NLA will be asked by NACC to impeach Ms Yingluck and other Pheu Thai ex-MPs

[Thanet]

Great news about time many people suffered under Yingluck's Government time to face reality , this is what they get for being puppets .

thank you General Prayuth.

Not enough evidence and Yingluck is out of politics for sure.

To be fair, if the NLA impeaches Yingluck they surely have to go after Suthep as he destroyed the tourism industry for at least in Bangkok.

Corrupt government officials have always been send to an inactive post. Thaksin got screwed because after the coup he continued from overseas.

Why the NLA doesn't bring Thaksin back? Simple, they don't want him back.

May I remind you that Suthep wasn't either MP or Democrat party member anymore since late October / begin November 2013. That would mean you want the NLA to go after a private citizen ? That's more for the police I'd think, apart from the fact that Bangkok tourism wasn't really destroyed, nor was it Suthep's doing. Unless you want to accuse him of the nightly, cowardly gunfire and grenade attacks that is ?

As for NLA bringing Thaksin back, I guess that indeed they'd rather he'd stay abroad apart from the fact that 'to bring back' isn't just a 'send someone to take him back'.

Anyway the NLA as parliament/Senate may ask the NACC to (continue to) investigate Ms. Yingluck and a few of hers.

Suthep a private citizen??? Just like a harmless mister average commuting to work???.

What a complete understatement. Suthep is a political activist, and a former Deputy PM, with allegiance to the Democrat Party and the military. He was instrumental in bringing down a government, and used a paramilitary force of guards to prevent the police getting near him. Next you pretend that the effects on tourism of six months of mayhem, all led by Suthep, was "not his doing". Ask anyone in the tourist industry, who will tell you that you are either deluded or lying.

You'll be telling us that Abhisit didn't blow a whistle next, and didn't really support the PDRC.

[mikemac]

Great news about time many people suffered under Yingluck's Government time to face reality , this is what they get for being puppets .

thank you General Prayuth.

Who exactly suffered during Yinglucks time in power? You? Your wife? Your children? Your dog?

Yes it was an expensive experience, but nobody was suffering? Apart from the country as a whole.

As for the impeachment, a complete waste of time and money. Since it can only remove her from power or ban her from politics for 5 years.

Removed she has been already, and I honestly think, she would only welcome a 5 year ban.

So a lot of hot air for nothing!!

JOC, please tell that to the families of the farmers who killed themselves because of financial "difficulties" during the Yingluck rice scheme fiasco. Then get back to us and let us know how you got on.

[rubl]

Great news about time many people suffered under Yingluck's Government time to face reality , this is what they get for being puppets .

thank you General Prayuth.

Not enough evidence and Yingluck is out of politics for sure.

To be fair, if the NLA impeaches Yingluck they surely have to go after Suthep as he destroyed the tourism industry for at least in Bangkok.

Corrupt government officials have always been send to an inactive post. Thaksin got screwed because after the coup he continued from overseas.

Why the NLA doesn't bring Thaksin back? Simple, they don't want him back.

May I remind you that Suthep wasn't either MP or Democrat party member anymore since late October / begin November 2013. That would mean you want the NLA to go after a private citizen ? That's more for the police I'd think, apart from the fact that Bangkok tourism wasn't really destroyed, nor was it Suthep's doing. Unless you want to accuse him of the nightly, cowardly gunfire and grenade attacks that is ?

As for NLA bringing Thaksin back, I guess that indeed they'd rather he'd stay abroad apart from the fact that 'to bring back' isn't just a 'send someone to take him back'.

Anyway the NLA as parliament/Senate may ask the NACC to (continue to) investigate Ms. Yingluck and a few of hers.

Suthep a private citizen??? Just like a harmless mister average commuting to work???.

What a complete understatement. Suthep is a political activist, and a former Deputy PM, with allegiance to the Democrat Party and the military. He was instrumental in bringing down a government, and used a paramilitary force of guards to prevent the police getting near him. Next you pretend that the effects on tourism of six months of mayhem, all led by Suthep, was "not his doing". Ask anyone in the tourist industry, who will tell you that you are either deluded or lying.

You'll be telling us that Abhisit didn't blow a whistle next, and didn't really support the PDRC.

... and Ms. Yingluck is innocent till proven guilty, isn't it ?

[tbthailand]

either you don't read posts entirely or you don't understand irony and mild sarcasm.

By now I think I've got you figured out, my dear chap.

I think it's neither irony nor sarcasm, more like obfuscated accusation. IMHO

'Heer' Rubl... maybe you would like to point out the (1) accusation above, and then (2) point out the obfuscation

you see the posts are just a dead simple prediction which came true within hours. no accusation, no obfuscation

Well, you just gave me the example I needed. Neither irony nor sarcasm, but all of a sudden just 'simple prediction'. Even coming true BEFORE the prediction was made as you wrote "never saw that coming"

BTW the correct addressing form (in Dutch) would be 'mijnheer' or 'meneer'. 'Heer' has some leftover association with 'higher ranking, nobility' and is hardly ever used anymore. Mind you, as we are amongst friends here, you may just call me 'uncle'

'Lord' rubl seemed ok to me - for americans that fits as a somewhat out-of-date term.

as for your posts, I really think that your reading and comprehension skills are close to zero. I'll leave it at that.

[rubl]

Well, you just gave me the example I needed. Neither irony nor sarcasm, but all of a sudden just 'simple prediction'. Even coming true BEFORE the prediction was made as you wrote "never saw that coming"

BTW the correct addressing form (in Dutch) would be 'mijnheer' or 'meneer'. 'Heer' has some leftover association with 'higher ranking, nobility' and is hardly ever used anymore. Mind you, as we are amongst friends here, you may just call me 'uncle'

'Lord' rubl seemed ok to me - for americans that fits as a somewhat out-of-date term.

as for your posts, I really think that your reading and comprehension skills are close to zero. I'll leave it at that.

I grant you permission, but please, in the correct form. You should address me as "My Lord"

As for skills, just work on it, my dear chap. Put some effort into it and I'm sure you will improve (somewhat).

Greetings,

Lord Rubl

[heyexile]

Posts bringing HM the King into the discussion have removed, don't even go there:

1) You will not express disrespect of the King of Thailand or any one member of the Thai royal family, whether living or deceased, nor to criticize the monarchy as an institution.

By law, the Thai Royal Family are above politics. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family.

Discussion of the Lese Majeste law or Lese Majeste cases is permitted on the forum, providing no comment or speculation is made referencing the royal family.

To breach these rules may result in immediate ban.

Linking to external sites which break these rules will be treated as if you yourself posted them.

To breach these rules may result in immediate ban.

Or far worse, as criticism of the Thai Royal Family can lead to deportation or a lengthy spell in a Thai jail. As I understand the law, you can be guilty of defamation even if what you wrote never appeared on the Forum.

This is because any defamatory statement can be adjudged to have been "published" if it has been seen by a third party - in this instance, this would be the Forum editor or moderator who read the posting and decided to hold it out.

Hiding behind an anonymous avatar offers no defence against prosecution, as ThaiVisa would be obliged to reveal the offending poster's personal details - or face prosecution for contempt of court.

So it really is a good idea to think before you post.

Timely advice. Would just add that any criticism of, adverse comment on any powerful person/groups needs to be carefully worded due to the defamation and computer crime laws and martial law. Plausible deniability at the least. ThaiVisa would likely not even be asked for personal details as they can be accessed by an all powerful regime anyway. TV could be included in any such criminal case anyway.

Back to topic, are not all politicians, who held office in the 3 years prior to change of management, barred from holding political office in future? Or are they just barred from the NLA?

"Beware the rich, fools and desperate men." John Donne, edited.

[The Deerhunter]

Does that mean that ALL law changes will need to go through all the legal channels before being voted on in parliament?

I just might mean that next time some ministers dream up some changes to the law to benefit their hold on power, that they ask a few constitutional lawyers to have a look and see if their bright ideas are (a) Within the constitution, i.e legal, and ( actually workable in reality i.e, practical.

Edited September 27, 2014 by The Deerhunter

[JAG]

Isn't the impeachment request premature?

This is what I understand:

1) Yingluck has not been found quilty in a court of law for negligent dereliction of duty in the rice pledge program. To date the prosecutor has declined to charge Yingluck and bring her to trial. But it seems the NACC has independent prosecurial powers to the extent that it can hire its own prosecutor to take the case to trial. Regardless, she has not been tried and\ found guilty. So is the grounds for impeachment is based on NACC allegations that she should be impeached?

2) With regards to the failed Pheu Thai Party MP's legislation to alter the way some senators are selected (proposed 100% elected vs. 50% appointed), the Supreme Court ruled that it was the PROCESS used to pass the legislation that was unconstitutional. The SC did not rule that it was the PROPOSAL itself that was unconstitutional as the 2007 Constitution provided for changes to the Constitution. Again, where is the criminality and conviction?

3) Finally, it is odd that NACC is asking that Yingluck to be impeached for attempting a change in the constitution that no longer exists. To those new TV readers, the 2007 Constitution doesn't exist because the military coup aborgated (threw out) the constitution in May 2014 and by its own perrogative created an Interim Constitution and a National Legislative Assembly in which the Senate no longer exists.

So what is the grounds for impeachment other than a political vendetta against the PTP and Yingluck?

Simple, NACC wants a show trial.

[icare999]

Isn't the impeachment request premature?

This is what I understand:

1) Yingluck has not been found quilty in a court of law for negligent dereliction of duty in the rice pledge program. To date the prosecutor has declined to charge Yingluck and bring her to trial. But it seems the NACC has independent prosecurial powers to the extent that it can hire its own prosecutor to take the case to trial. Regardless, she has not been tried and\ found guilty. So is the grounds for impeachment is based on NACC allegations that she should be impeached?

2) With regards to the failed Pheu Thai Party MP's legislation to alter the way some senators are selected (proposed 100% elected vs. 50% appointed), the Supreme Court ruled that it was the PROCESS used to pass the legislation that was unconstitutional. The SC did not rule that it was the PROPOSAL itself that was unconstitutional as the 2007 Constitution provided for changes to the Constitution. Again, where is the criminality and conviction?

3) Finally, it is odd that NACC is asking that Yingluck to be impeached for attempting a change in the constitution that no longer exists. To those new TV readers, the 2007 Constitution doesn't exist because the military coup aborgated (threw out) the constitution in May 2014 and by its own perrogative created an Interim Constitution and a National Legislative Assembly in which the Senate no longer exists.

So what is the grounds for impeachment other than a political vendetta against the PTP and Yingluck?

Oh stop it now.

As loads of people have said on here, "we all know the Shinawatras are evil, thieving people, and we all know that they must be guilty of something, so we all know that they must be found guilty, because we all know that they are the baddies and the other guys are the goodies, because we all know this, and this is the truth, because the Nation said so".

no because anyone with half an eye and a bit old brain knows its true

[The Deerhunter]

Great news about time many people suffered under Yingluck's Government time to face reality , this is what they get for being puppets .

thank you General Prayuth.

Who exactly suffered during Yinglucks time in power? You? Your wife? Your children? Your dog?

Yes it was an expensive experience, but nobody was suffering? Apart from the country as a whole.

As for the impeachment, a complete waste of time and money. Since it can only remove her from power or ban her from politics for 5 years.

Removed she has been already, and I honestly think, she would only welcome a 5 year ban.

So a lot of hot air for nothing!!

Tell that to the families of the farmers who comitted suicide because they had no money to support their families and could not face the shame of it.

Tell that to the farmers and their families who went deep into debt with the bank, legal and illegal money lenders and have lost their land and their livlihoods and possibly their families.

And yet you sit there as a keyboard warrior pontificating about things you have no knowledge of and say nobody suffered.

You make me want to puke.

Yingluck needs to be severely punished as an object lesson to ALL the greedy MPs of ANY party never to do it again.

Of course you could always ask her brother to return and take the punishment in her place.

I personally think he is too much of a coward to do that though. He would rather run and hide.

He would rather run and hide. AGAIN!!!!!!!!

[bobmac10]

This is great political theater.

One is continually amazed at the stupidity of these idiots in charge.

Do they honestly think they can somehow erase the massive support of PeuThai by these sort of moves.

Everyone knows it's politically motivated and this is just rubbing salt into the wound.

It's just giving the opposition more ammo for next time.

[mikemac]

Does that mean that ALL law changes will need to go through all the legal channels before being voted on in parliament?

I just might mean that next time some ministers dream up some changes to the law to benefit their hold on power, that they ask a few constitutional lawyers to have a look and see if their bright ideas are (a) Within the constitution, i.e legal, and ( actually workable in reality i.e, practical.

With all due respect Deerhunter, a Minister who was not under the control of the Shin regime would probably not dream up such devious changes to the law, and any Minister who was

aligned with the Shins would either be too stupid or arrogant to seek legal advice first.

[Emptyset]

Isn't the impeachment request premature?

This is what I understand:

1) Yingluck has not been found quilty in a court of law for negligent dereliction of duty in the rice pledge program. To date the prosecutor has declined to charge Yingluck and bring her to trial. But it seems the NACC has independent prosecurial powers to the extent that it can hire its own prosecutor to take the case to trial. Regardless, she has not been tried and\ found guilty. So is the grounds for impeachment is based on NACC allegations that she should be impeached?

2) With regards to the failed Pheu Thai Party MP's legislation to alter the way some senators are selected (proposed 100% elected vs. 50% appointed), the Supreme Court ruled that it was the PROCESS used to pass the legislation that was unconstitutional. The SC did not rule that it was the PROPOSAL itself that was unconstitutional as the 2007 Constitution provided for changes to the Constitution. Again, where is the criminality and conviction?

3) Finally, it is odd that NACC is asking that Yingluck to be impeached for attempting a change in the constitution that no longer exists. To those new TV readers, the 2007 Constitution doesn't exist because the military coup aborgated (threw out) the constitution in May 2014 and by its own perrogative created an Interim Constitution and a National Legislative Assembly in which the Senate no longer exists.

So what is the grounds for impeachment other than a political vendetta against the PTP and Yingluck?

Your post is flawed from end to end.

You start by saying 'Yingluck has not been found quilty in a court of law for negligent dereliction of duty in the rice pledge program'.

In fact she WAS convicted by the constitutional court... she was found guilty of the both charges pertaining to the rice pledging negligence claims and the attempted changing of the constitution for pretty much personal gain. The constitutional court being the highest court in the land.

The supreme court has made no such rulings, again it was the Cons Court and they ruled it unanimously as 'ILLEGAL' and in breech of the constitution.

Finally it is 100% wrong for you to assume that if the constitution is no longer valid then all past crimes that against it are all also invalid... That is not the case and should never be the case, it is merely your own opinion and a very biased one at that.

There WAS a constitution at the time the 'crimes' against it were committed. The conviction was handed down by the Cons court and everything in the hereafter is all part of the process of what happens next.

It is like saying that a man in prison for murder can not be convicted because the person he killed is no longer here.

Thank god common sense prevails and will see these political criminals face their punishment. W are all sick and tired of the rich and powerful being given a free hand to do what the hell they like. Anything else is just showing all those that follow in their footsteps can get away with it and Thailand will never move forwards until those damaging the country are brought to swift and exceedingly harsh justice.

That is my opinion.

It's funny you accuse someone else of posting something which is 'flawed from end to end' and then come up with something like this. When did the Constitutional Court 'convict' Yingluck of negligence in the rice pledging scheme? WHY would they even be ruling on that? I hadn't realized that corruption/negligence was a constitutional issue (though the court has been criticized for ruling on things that don't seem to be within its remit, so who knows... )

I also can't remember when Yingluck was 'convicted' by the Constitutional Court for trying to change the constitution for personal gain. Got a link for that? I thoiught I'd been following these things quite closely, but all this seems to have passed me by. I do remember the court ruling on the attempt to change the constitution to allow an elected Senate, last November. I just don't remember the part where Yingluck was convicted for it. There is a slight error in Rickirs post which you correctly point out, he's confused the Constitutional Court with the Supreme Court. He's also wrong about the court's ruling. They did rule that the proposal itself was unconstitutional as it was a violation of Section 68 meaning that the proposal was seen as a threat to the democratic regime of governance with the King as Head of State.

But your rebutal is more error strewn and misleading than his post. You also don't see any irony in the fact that Yingluck/PT could be punished for trying to 'overthrow' the democratic system for attempting to change the Senate from semi-elected to fully elected BY the people who HAVE torn up the constitution entirely? It'd be harder to find a clearer violation of Section 68 than what the military did on May 22nd, surely?

'W are all sick and tired of the rich and powerful being given a free hand to do what the hell they like'

Don't you realize that this is exactly the same argument some people are making about what the PDRC/military did? You seem to think that Thaksin & family are the only 'rich and powerful' people in Thailand (or not in Thailand in the case of the former)... There's no sense that all of this is very much contested in your post. It's very straightforward 'common sense'. Unfortunately, like a lot of what passes for 'common sense', it's also straightforwardly wrong.

[Emptyset]

Who exactly suffered during Yinglucks time in power? You? Your wife? Your children? Your dog?

Yes it was an expensive experience, but nobody was suffering? Apart from the country as a whole

Ummmmm i missing something here ??

Oh yeah the "suicides" linked to this scheme.

Muppet !!!

Right, and whose fault were the suicides? Partly PT's for not getting the money before they dissolved parliament, sure. But also the PDRC and an intransigent BAAC etc. The money could've been paid if the political will was there, but the anti-government side wanted to exacerbate the farmers' condition so as to heap more pressure on the beleaguered government.

Understandable as a political strategy perhaps, cynical and exploitative as it was. We saw after the junta took power and was able to order immediate cash payments that the money was there if the political will was. Anyway, point is, if you supported the PDRC, it's rather hypocritical to call someone else a "muppet" when you supported the people that were partly responsible for the suicides you highlight. If you didn't, fair enough. But I wouldn't be surprised if there are suicides in the coming year due to the removal of the pledging scheme. Though I think the scheme was deeply flawed, I think removing it completely will likely leave some people unable to cope. But if that's the case (I hope it isn't), I wouldn't expect the hardships of the farmers to be reported a lot in the conservative press, as this time it doesn't serve their political agenda.

[halloween]

Right, and whose fault were the suicides? Partly PT's for not getting the money before they dissolved parliament, sure. But also the PDRC and an intransigent BAAC etc. The money could've been paid if the political will was there, but the anti-government side wanted to exacerbate the farmers' condition so as to heap more pressure on the beleaguered government.

Understandable as a political strategy perhaps, cynical and exploitative as it was. We saw after the junta took power and was able to order immediate cash payments that the money was there if the political will was. Anyway, point is, if you supported the PDRC, it's rather hypocritical to call someone else a "muppet" when you supported the people that were partly responsible for the suicides you highlight. If you didn't, fair enough. But I wouldn't be surprised if there are suicides in the coming year due to the removal of the pledging scheme. Though I think the scheme was deeply flawed, I think removing it completely will likely leave some people unable to cope. But if that's the case (I hope it isn't), I wouldn't expect the hardships of the farmers to be reported a lot in the conservative press, as this time it doesn't serve their political agenda.

So who will you blame if there are further suicides due to the cancellation of the pledging scheme? The current government for prudent economic management, or those who made unsustainable promises that caused farmers to invest heavily, to expand their plantings, and to work fields that would never produce a profitable crop at market prices?

[Sharp]

Who exactly suffered during Yinglucks time in power? You? Your wife? Your children? Your dog?
Yes it was an expensive experience, but nobody was suffering? Apart from the country as a whole

Ummmmm i missing something here ??

Oh yeah the "suicides" linked to this scheme.

Muppet !!!

Right, and whose fault were the suicides? Partly PT's for not getting the money before they dissolved parliament, sure. But also the PDRC and an intransigent BAAC etc. The money could've been paid if the political will was there, but the anti-government side wanted to exacerbate the farmers' condition so as to heap more pressure on the beleaguered government.

Understandable as a political strategy perhaps, cynical and exploitative as it was. We saw after the junta took power and was able to order immediate cash payments that the money was there if the political will was. Anyway, point is, if you supported the PDRC, it's rather hypocritical to call someone else a "muppet" when you supported the people that were partly responsible for the suicides you highlight. If you didn't, fair enough. But I wouldn't be surprised if there are suicides in the coming year due to the removal of the pledging scheme. Though I think the scheme was deeply flawed, I think removing it completely will likely leave some people unable to cope. But if that's the case (I hope it isn't), I wouldn't expect the hardships of the farmers to be reported a lot in the conservative press, as this time it doesn't serve their political agenda..

Edited September 27, 2014 by Sharp

[Sharp]

Ok so who started this whole ridiculous policy resulting in these suicides ??

And no although i am happy the PT are no longer in power i didnt support with the PDRC

[Frank James]

I always thought one had to be a current holder of office if they were to be impeached. Maybe Thailand is different.

[JOC]

Ok so who started this whole ridiculous policy resulting in these suicides ??

And no although i am happy the PT are no longer in power i didnt support with the PDRC

That is like blaming people building roads for traffic accidents!!

If I remember correctly, it was the "impartial" EC that blocked the money from being paid!

[Thanet]

Not enough evidence and Yingluck is out of politics for sure.

To be fair, if the NLA impeaches Yingluck they surely have to go after Suthep as he destroyed the tourism industry for at least in Bangkok.

Corrupt government officials have always been send to an inactive post. Thaksin got screwed because after the coup he continued from overseas.

Why the NLA doesn't bring Thaksin back? Simple, they don't want him back.

May I remind you that Suthep wasn't either MP or Democrat party member anymore since late October / begin November 2013. That would mean you want the NLA to go after a private citizen ? That's more for the police I'd think, apart from the fact that Bangkok tourism wasn't really destroyed, nor was it Suthep's doing. Unless you want to accuse him of the nightly, cowardly gunfire and grenade attacks that is ?

As for NLA bringing Thaksin back, I guess that indeed they'd rather he'd stay abroad apart from the fact that 'to bring back' isn't just a 'send someone to take him back'.

Anyway the NLA as parliament/Senate may ask the NACC to (continue to) investigate Ms. Yingluck and a few of hers.

Suthep a private citizen??? Just like a harmless mister average commuting to work???.

What a complete understatement. Suthep is a political activist, and a former Deputy PM, with allegiance to the Democrat Party and the military. He was instrumental in bringing down a government, and used a paramilitary force of guards to prevent the police getting near him. Next you pretend that the effects on tourism of six months of mayhem, all led by Suthep, was "not his doing". Ask anyone in the tourist industry, who will tell you that you are either deluded or lying.

You'll be telling us that Abhisit didn't blow a whistle next, and didn't really support the PDRC.

... and Ms. Yingluck is innocent till proven guilty, isn't it ?

Is that all you've got left to say?

[Thanet]

As for the rice pledging case, Mr Sansern said that former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra would face the impeachment hangman

one may wonder if Ms. Yingluck would prefer to face her older brother again who might be somewhat disappointed and really saddened by the ineffectiveness of his clone.

That sounds rather one sided. Prayuth has a clone too. Check out the membership of the NLA and get back to me when you find another "Chan-oocha" (his little bro), or one or another military classmate.

Family members in prominent places happens everywhere. Look at Hilary and Bill, the Bushes, etc, etc.

Get over it.

Indeed, get over it. Ms. Yingluck may face impeachment.

And what about Prayuth's little bro?

[Sharp]

Joc.. Roads first appeared according to History in 4000Bc can you please give me the details of suicides due to their implementation.

And how they affected people paying their bills or feeding their families.

[whybother]

This is great political theater.

One is continually amazed at the stupidity of these idiots in charge.

Do they honestly think they can somehow erase the massive support of PeuThai by these sort of moves.

Everyone knows it's politically motivated and this is just rubbing salt into the wound.

It's just giving the opposition more ammo for next time.

One (or a lot more) was certainly continually amazed at the stupidity of the previous idiots in charge.

[Thanet]

interesting - you have a link on "other changes to go along with that, removing restrictions on family members"

as memory serves (stuggling to find a link though) the main impeachment accusation was trying to undermine the constitutional democracy with ... you know the rest.

Fully agreed that the Guy In Dubai wants to stack every department with cronies. But I don't see the new powerbrokers as doing any different. YL was prosecuted for 'Abuse of Power' for installing her own relative as national security chief. She was replacing the previous coups own crony Thawil. But the new guys have done exactly the same.

I don't see this as good guys taking over from bad. Just more of the same power grabbing by different factions. The difference is that PT party always relied on the vote - who the people vote in, they can vote out. But by diverging power to bureaucrats, courts, councils, and undoubtedly a strong Military veto/appointed ministers the people don't have the ability to vote them out of power.

With Taksin's party out of the picture, and power resting in various offices there will be the usual power grabbing in-fighting and corruption as in the past.

I don't buy into the piture that with Thaksin gone, there will only be 'good people' left and everything will be nice, democratic and clean.

Check the part on article 115.5 a.o.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/118006/thailands-nacc-ruling-why-it-happened-and-what-it-means/

With all this censorship, how on earth would you know what the result of Article 115.5 a.o will be?

You are just guessing, and speaking from a position of ignorance.

[rubl]

... and Ms. Yingluck is innocent till proven guilty, isn't it ?

Is that all you've got left to say?

After all the nonsense and non related stuff you wrote, do you think there is anything left to say about the topic ?

[rubl]

That sounds rather one sided. Prayuth has a clone too. Check out the membership of the NLA and get back to me when you find another "Chan-oocha" (his little bro), or one or another military classmate.

Family members in prominent places happens everywhere. Look at Hilary and Bill, the Bushes, etc, etc.

Get over it.

Indeed, get over it. Ms. Yingluck may face impeachment.

And what about Prayuth's little bro?

Why? Will the NLA also need to ask the NACC to impeach him as you think he might be involved in the same issues as Ms. Yingluck and the Pheu Thai MPs ?

[rubl]

interesting - you have a link on "other changes to go along with that, removing restrictions on family members"

as memory serves (stuggling to find a link though) the main impeachment accusation was trying to undermine the constitutional democracy with ... you know the rest.

Fully agreed that the Guy In Dubai wants to stack every department with cronies. But I don't see the new powerbrokers as doing any different. YL was prosecuted for 'Abuse of Power' for installing her own relative as national security chief. She was replacing the previous coups own crony Thawil. But the new guys have done exactly the same.

I don't see this as good guys taking over from bad. Just more of the same power grabbing by different factions. The difference is that PT party always relied on the vote - who the people vote in, they can vote out. But by diverging power to bureaucrats, courts, councils, and undoubtedly a strong Military veto/appointed ministers the people don't have the ability to vote them out of power.

With Taksin's party out of the picture, and power resting in various offices there will be the usual power grabbing in-fighting and corruption as in the past.

I don't buy into the piture that with Thaksin gone, there will only be 'good people' left and everything will be nice, democratic and clean.

Check the part on article 115.5 a.o.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/118006/thailands-nacc-ruling-why-it-happened-and-what-it-means/

With all this censorship, how on earth would you know what the result of Article 115.5 a.o will be?

You are just guessing, and speaking from a position of ignorance.

Result? The Constitutional Court ruled, NACC ruled. What you mean result ?

BTW Constitution 2007

Section 115. A person having the qualifications and having no any of the prohibitions as mentioned below has the right to be a candidate in an election or selection of senators:

(5) not being ascendants, spouse or child of a member of the House of Representatives or a person holding a political position;

As for guessing and ignorance, well did you read the article I provided I link to or is that beneath your dignity as 'know it all ' Thai ?

No offence meant, but luckily I have met enough Thai to know you're not really representative.

[clued]

I just cannot believe you Shin apologists.

Have you been in a time warp or black hole for the past several years? It is people like you that enables people like them to exist.

If they had their way

Let's hope that doesn't ever happen. Incarcerating Yingluck for her criminal actions will go a long way in securing that.

Agreeably, the Shin apologists here are unbelievable.

[clued]

interesting - you have a link on "other changes to go along with that, removing restrictions on family members"

as memory serves (stuggling to find a link though) the main impeachment accusation was trying to undermine the constitutional democracy with ... you know the rest.

Fully agreed that the Guy In Dubai wants to stack every department with cronies. But I don't see the new powerbrokers as doing any different. YL was prosecuted for 'Abuse of Power' for installing her own relative as national security chief. She was replacing the previous coups own crony Thawil. But the new guys have done exactly the same.

I don't see this as good guys taking over from bad. Just more of the same power grabbing by different factions. The difference is that PT party always relied on the vote - who the people vote in, they can vote out. But by diverging power to bureaucrats, courts, councils, and undoubtedly a strong Military veto/appointed ministers the people don't have the ability to vote them out of power.

With Taksin's party out of the picture, and power resting in various offices there will be the usual power grabbing in-fighting and corruption as in the past.

I don't buy into the piture that with Thaksin gone, there will only be 'good people' left and everything will be nice, democratic and clean.

Check the part on article 115.5 a.o.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/118006/thailands-nacc-ruling-why-it-happened-and-what-it-means/

With all this censorship, how on earth would you know what the result of Article 115.5 a.o will be?

You are just guessing, and speaking from a position of ignorance.

Result? The Constitutional Court ruled, NACC ruled. What you mean result ?

BTW Constitution 2007

Section 115. A person having the qualifications and having no any of the prohibitions as mentioned below has the right to be a candidate in an election or selection of senators:

(5) not being ascendants, spouse or child of a member of the House of Representatives or a person holding a political position;

As for guessing and ignorance, well did you read the article I provided I link to or is that beneath your dignity as 'know it all ' Thai ?

No offence meant, but luckily I have met enough Thai to know you're not really representative.

It's not representative because it's not real.

[billd766]

@ thanet #81

What about him?

You could equally have said that about Somchai Wongsawat.

Do you remember him?

If you have forgotten him or are not sure who he was and is.

Thaksin Shinawatra' brother in law who was banned from politics and the PPP party that he was the leader of was disolved for electoral fraud.

Prayuth Chan-ocha does NOT have a clone though he does have a younger brother.

By the way please take the trouble to spell peoples names correctly.

Thaksin Shinawatra was the person who described his sister Yingluck as a clone. I don't think Prayuth has described his brother as such though in your mind he probably has.