Yingluck questions Constitutional Court for accepting case against her

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

What would you do if you were the CEO of a company and you knew that one of your senior employees was out campaigning against your company, calling you and your family crooks?

Doesn't everybody have a right to support which ever polictal party they chose even if they are employed by the government?

Police reshuffled to promote peace and security of the nation - translated and summarized from Daily News; Column: The Editorial; February 10, 2009
Regarding the meeting of the Office of Police Commission chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Tuagsuban on discussions about the police reshuffle, the board meeting was postponed to be hosted on February 13, 2009 due to indeterminate problems.
The Phea Thai opposition party criticizes that the transfer of some police officials is to promote some Democrat-backed police officers who are close to Democrats’ politicians.
According to Prime Minister Abhisit, who gave a defensive speech to clarify the reason behind the police transfer, the police officials are officials who serve best the nation as those who maintain the security of the nation and the security of the Royal family. The police transfer following the Democrat-led government policy is aimed at promoting the police’s responsibility and roles in promoting the peace of the nation (as opposed to responding to flaws and political incidents in the past).

[rubl]

Many governments employ too types of employees: civil servants and leadership.

Civil servants or civil serviec employees are nonpolitical and protected usually by job descriptions and grievance procedures. Their employment follows prescribed competitive hiring practices and removal must be made for cause only as prescribed by their terms of performance. Civil Service employees are typical required to be nonpolitical in the work place.

The leadership or "breaucrats" are those executive positions typically several levels above the frontline manager. First tier executives who report directly to the top leader of the government like the PM or President are appointed positions. Their appointments are typically politically motivated to assure the leader's political agenda is carried out through to the operation of the civil servants. Thus, when there is a political change in the top leadership, it is not uncommon and quite practical for previous administration political appointees to be dismissed from the new government administration. Yingluck had the right to replace the appointee due to political conflict with her administration but apparently valued his employment enough to merely transfer him.

Ms. Yingluck valued k. Thawill's employment? You probably mean she valued his usefulness as government official to the point that she promoted him to the position of Advisor to the Prime Minister, only to further ignore him?

BTW can you provide some info on k. Thawill being a political appointee by some pre-Yingluck administration?

[rubl]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

What would you do if you were the CEO of a company and you knew that one of your senior employees was out campaigning against your company, calling you and your family crooks?

Doesn't everybody have a right to support which ever polictal party they chose even if they are employed by the government?

Police reshuffled to promote peace and security of the nation - translated and summarized from Daily News; Column: The Editorial; February 10, 2009

Regarding the meeting of the Office of Police Commission chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Tuagsuban on discussions about the police reshuffle, the board meeting was postponed to be hosted on February 13, 2009 due to indeterminate problems.

The Phea Thai opposition party criticizes that the transfer of some police officials is to promote some Democrat-backed police officers who are close to Democrats’ politicians.

According to Prime Minister Abhisit, who gave a defensive speech to clarify the reason behind the police transfer, the police officials are officials who serve best the nation as those who maintain the security of the nation and the security of the Royal family. The police transfer following the Democrat-led government policy is aimed at promoting the police’s responsibility and roles in promoting the peace of the nation (as opposed to responding to flaws and political incidents in the past).

Whereas the Thaksin governments promote based on Thaksin relations and support. If you really insist I'll search for the link on 'Thaksin approved recent police reshuffle' from a month or two ago.

[Skywalker69]

Here is my point,

Why do leaders of nations post on, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media? I thought the ideal was to lead a nation????? Maybe just a selfie moment? A little bit crazy in my view.... No appearance or formal press ops? This really makes me wonder...... If their lives consist of such things, then why are they in leadership rolls, and offer no press conference??????

Why do leaders of nations post on, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media?

Big differense, they also answer questions and debate in parliament as well as answer questions from media. Yingluck doesn´t. She is hiding behind FB and Twitter were she don´t have to answer questions.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Skywalker69

[Mudcrab]

You stated that "It shows her face book gets attention and is a worthy read, if such an ardent hater as yourself is reading it at 10pm."

You said that. Not me. You did. You set a precedent that that if something is worth reading after 10pm it is worthy reading. I quote you where "It shows her face book gets attention and is a worthy read, if such an ardent hater as yourself is reading it at 10pm."

​Do you now renege that since it does not suit your agenda? Do you renounce your comments because it does not suit an agenda? Or will you simply state that you didn't say what you said, not unlike the UDD leader Nattawut did in regards to not supporting succession even though the evidence of which is widely available on youtube.

So what is it? A worthy read if someone reads it after 10pm or not a worth read? Comes down to agenda right?

I rest my case.

You do realise that the two of you are debating the virtues of a countries Prime Ministers posts on Facebook . Does it not strike either of you as somehow weird that the most senior politician in the country has become so desperate that there is a need to even post on a social media site and not on the front page of the country's major newspapers if she had something to say?

I'm sure there would be many reporters eager to write the copy.

[djjamie]

You stated that "It shows her face book gets attention and is a worthy read, if such an ardent hater as yourself is reading it at 10pm."

You said that. Not me. You did. You set a precedent that that if something is worth reading after 10pm it is worthy reading. I quote you where "It shows her face book gets attention and is a worthy read, if such an ardent hater as yourself is reading it at 10pm."

​Do you now renege that since it does not suit your agenda? Do you renounce your comments because it does not suit an agenda? Or will you simply state that you didn't say what you said, not unlike the UDD leader Nattawut did in regards to not supporting succession even though the evidence of which is widely available on youtube.

So what is it? A worthy read if someone reads it after 10pm or not a worth read? Comes down to agenda right?

I rest my case.

You do realise that the two of you are debating the virtues of a countries Prime Ministers posts on Facebook . Does it not strike either of you as somehow weird that the most senior politician in the country has become so desperate that there is a need to even post on a social media site and not on the front page of the country's major newspapers if she had something to say?

I'm sure there would be many reporters eager to write the copy.

Couldn't agree more. Well said.

Some believe that the more "likes" you get on FB should constitute a majority vote for the PTP as well.

[manstr23]

Yingluck is back to the tired Pheu Thai strategy of refusing to refer to the courts except on facebook, and only then to admonish them. You've got to wonder - how did she ever acquire such nerve ? Since when has she ever been qualified to address Constitutional Court judges ? Since when did she think that managing to post some silly comments on facebook qualifies her to question the judgement of Constitutional Court judges ? If she isn't questioning the NACC, she's questioning the Constitutional Court. Maybe she'll just post comments on either on alternate days from now on. The reason, Citizen Yingluck, why the Constitutional Court is taking up this case is because the Supreme Administrative Court deemed the transfer unconstitutional. Savvy ?

I can tell you one thing. Although Thaksin and Pheu Thai are absolutely delighted that Suthep ludicrously got off message and diverted all the attention away from them, the PDRC is beyond excitement every time Yingluck or Pheu Thai go after the judicial process. Every time Pheu Thai does that, they destroy their narrative. Every time they do that, they signal that they are above the judicial process. Every time the UDD says that they will not accept the rulings of the Constitutional Court and the National Anti-Corruption Commission - they brand themselves as being above the law. In two weeks, if Pheu Thai actually follows the UDD lead, and refuses to accept the ruling of the Constitutional Court, it will be a constitutional crisis. Beyond question. And if that happens, not a single person will be talking about Suthep. Not a single person in the international community will be talking about Suthep. They will be talking about the Yingluck administration's defiance of constitutional law. And Surapong will have a dickens of a time convincing the international community that's a peachy state of affairs.

You've completely misread the situation.

The people are already talking about how to fix the courts and prevent such silliness from ever occurring again.

After this coup fails real constitutional reforms will occur in Thailand and the old establishment types will never again be able to exert undue influence without an election victory first.

Yes, this would be the first step to a Dictatorship called Taksinland, with everything controlled by the master, no checks and balances, but of cause there will be elections - North Korean style.

[djjamie]

Seems you are unfamiliar with the background of Tawil's case. Please do some research.

Very familiar. As I stated this is about yingluck questioning the CC in her perception that they overstepped their mark.

So, was the "CEO" defamation suit successful? Did the employees actually slander the "CEO"?

So did she file a defamation suit against Thawil.

Here are a couple of examples of defamation suits she has filed before.

http://www.thailandnews.co/2014/03/three-former-democrat-mps-indicted-for-defaming-yingluck-shinawatra/

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Yingluck-sues-Thai-Rath-cartoonist-for-defamation-30205358.html

If he slandered her she would file a suit. So where is it? Where is the link showing him slandering her?

Or were you just "pretending" when you said "calling you and your family crooks?" Was that only said to suit an agenda?

So? Were you pretending? I am interested to see the slander you said Thawil committed.

Edited April 10, 2014 by djjamie

[philw]

You stated that "It shows her face book gets attention and is a worthy read, if such an ardent hater as yourself is reading it at 10pm."

You said that. Not me. You did. You set a precedent that that if something is worth reading after 10pm it is worthy reading. I quote you where "It shows her face book gets attention and is a worthy read, if such an ardent hater as yourself is reading it at 10pm."

​Do you now renege that since it does not suit your agenda? Do you renounce your comments because it does not suit an agenda? Or will you simply state that you didn't say what you said, not unlike the UDD leader Nattawut did in regards to not supporting succession even though the evidence of which is widely available on youtube.

So what is it? A worthy read if someone reads it after 10pm or not a worth read? Comes down to agenda right?

I rest my case.

You do realise that the two of you are debating the virtues of a countries Prime Ministers posts on Facebook . Does it not strike either of you as somehow weird that the most senior politician in the country has become so desperate that there is a need to even post on a social media site and not on the front page of the country's major newspapers if she had something to say?

I'm sure there would be many reporters eager to write the copy.

https://www.facebook.com/DavidCameronOfficial

There you go.

It's somehow weird that the most senior politician in the UK has become so desperate that he has a need to even post on a social media site.

Edited April 10, 2014 by philw

[djjamie]

You do realise that the two of you are debating the virtues of a countries Prime Ministers posts on Facebook . Does it not strike either of you as somehow weird that the most senior politician in the country has become so desperate that there is a need to even post on a social media site and not on the front page of the country's major newspapers if she had something to say?

You stated that "It shows her face book gets attention and is a worthy read, if such an ardent hater as yourself is reading it at 10pm."

You said that. Not me. You did. You set a precedent that that if something is worth reading after 10pm it is worthy reading. I quote you where "It shows her face book gets attention and is a worthy read, if such an ardent hater as yourself is reading it at 10pm."

​Do you now renege that since it does not suit your agenda? Do you renounce your comments because it does not suit an agenda? Or will you simply state that you didn't say what you said, not unlike the UDD leader Nattawut did in regards to not supporting succession even though the evidence of which is widely available on youtube.

So what is it? A worthy read if someone reads it after 10pm or not a worth read? Comes down to agenda right?

I rest my case.

I'm sure there would be many reporters eager to write the copy.

https://www.facebook.com/DavidCameronOfficial

There you go.

It's somehow weird that the most senior politician in the UK has become so desperate that he has a need to even post on a social media site.

Did the UK PM offer condolences and condemn the terrorist attacks when the tragic attacks happened on the buses in London via FB while in hiding? Or did the UK PM do a televised address to the nation to allow the people that don't have internet to receive the information out of respect and to ensure that the population knew that the leader was there to guide and offer strength for the nation in troubling times?

Did the UK PM do a FB statement when the poor innocent UK soldier lost his life at the hands of Islamic Muslims or did the PM to a televised address to the nation?

Did the UK PM decide it was more important to look at fruit in the North of England the day after the terrorist attacks or to actually be briefed and attend meetings to personally oversee the capture of the perpetrators?

WOW. Dave Cameron has a FB page. All leaders should. It is the appropriateness of usage that is in question.

Edited April 10, 2014 by djjamie

[pmugghc]

What would you do if you were the CEO of a company and you knew that one of your senior employees was out campaigning against your company, calling you and your family crooks?

I understand your point, but in Government not all people are always on your side, as you INHERIT bureaucrats and have to accept not everyone believes the same as you do. That is LIFE and Government. BUT if that person is in a position whereas making a POLITICAL move can be a violation of a law then you should be careful.

It would appear in this case that this was something that should not have occurred and ths the Constituional Court making its decision.

I am no expert in ANY law as one Judge will rule this way and another Judge will overturn the previous decision. But there MUST be grounds or this would not have such an impact upon the Yingluck administration.

So I guess it is a case of Naughty Yinny

Many governments employ too types of employees: civil servants and leadership.

Civil servants or civil serviec employees are nonpolitical and protected usually by job descriptions and grievance procedures. Their employment follows prescribed competitive hiring practices and removal must be made for cause only as prescribed by their terms of performance. Civil Service employees are typical required to be nonpolitical in the work place.

The leadership or "breaucrats" are those executive positions typically several levels above the frontline manager. First tier executives who report directly to the top leader of the government like the PM or President are appointed positions. Their appointments are typically politically motivated to assure the leader's political agenda is carried out through to the operation of the civil servants. Thus, when there is a political change in the top leadership, it is not uncommon and quite practical for previous administration political appointees to be dismissed from the new government administration. Yingluck had the right to replace the appointee due to political conflict with her administration but apparently valued his employment enough to merely transfer him.

Interesting. Perhaps you can enlighten us on how this applies to Thailand's laws and constitution? Why did the Supreme Admin court rule the way it did?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Skywalker69]

You stated that "It shows her face book gets attention and is a worthy read, if such an ardent hater as yourself is reading it at 10pm."

You said that. Not me. You did. You set a precedent that that if something is worth reading after 10pm it is worthy reading. I quote you where "It shows her face book gets attention and is a worthy read, if such an ardent hater as yourself is reading it at 10pm."

​Do you now renege that since it does not suit your agenda? Do you renounce your comments because it does not suit an agenda? Or will you simply state that you didn't say what you said, not unlike the UDD leader Nattawut did in regards to not supporting succession even though the evidence of which is widely available on youtube.

So what is it? A worthy read if someone reads it after 10pm or not a worth read? Comes down to agenda right?

I rest my case.

You do realise that the two of you are debating the virtues of a countries Prime Ministers posts on Facebook . Does it not strike either of you as somehow weird that the most senior politician in the country has become so desperate that there is a need to even post on a social media site and not on the front page of the country's major newspapers if she had something to say?

I'm sure there would be many reporters eager to write the copy.

On FB Yingluck don´t have to answer any questions.

[Thai at Heart]

@torkmada

You said:

In the entire history of this court have they ever accepted a similar case?

No.

Not once.

Not ever.

It is entirely without precedent.

So it begs the question, why do so now?

Could they have an ulterior motive?

Are they motivated by factors other than the rule of law?

Are they serving hidden masters instead of the people of Thailand?

Me:

No. They are upholding the law.

Well this is the interesting part. Because the entire system keeps getting rewritten every 10 years or so, of course there is no precendent for any organisation accepting a corruption case.

The organisation is only 10 years old and thailand has never prosecuted any corruption. There can't be any precedent.

[Thai at Heart]

What would you do if you were the CEO of a company and you knew that one of your senior employees was out campaigning against your company, calling you and your family crooks?

I understand your point, but in Government not all people are always on your side, as you INHERIT bureaucrats and have to accept not everyone believes the same as you do. That is LIFE and Government. BUT if that person is in a position whereas making a POLITICAL move can be a violation of a law then you should be careful.

It would appear in this case that this was something that should not have occurred and ths the Constituional Court making its decision.

I am no expert in ANY law as one Judge will rule this way and another Judge will overturn the previous decision. But there MUST be grounds or this would not have such an impact upon the Yingluck administration.

So I guess it is a case of Naughty Yinny

Many governments employ too types of employees: civil servants and leadership.

Civil servants or civil serviec employees are nonpolitical and protected usually by job descriptions and grievance procedures. Their employment follows prescribed competitive hiring practices and removal must be made for cause only as prescribed by their terms of performance. Civil Service employees are typical required to be nonpolitical in the work place.

The leadership or "breaucrats" are those executive positions typically several levels above the frontline manager. First tier executives who report directly to the top leader of the government like the PM or President are appointed positions. Their appointments are typically politically motivated to assure the leader's political agenda is carried out through to the operation of the civil servants. Thus, when there is a political change in the top leadership, it is not uncommon and quite practical for previous administration political appointees to be dismissed from the new government administration. Yingluck had the right to replace the appointee due to political conflict with her administration but apparently valued his employment enough to merely transfer him.

Interesting. Perhaps you can enlighten us on how this applies to Thailand's laws and constitution? Why did the Supreme Admin court rule the way it did?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

In terms of appointments and promotions , normally to the highest bidder

[Thai at Heart]

What would you do if you were the CEO of a company and you knew that one of your senior employees was out campaigning against your company, calling you and your family crooks?

I understand your point, but in Government not all people are always on your side, as you INHERIT bureaucrats and have to accept not everyone believes the same as you do. That is LIFE and Government. BUT if that person is in a position whereas making a POLITICAL move can be a violation of a law then you should be careful.

It would appear in this case that this was something that should not have occurred and ths the Constituional Court making its decision.

I am no expert in ANY law as one Judge will rule this way and another Judge will overturn the previous decision. But there MUST be grounds or this would not have such an impact upon the Yingluck administration.

So I guess it is a case of Naughty Yinny

Many governments employ too types of employees: civil servants and leadership.

Civil servants or civil serviec employees are nonpolitical and protected usually by job descriptions and grievance procedures. Their employment follows prescribed competitive hiring practices and removal must be made for cause only as prescribed by their terms of performance. Civil Service employees are typical required to be nonpolitical in the work place.

The leadership or "breaucrats" are those executive positions typically several levels above the frontline manager. First tier executives who report directly to the top leader of the government like the PM or President are appointed positions. Their appointments are typically politically motivated to assure the leader's political agenda is carried out through to the operation of the civil servants. Thus, when there is a political change in the top leadership, it is not uncommon and quite practical for previous administration political appointees to be dismissed from the new government administration. Yingluck had the right to replace the appointee due to political conflict with her administration but apparently valued his employment enough to merely transfer him.

Interesting. Perhaps you can enlighten us on how this applies to Thailand's laws and constitution? Why did the Supreme Admin court rule the way it did?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

In terms of appointments and promotions , normally to the highest bidder

[MaiChai]

Lets face it she is a fake and a fraud. She is not qualified or deserving to be an MP let alone a PM. She only got the job because Taksin needed to put in place a family member he could trust. So why is she in this situation ? Because she is responsible and made the decisions ? More importantly she is entrenched and needs to be removed.