Jump to content

NACC to probe Yingluck's role in ministers' speeches


Recommended Posts

Posted

POLITICS
NACC to probe PM's role in ministers' speeches

ANUPHAN CHANTANA
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- THE NATIONAL Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) has the right to interrogate caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for allegedly failing to stop two ministers from provoking an uprising and introducing separatist sentiments, NACC deputy secretary general Witthaya Arkompitak said yesterday.

The NACC has set up a panel to investigate Yingluck over a complaint filed by Democrat Party legal expert Wiratana Kalayasiri.

In his complaint, Wiratana alleged that Yingluck had committed malfeasance and dereliction of duty by failing to stop caretaker Interior Minister Charupong Ruangsuwan and caretaker deputy Commerce Minister Nuttawut Saikuar from inciting red-shirt supporters to commit the unconstitutional offence of trying to divide the country. Both ministers took to the stage at a red-shirt rally in Nakhon Ratchasima on February 23 and allegedly called on the red shirts to take up an armed struggle to intimidate independent agencies.

In reaction to this, caretaker Labour Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung wondered how Yingluck could be held responsible for what Charupong said, as she was just a member of a political party of which Charupong was the leader. Also, he claimed that the Criminal Code could not be applied to Yingluck because she was not an "official under the penal code".

However, he said he backed the military's complaint against those who supposedly called for secession.

In response to questions about a photograph of red-shirt leader and PM's deputy secretary-general Suporn Atthawong with a group of "volunteers supporting secession in Sakon Nakhon", Chalerm said Suporn was just "having fun".

Meanwhile, Witthaya said the anti-graft commission could take recourse under the NACC Act to conduct an investigation of Yingluck.

Separately, Yingluck has until March 29 to provide her defence statement before the agency can decide whether to indict her for allegedly failing to avoid losses from the rice-pledging scheme, which critics say is plagued by corruption.

nationlogo.jpg
-- The Nation 2014-03-20

Posted

What a headline as for a moment I thought it was being suggested YL had actually HELPED in the writing of speeches.giggle.gif

However her failing to do anything, again, is more like it. .1zgarz5.gif.pagespeed.ce.GJfs_tQOQ-.gif

  • Like 2
Posted

Careful what you wish for, how many democrats have taken to the PDRC stage speaking loosely over 'overthrowing' the govt.

Well how many then? Links? Anything?

Posted

I hope Chalerm did not use the same excuse " he was just having fun" when he got his son off the murder charge years back? Hmm... let me rethink this, his son was having fun when he shot someone dead at the club....

What an un-scrupled idiot babbling out his ass!

Posted

Another Court Case!! Excellent Work

Go Team Yellow

Fight Team Yellow

Win Team Yellow

Maybe they cannnot win an election, but does it matter

biggrin.png I think not

  • Like 1
Posted

Depending on the law of the land , generally speeches of hate, violence , racist comments, sedition in most western Democracy's ,you are in deep Sh!!t , these people as General Prayuth said, are not honourable people and whilst the red shirt team wring their hands in frustration you must admit that you sure have a few loose marbles in your lot, that needs to be kicked out and a moderate , sensible clear thinking team installed , not that the other side are angels, however they don't seem to mouth off as much as the PTP / red shirt brigade.bah.gif

Posted (edited)

To continue the defend the NACC's abnormality as being normal, is an effort to create a silk purse from a sow's ear, but part of a campaign to paint the "independent" organizations as politically neutral. This led to the Gang of 6 proposing that, as "independent" agencies, they could develop some kind of neutral panel to sort out a political compromise.


This is all make believe nonsense with respect to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. This is clearly demonstrated by this NACC initiative, launching a fact-finding probe against the Prime Minister. This effort is apparently for allegedly failing to restrain and to take actions against her two cabinet ministers who took part in February 23 red-shirt rally in Nakhon Ratchasima during which some speakers openly incited unrest and advocated violence and separatism......Never mind the idiocy which has been hurled from Suthep and Co. stages the last while....Apparently all of that was filled with angelic purity.


Senior politicians are now held responsible for many more things than might have seemed reasonable in earlier years, the idea that a premier is responsible for every public utterance by every minister seems just a little odd.


The NACC seems to think that Yingluck should have restrained ministers in a distant province and then should have taken "punitive actions against the two ministers for their unbecoming conduct."


"Unbecoming behavior" now seems to be considered corruption. The NACC seems to define "corruption" in exceptionally broad ways only because it is so biased and determined to destroy the government. Plus in the process, nullify the votes of an electoral majority who choose this Govt, and would do so again. Clarifies how much an organization like this, is imbued with anti-democracy impulses.


Edited by Fryslan boppe
  • Like 1
Posted

Never the other principles of democracy like "rule of law" or "freedom of speech", freedom of beliefs", "equal protection under the law" Why? Because the PTP don't adhere to those principles

Actually Djjamie as the courts side with the Yellows, Democratic party, Royals etc. and this being Thailand why would you presume that "the rule of law" has anything to do with these court cases?

How did they get rid of that PM ... oh right he had a cooking show ... biggrin.png Whatever works

Thailand's Constitutional Court Tuesday fired the country's prime minister, Samak Sundaravej, for violating the constitution by hosting a TV cooking show while in office.

Thats how the big boys do things in the Big Durian, djjamie, better be careful you might get run over.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Never the other principles of democracy like "rule of law" or "freedom of speech", freedom of beliefs", "equal protection under the law" Why? Because the PTP don't adhere to those principles

Actually Djjamie as the courts side with the Yellows, Democratic party, Royals etc. and this being Thailand why would you presume that "the rule of law" has anything to do with these court cases?

How did they get rid of that PM ... oh right he had a cooking show ... biggrin.png Whatever works

Thailand's Constitutional Court Tuesday fired the country's prime minister, Samak Sundaravej, for violating the constitution by hosting a TV cooking show while in office.

Thats how the big boys do things in the Big Durian, djjamie, better be careful you might get run over.

Are these the same pro-yellow, pro-Democrats courts that last week booted out the Bangkok governor for something someone else said?

Edited by AleG
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

It's long overdue for Yingluck to take responsibility for selecting a multiple-indicted-out-on-bail red shirt Nattawut to be a member of her Cabinet.

What did she expect he would do?

She should have expected him to do exactly what he ended up doing with his call to arms and secession in his fiery speeches in Korat.

There are consequences for such malfeasance by her.

.

Edited by kuthow
  • Like 2
Posted

Chalerm said Suporn was just "having fun" . . . that has to be the one of the most inane comment so far from his lips, and only the most gullible and foolish will believe a word he says.

That accounts for more than half of the population - REDS

Posted (edited)

Never the other principles of democracy like "rule of law" or "freedom of speech", freedom of beliefs", "equal protection under the law" Why? Because the PTP don't adhere to those principles

Actually Djjamie as the courts side with the Yellows, Democratic party, Royals etc. and this being Thailand why would you presume that "the rule of law" has anything to do with these court cases?

How did they get rid of that PM ... oh right he had a cooking show ... biggrin.png Whatever works

Thailand's Constitutional Court Tuesday fired the country's prime minister, Samak Sundaravej, for violating the constitution by hosting a TV cooking show while in office.

Thats how the big boys do things in the Big Durian, djjamie, better be careful you might get run over.

You show me a DEM PM that has been on a cooking show and has not been impeached and then your argument is valid. Until then it holds no weight.

PTP are 1/15th democratic. "Elections" That is as democratic as my left shoe that my wife is currently cleaning the dog poo off of.

When the PTP and their coalition parties have 300 seats (out of 500 seats) in parliament and they can't be bothered to muster the votes without committing voting fraud it is a true reflection of their contempt of the only principle of democracy they purport to respect. Now this is when they would have irrefutably won legally. Imagine what they do in general elections.

Edited by djjamie
Posted

You can maintain whatever fictions help you sleep well at night, but the courts have been on the democratic side since 04 at least.

Does acknowledging reality somehow upset you biggrin.png

If you are going to be living in Thailand for any length of time you betterbiggrin.png be able to deal with it - and at least have a laugh about it.

Posted

To continue the defend the NACC's abnormality as being normal, is an effort to create a silk purse from a sow's ear, but part of a campaign to paint the "independent" organizations as politically neutral. This led to the Gang of 6 proposing that, as "independent" agencies, they could develop some kind of neutral panel to sort out a political compromise.

This is all make believe nonsense with respect to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. This is clearly demonstrated by this NACC initiative, launching a fact-finding probe against the Prime Minister. This effort is apparently for allegedly failing to restrain and to take actions against her two cabinet ministers who took part in February 23 red-shirt rally in Nakhon Ratchasima during which some speakers openly incited unrest and advocated violence and separatism......Never mind the idiocy which has been hurled from Suthep and Co. stages the last while....Apparently all of that was filled with angelic purity.

Senior politicians are now held responsible for many more things than might have seemed reasonable in earlier years, the idea that a premier is responsible for every public utterance by every minister seems just a little odd.

The NACC seems to think that Yingluck should have restrained ministers in a distant province and then should have taken "punitive actions against the two ministers for their unbecoming conduct."

"Unbecoming behavior" now seems to be considered corruption. The NACC seems to define "corruption" in exceptionally broad ways only because it is so biased and determined to destroy the government. Plus in the process, nullify the votes of an electoral majority who choose this Govt, and would do so again. Clarifies how much an organization like this, is imbued with anti-democracy impulses.

Well, at least you seem to agree that the behaviour of the ministers was unbecoming. With the PM having handpicked her cabinet it would seem that she is implicitly guilty as even with five cabinet reshuffles she still managed to select morons, allegedly that is.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

You can maintain whatever fictions help you sleep well at night, but the courts have been on the democratic side since 04 at least.

Does acknowledging reality somehow upset you biggrin.png

If you are going to be living in Thailand for any length of time you betterbiggrin.png be able to deal with it - and at least have a laugh about it.

So you came up with an example to suit your agenda. I stated "You show me a DEM PM that has been on a cooking show and has not been impeached and then your argument is valid. Until then it holds no weight" then you dismiss that obviously due to your admission that I am correct and then purport to say you are still right.

You cannot prove yourself correct through the example you gave so simply say "I am right and you are wrong" and throw in a comment about my sleeping patterns. Brilliant rebuttal there.

That's how PTP debate in parliament as well.

Edited by djjamie
  • Like 1
Posted

You can maintain whatever fictions help you sleep well at night, but the courts have been on the democratic side since 04 at least.

Does acknowledging reality somehow upset you biggrin.png

If you are going to be living in Thailand for any length of time you betterbiggrin.png be able to deal with it - and at least have a laugh about it.

What fiction?

  • Like 1

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...