Sukampol Approves Decision To Strip Abhisit Of Military Rank

[webfact]

POLITICS

Sukampol approves decision to strip Abhisit of military rank

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Defence Minister Sukampol Suwannathat said yesterday he had officially endorsed the decision by a ministry committee to strip opposition and Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva of the rank and salary given to him when he worked as military lecturer.

Sukampol said he would forward the case to the Ombudsman's Office, but denied reports that he would hold a press conference on Sunday to announce the panel's decision.

"It will be known by Monday how Abhisit is to be penalised for supplying forged documents needed in the process for exemption from Army conscription,'' Sukampol said.

Abhisit faces the loss of his military rank and salary over charges that he used falsified documents to apply for the position as a military lecturer. He said he would fight the allegation and dismissed it as an attempt to tarnish his image.

"The attempt to remove my military rank is improper and politically motivated. The allegations against me do not involve my actions - they concern invalid documents.

He said the documents in question were produced not by him, but by state agencies. He asked why, if his enlistment in the military was not lawful, no action had been taken against officials in charge of the enlistment.

Abhisit said the move to strip him of his rank demonstrated a double standard, because others who had been sentenced to jail and had their assets confiscated had retained their ranks.

The Opposition leader said the committee had rushed to wrap up the investigation without giving him sufficient opportunity to present his side of the story. He said the committee had invited him to clarify the issue only once - on Tuesday - when he could not appear, as he was on a previously scheduled official overseas trip.

The issue has been used against Abhisit by the Pheu Thai Party and its red-shirt allies, who allege a double standard in favour of the Democrat Party, which they say was backed by the military and rose to power after the military coup in 2006.

-- The Nation 2012-11-09

[hanuman2543]

Isn't it mandatory that every MP needs a criminal conviction?

[LuckyLew]

childish

total idiots ...

"my daddy is bigger than your daddy"

[whybother]

Isn't it mandatory that every MP needs a criminal conviction?

This wouldn't be a criminal conviction.

<i>Sent from my HTC phone.</i>

[hanuman2543]

Isn't it mandatory that every MP needs a criminal conviction?

This wouldn't be a criminal conviction.

<i>Sent from my HTC phone.</i>

It will be a violation of Penal Code 267, at least

Edited November 9, 2012 by hanuman2543

[carra]

Abhisit seems to be missing the point here, whether he knew the documents were fake or not it would still mean his position should not have been held and quite rightly his rank should be removed.

Either way, with his knowledge or without his knowledge he used documents to obtain a position that should not have been used and therefore negates the rank given.

he also goes on about people being convicted do not lose their rank, well again there is no relevance to this as they were convicted, abhisit has not been, and they also got their rank through the proper channels.

And as for his comment that it is politically motivated, I nearly choked on my cornflakes with this comment, pot kettle etc

[saltandpepper]

What a surprise!! The defense minister, a good friend of Thaksin the fugitive criminal, saying that he approves a decision made by PTP UDD puppets on the recommendation of the master on the run?

Anyway.....

[whybother]

Isn't it mandatory that every MP needs a criminal conviction?

This wouldn't be a criminal conviction.

It will be a violation of Penal Code 267, at least

What is penal code 267, and who violated it?

<i>Sent from my HTC phone.</i>

[Katipo]

Isn't it mandatory that every MP needs a criminal conviction?

Yes, and to be out on bail.

[Ferangled]

"The attempt to remove my military rank is improper and politically motivated. The allegations against me do not involve my actions - they concern invalid documents.

Is that an admission that the documents were invalid? Politically motivated? Sure, the focus on this is politically motivated it's hardly an excuse and hypocritical in the extreme to use this phrase as some sort of justification for his actions, let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time in Thailand...

He said the documents in question were produced not by him, but by state agencies. He asked why, if his enlistment in the military was not lawful, no action had been taken against officials in charge of the enlistment.

A tad disingenuous given that the documents were submitted by him and benefited him. What's the saying two wrongs don't make a right?

Abhisit said the move to strip him of his rank demonstrated a double standard, because others who had been sentenced to jail and had their assets confiscated had retained their ranks.

But he hasn't been sentenced to jail, he's been accused of submitting false documents in his original application ie. He was not eligible to take the job in the first place. Personally I'd have a lot more respect for him if he stopped squirming and pointing fingers and just said yes, I submitted false documents as have countless others in this country; it's a corrupt system and we all play the corruption game when it suits us and cry foul of others when it doesn't.

[whybother]

"The attempt to remove my military rank is improper and politically motivated. The allegations against me do not involve my actions - they concern invalid documents.

Is that an admission that the documents were invalid? Politically motivated? Sure, the focus on this is politically motivated it's hardly an excuse and hypocritical in the extreme to use this phrase as some sort of justification for his actions, let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time in Thailand...

He said the documents in question were produced not by him, but by state agencies. He asked why, if his enlistment in the military was not lawful, no action had been taken against officials in charge of the enlistment.

A tad disingenuous given that the documents were submitted by him and benefited him. What's the saying two wrongs don't make a right?

Abhisit said the move to strip him of his rank demonstrated a double standard, because others who had been sentenced to jail and had their assets confiscated had retained their ranks.

But he hasn't been sentenced to jail, he's been accused of submitting false documents in his original application ie. He was not eligible to take the job in the first place. Personally I'd have a lot more respect for him if he stopped squirming and pointing fingers and just said yes, I submitted false documents as have countless others in this country; it's a corrupt system and we all play the corruption game when it suits us and cry foul of others when it doesn't.

"Is that an admission that the documents were invalid?"

No. He is stating that they are allegations.

"A tad disingenuous given that the documents were submitted by him and benefited him."

The documents were given to him by state agencies, and he submitted them not knowing they were fake (according to him). The fact that he benefited him is irrelevant if he didn't know they were fake.

[chuang]

[.

He said the documents in question were produced not by him, but by state agencies. He asked why, if his enlistment in the military was not lawful, no action had been taken against officials in charge of the enlistment.

"AThe documents were given to him by state agencies, and he submitted them not knowing they were fake (according to him). The fact that he benefited him is irrelevant if he didn't know they were fake.

you dont need to be a rocket scientist to know it.....

[OzMick]

Having spent 2 years of my life wearing green, it would be most disconcerting to me if some ministry paper-pusher said there was a typo on a document, and therefore it never happened.

[Tatsujin]

When are they all gonna grow up and stop playing these stupid games and actually start governing this country properly and fairly?

[bigbamboo]

Isn't it mandatory that every MP needs a criminal conviction?

You don't have to be a criminal to be an MP.

But it helps.

[Hog Head]

I wonder if the government will now go after a certain police Captain's rank now that is currently living abroad as he is a convicted criminal

[rixalex]

But he hasn't been sentenced to jail, he's been accused of submitting false documents in his original application ie. He was not eligible to take the job in the first place. Personally I'd have a lot more respect for him if he stopped squirming and pointing fingers and just said yes, I submitted false documents as have countless others in this country; it's a corrupt system and we all play the corruption game when it suits us and cry foul of others when it doesn't.

In a way i agree but as i said in another thread, do you not think that the government setting up and appointing a committee themselves, as they did, to investigate a matter regarding the opposition leader, was always going to be a silly waste of time, because how can they possibly try to argue that the committee was independent? They can't. And that means the committees findings, be they accurate and fair or be they not, would always be easily dismissed as being prejudiced and politically motivated.

Why didn't the government keep their noses out of it and allow an independently put together committee look into this matter? A committee that, in the interests of no double standards, went ahead and did background checks on all MPs for irregularities in their paperwork. Then, when they come back with the finding about Abhisit having done wrong and strip him of his rank, it would carry some weight and credibility.

[rixalex]

he also goes on about people being convicted do not lose their rank, well again there is no relevance to this as they were convicted, abhisit has not been, and they also got their rank through the proper channels.

Of course it is relevant. People who commit crimes and get convicted should not retain their rank. If they do it undermines the entire argument about who should be stripped and who shouldn't. Just imagine had this committee that stripped Abhisit declared that they were also going to strip Thaksin of his rank because he too had no right to it, and because they wanted to show that this was non-political, and simply the following of procedure. What an almighty blow that would have been to Abhisit and the Democrats. How could he have argued against them? How could he have said that it was politically motivated? He couldn't. It would have been a political master-stoke.

<< Off topic comments removed>>

Edited November 9, 2012 by metisdead

[Tatsujin]

he also goes on about people being convicted do not lose their rank, well again there is no relevance to this as they were convicted, abhisit has not been, and they also got their rank through the proper channels.

Of course it is relevant. People who commit crimes and get convicted should not retain their rank. If they do it undermines the entire argument about who should be stripped and who shouldn't. Just imagine had this committee that stripped Abhisit declared that they were also going to strip Thaksin of his rank because he too had no right to it, and because they wanted to show that this was non-political, and simply the following of procedure. What an almighty blow that would have been to Abhisit and the Democrats. How could he have argued against them? How could he have said that it was politically motivated? He couldn't. It would have been a political master-stoke.

<< Off topic comments removed>>

Careful now, you'll be giving them ideas ... lol

[hanuman2543]

Isn't it mandatory that every MP needs a criminal conviction?

This wouldn't be a criminal conviction.

It will be a violation of Penal Code 267, at least

What is penal code 267, and who violated it?

<i>Sent from my HTC phone.</i>

Google Thai Penal Code, Section 266 and start reading from there. Next time before making a comment, get your facts right.

Edited November 9, 2012 by hanuman2543

[whybother]

Google Thai Penal Code, Section 266 and start reading from there. Next time before making a comment, get your facts right.

Facts? I asked a question.

[rixalex]

Google Thai Penal Code, Section 266 and start reading from there. Next time before making a comment, get your facts right.

Bit hasty to be talking about penal codes having been violated don't you think? All we have to go on at the moment is the verdict of a government appointed committee, and what say does a government appointed committee have in penal codes being violated? "No say" is the answer.

Really, what verdict did anyone expect them to arrive at, and what weight does it carry? "A guilty verdict" and "no weight" are the answers. Which is a shame because i think along with an awful lot of other politicians, Abhisit does have a case to answer to.

Edited November 9, 2012 by rixalex

[whybother]

Google Thai Penal Code, Section 266 and start reading from there. Next time before making a comment, get your facts right.

Section 266 Whoever forges any of the following documents:

• A document of right, which is an official document;
  
• A will;
  
• A share certificate or debenture, or share warrant or debenture warrant;
  
• A bill; or
  
• A negotiable certificate of deposit shall be punished with imprisonment of one to ten years and fined of twenty thousand to two hundred thousand Baht.
  

Section 267 Whoever, notifying the official doing oneself's duty to make any false entry in the public or official document for the aims to be used as evidence, shall be imprisoned not out of three years or fined not out of six thousand Baht, or both.

Given that it was a official document supplied by an state entity, it would be the state entity that violated section 266.

Would section 267 apply if you didn't know that the document was fake?

[carra]

he also goes on about people being convicted do not lose their rank, well again there is no relevance to this as they were convicted, abhisit has not been, and they also got their rank through the proper channels.

Of course it is relevant. People who commit crimes and get convicted should not retain their rank. If they do it undermines the entire argument about who should be stripped and who shouldn't. Just imagine had this committee that stripped Abhisit declared that they were also going to strip Thaksin of his rank because he too had no right to it, and because they wanted to show that this was non-political, and simply the following of procedure. What an almighty blow that would have been to Abhisit and the Democrats. How could he have argued against them? How could he have said that it was politically motivated? He couldn't. It would have been a political master-stoke.

<< Off topic comments removed>>

this thread is about abhisit so rather than play the deflection game with you I will discuss abhisit.

There is no correlation between this case and others with the scenarios he mentions. he is talking about people with criminal convictions not having their ranks removed, Of course if the law states that ranks should be removed after a conviction then he would have a point, however in this matter there is no conviction, there is a simple a man that has a rank that was not qualified to hold that rank in the first place, either by his wrongdoing or by someone else. The rank should be removed but salary should not be paid back as he actually worked for that salary.

Does anyone know if the law states that once convicted of a criminal offence ranks should be removed from and individual?

[carra]

Google Thai Penal Code, Section 266 and start reading from there. Next time before making a comment, get your facts right.

Section 266 Whoever forges any of the following documents:

• A document of right, which is an official document;
  
• A will;
  
• A share certificate or debenture, or share warrant or debenture warrant;
  
• A bill; or
  
• A negotiable certificate of deposit shall be punished with imprisonment of one to ten years and fined of twenty thousand to two hundred thousand Baht.
  

Section 267 Whoever, notifying the official doing oneself's duty to make any false entry in the public or official document for the aims to be used as evidence, shall be imprisoned not out of three years or fined not out of six thousand Baht, or both.

Given that it was a official document supplied by an state entity, it would be the state entity that violated section 266.

Would section 267 apply if you didn't know that the document was fake?

But wasn't it the state entity that made this public in the first place? If so then one would think that Abhisit was compliant in this, we all know how this country works as does Abhisit and would he use such things to get ahead? Well we also know the answer to that.

hey look everyone a post using correct names, just plain Abhisit rather than draft dodging none election winning troop sender inner with live ammo running the country on the back of a military backed court Abhisit. Those of you that do this know what I mean, a simple Thaksin will do when mentioning him

[OzMick]

this thread is about abhisit so rather than play the deflection game with you I will discuss abhisit.

There is no correlation between this case and others with the scenarios he mentions. he is talking about people with criminal convictions not having their ranks removed, Of course if the law states that ranks should be removed after a conviction then he would have a point, however in this matter there is no conviction, there is a simple a man that has a rank that was not qualified to hold that rank in the first place, either by his wrongdoing or by someone else. The rank should be removed but salary should not be paid back as he actually worked for that salary.

Does anyone know if the law states that once convicted of a criminal offence ranks should be removed from and individual?

You should be careful when contravening the official party line. If, as you say, he is entitled to his salary as he adequately carried out the task of military lecturer, then obviously he has carried out his national service commitment and is not a draft dodger as claimed by the committee.

This makes them look both petty and spiteful, and the whole brouhaha a political ruse to discredit an opponent. But we knew that, didn't we?

[Nickymaster]

Well done Mr. Defence Minister! I would like to congratulate you on your first achievement since you were put in charge of protecting this country and your soldiers from being killed on a daily basis.

You seem to have your priorities in line. Your boss must be proud of you.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Nickymaster

[rixalex]

There is no correlation between this case and others with the scenarios he mentions.

The correlation is obvious and to with who warrants being stripped of a rank and who doesn't. Just because the case for him being stripped isn't the same as the case for others, doesn't mean they don't all have relevance in this discussion.

Do you think, no matter what the law says, but in principle, convicted criminals should be allowed to retain their ranks? If the answer is no, which i think it would be for most normal people, well then, is it really any wonder that Abhisit, who has just been passed judgement on by a committee set up by Thaksin's government, would make mention of Thaksin's own situation with regards rank (by rank i mean his status not how gross he is), and have a jolly good right to do so?

[rixalex]

Those of you that do this know what I mean, a simple Thaksin will do when mentioning him

A simple Thaksin?

The Thai version of Simon?

[jayboy]

this thread is about abhisit so rather than play the deflection game with you I will discuss abhisit.

There is no correlation between this case and others with the scenarios he mentions. he is talking about people with criminal convictions not having their ranks removed, Of course if the law states that ranks should be removed after a conviction then he would have a point, however in this matter there is no conviction, there is a simple a man that has a rank that was not qualified to hold that rank in the first place, either by his wrongdoing or by someone else. The rank should be removed but salary should not be paid back as he actually worked for that salary.

Does anyone know if the law states that once convicted of a criminal offence ranks should be removed from and individual?

You should be careful when contravening the official party line. If, as you say, he is entitled to his salary as he adequately carried out the task of military lecturer, then obviously he has carried out his national service commitment and is not a draft dodger as claimed by the committee.

This makes them look both petty and spiteful, and the whole brouhaha a political ruse to discredit an opponent. But we knew that, didn't we?

Sow the whirlwind, reap the hurricane.