Pheu Thai says opposition must display evidence to impeach PM

[webfact]

Pheu Thai says opposition must display evidence to impeach PM

BANGKOK: -- Ruling Pheu Thai party’s legal team said that the opposition Democrat party must showed documental evidence to support their motion to impeach Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and Interior Minister Charupong Ruangsuwan.

Reaction from the ruling party came after the Democrat last week submitted a motion to House Speaker Somsak Kiartsuranont seeking to impeach the prime minister and the interior minister. Somsak, however, rejected the motion, and asked the Democrat to return with details of charges or allegations in the motion.

Head of the Pheu Thai’s legal team, Mr Phichit Chuenbarn, said that the opposition’s claim of confidential documents that could not be included in the motion was a claim which violated Article 271 of the Constitution.

He said that Article 271 stipulates clearly that any impeachment of persons under Article 2 must include details of charges or allegations against them.

He said if the Democrat claimed that its document was confidential, how could the accused clarified the charges and allegations.

The lawyer said that evidences to support charges and allegations were not confidential documents and that they must be displayed to call for the impeachment.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/pheu-thai-says-opposition-must-display-evidence-impeach-pm/

--Thai PBS 2013-11-18

[hammered]

Members of the House of Representatives of not less than one-fourth of the total number of the existing members of the House have the right to lodge with the President of the Senate a complaint in order to request the Senate to pass a resolution under section 274 removing the persons under section 270 from office. The said request shall clearly itemise circumstances in which such persons have allegedly committed the act.

Section 271 of the 2007 Constitution first paragraph above.

[Nowhereman60]

Another crazy attempt from the Dems, it never stops. A bunch of cry babies. AV leads the pack.

[Nickymaster]

Another crazy attempt from the Dems, it never stops. A bunch of cry babies. AV leads the pack.

I believe that the question is how much evidence and material they have to show, and how much have they actual submitted. I can't believe that they have submitted zero reasons.

In a democracy, its good that the PM answers some questions about her actions and decisions.

Personally, I would love to see Yingluck being grilled.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Nickymaster

[tominbkk]

Personally, I would love to see Yingluck being grilled.

With a nice BBQ sauce.

[Ricardo]

Why do PTP wriggle so, when they have an absolute majority in the House, what can they possibly have to fear ?

[hammered]

Another crazy attempt from the Dems, it never stops. A bunch of cry babies. AV leads the pack.

I believe that the question is how much evidence and material they have to show, and how much have they actual submitted. I can't believe that they have submitted zero reasons.

In a democracy, its good that the PM answers some questions about her actions and decisions.

Personally, I would love to see Yingluck being grilled.

Impeachment is not a grilling but an attempt to remove a position holder from office. As such it is a more technical procedure with certain requirements and it clearly states that the evidence must be clearly laid out. I am sure the Dems can show us what they have submitted if the government are playing games, but the word is that the Dems refuse to say what or give the evidence because they say it is secret. That is clearly in breach of the regulation if true and if true means the speaker is right to request the itemised allegations and evidence. You can't have an impeachment based on the accused not knowing what they are going to be accused of.

[waza]

MP Wiratana Kalayasiri said the Democrats had submitted the censure debate and impeachment motion in the same manner as they had on Friday. Somsak's condition that the Democrats must submit documents to justify their attack is seen as a tactic to snoop into the opposition's information...........However, Somsak said the opposition had failed to submit accompanying documents to support the impeachment move and allegations related to graft. He said he would consult his legal team before tabling the censure motion and authorising the debate.

"The opposition insists that it cannot hand out the documents to the House Speaker although he has the authority to consider putting the motion on parliamentary agenda. He cannot just use his power any way he wants or follow [someone's] order. He must face legal action in those cases. The Democrats will sign to impeach him and take measures against him as allowed by the law," Wiratana said......MP Warong Dechgitvigrom said his scrutiny of the government's rice-pledging scheme would be able to bring about a change in the government.
.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Democrats-threaten-legal-action-if-Speaker-blocks--30219799.html

I agree its hard to supply documentation of this corrupt practices when Yinglucks administration is concealing the facts and releasing misinformation.

[hammered]

MP Wiratana Kalayasiri said the Democrats had submitted the censure debate and impeachment motion in the same manner as they had on Friday. Somsak's condition that the Democrats must submit documents to justify their attack is seen as a tactic to snoop into the opposition's information...........However, Somsak said the opposition had failed to submit accompanying documents to support the impeachment move and allegations related to graft. He said he would consult his legal team before tabling the censure motion and authorising the debate.

"The opposition insists that it cannot hand out the documents to the House Speaker although he has the authority to consider putting the motion on parliamentary agenda. He cannot just use his power any way he wants or follow [someone's] order. He must face legal action in those cases. The Democrats will sign to impeach him and take measures against him as allowed by the law," Wiratana said......MP Warong Dechgitvigrom said his scrutiny of the government's rice-pledging scheme would be able to bring about a change in the government.

.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Democrats-threaten-legal-action-if-Speaker-blocks--30219799.html

I agree its hard to supply documentation of this corrupt practices when Yinglucks administration is concealing the facts and releasing misinformation.

"The said request shall clearly itemise circumstances in which such persons have allegedly committed the act."

That is what the constitution says and that is what Somsak has asked for. What are they impeaching the PM for? An impeachment is a trial, and the defendent is entitled to defend theirself. That is basic law. You can't just say "we want to impeach the PM and we are not going to say why and we are not going to let her defend herself". That is kangaroo court stuff.

[Thait Spot]

Another crazy attempt from the Dems, it never stops.  A bunch of cry babies.  AV leads the pack.

Indeed. They all ran away to hide in Dubai.

Oh! Sorry. That was someone else.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[worgeordie]

Why do PTP wriggle so, when they have an absolute majority in the House, what can they possibly have to fear ?

The people.

regards Worgeordie

[jcb2001]

Why do PTP wriggle so, when they have an absolute majority in the House, what can they possibly have to fear ?

310 Pheu Thai MPs being banned before Yingluck's impeachment. There would be no Pheu Thai MPs to save her.

[Thainy Tim]

MP Wiratana Kalayasiri said the Democrats had submitted the censure debate and impeachment motion in the same manner as they had on Friday. Somsak's condition that the Democrats must submit documents to justify their attack is seen as a tactic to snoop into the opposition's information...........However, Somsak said the opposition had failed to submit accompanying documents to support the impeachment move and allegations related to graft. He said he would consult his legal team before tabling the censure motion and authorising the debate.

"The opposition insists that it cannot hand out the documents to the House Speaker although he has the authority to consider putting the motion on parliamentary agenda. He cannot just use his power any way he wants or follow [someone's] order. He must face legal action in those cases. The Democrats will sign to impeach him and take measures against him as allowed by the law," Wiratana said......MP Warong Dechgitvigrom said his scrutiny of the government's rice-pledging scheme would be able to bring about a change in the government.

.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Democrats-threaten-legal-action-if-Speaker-blocks--30219799.html

I agree its hard to supply documentation of this corrupt practices when Yinglucks administration is concealing the facts and releasing misinformation.

"The said request shall clearly itemise circumstances in which such persons have allegedly committed the act."

That is what the constitution says and that is what Somsak has asked for. What are they impeaching the PM for? An impeachment is a trial, and the defendent is entitled to defend theirself. That is basic law. You can't just say "we want to impeach the PM and we are not going to say why and we are not going to let her defend herself". That is kangaroo court stuff.

Since when did a court insist that a prosecution hand its full case including all its evidence to the defendants weeks before the case is heard?

They just issue the charges and both prosecuter and defendant are given time to prepare their case.

The Dems have already said that the charges will be abuse of power etc etc. Come the day of the grilling, they will ask their questions and unleash their evidence.

Somsak is trying to prevent this, because we all know that he is heavily influenced by the PTP and the man in the sand.

If I were Abhisit, I would give them just enough to get the hearing under way, then unleash the juicy bits when the time comes.,

[Moruya]

So, it doesn't require evidence - just clear charges.

The last time the Dems presented evidence, Tarit took it away as homework and hid it under his favourite stone.

I believe evidence on the Rice Scam was produced in the house implicating a red shirt wife.

I'm sure the good people at the ministry of finance (the ones that haven't been moved to jobs where they can't hurt the PTP) could show in jiffy that the scheme is corrupt. The percentage to farmers was very small. Where did the rest go?

[Moruya]

So, it doesn't require evidence - just clear charges.

The last time the Dems presented evidence, Tarit took it away as homework and hid it under his favourite stone.

I believe evidence on the Rice Scam was produced in the house implicating a red shirt wife.

I'm sure the good people at the ministry of finance (the ones that haven't been moved to jobs where they can't hurt the PTP) could show in jiffy that the scheme is corrupt. The percentage to farmers was very small. Where did the rest go?

[seajae]

Why do PTP wriggle so, when they have an absolute majority in the House, what can they possibly have to fear ?

The Truth

[Skywalker69]

Why do PTP wriggle so, when they have an absolute majority in the House, what can they possibly have to fear ?

The know they are walking on thin ice.

[thaicbr]

MP Wiratana Kalayasiri said the Democrats had submitted the censure debate and impeachment motion in the same manner as they had on Friday. Somsak's condition that the Democrats must submit documents to justify their attack is seen as a tactic to snoop into the opposition's information...........However, Somsak said the opposition had failed to submit accompanying documents to support the impeachment move and allegations related to graft. He said he would consult his legal team before tabling the censure motion and authorising the debate.

"The opposition insists that it cannot hand out the documents to the House Speaker although he has the authority to consider putting the motion on parliamentary agenda. He cannot just use his power any way he wants or follow [someone's] order. He must face legal action in those cases. The Democrats will sign to impeach him and take measures against him as allowed by the law," Wiratana said......MP Warong Dechgitvigrom said his scrutiny of the government's rice-pledging scheme would be able to bring about a change in the government.

.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Democrats-threaten-legal-action-if-Speaker-blocks--30219799.html

 

I agree its hard to supply documentation of this corrupt practices when Yinglucks administration is concealing the facts and releasing misinformation.

 

"The said request shall clearly itemise circumstances in which such persons have allegedly committed the act."

 

That is what the constitution says and that is what Somsak has asked for. What are they impeaching the PM for? An impeachment is a trial, and the defendent is entitled to defend theirself. That is basic law. You can't just say "we want to impeach the PM and we are not going to say why and we are not going to let her defend herself". That is kangaroo court stuff.

It seems to me that is not what he is asking for. He is asking for their evidence. The Democrats have stated why they are impeaching its up to Yingluck to know what she has been getting paid for.

Is an impeachment a trial. Really?

Sent from my aigoPadM60 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[jdinasia]

Another crazy attempt from the Dems, it never stops. A bunch of cry babies. AV leads the pack.

I believe that the question is how much evidence and material they have to show, and how much have they actual submitted. I can't believe that they have submitted zero reasons.

In a democracy, its good that the PM answers some questions about her actions and decisions.

Personally, I would love to see Yingluck being grilled.

Impeachment is not a grilling but an attempt to remove a position holder from office. As such it is a more technical procedure with certain requirements and it clearly states that the evidence must be clearly laid out. I am sure the Dems can show us what they have submitted if the government are playing games, but the word is that the Dems refuse to say what or give the evidence because they say it is secret. That is clearly in breach of the regulation if true and if true means the speaker is right to request the itemised allegations and evidence. You can't have an impeachment based on the accused not knowing what they are going to be accused of.

That section does seem to state that very clearly, I will need to read the rest.

That being said, the PTP did just open a door for this to be put out there in a way that could potentially avoid defamation charges AND get the information out to the people in the fastest manner possible.

[Nickymaster]

So, it doesn't require evidence - just clear charges.

The last time the Dems presented evidence, Tarit took it away as homework and hid it under his favourite stone.

I believe evidence on the Rice Scam was produced in the house implicating a red shirt wife.

I'm sure the good people at the ministry of finance (the ones that haven't been moved to jobs where they can't hurt the PTP) could show in jiffy that the scheme is corrupt. The percentage to farmers was very small. Where did the rest go?

The rest of the money is still in the rice stock. One day rice will be scarce and then PT can sell it for 3 times the buying price.

[Thai at Heart]

They just fancy impeaching someone without giving any evidence?

And these are people from the supposedly intelligent party?

[waza]

MP Wiratana Kalayasiri said the Democrats had submitted the censure debate and impeachment motion in the same manner as they had on Friday. Somsak's condition that the Democrats must submit documents to justify their attack is seen as a tactic to snoop into the opposition's information...........However, Somsak said the opposition had failed to submit accompanying documents to support the impeachment move and allegations related to graft. He said he would consult his legal team before tabling the censure motion and authorising the debate.

"The opposition insists that it cannot hand out the documents to the House Speaker although he has the authority to consider putting the motion on parliamentary agenda. He cannot just use his power any way he wants or follow [someone's] order. He must face legal action in those cases. The Democrats will sign to impeach him and take measures against him as allowed by the law," Wiratana said......MP Warong Dechgitvigrom said his scrutiny of the government's rice-pledging scheme would be able to bring about a change in the government.

.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Democrats-threaten-legal-action-if-Speaker-blocks--30219799.html

I agree its hard to supply documentation of this corrupt practices when Yinglucks administration is concealing the facts and releasing misinformation.

"The said request shall clearly itemise circumstances in which such persons have allegedly committed the act."

That is what the constitution says and that is what Somsak has asked for. What are they impeaching the PM for? An impeachment is a trial, and the defendent is entitled to defend theirself. That is basic law. You can't just say "we want to impeach the PM and we are not going to say why and we are not going to let her defend herself". That is kangaroo court stuff.

Get it right Hammered, they are saying, it may be the oppositions constitutional right to start impeachment proceeding against Yingluck and her cabinet. But first the opposition must provide all evidence to Somsak, who is the self appointed gatekeeper and will judge whether the motion can proceed.

Show me where it says in the constitution that this is the procedure?

"The said request shall clearly itemise circumstances in which such persons have allegedly committed the act".

Edited November 18, 2013 by waza

[slapout]

The article being quoted , which is displayed above, does not say documents must be presented. In my reading I believe, its says itemized circumstances for the motion must be presented.

Someone please correct me if I misread the text. This looks like more what those in power want that what they are not legally entitled to. They apparently want the DSI type of forwarning, gives enough time to manufactor new paper work, move money, leave the country, etc.

Edited November 18, 2013 by slapout

[bigbamboo]

Thai politics doesn't need an amnesty it needs a cull.

[hammered]

MP Wiratana Kalayasiri said the Democrats had submitted the censure debate and impeachment motion in the same manner as they had on Friday. Somsak's condition that the Democrats must submit documents to justify their attack is seen as a tactic to snoop into the opposition's information...........However, Somsak said the opposition had failed to submit accompanying documents to support the impeachment move and allegations related to graft. He said he would consult his legal team before tabling the censure motion and authorising the debate.

"The opposition insists that it cannot hand out the documents to the House Speaker although he has the authority to consider putting the motion on parliamentary agenda. He cannot just use his power any way he wants or follow [someone's] order. He must face legal action in those cases. The Democrats will sign to impeach him and take measures against him as allowed by the law," Wiratana said......MP Warong Dechgitvigrom said his scrutiny of the government's rice-pledging scheme would be able to bring about a change in the government.

.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Democrats-threaten-legal-action-if-Speaker-blocks--30219799.html

I agree its hard to supply documentation of this corrupt practices when Yinglucks administration is concealing the facts and releasing misinformation.

"The said request shall clearly itemise circumstances in which such persons have allegedly committed the act."

That is what the constitution says and that is what Somsak has asked for. What are they impeaching the PM for? An impeachment is a trial, and the defendent is entitled to defend theirself. That is basic law. You can't just say "we want to impeach the PM and we are not going to say why and we are not going to let her defend herself". That is kangaroo court stuff.

Get it right Hammered, they are saying, it may be the oppositions constitutional right to start impeachment proceeding against Yingluck and her cabinet. But first the opposition must provide all evidence to Somsak, who is the self appointed gatekeeper and will judge whether the motion can proceed.

Show me where it says in the constitution that this is the procedure?

"The said request shall clearly itemise circumstances in which such persons have allegedly committed the act".

So you are saying that your interpretation is that a defendant has no right to see any of the evidence against them. That is a kangaroo court.

[Thainy Tim]

They just fancy impeaching someone without giving any evidence?

And these are people from the supposedly intelligent party?

Nobody said they weren't giving any evidence, they are saying that they want to keep it secret until the impeachment hearing.

But Somsak is blocking any chance of a hearing unless he can see the evidence first. Of course he will leak copies straight to Yingluk, Thaksin and everyone else involved. He is in their pockets remember.

AV is probably rightly concerned that all those involved will have everything stitched up with corruption to counter the evidence by the time the hearing comes around.

[thaicbr]

MP Wiratana Kalayasiri said the Democrats had submitted the censure debate and impeachment motion in the same manner as they had on Friday. Somsak's condition that the Democrats must submit documents to justify their attack is seen as a tactic to snoop into the opposition's information...........However, Somsak said the opposition had failed to submit accompanying documents to support the impeachment move and allegations related to graft. He said he would consult his legal team before tabling the censure motion and authorising the debate.

"The opposition insists that it cannot hand out the documents to the House Speaker although he has the authority to consider putting the motion on parliamentary agenda. He cannot just use his power any way he wants or follow [someone's] order. He must face legal action in those cases. The Democrats will sign to impeach him and take measures against him as allowed by the law," Wiratana said......MP Warong Dechgitvigrom said his scrutiny of the government's rice-pledging scheme would be able to bring about a change in the government.

.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Democrats-threaten-legal-action-if-Speaker-blocks--30219799.html

I agree its hard to supply documentation of this corrupt practices when Yinglucks administration is concealing the facts and releasing misinformation.

"The said request shall clearly itemise circumstances in which such persons have allegedly committed the act."

That is what the constitution says and that is what Somsak has asked for. What are they impeaching the PM for? An impeachment is a trial, and the defendent is entitled to defend theirself. That is basic law. You can't just say "we want to impeach the PM and we are not going to say why and we are not going to let her defend herself". That is kangaroo court stuff.

Get it right Hammered, they are saying, it may be the oppositions constitutional right to start impeachment proceeding against Yingluck and her cabinet. But first the opposition must provide all evidence to Somsak, who is the self appointed gatekeeper and will judge whether the motion can proceed.

Show me where it says in the constitution that this is the procedure?

"The said request shall clearly itemise circumstances in which such persons have allegedly committed the act".

So you are saying that your interpretation is that a defendant has no right to see any of the evidence against them. That is a kangaroo court.

It's NOT a court. Shinawatras don't like seeing/entering court. That's why big brother caddy cloner did a runner.

[mrfill]

They just fancy impeaching someone without giving any evidence?

And these are people from the supposedly intelligent party?

I reckon one of them has found this word - impeachment - in the dictionary and rather liked the definition. So they decide to impeach and when someone asks "what for?", they go all Monty Python - "because they have all been very naughty".

When the film is made (Life of Thaksin?) I want Rob Ford (Toronto mayor) as TS, Kathy Burke as his sister and Eddie Izzard as Pontius Pilate.

[Thai at Heart]

They just fancy impeaching someone without giving any evidence?

And these are people from the supposedly intelligent party?

Nobody said they weren't giving any evidence, they are saying that they want to keep it secret until the impeachment hearing.

But Somsak is blocking any chance of a hearing unless he can see the evidence first. Of course he will leak copies straight to Yingluk, Thaksin and everyone else involved. He is in their pockets remember.

AV is probably rightly concerned that all those involved will have everything stitched up with corruption to counter the evidence by the time the hearing comes around.

The interesting thing,, would be, in a political environment, why can't someone just present it to the parliament.

An impeachment hearing suggests presenting evidence of grand wrong doing or incompetence. Why does this need to be forewarned, just present it in the journal course of the day.

Of yingluck wants to just brazen it out,, don't bother with an impeachment, just present it.

[Thai at Heart]

MP Wiratana Kalayasiri said the Democrats had submitted the censure debate and impeachment motion in the same manner as they had on Friday. Somsak's condition that the Democrats must submit documents to justify their attack is seen as a tactic to snoop into the opposition's information...........However, Somsak said the opposition had failed to submit accompanying documents to support the impeachment move and allegations related to graft. He said he would consult his legal team before tabling the censure motion and authorising the debate.

"The opposition insists that it cannot hand out the documents to the House Speaker although he has the authority to consider putting the motion on parliamentary agenda. He cannot just use his power any way he wants or follow [someone's] order. He must face legal action in those cases. The Democrats will sign to impeach him and take measures against him as allowed by the law," Wiratana said......MP Warong Dechgitvigrom said his scrutiny of the government's rice-pledging scheme would be able to bring about a change in the government.

.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Democrats-threaten-legal-action-if-Speaker-blocks--30219799.html

I agree its hard to supply documentation of this corrupt practices when Yinglucks administration is concealing the facts and releasing misinformation.

"The said request shall clearly itemise circumstances in which such persons have allegedly committed the act."

That is what the constitution says and that is what Somsak has asked for. What are they impeaching the PM for? An impeachment is a trial, and the defendent is entitled to defend theirself. That is basic law. You can't just say "we want to impeach the PM and we are not going to say why and we are not going to let her defend herself". That is kangaroo court stuff.

Get it right Hammered, they are saying, it may be the oppositions constitutional right to start impeachment proceeding against Yingluck and her cabinet. But first the opposition must provide all evidence to Somsak, who is the self appointed gatekeeper and will judge whether the motion can proceed.

Show me where it says in the constitution that this is the procedure?

"The said request shall clearly itemise circumstances in which such persons have allegedly committed the act".

So you are saying that your interpretation is that a defendant has no right to see any of the evidence against them. That is a kangaroo court.

It's NOT a court. Shinawatras don't like seeing/entering court. That's why big brother caddy cloner did a runner.

An impeachment would suggest providing evidence of illegality. It's not a court and as such anything can be presented if you fancy running the gamut of the defamation law.