NACC
4 lawmakers may be indicted over charter change
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) may indict just four parliamentarians for their roles in the aborted legislation to amend the Constitution's article related to the composition of the Senate, which was ruled unconstitutional, according to a key Democrat Party member.

The four are former Parliament president Somsak Kiatsuranont; Senate Speaker Nikom Wiratpanij; the former chair of a panel tasked with vetting the charter-change legislation, Samart Kaewmechai; and former Pheu Thai MP Narisorn Thongtirach, who used his colleagues' MP identification cards cast several votes for the legislation, the source said.

Impeachment votes

The law requires three-fifths of the Senate to vote to impeach parliamentarians. It would not make sense if there were only 60 senators left to impeach as many as 383 lawmakers.

"The Organic Law on the Prevention and Suppression of Corruption would require votes from at least three-fifths of all the [remaining] senators, or 60 senators, to impeach the 383 parliamentarians and ban them for five years. I think many people cannot make sense of [that possibility]," he said.

Deputy Democrat Party leader Nipit Intarasombat said he hoped the NACC would do its best on this case, adding that work remained to be done to further strengthen parliamentary controls.


-- The Nation 2013-12-28

The cheats must be punished. Their bosses too

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The cheats must be punished. Their bosses too Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The 4 lawmakers were only carrying out their instructions from the client, its the client /s thats the instigator that should be indicted, or are they/his/her part of the untouchables?

It would probably make more sense for 60 senators to be tasked with impeachment proceedings against 383 who have breeched constitutional law, than gross misconduct by some to, grant them aministy from prosecution. Is that not what brought this entire situation to a head to start with????

It becomes more apparent every day that Tha civil servants/politicians are not capable of making the hard decisions and actions that a real democratic form of government requires.

So it is unconstitutional to amend the constitution to allow a fully elected senate; as in the past? This should have never been an issue. The judges should have never been presented with this issue and should have refused to examine it. I doubt the constitution says judges must agree to constitutional amendments.

This neglected story is really where all the action is - where the law is expressed and enforced. And it really seems as if it's going ahead.

In not an ammendment to the Constitution by defination Unconstitutional?

That is why there is a procedure to ammend the Constitution.

In not an ammendment to the Constitution by defination Unconstitutional?

That is why there is a procedure to ammend the Constitution.

Which they as a group ignored, and the 'committee and parliament leaders' allowed to go forward.

That is why they got the fastest, earliest charges.

No of course the debate on whether 60 can decide on a list of 383, or now is mooted.

Distraction and slight of hand.

The facts are pretty straight forward;

• the rules were clearly breached.

• all the MP's who voted for it should have known their job rules after 2 years in office.

• an MP voted for the bill in an illegal manner.

• and or allowed his electronic card to be used by another.

It should be pretty straightforward. Impeachment is essentially charging them, not convicting.

• Senate functionary states MP name,

• states did they vote illegally or not,

• state there must be a vote on that names impeachment,

• confirms they are listed as voting for bill, but not seen on video voting.

Call the vote count 36 hands, impeach,

move on to next name.

Done in a day or so.