Bad Blood Floods Thai Parliament

[webfact]

CENSURE DEBATE

Bad blood floods parliament

The Nation

Govt request for ruling on 'unclear' censure motion against Pracha denied. Constant disruptions, protests prompt scorn from public on social media.

Government and Opposition MPs yesterday exasperated the Thai public as they tried to match wits during an ill-tempered censure debate against Justice Minister Pracha Promnok.

The debate was disrupted all day by endless protests, prompting furious responses on social media and from many general viewers. In one of his tweets, Democrat Korn Chatikavanij said that government MPs were trying to divert public attention from the censure by boring the Thai audience into switching off their TVs.

The debate touched upon two major sensitive issues - the alleged move to pardon Thaksin Shinawatra and the catastrophic floods that have hit people hard in many parts of Thailand, causing Bt1.4 trillion in damage and 615 deaths so far.

The debate garnered public attention because of the gigantic number of people affected by the colossal flooding and their desire to know if MPs would discuss rehabilitation and measures to prevent a disaster on such a scale from hitting the country again.

Pracha, who also heads the Flood Relief Operations Centre (FROC), was the sole minister targeted by the censure motion and impeachment proceedings. Pracha was also the target of an Opposition attack on the Royal Pardon decree in his capacity as Justice Minister. The opposition accused him of running FROC based purely on nepotism, in violation of the charter, resulting in poor anti-flood measures and scandal-plagued handling of donated and purchased relief supplies.

Democrat heavyweight Jurin Laksanawisit led the no-confidence attack, accusing Pracha of grave failure to properly manage water, human resources, money and flood-relief supplies, causing great damage to the country, and posing a threat of further damage should he continue to serve as head of FROC. Jurin also alleged that Pracha allowed politicians to interfere in state officials' work, a constitutional offence in violation of Articles 265 and 266.

Jurin insisted that Pracha's signing of an order appointing four Pheu Thai MPs to a committee to manage flood-relief supplies was an offence - one that Pracha himself acknowledged as unconstitutional when he revoked the order a few days later.

For the sake of comparison, the Opposition earlier cited a case in which then deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban had sought the appointment of 14 Democrat MPs to Culture Ministry posts. Democrat MP Sirichok Sopha said Suthep had not interfered in the ministry's work because he only asked the ministry to consider the appointments, while Pracha had issued a direct order appointing the four Pheu Thai MPs.

Defending himself over alleged corruption in the procurement of flood-relief supplies, Pracha said the procurement was done before the setting up of FROC, and that he had evidence to back up his claim. Besides, Pracha alleged, the Abhisit government had procured relief supplies at higher prices than had the Yingluck government.

In an attempt to put a stop to the no-confidence debate, government MPs early in the debate raised the question of the constitutionality of the censure motion, citing the Opposition's failure to make clear whether they wanted to remove Pracha as Justice Minister or FROC director. They went on to request that the House chair seek an interpretation by the Constitution Court on whether FROC is a state agency. The request was dismissed by House chair Charoen Chankomol.

There were so many protests that they took more time than the debate itself, Opposition MPs charged.

Armed with information not only from the mainstream media but also from social media, Democrat MPs continually showed pictures and video clip after video clip featuring flood victims crying for help and those who had lost loved ones to electrocution. The Opposition claimed that at least 102 people had died from electrocution in the flooding due to the government's grave negligence in failing to prevent such accidents. The Opposition also replayed video clips that earlier damaged the government's reputation, showing flood-relief supplies donated by the public abandoned at Don Mueang Airport. Another clip, which has circulated heavily on the Internet, was replayed in Parliament showing a group of people revealing that flood-relief supplies from FROC had been loaded onto a truck bearing a placard featuring an image of Thaksin.

Apart from Pracha, Pheu Thai Party Bangkok MP Karun Hosakul was another focus of the censure attack. Democrat MPs accused him of leading his constituents to destroy flood barriers along Klong Prapa, which is a source for tap water for the capital and its suburbs. Karun took the floor in his defence, vowing to quit as an MP if the Opposition could prove that the backhoes that were used to destroy flood barriers came from him or from Don Muang district. He insisted the backhoes were from Pak Kret and not Don Muang, the constituency he represents.

Sirichok later showed a news clip from Nation Channel showing Visit Puangpet, the Pak Kret district chief, insisting that Karun had led his constituents to destroy flood barriers on October 20 and another clip that Sirichok claimed showed Karun telling his constituents that the backhoes belonged to him.

Red-shirt leaders Jatuporn Prompan and Nuttawut Sai-kua played big parts in yesterday's showdown, which seemed to divide the Thai audience according to their political leanings. The whole day carried the same theme - each side accusing the other of making the flood crisis worse by bringing politics into it.

-- The Nation 2011-11-28

[webfact]

CENSURE DEBATE

Abhisit fires big parting shot

Story : the Nation

Photo : Pramote Putthaisong

Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said late Sunday night Justice Minister Pracha Promnok failed on major accounts including management ability, honesty and public relations.

The opposition leader also spent the last minutes of the censure debate to raise the controversial issue of alleged pardon for Thaksin Shinawatra.

The brief mention of the pardon affair capped a tumultuous day in which both political camps accused each other of politicising the flood crisis for political gains.

Abhisit confirmed media reports that the government was plotting a plan to bring Thaksin home, only to back out in the last minute because of a public uproar.

Abhisit accused the government of turning the flood disaster, which is a national crisis, into something that aggravated political divide among the Thai people.

He said that Pracha, as head of the government’s flood relief centre could not escape responsibility. The opposition leader insisted Pracha knowingly violated the law and used nepotism instead of experts’ knowledge to cope with Thailand’s worst flood disaster. There were corruption, miscommunications and nepotism that worsened the country’s ordeals, Abhisit said.

It was a showdown between Democrat leader Abhisit and Justice Minister Pracha late Sunday night. The latter triggered Abhisit’s sharp response after accusing the Democrat government of allowing major dams to be filled up after Abhisit dissolved the House of Representatives in May.

Showing video clips and graphics, Pracha alleged that dams’ situations when the House was dissolved this year were similar to last year and the year before last. "Why different approach of water management?" Pracha asked Abhisit.

In other words, Pracha alleged that the Democrat government knew it was going to lose the July 3 election and knew about coming storms, so it let the dams be filled up to sabotage the Yingluck administration.

In his rebuttal, Abhisit said that when the Yingluck Cabinet was in place in early August, the key dams were still at very manageable levels. "If you want to complain, go complain with your prime minister, who made you head of the Froc at a time you thought nothing could ever be done about the waters," Abhisit said.

In his closing statement, Abhisit said the opposition could no longer trust Pracha to keep on as justice minister. "If the prime minister still has confidence in him, whatever happens in the future, she must take responsibility," Abhisit said.

-- The Nation 2011-11-28

[zydeco]

The PM is the one in charge. Everything leads back to her. She is responsible for selecting her cabinet and enacting decisions. End of story. For HER failure during this flood debacle, she should at least express her apologies by shaving her head. But to really accept the consequences of her actions, she and her ministers should follow the time honored examples of the past and do the "honorable thing".

[ratcatcher]

The PM is the one in charge. Everything leads back to her. She is responsible for selecting her cabinet and enacting decisions. End of story. For HER failure during this flood debacle, she should at least express her apologies by shaving her head. But to really accept the consequences of her actions, she and her ministers should follow the time honored examples of the past and do the "honorable thing".

"............and do the honorable thing" T.I.T. not Japan.

I have also heard that there is no honor among thieves. Would you agree?

[whybother]

He [Karun] insisted the backhoes were from Pak Kret and not Don Muang, the constituency he represents.

Why does it matter where they came from. Who organised them?

[h90]

The PM is the one in charge. Everything leads back to her. She is responsible for selecting her cabinet and enacting decisions. End of story. For HER failure during this flood debacle, she should at least express her apologies by shaving her head. But to really accept the consequences of her actions, she and her ministers should follow the time honored examples of the past and do the "honorable thing".

she didn't select the cabinet.

[hyperdimension]

The opposition leader insisted Pracha knowingly violated the law and used nepotism instead of experts’ knowledge to cope with Thailand’s worst flood disaster.

Pracha himself is a Justice Minister, i.e. his profession is in legal issues. He is not knowledgeable nor experienced in crisis or disaster or flood management. Why was he chosen to head FROC?

If we had true experts in disaster and flood management running FROC and making the important decisions, things would have more likely turned out better with fewer lives lost, fewer areas affected and less suffering amongst those affected.

[lannarebirth]

The opposition leader insisted Pracha knowingly violated the law and used nepotism instead of experts' knowledge to cope with Thailand's worst flood disaster.

Pracha himself is a Justice Minister, i.e. his profession is in legal issues. He is not knowledgeable nor experienced in crisis or disaster or flood management. Why was he chosen to head FROC?

If we had true experts in disaster and flood management running FROC and making the important decisions, things would have more likely turned out better with fewer lives lost, fewer areas affected and less suffering amongst those affected.

Actually he's a police general, which doesn't provide any special knowledge or training for either of the administrative posts he holds. His only special qualification os that he can be counted on to carry Thaksin's water and kick a portion upstairs . That's how the entire government was selected.

[hyperdimension]

The opposition leader insisted Pracha knowingly violated the law and used nepotism instead of experts' knowledge to cope with Thailand's worst flood disaster.

Pracha himself is a Justice Minister, i.e. his profession is in legal issues. He is not knowledgeable nor experienced in crisis or disaster or flood management. Why was he chosen to head FROC?

If we had true experts in disaster and flood management running FROC and making the important decisions, things would have more likely turned out better with fewer lives lost, fewer areas affected and less suffering amongst those affected.

Actually he's a police general, which doesn't provide any special knowledge or training for either of the administrative posts he holds. His only special qualification os that he can be counted on to carry Thaksin's water and kick a portion upstairs . That's how the entire government was selected.

So it would have been more accurate for me to say that his profession is in skirting legal issues.

I would like to know how the government explains his appointment as head of FROC, and the appointments of other unqualified politicians into the other important decision-making positions in FROC. I think the true reason for such appointments was so that Pheu Thai themselves could get better opportunities to pilfer aid that would come into FROC and to get kick-backs from the large quantities of relief purchases. If experienced disaster management people were managing everything, including all the aid and purchasing, then there would be less opportunity to pilfer and earn kickbacks.

Edited November 28, 2011 by hyperdimension

[ThaiOats]

For some of us who are Thai or understands Thai, you can go on youtube and search for "thespokesmandp". The channel has various debates including the censure debate. The Democrats made some very good observations when it came to the purchasing price of relief goods and fund requests by various MPs. While PTP members requested figures in tens of millions for their constituency, others requested only in hundreds of thousands. Anyway, check if out for yourself or have someone translate it for you.

[Soupdragon]

In a country that loves paperwork there must be a paper trail as to how much was requested and how much was actually spent on relief.

Does Thailand have auditors ?

[Orac]

The opposition leader insisted Pracha knowingly violated the law and used nepotism instead of experts' knowledge to cope with Thailand's worst flood disaster.

Pracha himself is a Justice Minister, i.e. his profession is in legal issues. He is not knowledgeable nor experienced in crisis or disaster or flood management. Why was he chosen to head FROC?

If we had true experts in disaster and flood management running FROC and making the important decisions, things would have more likely turned out better with fewer lives lost, fewer areas affected and less suffering amongst those affected.

Actually he's a police general, which doesn't provide any special knowledge or training for either of the administrative posts he holds. His only special qualification os that he can be counted on to carry Thaksin's water and kick a portion upstairs . That's how the entire government was selected.

So it would have been more accurate for me to say that his profession is in skirting legal issues.

I would like to know how the government explains his appointment as head of FROC, and the appointments of other unqualified politicians into the other important decision-making positions in FROC. I think the true reason for such appointments was so that Pheu Thai themselves could get better opportunities to pilfer aid that would come into FROC and to get kick-backs from the large quantities of relief purchases. If experienced disaster management people were managing everything, including all the aid and purchasing, then there would be less opportunity to pilfer and earn kickbacks.

Unfortunately the minister who appears to have the best qualifications and experience for heading up FROC and handling the flood situation is the same person who blamed by some for causing it:

http://eng.moac.go.th/main.php?filename=teera

[webfact]

489 MPs present for Pracha's censure vote; 273:188 votes for him with 5 abstentions and 15 no vote /TANN

[webfact]

Pracha Survives No Confidence Motion With Flying Colors

Justice Minister Pracha Promnok has passed the no confidence motion against him with a vote of 273 to 188. Five MP's abstained.

He was censured yesterday for his role as the chief of the government's Flood Relief Operations Center and alleged mismanagement of relief efforts.

-- Tan Network 2011-11-28

[webfact]

Pracha survives no-confidence vote with support of 273 MPs

Justice Minister Pracha Promnok Monday survived a censure debate with273 coalition MPs voting in support of him.

The censure debate was held on Sunday and the vote was held Monday.

A total of 188 opposition MPs voted against him while five MPs abstained and 15 other MPs did not cast any type of vote although they were present in the meeting.

-- The Nation 2011-11-28

[animatic]

The PM is the one in charge. Everything leads back to her. She is responsible for selecting her cabinet and enacting decisions. End of story. For HER failure during this flood debacle, she should at least express her apologies by shaving her head. But to really accept the consequences of her actions, she and her ministers should follow the time honored examples of the past and do the "honorable thing".

Transfer herself to an 'inactive position'?

Isn't she in one now?

[animatic]

The opposition leader insisted Pracha knowingly violated the law and used nepotism instead of experts' knowledge to cope with Thailand's worst flood disaster.

Pracha himself is a Justice Minister, i.e. his profession is in legal issues. He is not knowledgeable nor experienced in crisis or disaster or flood management. Why was he chosen to head FROC?

If we had true experts in disaster and flood management running FROC and making the important decisions, things would have more likely turned out better with fewer lives lost, fewer areas affected and less suffering amongst those affected.

Exactly!

Appointing him to this job was primary mistake.

Secondary was his crony appointments that had nothing to do with ability, knowledge, and merits to be in the positions in such a critical time and place.

Thirdly he did a pathetic job of riding herd on his appointments, they ran amok. Things only got improved, for the people, once the army stepped in.

Fourthly, he admits to breaking a law in PTP MP committee appointments, this alone would be enough to remove him. A justice minister who can't follow the law he is supposed to administer, is incompetent from square one.

[animatic]

489 MPs present for Pracha's censure vote; 273:188 votes for him with 5 abstentions and 15 no vote /TANN

Straight party line voting, no considering the merits of the censure points.

Edited November 28, 2011 by animatic

[whybother]

489 MPs present for Pracha's censure vote; 273:188 votes for him with 5 abstentions and 15 no vote /TANN

Straight party line voting, no considering the merits of the censure points.

Not all the coalition partners voted for him.

[Orac]

489 MPs present for Pracha's censure vote; 273:188 votes for him with 5 abstentions and 15 no vote /TANN

Straight party line voting, no considering the merits of the censure points.

And you expected otherwise - the vote on this was always going to be in favour of the government. All it was was an opportunity for the Dems to show the public that they could hold the government to account and win a few chips in the PR game and since, according to Korn and others, it was boring with many people turning off it is unclear whether they acheived this or not.

[Thaddeus]

489 MPs present for Pracha's censure vote; 273:188 votes for him with 5 abstentions and 15 no vote /TANN

Straight party line voting, no considering the merits of the censure points.

And comes as no surprise at all.

They vote how they are told to vote...... or else.

[Jawnie]

The current PM was only in office a few months before the flooding. She had no plan to go to for the flood. Where was the flood plan of the previous administration(s)? No one, regardless of who they are, could prepare for or "properly" manage a flood of this magnitude.

It is the height of hypocrisy and dishonesty for Mr. Abhisit to be so vocally critical when he provided no flood plan himself, despite the King requesting flood mitigation measures 15-20 years ago.

Shame on all Thai politicians for this flooding debacle.

Thai politicians are lucky they don't conduct meetings in English, the scorn and ridicule toward them would be infinitely greater if the whole world could hear the immeasurable hate and deceit coming from each.

The PM is the one in charge. Everything leads back to her. She is responsible for selecting her cabinet and enacting decisions. End of story. For HER failure during this flood debacle, she should at least express her apologies by shaving her head. But to really accept the consequences of her actions, she and her ministers should follow the time honored examples of the past and do the "honorable thing".

[62strat]

Most accurate headline I have seen in awhile....

[drdoom6996]

The PM is the one in charge. Everything leads back to her. She is responsible for selecting her cabinet and enacting decisions. End of story. For HER failure during this flood debacle, she should at least express her apologies by shaving her head. But to really accept the consequences of her actions, she and her ministers should follow the time honored examples of the past and do the "honorable thing".

What's that? Cry on TV some more. I hate Hillary, but at least she does not cry on camera. And her troubles might outweigh Yinglucks. All roads to the flood problem flow back to Yingluck. She selected the incompetence that caused the problem. I know you mean resign, but that would be a loss of face. Never Happen.

[webfact]

FROC chief/Justice Minister Pracha survives no confidence vote

BANGKOK, Nov 28 - Justice Minister, government flood response agency chief Pol Gen Pracha Promnog on Monday easily survived a no confidence vote with support from the majority of the Pheu Thai-led government after a one-day debate on his alleged mishandling of the current flood situation and corruption in relief package procurement.

Mr Pracha won with a 273-188 majority vote from 489 MPs, while five lawmakers abstained from voting.

A censure debate by the Democrat Party against the justice minister and the Flood Relief Operation Centre (FROC) director Pracha started early Sunday and ended just few minutes before midnight. Mr Pracha was a prime target for his alleged mismanaging the flood crisis and alleged corruption in flood relief package procurement.

In his closing statement to the House late Sunday night, opposition Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva on Sunday singled out that Mr Pracha failed to meet public expectations in dealing flood problems -- failure to appoint capable persons to cope with the crisis, failure to create better understanding among the public so that they could adapt to live with it, work with honesty based on public interest and giving sympathy to the public.

Speaking to the Lower House before the vote, Mr Pracha said he had done his best to clarify all the allegations against him, but did not comment whether he would bow out.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra however on Monday ruled out any cabinet reshuffle after the censure debate, saying she was satisfied with the clarifications from the FROC director. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2011-11-28

[hyperdimension]

What matters more than the actual (expected) vote result is the change in public perception. Let's see what surveys will say.

[SICHONSTEVE]

The PM is the one in charge. Everything leads back to her. She is responsible for selecting her cabinet and enacting decisions. End of story. For HER failure during this flood debacle, she should at least express her apologies by shaving her head. But to really accept the consequences of her actions, she and her ministers should follow the time honored examples of the past and do the "honorable thing".

she didn't select the cabinet.

Maybe not, but SHE was in charge when the cabinet was selected (and didn't she just repeat the same old mantra - "Thaksin did not pick this government") which is a different thing entirely and makes her wholely culpable for the governments actions!!!

Another thing!!! Is it right that she fronts the government and then sits back and lets them get on with it - as seems the case . Does she ever attend parliament??? If the topic of discussion is a bit of a hot potato (seems like every one is to be honest) then all she does is hands over the potentially difficult or embarrassing duties to somebody else to deal with whilst she very conveniently disappears up North somewhere or to a different country keeping well out of the way!!!! What a crazy way of running a government!!!.

I'm beginning to wonder if Yingluck has ever told the truth in her life - takes after her older brother clearly!!!!! She should change her name to Lieluck and the name of her party to Pure Lies Party :jap:.

Edited November 28, 2011 by SICHONSTEVE

[lannarebirth]

The current PM was only in office a few months before the flooding. She had no plan to go to for the flood. Where was the flood plan of the previous administration(s)? No one, regardless of who they are, could prepare for or "properly" manage a flood of this magnitude.

It is the height of hypocrisy and dishonesty for Mr. Abhisit to be so vocally critical when he provided no flood plan himself, despite the King requesting flood mitigation measures 15-20 years ago.

Shame on all Thai politicians for this flooding debacle.

Thai politicians are lucky they don't conduct meetings in English, the scorn and ridicule toward them would be infinitely greater if the whole world could hear the immeasurable hate and deceit coming from each.

The PM is the one in charge. Everything leads back to her. She is responsible for selecting her cabinet and enacting decisions. End of story. For HER failure during this flood debacle, she should at least express her apologies by shaving her head. But to really accept the consequences of her actions, she and her ministers should follow the time honored examples of the past and do the "honorable thing".

What's al this "Flood Plan" crap? The "Plan" should be to avoid flooding as much as possible. That's down to competent management by professional persons. The flood came about when politicians interfered with these professionals carrying out their duties.

Edited November 28, 2011 by lannarebirth

[JohnAllan]

If a 102 people died from electrocution, governments other than the current one are probably equally culpable. The Thais' approach to the dangers inherent in using electricity is as cavalier as it is to that of any other potentially lethal activity, and I wonder how many of those deaths were caused by indoor wires and cables being utilised outdoors.

[sillybilly]

Can anybody tell me, where was Yingluck during this debate?? Did she have her say as some pervious thread said she might or did she just sit and listen?