different, but unfortunately can bring the same result.

Whether due to lack of competence or negligence, there could still be a ruling of liability.

This is in regards to a civil case - liablity for damages. Not a criminal case - another ballgame altogether.

[hammered]

Former PM Abhisit's over confidence in backing this apparent proxy will come back to bite him on his buttocks. A good defense counsel will bring up the inherited legacy issues. It will be too easy to point out that the government officials at the Royal Immigration Department etc were Abhisit and military junta appointees. Collateral damage will befall the army as its role at the initial stages will have to be reviewed as part of the case. The army doesn't like criticism nor public review of its activities. More importantly, this type of litigation is frowned upon by the very same people Mr. Abhisit counts upon for funding and succor. The same ineptness that cost him the election will make him and his party look bad. Attaching his name and party to the plaintiff case will cause this litigation to quickly descend into political side taking. Any merits of the case will be overshadowed by the public perception of politicking.

Good move Mr. former PM.

Indeed the opposition should not have backed this move as they have undermined any political neutrality.

There is also another issue, that unless a specific law has been broken, it is the people and not a judge who should decide on government performance (seperation of powers). If there is to be any interpretation of whether the crisis was mishandled or by who at a political level, that is surely beyond a courts jurisdiction. It is unlikley that any compensation can be awarded without it being clear things were mishandled. You cant just say I lost X because of the floods and the government must pay. Who is going to make that decision? It would have massive repercussions and being highly questionable from a democratic standpoint. That is why many countries have sovereign immunity rules although Thailand does not as far as government deartment although not government property go, it is going to open the door for pro-demcoracy groups to attack this move especially now the move has been overtly politicised by the opposition. Then again maybe creating division is the purpose. After all no division suits the status quo which is the current government whereas division always creates opportunity for those with no power.

If it can be proven that the flooding was intensified by the government's failure to properly manage the water - specifically, retaining excessive amounts of water, when they knew, or should have known, the risks - then they should be held liable.

It would/will be a complex case, as there's a natural disaster element to it, as well as negligence from a long list of entitites (making it difficult, legally, to assess blame).

It is also going to depend on what is meant by the government. The annual water cycle covered two administrations with a caretaker in the middle. As you say so many agencies outside that lot too. And if it looks like the whole case is only being aimed at central government (backed by opposition and led by someone with an anti and somewhat interesting history) it will also get complicated as it is highly likely with what has happened in recent history that government supporters will take to the streets to defend it

The most interesting thing about water retention is that the time the water release in the two main dams at least was significantly under the national average was in the May-July (possibly early August timeframe) which doesnt cover this government if that is important and it may not be if it is the Royal Irrigation Department that gets sued for water retention and that would seem to be the obvious target. And that is just talking about one body and one government. The critical thing to my mind though is who makes the decision that government mishandled it? That is a political decision and that always runs the risk of chaos if made in what is not deemed a fair way and the courts have had their problems with public perception of even handedness in recent times.

I dont disagree with your initial remark if there is any way it can be proven fairly in a legal manner. Difficult and controversial even in a stable democracy let alone Thailand

[rogerdee123]

It will be interesting to see what actual points of law are used to support this action. Lack of competence and negligence are different, but unfortunately can bring the same result.

Whether due to lack of competence or negligence, there could still be a ruling of liability.

This is in regards to a civil case - liablity for damages. Not a criminal case - another ballgame altogether.

I would think there would be ground for a criminal case if it could be proven that some party intentionally neglected their responsibilities (knowingly causing harm to people) in return for some personal benefit/reward .... i.e. money or position/promotion or whatever ,,,, and then of course the party offering the benefit would also be guilty of this crime ... of course this is hypothetical.

[rogerdee123]

Indeed the opposition should not have backed this move as they have undermined any political neutrality.

There is also another issue, that unless a specific law has been broken, it is the people and not a judge who should decide on government performance (seperation of powers). If there is to be any interpretation of whether the crisis was mishandled or by who at a political level, that is surely beyond a courts jurisdiction. It is unlikley that any compensation can be awarded without it being clear things were mishandled. You cant just say I lost X because of the floods and the government must pay. Who is going to make that decision? It would have massive repercussions and being highly questionable from a democratic standpoint. That is why many countries have sovereign immunity rules although Thailand does not as far as government deartment although not government property go, it is going to open the door for pro-demcoracy groups to attack this move especially now the move has been overtly politicised by the opposition. Then again maybe creating division is the purpose. After all no division suits the status quo which is the current government whereas division always creates opportunity for those with no power.

So you are saying the opposition party is suppose to be politically neutral? Isn't this a contradiction?

Personally I think the lawsuit is a good idea, I mean Government officials need to be held accountable for their actions and performance and they need to be thinking about thise as they perform their duties. However I also see this turning into a political circus and in the end that's probably all it will amount to.

But in my mind, a lawsuit like this in the public eye is a lot better than calling on people to burn the city.

So I still say .... go for it. Fight it out in the courts instead of the streets.

Edited November 12, 2011 by rogerdee123

[tragickingdom]

Thai media should not take academics that serious. THey have a lot of time on their hands and they are seldom to be seen teaching young people and doing their job. One cannot sue the rain Gods. Look at the statistics that they only one with authority has published, Bangkok Pundit, and you will never buy the Nation again.

[MengWan]

A little more about (and another perspective on) what the real story might be...

http://thaipolitical....wordpress.com/

To quote: " We couldn't imagine much from Narong Phetprasert, a founder of the Fascist-like neo-nationalist movement a decade or more ago, being take seriously"... and it goes on.

I have read this ... vitriolic blog, and it reminds me of other "maoist" pamphlets !

Anyone who does not share the views of these people are to be condemned just because of that, I do not see how they can promote any freedom at all ...

(no wonder they switched off the comments !)

All they promote is pure hatred, I will always applaud when such people get jailed ...

:jap:

[rogerdee123]

A little more about (and another perspective on) what the real story might be...

http://thaipolitical....wordpress.com/

To quote: " We couldn't imagine much from Narong Phetprasert, a founder of the Fascist-like neo-nationalist movement a decade or more ago, being take seriously"... and it goes on.

I have read this ... vitriolic blog, and it reminds me of other "maoist" pamphlets !

Anyone who does not share the views of these people are to be condemned just because of that, I do not see how they can promote any freedom at all ...

(no wonder they switched off the comments !)

All they promote is pure hatred, I will always applaud when such people get jailed ...

:jap:

I agree MengWan. This is the "Burn Bangkok Mob" writing this crap.

[elcent]

the handling of the dam is a national security issue as most have found out by now. If there's a blocking of legal procedure in these cases a coup will be inevitable. I've heard that this would be a thorough clean-up then.

So speed it up, legal procedures I mean, and no tricks, Halloween is over.

[puntmeister]

Former PM Abhisit's over confidence in backing this apparent proxy will come back to bite him on his buttocks. A good defense counsel will bring up the inherited legacy issues. It will be too easy to point out that the government officials at the Royal Immigration Department etc were Abhisit and military junta appointees. Collateral damage will befall the army as its role at the initial stages will have to be reviewed as part of the case. The army doesn't like criticism nor public review of its activities. More importantly, this type of litigation is frowned upon by the very same people Mr. Abhisit counts upon for funding and succor. The same ineptness that cost him the election will make him and his party look bad. Attaching his name and party to the plaintiff case will cause this litigation to quickly descend into political side taking. Any merits of the case will be overshadowed by the public perception of politicking.

Good move Mr. former PM.

Indeed the opposition should not have backed this move as they have undermined any political neutrality.

There is also another issue, that unless a specific law has been broken, it is the people and not a judge who should decide on government performance (seperation of powers). If there is to be any interpretation of whether the crisis was mishandled or by who at a political level, that is surely beyond a courts jurisdiction. It is unlikley that any compensation can be awarded without it being clear things were mishandled. You cant just say I lost X because of the floods and the government must pay. Who is going to make that decision? It would have massive repercussions and being highly questionable from a democratic standpoint. That is why many countries have sovereign immunity rules although Thailand does not as far as government deartment although not government property go, it is going to open the door for pro-demcoracy groups to attack this move especially now the move has been overtly politicised by the opposition. Then again maybe creating division is the purpose. After all no division suits the status quo which is the current government whereas division always creates opportunity for those with no power.

If it can be proven that the flooding was intensified by the government's failure to properly manage the water - specifically, retaining excessive amounts of water, when they knew, or should have known, the risks - then they should be held liable.

It would/will be a complex case, as there's a natural disaster element to it, as well as negligence from a long list of entitites (making it difficult, legally, to assess blame).

It is also going to depend on what is meant by the government. The annual water cycle covered two administrations with a caretaker in the middle. As you say so many agencies outside that lot too. And if it looks like the whole case is only being aimed at central government (backed by opposition and led by someone with an anti and somewhat interesting history) it will also get complicated as it is highly likely with what has happened in recent history that government supporters will take to the streets to defend it

The most interesting thing about water retention is that the time the water release in the two main dams at least was significantly under the national average was in the May-July (possibly early August timeframe) which doesnt cover this government if that is important and it may not be if it is the Royal Irrigation Department that gets sued for water retention and that would seem to be the obvious target. And that is just talking about one body and one government. The critical thing to my mind though is who makes the decision that government mishandled it? That is a political decision and that always runs the risk of chaos if made in what is not deemed a fair way and the courts have had their problems with public perception of even handedness in recent times.

I dont disagree with your initial remark if there is any way it can be proven fairly in a legal manner. Difficult and controversial even in a stable democracy let alone Thailand

Yeah, there's no doubt about it, politics will muck it up. It would be difficult to ever get an objective, rational, reasonable, non-partisan court ruling on something like this.

Ultimately, all judicial systems are subject to fail - just look at the case of the 'hanging chad' in the US. The case went to the Supreme Court, and the divided ruling was clearly based on the party each of Supreme Court judge.

[geriatrickid]

Other constitutional monarchies have something called a Royal Commission, where an investigating judge or panel of qualified experts hold hearings to get to the truth. It works.

Unfortunately, in Thailand, just finding a qualified unbiased person, let alone three, would result in a political fight. The only way to get to the truth is have hearings chaired by neutral people. Good luck on that as the PTP would try to stack it with lapdogs and Democrats would push for PTP haters.

[scorecard]

Other constitutional monarchies have something called a Royal Commission, where an investigating judge or panel of qualified experts hold hearings to get to the truth. It works.

Unfortunately, in Thailand, just finding a qualified unbiased person, let alone three, would result in a political fight. The only way to get to the truth is have hearings chaired by neutral people. Good luck on that as the PTP would try to stack it with lapdogs and Democrats would push for PTP haters.

Pretty much all people have some level of political bias, however you can find people in all counties, including Thailand, who have the capabilities, values, morals, to make decisions based on facts and based on what is morally right and proper, and what is balanced and fair, rather then based on their political and feeding trough priorities.

And yes you can find plenty of people like this in Thailand, however the sad fact is that most of these folks won't get involved because it's all so dirty.

Edited November 12, 2011 by scorecard

[harrry]

The professor can file as many law suits as he likes. All the defense (government) will have to do is plead ignorance. The judge will have no choice but to agree and dismiss the case.

Name one government that will admit it is ignorant.

[Tanaka]

Maybe some of his students will follow his lead and sue him for his academic pperformance

So you know this professor and you know his degree is unfounded and his lecturing is below par?

[Foggy Bottom]

Maybe some of his students will follow his lead and sue him for his academic pperformance

Cheap shot, unwarranted. You might not like him for his politics, but have no call to cast dispersions upon his pperformance (sic) as an academician.

That'll be aspersions then...

Quite right. Thanks for the correction.

You sure it's not nasturtiums?

[SomTumTiger]

To make my point more comprehensible for those that have not have the pleasure of dealing with some Thai academics; People in glass houses should not throw stones.

Case in point?

[noahvail]

That'll be aspersions then...

Quite right. Thanks for the correction.

You sure it's not nasturtiums?

Quite sure. I must have been thinking about the flooding when I said "dispersions."

[atyclb]

Perhaps they could sue their entire country and society to make them think, act, and do things differently. The politicians are a mirror of society

[geriatrickid]

Other constitutional monarchies have something called a Royal Commission, where an investigating judge or panel of qualified experts hold hearings to get to the truth. It works.

Unfortunately, in Thailand, just finding a qualified unbiased person, let alone three, would result in a political fight. The only way to get to the truth is have hearings chaired by neutral people. Good luck on that as the PTP would try to stack it with lapdogs and Democrats would push for PTP haters.

Not too sure what are you talking about. Why should the king be involved in this politics?

LOL. You really do not understand constitutional monarchies do you? The King is not involved. It is the appropriate term for a commission of enquiry in a country where there is a Sovereign. The commissioners usually are granted considerable power, usually more than that of a superior court judge,and are appointed by the "Crown". In Thailand, the PM has to be appointed by the King, It's the same technicality as one sees in Canada or the UK where the Queen. appoints the PM. The Crown creates the Royal Commission. As I recall, such a commission was responsible for the downfall of the Liberal government in Canada (Judge Gomery held the emquiry into the federal sponsorship "corruption" scandal). Australia had similar commissions on organized crime and issues of national interest. Royal Commissions work and deliver results. In Thailand where the Crown is held in high regard, I think it is the one method that could get to the truth of the flooding crisis. It is very difficult to get away with lying or politicking at this type of enquiry as the commissioner(s) are above politics and serve the Crown, not a political party.