Legal Fight Politically Motivated: Pheu Thai

[tlansford]

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.

good luck with your house and the clean up / repairs.

[plumeria]

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

I don't blame the puppet PM for what she inherited.

She is 100% responsible for how she managed the water.

She is 100% responsible for the situation.

Never once has she said it's her job to prevent/solve the problems and she is responsible.

She always blames something else or somebody else.

And flood prevention should have begun the day she took power on behalf of her fugitive brother.

The floods did not happen in a day and did not jump out and appear from nowhere.

This is 100% an intentional, woman-made situation.

This is criminal malfeasance in office.

How anybody could say anything about Thailand is non-political is beyond belief.

Next the government will try and say criticism of the government's evil plan is lese majeste and they somehow deserve to be beyond criticism and beyond legal repercussions because they were able to trick the poor into electing them.

When that fails, the PM will come up with some local version of "presidential pardon" to absolve her criminal cronies of wrongdoing -- BEFORE they are even convicted.

If SHE gets forced out, certainly she'll orchestrate her replacement to give HER a "presidential pardon".

The personal wealth of the Taksin gang should pay for the reconstruction of Thailand and be distributed to everyone one lost family and possessions as a result of her planned disaster.

[yumidesign]

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.

If she is supposed to be such a hot shot business person how come she does not know any principles about management, she has already admitted she knows nothing about politics so what are her actual credentials oh i forgot she is the sister of someone

Edited November 14, 2011 by yumidesign

[squiz]

If she is supposed to be such a hot shot business person how come she does not know any principles about management, she has already admitted she knows nothing about politics so what are her actual credentials oh i forgot she is the sister of someone

You have also forgotten her Degree and Masters in Public Administration.

[pastitche]

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.

.

Malfeasance in public office is a criminal offence and accordingly it is the responsibility of he prosecuting authorities; it is my understanding that this is a civil case, so the Sections of the Penal Code quoted have no relevance

[Buchholz]

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.

Malfeasance in public office is a criminal offence and accordingly it is the responsibility of he prosecuting authorities; it is my understanding that this is a civil case, so the Sections of the Penal Code quoted have no relevance

Yes, it's a civil case in which the professor is suing for damages over the mishandling of the flood crisis. I would believe that the language referred in the penal code could form the basis for seeking these damages, even if a criminal case is not sought.

For example, plaintiffs have successfully sued civilly in wrongful death cases, even when the defendant was found innocent of criminal charges.

.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Buchholz

[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.

good luck with your house and the clean up / repairs.

My neighbors tell me the contractor we all use for repairs in our estate is currently booking jobs for May and June of next year. We'll need more than luck, but thank you for the sentiments. I get the feeling some people haven't considered the consequences of forcing several million people to live in flood ravaged houses for months on end. The anger hasn't even hit home yet.

[pastitche]

Bucholz - screwed the quotes thing again; forgive me. 25 years in IT management will do that to a guy

I assume perhaps wrongly that you are referring to the infamous OJ Simpson case. Civil action there was taken after a failed criminal trial, not before nor as an alternative. If the aggrieved person in this case feels that a criminal offence has been committed he should be agitating for criminal action to be taken. To use "the language referred in the penal code" to bolster his case would mean providing evidence that he does not have and would not be able to obtain since he has no official standing. So he is left with only the option of saying " they should have done better". Whilst this is a legitimate position, it is obviously open to allegations of political intent and IMO is unlikely to be successful because it would be difficult to convince a court that there is fault if the defendant can say "I was acting on the best available information at the time"

I believe that there is a better way to resolve this issue that would be less party political ie to hold a Public Enquiry with a wide-ranging remit to investiagate the reasons why this disaster occurred. In an open enquiry, under an impartial judge, it should be possible to establish why an event that was foreseeable for decades was able to happen without a planned response being available or action having been taken to ensure that it never happened. It would also address the performance of the government as the crisis progressed.

All politicians will be "economical with the truth" but an open enquiry would be able to ensure that the technical advice they were given was also verified from the people who gave it being required to appear. They would also be less likely to hide behind the UK minister's arguments that they were only accountable for policy and not operational practice - described as "sophistry" in one enquiry.

As things stand at the moment there is a sacrificial lamb/ scapegoat waiting in the wings; this might suit all parties but is not the answer

[Skywalker69]

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.

If she is supposed to be such a hot shot business person how come she does not know any principles about management, she has already admitted she knows nothing about politics so what are her actual credentials oh i forgot she is the sister of someone

Exactly! Without "Big Brothers" money she would have been a Mae baan.

[Skywalker69]

If she is supposed to be such a hot shot business person how come she does not know any principles about management, she has already admitted she knows nothing about politics so what are her actual credentials oh i forgot she is the sister of someone

You have also forgotten her Degree and Masters in Public Administration.

If you have money you can buy any "Degree" you want.

She said to have studied in the US, but with her bad english she coulden´t make it pass the "first grade".

[Buchholz]

To use "the language referred in the penal code" to bolster his case would mean providing evidence that he does not have and would not be able to obtain since he has no official standing. So he is left with only the option of saying " they should have done better".

I'm not aware of how the lawsuit is specifically worded, but I am tempted to believe it says something more than that.

However,

I believe that there is a better way to resolve this issue that would be less party political ie to hold a Public Enquiry with a wide-ranging remit to investiagate the reasons why this disaster occurred. In an open enquiry, under an impartial judge

I do agree with your suggestion, but somehow, I don't see it happening.

.

[scorecard]

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.

And of course the pt mob is adhering to it's demands for no double standards.

The reality is they set the standards for politically motivated politics (demands for democracy / justice for all / no double standards - all smokescreens over unethical tactics to get scaly leader back into Thailand)

[whybother]

Senator Ruengkrai reports to NACC on Opp leader Abhisit for misconduct in water management, claims water kept in dams too high via Rawangpai/TAN_Network

[animatic]

Senator Ruengkrai reports to NACC on Opp leader Abhisit for misconduct in water management, claims water kept in dams too high via Rawangpai/TAN_Network

Preemptive attempt to spin the blame backwards.

Never mind that the dams operated normally until August.

They seem very, very, desperate to spin the blame else where, remember this is the party that will say and do most anything in the hopes the mud will stick to others.

[cdnvic]

Removed two off-topic posts. This isn't about US politics.

As for the person deriding another's English capabilities, this forum has tens of thousands of members whose first language is something other than English.

[mca]

this forum has tens of thousands of members whose first language is something other than English.

I didn't realise we had so many Geordies on board vic.

Edited November 15, 2011 by mca

[cdnvic]

this forum has tens of thousands of members whose first language is something other than English.

I didn't realise we had so many Geordies on board vic.

Many Aussies too