Jump to content

Pheu Thai MP Wonders Why Constitution Court Named Him As Defendant


webfact

Recommended Posts

Pheu Thai MP wonders why court named him as defendant

The Nation

30184563-01_big.jpg

BANGKOK: -- An MP from the ruling Pheu Thai Party yesterday expressed his suspicion at the Constitution Court's decision to name him and certain other government MPs as defendants in a case against the proponents of charter amendment bills.

Pheu Thai party-list MP Sunai Jullapongsathorn said the petitions filed with the court did not mention him or the other government MPs by name, but the court order identified him and other MPs as defendants.

Five separate groups of people, including opposition politicians, had filed petitions against the Cabinet, Pheu Thai and Chart Thai Pattana parties, as well as MPs involved in the proposal of the bills. They were accused of trying to overthrow the country's democratic regime under constitutional monarchy by proposing a charter amendment that would allow the writing of a new Constitution.

Sunai said yesterday that he suspected there was "something fishy" about the court's move to identify the defendants by name, in addition to naming the Parliament president as a defendant, instead of including the Parliament as an institution. However, the politician added that he would not seek legal action against the court.

"I don't want to have a problem with court," he said, adding that the court "acted too quickly" in accepting the petitions, which he said were intended to dissolve Pheu Thai.

Some of the petitioners said they had filed complaints with the Attorney-General's Office almost three months earlier, and following the prosecutors' disinterest, decided to take the case directly to court just before the Parliament was scheduled to vote on June 4 in the final reading of the bill. Taking the case to court forced the voting to be postponed.

Pheu Thai's leading figure Chalerm Yoobamrung said yesterday that the ruling party would hold a rally at Bangkok's Wong Wien Yai in response to the opposition Democrat Party's recent gathering held to attack the government's controversial constitutional amendment and reconciliation bills.

Chalerm, who is also deputy prime minister, said the Pheu Thai rally would focus on the government's 16 urgent policies, including charter amendment and issuing a law for national reconciliation.

In a related development, some 20 red-shirt supporters yesterday petitioned with the Office of the Ombudsman to look into the alleged violation of the code of ethics by certain Democrat MPs.

Chainarin Kularb-am, one of the petitioners, said Democrat MPs acted improperly when they threatened the House speaker and started a commotion at a recent meeting of the House of Representatives.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra yesterday dismissed talk of the need to persuade the opposition Democrat Party to form a unity government, citing Pheu Thai's strong majority in the House of Representatives.

"The government is stable and we are doing well. Pheu Thai has a House majority and we also have other parties as coalition partners," she said.

Yingluck said that in the face of opposition against its moves for constitutional amendment and reconciliation bills, the government would try to settle the differences through dialogue and negotiation.

She said that her government would not be affected by the frequent exchanges via Facebook between her nephew Panthongtae, son of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, and certain Democrat politicians. "This is a personal matter. The government is doing its job and I don't think there will be any adverse impacts," she said.

nationlogo.jpg

-- The Nation 2012-06-21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yingluck said that in the face of opposition against its moves for constitutional amendment and reconciliation bills, the government would try to settle the differences through dialogue and negotiation.

I guess she is being very correct in saying "try" as to date the efforts have been pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine the court examined the evidence to see who was involved in the cases and named them.

That would be better than summoning 250 plus MPs indescriminately for sure

Logic really......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...