Legal Fight Politically Motivated: Pheu Thai

[webfact]

Legal fight politically motivated: Pheu Thai

The Nation

The planned legal action over officials' alleged mismanagement of flood water aims merely to discredit the government, rather than redress the flood damage in a tangible manner, Pheu Thai Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said yesterday.

"The litigants may have the right to sue, but I believe there is no evidence with which to blame the government," he said.

Prompong was reacting to news reports that Chulalongkorn University economic lecturer Narong Phetprasert would seek the cooperation of the Law Society of Thailand in launching a court battle against the government.

As an academic, Narong should suggest flood-control solutions instead of faulting the government, Prompong said.

He voiced suspicion that Narong might have an ulterior motive, because his threat of legal action coincided with the opposition Democrats' criticisms of the handling of the flood situation.

He went on to criticise Democrat MP Wiratana Kalayasiri for trying to politicise the relief efforts.

Although the Flood Relief Operations Centre (FROC) has launched a probe of alleged irregularities in connection with the procurement of relief supplies, Wiratana portrayed the situation as if the wrongdoing had already been established, the Pheu Thai spokesman said.

The main coalition party will today hold a meeting of MPs to assess flood-related issues, such as obstacles to transportation, the rising prices of essential goods and increasing incidents of burglary in flood-hit areas.

Information and Communication Technology Minister Gp Captain Anudith Nakornthap has dismissed an allegation that he diverted public contributions and relief supplies from the FROC to his ministry.

Anudith said relief supplies packaged in black bags awaiting distribution were the property of the PM's Office, and not public contributions as alleged.

He said he was authorised by the prime minister to assist in the relief efforts in Bangkok.

Democrat deputy spokesman Sakoltee Phattiyakul said he welcomed the prime minister's pledge to get to the bottom of questions surrounding the procurement of relief supplies.

Sakoltee said the FROC made a hasty conclusion to rule out any irregularities before examining the evidence.

"Just look at price tags on items contained in each relief bag; evidence of foul play is there," he said.

He said the FROC had no credible answer to questions about why it had allocated Bt7.5 million to buy 30 flat-bottomed boats at an inflated price of Bt250,000 each.

-- The Nation 2011-11-14

[whybother]

PT think it's politically motivated, because they did the same against the Democrats last year. This time it's not a political party doing the legal action.

[tlansford]

PT think it's politically motivated, because they did the same against the Democrats last year. This time it's not a political party doing the legal action.

possibly true, but since when did you need to be a politician to be politically motivated? Happens all the time ...Which, if true, would make your point mute...

... Narong is seldom short of a verbal and occupational position; this is the same labor economist who opposed the Puea Thai Party’s plan to raise wages by 40%…. He previously worked for both the Thai Rak Thai Party before opposing it and was said to be working with the military junta. He was later appointed to Abhisit’s “national reform” committees.

It looks like he could be politically motivated, n'est-ce pas?

Just possible

[KKvampire]

Peau Thai claiming someones acts are politically motivated. Everything it does or has ever done has been about politics , certainly not helping the people it claims it's in government for.

[scorecard]

"Anudith said relief supplies packaged in black bags awaiting distribution were the property of the PM's Office, and not public contributions as alleged."

Well Khun Anudith, the 'property' of the PMs office is in fact the property of all Thai citizens. Just another example of inappropriate pt thinking.

[geriatrickid]

PT think it's politically motivated, because they did the same against the Democrats last year. This time it's not a political party doing the legal action.

It's a proxy. What's your point?

[Ricardo]

PT think it's politically motivated, because they did the same against the Democrats last year. This time it's not a political party doing the legal action.

Quite.

As if PTP hadn't used RA to harass the then-government last year, for their own political reasons, turnabout would indeed be only fair.

[LuckyLew]

I guess politically motivated law suits are only allowed when they are brought by the PT

[HAL9000]

Yingluck is in office one month when the floods hit and gets blamed for the infrastructure inherited from previous administrations.

[whybother]

Yingluck is in office one month when the floods hit and gets blamed for the infrastructure inherited from previous administrations.

Actually, she's being blamed for the lack of communication and organisation.

[sparebox2]

Chula uni teacher are know to be pro-PAD.

Want me to give examples?

[hammered]

Of course it is politically motivated.

However, if it targets governmental departments and BMA for not doing specific things they are mandated to do as agencies, it could find targets. If the purpose is to get a judge to make a political decision on whether the elected government or elected Bangkok governor didnt do their job, that is a different matter though. That is the decision of the voters to decide how the job was done unless a specific law has of course been broken, and of course there are other constitutional ways in which elected people can be punished. For example the BKK governor can be removed by the government although I wouldnt think they would want to, ministers can be impeached or reshuffled and government censured or no confidenced by the legislature and finally the PM can decide to seek a new mandate from the people which they may give or reject.

[SunDaRi]

Of course it's politically involved but this government gave them a good reason to sue, why not

[hellodolly]

Yingluck is in office one month when the floods hit and gets blamed for the infrastructure inherited from previous administrations.

Wrong she is not blamed for the neglected infrastructure she inherited and by her actions intended to do nothing about until the flood came.

She is responsible for not using what she was given to help minimize the flood damage as well as contributing to it by releasing the water in dams when we were all ready in flood condition.

Yes I know she did not personally authorize the dam situation but as PM she is responsible.

Maybe next time a cabinet member is chosen they will have no economic ties to her brother.

Edited November 14, 2011 by hellodolly

[Moruya]

The initial reason given for the legal case against the government was that it could be a first "class action" case for Thailand - the people against the government.

The legal steps were being explored to see if the case would hold water in the Thai legal system - hence the involvement of the Thai Law Society.

Is it politically motivated? Quite possibly

[phiphidon]

Yingluck is in office one month when the floods hit and gets blamed for the infrastructure inherited from previous administrations.

Wrong she is not blamed for the neglected infrastructure she inherited and by her actions intended to do nothing about until the flood came.

She is responsible for not using what she was given to help minimize the flood damage as well as contributing to it by releasing the water in dams when we were all ready in flood condition.

Yes I know she did not personally authorize the dam situation but as PM she is responsible.

Maybe next time a cabinet member is chosen they will have no economic ties to her brother.

How can the PTP be responsible for the level of the water in the dams in the months preceding their taking office in full in August? They had to release water at this stage (or in fact the Interior Ministry i.e TRT) had to because of the TRT's previous mismanagement of the water retention in the dams whilst working for the democrat government. There may have been mismanagement of diversion of the resultant flood approaching Bangkok but this event had never happened before so what pre knowledge were they to use - they have had to rely on the Royal Irrigation Dept, EGAT and the BMA advising thems best guesses based on an unprecedented event or series of events.

See http://asiancorrespo...pt-in-the-dams/ for a less hysterical view than on this forum.

[Buchholz]

However, if it targets governmental departments and BMA for not doing specific things they are mandated to do as agencies, it could find targets. If the purpose is to get a judge to make a political decision on whether the elected government or elected Bangkok governor didnt do their job, that is a different matter though. That is the decision of the voters to decide how the job was done unless a specific law has of course been broken, and of course there are other constitutional ways in which elected people can be punished. For example the BKK governor can be removed by the government although I wouldnt think they would want to, ministers can be impeached or reshuffled and government censured or no confidenced by the legislature and finally the PM can decide to seek a new mandate from the people which they may give or reject.

Malfeasance in office is absolutely the domain of the judiciary and is not merely an electoral issue for the voters.

While varying levels of other repercussions can be implemented, such as impeachment by Parliament, or a no-confidence debate there, the criminality of malfeasance, and the damages emerging from it, is definitely within the purview of the Courts to determine.

[Buchholz]

Maybe next time a cabinet member is chosen they will have no economic ties to her brother.

Nor, in the case of the Foreign Minister, blood ties.

.

[scorecard]

PT think it's politically motivated, because they did the same against the Democrats last year. This time it's not a political party doing the legal action.

It's a proxy. What's your point?

So what?

[scorecard]

Chula uni teacher are know to be pro-PAD.

Want me to give examples?

Therefore all Chula lecturers are pro-PAD?

[scorecard]

Yingluck is in office one month when the floods hit and gets blamed for the infrastructure inherited from previous administrations.

Wrong she is not blamed for the neglected infrastructure she inherited and by her actions intended to do nothing about until the flood came.

She is responsible for not using what she was given to help minimize the flood damage as well as contributing to it by releasing the water in dams when we were all ready in flood condition.

Yes I know she did not personally authorize the dam situation but as PM she is responsible.

Maybe next time a cabinet member is chosen they will have no economic ties to her brother.

And maybe her big brother might think a little deeper before surrounding his clone with highly incapable people. On second thoughts doubtful that he would do that, he doesn't have the morals or values that are needed.

Next point - it's clear that Yingluck is surrounded by fools (not of her choosing) but it's also true that she accepted this situation. She could have said 'no thanks' to this gang of opportunists who have no capabilities and no morals and walked away, but she didn't say 'no thanks'.

Therefore she must bear the responsibility for their less than effective, less than focused ideas, actions and statements.

[steveromagnino]

Yingluck is in office one month when the floods hit and gets blamed for the infrastructure inherited from previous administrations.

Wrong she is not blamed for the neglected infrastructure she inherited and by her actions intended to do nothing about until the flood came.

She is responsible for not using what she was given to help minimize the flood damage as well as contributing to it by releasing the water in dams when we were all ready in flood condition.

Yes I know she did not personally authorize the dam situation but as PM she is responsible.

Maybe next time a cabinet member is chosen they will have no economic ties to her brother.

How can the PTP be responsible for the level of the water in the dams in the months preceding their taking office in full in August? They had to release water at this stage (or in fact the Interior Ministry i.e TRT) had to because of the TRT's previous mismanagement of the water retention in the dams whilst working for the democrat government. There may have been mismanagement of diversion of the resultant flood approaching Bangkok but this event had never happened before so what pre knowledge were they to use - they have had to rely on the Royal Irrigation Dept, EGAT and the BMA advising thems best guesses based on an unprecedented event or series of events.

See http://asiancorrespo...pt-in-the-dams/ for a less hysterical view than on this forum.

Not the best work from Asian Correspondent. Seems like an episode of Jeopardy...so many questions...so little time!

1. Comparing 2011 to 2010 is stupid; 2010 was a drought year; sure it makes the previous government look bad, but it's so simple to spot why it's wrong...2010 as everyone recalls...we were in a semi drought, dams were empty, China blamed for blocking the Mekong etc....lack of rain blah blah blah. For more accurate picture, look at the previous 5 years here

http://akelovekae.blogspot.com/2011/10/54.html

In Thai and reads a bit hysterically anti red shirt in much the same way AC can be reliably expected as a cheerleader for anything to do with the government, but anyhow the graph is clear enough; with the above average rainfall, as at beginning August, the dam was not unduly full...no government in their sane mind would have spilled water in April/May/June/July when most is used for agriculture (source Unesco) .... and the dam was not near to looking like it would fill to capacity (which is the ideal as a dam operator to be able to stay close to that as rainfall diminishes from Nov onwards) in mid October onwards (when water is kept over for the coming northerly dry season).

2. It was the months of August and September where certain weeks would have allowed release, but decisions, retrospectively wrong decisions, were made to not release as much as could be expected - we already know from who now - in the month of August the Bhumipol dam received approx 19% LOWER than normal and in September 4% above average rainfall; but the decision to NOT release water in those months and NOTHING to do with rainfall caused the 'bulge' in amount of water in the dam, thereafter pure bad luck of big rain in October forced the release of water - in other words...the best and only time to release water from the dam was when it was already at the upward side of the trend (early August) and then only when the dam was not filling at a massively above average rate (Aug - Sept) but prior to any forecast major additional rain (difficult to predict, but known in late Sept that 2 major storms would come across from Hong Kong and eventually hit Thailand. We can conclude.... few betting people would have released farmer's livelihoods following a year of semi drought from the dams pre August...looking at the data....would you???? Plenty of weather info here http://www.tmd.go.th/programs/uploads/yearlySummary/August%202011.pdf

3. Comments on infrastructure - the infrastructure has been repeatedly lacking to deal with flooding upcountry which floods usually annually although not to the extent of seen this year. It was not fixed under TRT, nor PPP, nor the Democrats, nor the coup army government, although baby steps have been made here and there. Flooding was very evident as a long term issue in August, but again, nothing much was done to address or raise it as a national emergency until bangkok appeared threatened on the radar in October; Bangkok under the administration of the BMA has made considerable progress in fixing flash flooding within city limits; however the decision to build the airport on the eastern side of the city, bad legacy planning, housing developments in areas that block natural flow etc and lack of preparation at a national and city level is what meant that steps needed in late Sept/October to push more water through the city (clearing klongs, ordering pumps, preparing bags, distributing aid ) were sidelined in favour of photo ops and ordering 1000 boats to motor; many of those steps were started a week or two weeks ago...leading to....

4. Basic crisis management - irrespective of whether the PT government did enough to prepare (given they were ordering pumps a week or so ago, one might believe, not enough) their communication of what and how much would flood and delivery of information has been completely unacceptable; the fact that they set up FROC in 2 places both inundated by water gives you some idea of their internal access to information; the main reason is the wrong people without the knowledge necessary are making decisions of national importance with the wrong objectives - witness Nattawut handling PR for the government now; no state of emergency or 100% mobilisation of the armed forces ; no real plan for the people who have been under water since July; their management is day to day urgent not important stuff mostly (billboards and photo ops to promote PT/Thaksin should have taken a 2nd seat a long time ago), and sometimes urgent important, but mostly they have been reliant on the good hearts and generosity of the NGOs and volunteers plus the army to do the job THEY should be leading.

5. The role of the BMA governor is one of the least powerful positions in Thai politics. You basically manage collecting fees for the sidewalk , and collect trash. The Governor is not exactly part of the Democrat inner circle and has his fair share of 'issues' with the Democrat (now shadow) cabinet and is his own man; in this particular emergency, many of his decisions while personally unpopular and arguably annoyingly political point scoring (refusing to give into mob rule or backtrack being a main one, handing out contradictory information being another) retrospectively are the signs of leadership sorely missing from the government

6. The biggest question should not be to sue or not sue; a clear enquiry and laying praise and blame along the line is far more useful for the longterm development of Thailand and response to disasters.

I believe the issue is one of branding, I think the government should come out and say this:

In 2011, a lot of water was sent from a dam by a government official for a city they didn't live in. The water promptly escaped from a maximum security big bag wall to the Don Muang Airport basement underground. Today, still wanted by the government, the water survives as droplets under your fortuner. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can drown in... The FROC-Flood.

I PITY THE FLOOD!

Edited November 14, 2011 by steveromagnino

[hammered]

However, if it targets governmental departments and BMA for not doing specific things they are mandated to do as agencies, it could find targets. If the purpose is to get a judge to make a political decision on whether the elected government or elected Bangkok governor didnt do their job, that is a different matter though. That is the decision of the voters to decide how the job was done unless a specific law has of course been broken, and of course there are other constitutional ways in which elected people can be punished. For example the BKK governor can be removed by the government although I wouldnt think they would want to, ministers can be impeached or reshuffled and government censured or no confidenced by the legislature and finally the PM can decide to seek a new mandate from the people which they may give or reject.

Malfeasance in office is absolutely the domain of the judiciary and is not merely an electoral issue for the voters.

While varying levels of other repercussions can be implemented, such as impeachment by Parliament, or a no-confidence debate there, the criminality of malfeasance, and the damages emerging from it, is definitely within the purview of the Courts to determine.

I said unless a specific law is broken. Judges cannot state whether a government preformed well or not. Thay can take cases of unlawful things done in official capacity (malfeasance) but that as I said is breach of specific law. It isnt about judging performance or whether one action was right over another. That is under the people and the legislature and we shouldnt forget that in a parliamentary system the legislature in the final analysis as the body directly representing the people is considered the supreme body not the government or the judiciary so the legislature has wide powers to check and control government in this system

[hammered]

Yingluck is in office one month when the floods hit and gets blamed for the infrastructure inherited from previous administrations.

Wrong she is not blamed for the neglected infrastructure she inherited and by her actions intended to do nothing about until the flood came.

She is responsible for not using what she was given to help minimize the flood damage as well as contributing to it by releasing the water in dams when we were all ready in flood condition.

Yes I know she did not personally authorize the dam situation but as PM she is responsible.

Maybe next time a cabinet member is chosen they will have no economic ties to her brother.

How can the PTP be responsible for the level of the water in the dams in the months preceding their taking office in full in August? They had to release water at this stage (or in fact the Interior Ministry i.e TRT) had to because of the TRT's previous mismanagement of the water retention in the dams whilst working for the democrat government. There may have been mismanagement of diversion of the resultant flood approaching Bangkok but this event had never happened before so what pre knowledge were they to use - they have had to rely on the Royal Irrigation Dept, EGAT and the BMA advising thems best guesses based on an unprecedented event or series of events.

See http://asiancorrespo...pt-in-the-dams/ for a less hysterical view than on this forum.

Not the best work from Asian Correspondent. Seems like an episode of Jeopardy...so many questions...so little time!

1. Comparing 2011 to 2010 is stupid; 2010 was a drought year; sure it makes the previous government look bad, but it's so simple to spot why it's wrong...2010 as everyone recalls...we were in a semi drought, dams were empty, China blamed for blocking the Mekong etc....lack of rain blah blah blah. For more accurate picture, look at the previous 5 years here

http://akelovekae.blogspot.com/2011/10/54.html

In Thai and reads a bit hysterically anti red shirt in much the same way AC can be reliably expected as a cheerleader for anything to do with the government, but anyhow the graph is clear enough; with the above average rainfall, as at beginning August, the dam was not unduly full...not government in their sane mind would have spilled water in April/May/June/July when 95% is used for agriculture.... and the dam was not near to looking like it would fill to capacity (which is the ideal) in mid October onwards (when water is kept over for the coming northerly dry season).

2. It was the months of August and September where certain weeks would have allowed release, but decisions, retrospectively wrong decisions, were made to not release as much as could be expected - we already know from who now - in the month of August the Bhumipol dam received approx 19% LOWER than normal and in September 4% above average rainfall; but the decision to NOT release water in those months and NOTHING to do with rainfall caused the 'bulge' in amount of water in the dam, thereafter pure bad luck of big rain in October forced the release of water - in other words...the best and only time to release water from the dam was when it was already at the upward side of the trend (early August) and then only when the dam was not filling at a massively above average rate (Aug - Sept) but prior to any forecast major additional rain (difficult to predict, but known in late Sept that 2 major storms would come across from Hong Kong and eventually hit Thailand. We can conclude.... few betting people would have released farmer's livelihoods following a year of semi drought from the dams pre August...looking at the data....would you???? Plenty of weather info here http://www.tmd.go.th/programs/uploads/yearlySummary/August%202011.pdf

3. Comments on infrastructure - the infrastructure has been repeatedly lacking to deal with flooding upcountry which floods usually annually although not to the extent of seen this year. It was not fixed under TRT, nor PPP, nor the Democrats, nor the coup army government, although baby steps have been made here and there. Flooding was very evident as a long term issue in August, but again, nothing much was done to address or raise it as a national emergency until bangkok appeared threatened on the radar in October; Bangkok under the administration of the BMA has made considerable progress in fixing flash flooding within city limits; however the decision to build the airport on the eastern side of the city, bad legacy planning, housing developments in areas that block natural flow etc and lack of preparation at a national and city level is what meant that steps needed in late Sept/October to push more water through the city (clearing klongs, ordering pumps, preparing bags, distributing aid ) were sidelined in favour of photo ops and ordering 1000 boats to motor; many of those steps were started a week or two weeks ago...leading to....

4. Basic crisis management - irrespective of whether the PT government did enough to prepare (given they were ordering pumps a week or so ago, one might believe, not enough) their communication of what and how much would flood and delivery of information has been completely unacceptable; the fact that they set up FROC in 2 places both inundated by water gives you some idea of their internal access to information; the main reason is the wrong people without the knowledge necessary are making decisions of national importance with the wrong objectives - witness Nattawut handling PR for the government now; no state of emergency or 100% mobilisation of the armed forces ; no real plan for the people who have been under water since July; their management is day to day urgent not important stuff mostly (billboards and photo ops to promote PT/Thaksin should have taken a 2nd seat a long time ago), and sometimes urgent important, but mostly they have been reliant on the good hearts and generosity of the NGOs and volunteers plus the army to do the job THEY should be leading.

5. The role of the BMA governor is one of the least powerful positions in Thai politics. You basically manage collecting fees for the sidewalk , and collect trash. The Governor is not exactly part of the Democrat inner circle and has his fair share of 'issues' with the Democrat (now shadow) cabinet and is his own man; in this particular emergency, many of his decisions while personally unpopular and arguably annoyingly political point scoring (refusing to give into mob rule or backtrack being a main one, handing out contradictory information being another) retrospectively are the signs of leadership sorely missing from the government

6. The biggest question should not be to sue or not sue; a clear enquiry and laying praise and blame along the line is far more useful for the longterm development of Thailand and response to disasters.

I believe the issue is one of branding, I think the government should come out and say this:

In 2011, a lot of water was sent from a dam by a government official for a city they didn't live in. The water promptly escaped from a maximum security big bag wall to the Don Muang Airport basement underground. Today, still wanted by the government, the water survives as droplets under your fortuner. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can drown in... The FROC-Flood.

I note you disagree with what Dr Seri said about water release earlier in the year

[animatic]

It is one of the legal mechanisms to keep governments honest and to punish for bad mismanagement and ineptitude in elected office or appointed positions.

Any citizen can say; I think you've screwed up to the detriment of the many, and we deserve to force, what we believe are hidden facts, from you in a public forum.

No more obfuscation, tell what happened.

And political party that takes office is subject to proper legal scrutiny, saying it is political (oh my, oh no, it's POLITICAL!) is a red herring, their actions to take office were totally political, so their political horse came before the politically active citizen's cart.

They should just deal with it and stop whining and Wenging on about

someone using their own, past used, tactics against themselves.

Man Up PTP and answer the questions when the judge asks them.

Edited November 14, 2011 by animatic

[Buchholz]

However, if it targets governmental departments and BMA for not doing specific things they are mandated to do as agencies, it could find targets. If the purpose is to get a judge to make a political decision on whether the elected government or elected Bangkok governor didnt do their job, that is a different matter though. That is the decision of the voters to decide how the job was done unless a specific law has of course been broken, and of course there are other constitutional ways in which elected people can be punished. For example the BKK governor can be removed by the government although I wouldnt think they would want to, ministers can be impeached or reshuffled and government censured or no confidenced by the legislature and finally the PM can decide to seek a new mandate from the people which they may give or reject.

Malfeasance in office is absolutely the domain of the judiciary and is not merely an electoral issue for the voters.

While varying levels of other repercussions can be implemented, such as impeachment by Parliament, or a no-confidence debate there, the criminality of malfeasance, and the damages emerging from it, is definitely within the purview of the Courts to determine.

I said unless a specific law is broken. Judges cannot state whether a government preformed well or not. Thay can take cases of unlawful things done in official capacity (malfeasance) but that as I said is breach of specific law. It isnt about judging performance or whether one action was right over another. That is under the people and the legislature and we shouldnt forget that in a parliamentary system the legislature in the final analysis as the body directly representing the people is considered the supreme body not the government or the judiciary so the legislature has wide powers to check and control government in this system

Malfeasance is what is being addressed in the lawsuit.

Thai Penal Code Sections 147 – 166 prescribe various grounds for malfeasance in office including: misappropriation, abuse of power/coercion, bribery, vote-buying, self-dealing, dishonesty, wrongful exercise or non-exercise of duty, destruction or damage of property, concealment or destruction of documents, wrongful use of state seals, forgery, bearing false witness or falsification of records, unauthorized eavesdropping and interference with communications, disclosure of state secrets, obstruction of justice, and willful abandonment of duty.

.

[gregb]

It is politically motivated and a disingenuous attempt by the current government to say this lawsuit is politically motivated. My family for one will be signing our name to it. I don't ever expect to get compensated, but I do think this is the only way to make sure the ugly truth comes out about all the political antics that went in to creating this largely man made crisis.

Without this lawsuit I'm sure the people responsible will never be held accountable. If the PT truly believes they are innocent and have done nothing wrong, then they should welcome the opportunity to explain this to the people in a courtroom setting and possibly even direct the finger to those who were responsible. This goes beyond politics. There is several hundred thousand baht of damage to my house. I likely won't be able to move back in until January. I want someone's head on a platter for this, because nature is not the main player here for blame. This lawsuit will help determine who should be beheaded. Without it, all you have is politics.

To deny justice is politically motivated. The pursuit of justice is simply being moral and courageous.

[ramrod711]

Yingluck is in office one month when the floods hit and gets blamed for the infrastructure inherited from previous administrations.

by previous administrations i assume you mean thaksin and his two appointees?

[buzz]

It is one of the legal mechanisms to keep governments honest and to punish for bad mismanagement and ineptitude in elected office or appointed positions.

Any citizen can say; I think you've screwed up to the detriment of the many, and we deserve to force, what we believe are hidden facts, from you in a public forum.

No more obfuscation, tell what happened.

And political party that takes office is subject to proper legal scrutiny, saying it is political (oh my, oh no, it's POLITICAL!) is a red herring, their actions to take office were totally political, so their political horse came before the politically active citizen's cart.

They should just deal with it and stop whining and Wenging on about

someone using their own, past used, tactics against themselves.

Man Up PTP and answer the questions when the judge asks them.

+1

[frodo]

It is politically motivated and a disingenuous attempt by the current government to say this lawsuit is politically motivated. My family for one will be signing our name to it. I don't ever expect to get compensated, but I do think this is the only way to make sure the ugly truth comes out about all the political antics that went in to creating this largely man made crisis.

Without this lawsuit I'm sure the people responsible will never be held accountable. If the PT truly believes they are innocent and have done nothing wrong, then they should welcome the opportunity to explain this to the people in a courtroom setting and possibly even direct the finger to those who were responsible. This goes beyond politics. There is several hundred thousand baht of damage to my house. I likely won't be able to move back in until January. I want someone's head on a platter for this, because nature is not the main player here for blame. This lawsuit will help determine who should be beheaded. Without it, all you have is politics.

To deny justice is politically motivated. The pursuit of justice is simply being moral and courageous.

+1