Thai anti-graft panel to charge hundreds of Thai MPs

[Emptyset]

This might be a way to try to put the Puea Thai party out of action fot the coming election .

One hopes that no action will be taken . This equates with putting a big stick in a hornets nest .

This is not a time to try to play legal/political games , when the country is so divided , it risks an explosion into civil war .

Well, that's the assumption:

Emptyset - that is a fascinating action chart, please can you give us a source?

I saw it on Twitter yesterday. Should add that I don't think it's purported to be PDRC's actual plan (like that leaked white board chart or something), but instead represents someone's - widely shared - assumption of what the anti-govt game plan is.

[thesetat2013]

Excuse me for being a stupid farang but, I don't understand how 308 MP can be guilty for agreeing to vote for something that is unconstitutional. When all Phue Thai MP's including the PM voted for that Amnesty Bill. So does that mean the others including the PM only broke the law a little by voting once or twice and the 308 broke the law for voting this bill every time? Or is this just a way to keep the PM and a few top echelons from being seen in a more negative spotlight to diffuse any more animosity against her before Jan. 13?

[fab4]

Yes, anyone unfamiliar with the 'Thai Way' read right: graft charges for trying to make a partly appointed legislature fully elected. Has so many westerners outraged and up in arms, via the keyboard

I think that if you look more carefully you will find that it's for how it was done, not generically drafting a law.

So you agree, as the Constitution Court stated, that the PTP in proposing this amendment

"sought to “overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this [2007] Constitution.” ?

Please tell me how this would occur and while you're at it tell me why the CC took no action against the PTP for this treasonous act? You're either overthrowing a State or you're not, there is no halfway house.

To most intelligent enquiring minds this would indicate a Constitutional Court that has gone way beyond their remit and constantly making more and more contentious interpretations of the Constitution.

That is why the PTP treat the CC with disdain.

Edited January 8, 2014 by fab4

[LiveInHope]

Yes, anyone unfamiliar with the 'Thai Way' read right: graft charges for trying to make a partly appointed legislature fully elected. Has so many westerners outraged and up in arms, via the keyboard

Perhaps you may wish to reconsider your rant, as judging by this and several of your previous postings you seemingly understand very little of what is actually happening here. Maybe adopt a new identity and start again?

[Thait Spot]

Yes, anyone unfamiliar with the 'Thai Way' read right: graft charges for trying to make a partly appointed legislature fully elected. Has so many westerners outraged and up in arms, via the keyboard

I think that if you look more carefully you will find that it's for how it was done, not generically drafting a law.

So you agree, as the Constitution Court stated, that the PTP in proposing this amendment

"sought to “overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this [2007] Constitution.” ?

Please tell me how this would occur and while you're at it tell me why the CC took no action against the PTP for this treasonous act? You're either overthrowing a State or you're not, there is no halfway house.

To most intelligent enquiring minds this would indicate a Constitutional Court that has gone way beyond their remit and constantly making more and more contentious interpretations of the Constitution.

That is why the PTP treat the CC with disdain.

The PTP is quite aware that the CC is one of the few remaining endependent organisations and resents this.

For the record, saying that the chnages are unconstitutional and kicking the bill out is not punitive.

Cheating on the vote and hacking about with the act whilst it is going through parliament are 2 completely different matters - both of which show the governments contempy for democracy and should be punished to the maximum.

[fasteddie]

Spartakos, on 07 Jan 2014 - 21:46, said:

I suggest to reform the PTP party to be composed of just 1 person think how much trouble it would save the country. Cut the brigade of useless cronies and just direct all the stolen money to 1 account. Simplicity is the key.

http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/162240/dictatorship

dictatorship, form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations.

I can think of someone who might have that as the ultimate dream. Can anyone guess who I'm thinking of?

Mad dog Suthep, obviously.

[rickirs]

Wait a minute. The anti-graft panel clears 73 politicians including Yingluck of possible abuse of power in connection with a bid to make the senate fully elected. But then it charges 308 others from the House and Senate for proposing changes to the constitution, which was rejected by the Constitutional Court in accordance with Thailand's due process of law. How are these two events NOT RELATED? It would seem the panel would have to make a finding consistent with both situations. And if it takes the Constitutional Court to determine whether charter changes are constitutional, how can the panel then predetermine the possibility of guilt? It's like accusing someone of fraud to claim innocence because he was found subsequently to be guilty by trial.

[jope]

fab4 posted:

An alternative setup is used in Germany, where the second chamber consists of delegates (also not elected) of the several states (16 to date) and the number of seats relates to the number of people of each state. These are delegates of the state government, not elected!. And they are to make sure that the insterests of each state is being taken into account during legislative work by the (elected) parliament. Just so that you know...

Sam

That needs clarification:

Actually the members of the German second chamber are elected, not directly though (like US Senators). They are members of the respective state governments (elected by the respective state parliaments) and one of their duties is to represent their states in the second chamber. So, there is no lack in democratic principles at all!

[MrSlatersParrot]

The investigation only says that there are sufficient grounds in which to bring charges. It is not a finding of guilt. The cases have to go through a judicial inquiry and often, the charges cannot be proven, or the "evidence" is shown to be unreliable. In other cases, the evidence is sufficient to obtain a guilty verdict, in which case, the guilty party should indeed suffer the penalty.

The charges may have been politically motivated, but that doesn't mean they may not be valid. I would expect that most will be dismissed. That being said, by the time the cases make their way through court, the PTP will have been re-elected and the MPs sitting for at least 2 years.The Democrats also face politically motivated charges that could see the party dissolved if successful. Again, while unlikely, it is doubtful the case(s) will be resolved anytime soon.

Some of you will be enjoying PM Yingluck for another term of office. Isn't that marvelous?

But sincere question: how can it be illegal (a crime) for an elected representative to propose a change/amendment to the constitution? If the proposal is unconstitutional, then it will be thrown out. But how can it be a crime to propose a law or amendment? Conversely, how is it not a crime for anti-government protesters to propose doing away with elections altogether (as mandated by the same constitution), and instead propose that Thailand be governed by a ruling council of buddies, brothers, uncles and various other technocrats? Isn't what is going on ridiculously evident?

Well it should be ridiculously evident, but for some reason certain people think it's perfectly normal for a Constitutional Court to make up their interpretations of the Constitution as they go along, ignoring any precedent (there being no legal basis to precedent in Thailand, I believe). This has led to a situation where feasibly, any government of whatever political party, will not be able to make any changes to the Military Junta written 2007 Constitution.

That a parliamentary effort to amend a contested constitution should be deemed either treasonous or to be usurping power is nonsensical. It would have been greeted with quizzical disbelief if it had not been a decision by one of Thailands highest courts. Because the countrys judiciary has become so highly politicized, decisions that defy legal logic now seem the norm.............. Thailands interesting times are set to continue. The biased judiciary may be required to intervene again, but it is probably content to have provided legitimacy for those seeking to bring down the elected government. http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/thailand-judiciary-politicized/

Which, of course, was the plan all along. We don't want the status quo threatened, do we?

I think the comments from bangkok watcher at the bottom article sum up perfectly the closed system that's now set in place.

"Guess who appoints the members of the Constitutional Court? The partially appointed Senate.

Guess who appoints the appointed Senators?

A Senate Selection Committee of five, one of whom is the President of the Constitutional Court.

Indeed, every member of the Senate Selection Committee is appointed.

Its a closed system designed to ensure that the current status quo retain their power.

Unfortunately, this aspect of the Senate and the Constitutional Court (and the other independent bodies of the Thai government) doesnt get the press it deserves."

[pookiki]

The PTP is quite aware that the CC is one of the few remaining endependent organisations and resents this.

For the record, saying that the chnages are unconstitutional and kicking the bill out is not punitive.

Cheating on the vote and hacking about with the act whilst it is going through parliament are 2 completely different matters - both of which show the governments contempy for democracy and should be punished to the maximum.

Agree! But there has been nothing that I have read where the NACC is making this distinction. The only reference is to voting.

[philw]

Yes, anyone unfamiliar with the 'Thai Way' read right: graft charges for trying to make a partly appointed legislature fully elected. Has so many westerners outraged and up in arms, via the keyboard

I think that if you look more carefully you will find that it's for how it was done, not generically drafting a law.

So you agree, as the Constitution Court stated, that the PTP in proposing this amendment

"sought to “overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this [2007] Constitution.” ?

Please tell me how this would occur and while you're at it tell me why the CC took no action against the PTP for this treasonous act? You're either overthrowing a State or you're not, there is no halfway house.

To most intelligent enquiring minds this would indicate a Constitutional Court that has gone way beyond their remit and constantly making more and more contentious interpretations of the Constitution.

That is why the PTP treat the CC with disdain.

The PTP is quite aware that the CC is one of the few remaining endependent organisations and resents this.

For the record, saying that the chnages are unconstitutional and kicking the bill out is not punitive.

Cheating on the vote and hacking about with the act whilst it is going through parliament are 2 completely different matters - both of which show the governments contempy for democracy and should be punished to the maximum.

The CC is about as independant and impartially judicious as my mother in law...

Additionally, the only contempt for democracy being shown in the the current circumstances is being shown by, you guessed it, the Democrat party............

They who should know better.............

Edited January 8, 2014 by philw

[tomacht8]

I would like to see real charges against real corruption not some BS vote in Parliament violation. A complete

load of crap and waste of time. Belittles the fight against real corruption.

I think it is not waste of time to see evidence and to have a documentation.

This is corruption high end.

Whery clean. No dirty farmer hands.

Nice shirts, suits and watches.

Here you can see, how they voting.

"I give you my voting card for 1 Million ok?"

One people - One vote?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFe_6WtYC8U

Edited January 8, 2014 by tomacht8

[fab4]

I would like to see real charges against real corruption not some BS vote in Parliament violation. A complete

load of crap and waste of time. Belittles the fight against real corruption.

I think it is not waste of time to see evidence and to have a documentation.

This is corruption high end.

Whery clean. No dirty farmer hands.

Nice shirts, suits and watches.

Here you can see, how they voting.

"I give you my voting card for 1 Million ok?"

One people - One vote?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFe_6WtYC8U

Any comment on the decision by the CC to determine that the PTP whilst proposing the senate bill had violated Section 68, that is to "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State" but not do anything about it? Basically an act of Treason?

Just a tad more serious than MP's voting on behalf of fellow MP's having a fag break out back.

Does that seem like a reasonable judgement by a level headed selection of judges charged with protecting the Countrys' Constitution? I mean, Really?

[aimbc]

My prediction or my hope is that they will try to slap these guys with some serious charge, in order to have PT negotiate.

[Thait Spot]

Yes, anyone unfamiliar with the 'Thai Way' read right: graft charges for trying to make a partly appointed legislature fully elected. Has so many westerners outraged and up in arms, via the keyboard

I think that if you look more carefully you will find that it's for how it was done, not generically drafting a law.

So you agree, as the Constitution Court stated, that the PTP in proposing this amendment

"sought to “overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this [2007] Constitution.” ?

Please tell me how this would occur and while you're at it tell me why the CC took no action against the PTP for this treasonous act? You're either overthrowing a State or you're not, there is no halfway house.

To most intelligent enquiring minds this would indicate a Constitutional Court that has gone way beyond their remit and constantly making more and more contentious interpretations of the Constitution.

That is why the PTP treat the CC with disdain.

The PTP is quite aware that the CC is one of the few remaining endependent organisations and resents this.

For the record, saying that the chnages are unconstitutional and kicking the bill out is not punitive.

Cheating on the vote and hacking about with the act whilst it is going through parliament are 2 completely different matters - both of which show the governments contempy for democracy and should be punished to the maximum.

The CC is about as independant and impartially judicious as my mother in law...

Additionally, the only contempt for democracy being shown in the the current circumstances is being shown by, you guessed it, the Democrat party............

They who should know better.............

The legal authorities, the ones that count, clearly disagree with you.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[tomacht8]

I would like to see real charges against real corruption not some BS vote in Parliament violation. A complete

load of crap and waste of time. Belittles the fight against real corruption.

I think it is not waste of time to see evidence and to have a documentation.

This is corruption high end.

Whery clean. No dirty farmer hands.

Nice shirts, suits and watches.

Here you can see, how they voting.

"I give you my voting card for 1 Million ok?"

One people - One vote?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFe_6WtYC8U

Any comment on the decision by the CC to determine that the PTP whilst proposing the senate bill had violated Section 68, that is to "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State" but not do anything about it? Basically an act of Treason?

Just a tad more serious than MP's voting on behalf of fellow MP's having a fag break out back.

Does that seem like a reasonable judgement by a level headed selection of judges charged with protecting the Countrys' Constitution? I mean, Really?

One does not have to look into the depth of the Constitution to see a punishable violation.

As you wrote:

"Just a tad more serious than MP's voting on behalf of fellow MP's having a fag break out back."

The owners of the voting cards were not even there!

The absent owners of the voting cards did not know for which amendment their voting cards were used,

because there were some last minute changes, of which the owners of these voting cards knew nothing.

I would banish both groups from the Parliament forever.

A.) Those who have given their voting cards away to other MPs.

Irresponsible and not worthy to sit in a parliament.

B.) Those who have used from other - not present - MPs voting cards for voting.

Abuse of power from voting rights.

This has no democratic moral or ethics.

Edited January 8, 2014 by tomacht8

[tilac2]

You are wrong. In many countries the upper house is elected, sometimes using a different voting system from that used in the lower house. In the 1997 constitution, Thailand had a fully elected system in line with the modern world. That was changed in the later constitution to be not wholly elected.

Perhaps you are from the UK where the upper house (Lords) is unelected.

Prbkk is supporting democracy in his posts. Others here, alas, are supporting the coups that have plagued Thailand for generations.

Eventually Thailand is going to have to become reconciled to democracy. Get used to it.

Yes, anyone unfamiliar with the 'Thai Way' read right: graft charges for trying to make a partly appointed legislature fully elected. Has so many westerners outraged and up in arms, via the keyboard

Are you Thai ? If not you should realize that most democratic countries have a "upper" and "lower" chamber, or in my case a 1st and 2nd. Where the people elected draft bill in legislation and once accepted it goes to the senate (upper house / 1st house) where NON elected members, who gain no votes about the way they vote decide if or if not the bill is legit.

Now if you have the same people in both house you might as well dismember one of them since it would be of no use !

So quoting another member on this forum " ALL you write is rubbish"

Edited January 8, 2014 by tilac2

[JRSoul]

You are wrong. In many countries the upper house is elected, sometimes using a different voting system from that used in the lower house. In the 1997 constitution, Thailand had a fully elected system in line with the modern world. That was changed in the later constitution to be not wholly elected.

Perhaps you are from the UK where the upper house (Lords) is unelected.

Prbkk is supporting democracy in his posts. Others here, alas, are supporting the coups that have plagued Thailand for generations.

Eventually Thailand is going to have to become reconciled to democracy. Get used to it.

The Thai system for selecting a senate has one thing in its favour - it seems to work well. OTOH had it been left as a fully elected body, there is a good chance the amnesty legislation would now be law, thousands of criminals would escape prosecution and punishment, and a good percentage of the population would be outraged.

Coming from a country with a fully elected senate, I know the downside. Small less populous states having equal numbers of senators to larger states, giving unequal representation. This led to a single senator, elected by a handful of people, holding the balance of power and dictating the country's foreign policy to meet his idiotic religious views, views NOT held by most Australians. Aid to other countries could not include contraception education or birth control equipment even to overpopulated nations and during an HIV epidemic. Very bloody democratic!

I see no reason why EVERY member of government needs to be elected; why a senate cannot have selected people of high reputation who have proved their intelligence and worth through a life of service rather than party hacks, sycophants and camp followers.

I also see no reason why democracy should be taken to the ridiculous lengths seen in some (few) countries, with elected judges, police, even bloody dog-catchers who are forced to compromise their duties to political expediency.

[indyuk]

The current problem is nothing to do with goodwill or democracy. The cause of all of this trouble is the corruption of the 1997 constitution when being modified to ensure that the elite could always prevent the proletariat from governing the nation, after winning an election, if they the Elite did not like the policies of any government in office.

The present caretaker government had been in the process of modifying the current constitution to reflect the meaning and intent of the 1997 constitution which guarantees that Thailand remain a democratic constitutional Monarchy.

It is this issue that guarantees the current seditionist his funding from the Elite families of Thailand.

If the Thai Army is worthy of it's true purpose it should always stand side by side with the elected government of the day.

The Thai government will not have international credibility until it protects the peoples rights as well as their borders and their safety when threatened by an enemy. A seditionary force is an enemy.

[dukebowling]

What ever happened to the impeachment charges of the 5 Constitutional Court judges that voted against the charter amendment? This corruption must be rooted out. Talk about abusing power where the constitution clearly states they have none. What higher power is protecting the Constitutional Court so they can defy the constitution without regard to the consequences or repercussions?.

Edited January 9, 2014 by dukebowling

[Thaddeus]

The present caretaker government had been in the process of modifying the current constitution to reflect the meaning and intent of the 1997 constitution which guarantees that Thailand remain a democratic constitutional Monarchy.

Yes, of course they were.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Ban them from politics for 5 years? That was so successful last time Abhisit you moron...

if you even knew a little bit about what was going on in this country you would know that before they lost the election the Dems had a bill before the house that would have increased the term of ban to life.

This was dumped when PT took over.

You should also realize that the 220 who have just come back from their ban were in fact convicted of corruption and the ban was in fact the same thing as a jail term.

That means they are convicted fraudsters and they have been welcomed back with open arms by PT where they will fit in perfectly.

And if you knew a bit more you wouldn't keep on posting rubbish.

Firstly it wasn't 220 MP's who were banned for 5 years, it was 110.

Secondly they were not all guilty of corruption - they were executive members of the TRT political party that was dissolved after it's Chief Executive Officer, General Thammarak Isaragura na Ayuthaya was found guilty of electoral fraud.

Thirdly, said General Thammarak Isaragura na Ayuthaya has just been aquitted of those charges and therefore the TRT should theoretically not have been dissolved.

Incidentally the Democrat Party who were accused at the same time of bribing smaller parties to expose the involvement of high-profile Thai Rak Thai party members in election fraud in April 2006 were acquitted of all charges

Never understood this business of banning whole political parties. If some members of the parties are convicted of electoral related crimes then sentence them to jail...but what's with this banning the whole political party? Seems stupid and beside the point anyway as the members just form the same party under a different name.

As to these new charges...seems like the parliamentarians were just doing their job...proposing legislation (which can include amending a country's constitution). The fact a piece of legislation is later found to be unconstitutional by a judicial body isn't reason to charge those who proposed or supported it with criminal charges! In most democracies, parliament members have immunity for their official acts...<deleted>.