Thai editorial: Rule of law versus political revenge

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
Rule of law versus political revenge
The Nation

Members of the legislative assembly must think carefully before going ahead with plans to impeach and ban politicians of the previous government

BANGKOK: -- Enforcement of the law has to be done in good faith, and not for political revenge. The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) has an obligation to answer a key basic question of legitimacy before proceeding with the impeachment of politicians of the previous regime. The NLA's action in this matter will set a precedent for law enforcement in this country.

The NLA is in a dilemma over its move to impeach former Parliament president Somsak Kiatsuranond and his former vice president, Nikom Wairatpanich, for their roles in supporting a bid to amend the 2007 Constitution. Some members believe they have the authority to impeach the politicians, while others lack confidence in their power to do so.

Those attempting to impeach are mainly opponents, if not enemies, of the previous government and the then-ruling Pheu Thai Party. They have a clear political objective: to get rid of members of the former government and its allies. Specifically, their targets are the politicians in Thaksin Shinawatra's camp.

If they manage to bring down Somsak and Nikom, they will have more legitimacy to impeach more than 300 politicians who supported the amendment to the previous constitution.

Since the current charter does not authorise this move, the military-dominated NLA weeks ago modified its regulation on meetings procedure to empower members to impeach persons who hold political positions.

In fact, none of the targeted politicians currently holds any such position, but some NLA members want to bar those they impeach from re-entering politics via the next election.

However, it is difficult to establish legal legitimacy for punishing former members of Parliament for their roles in supporting a change to a constitution that no longer exists.

The NLA, together with the anti-graft body - whose members are also no fans of Thaksin - are acting on a Constitutional Court ruling that the amendment of the previous charter was unconstitutional and equivalent to an attempt to abolish the democratic system. If the previous constitution were still in effect, it would make sense to impeach the politicians who commit such an act against it.

But the fact is that the May 22 military coup intervened to abolish both the 2007 Constitution and democracy. The elected government and all members of Parliament were automatically punished with loss of their positions.

If they seriously regarded an attack on the Constitution as a permanent sin, why did none of the NLA members feel there was anything wrong with the coup?

The NLA must get past several legal technicalities before it can exercise its authority to impeach, since the current coup-made Constitution does not provide the legal grounds necessary.

The post-coup constitutions of 1997 and 2007 mark the only two times in Thai history that lawmakers - senators in both cases - had the power to impeach.

There is no senate under the current Constitution, but some NLA members have argued that they are effectively acting as a Senate and can thus use Senate power to impeach politicians. However, this argument lacks validity because the Senate generally has the function of screening and scrutinising a bill from the Lower House before it is passed into a law.

The power to impeach was confined to the 1997 and 2007 constitutions. If such power does not exist in the current charter, it would not matter if the legislative body acted as a senate: it would not have the power to impeach any holder of a political position.

If the junta and the NLA are serious about reforms to support the rule of law, they should stick by the legal principle nullum crimen sine lege - no crime without a pre-existing law.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Rule-of-law-versus-political-revenge-30244900.html


-- The Nation 2014-10-07

[noitom]

Thais haven't got a clue about rule of law. Their entire public face so far has been about petty revenge and reprisal.

[NongKhaiKid]

Thais haven't got a clue about rule of law. Their entire public face so far has been about petty revenge and reprisal.

The Thai attitude to dealing with residual problems is for me summed up in the poem ' Tam o' Shanter ' by the immortal Robert Burns.

The poem opens with Tam on the razz in ' auld Ayr ' with no regard what awaits him at home ' whaur sits his sulky, sullen dame gathering her broos ( brows ) like the gathering storm and nursing her wrath to keep it warm '.

Isn't that so Thai, never forget never forgive and wait the chance for payback ?

[northernjohn]

Not sure if I can agree with the rule of law here. Perhaps the rule should be changed.

Enforcement of the law has to be done in good faith, and not for political revenge. The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) has an obligation to answer a key basic question of legitimacy before proceeding with the impeachment of politicians of the previous regime.

Seems to me that if they have the proof of wrong doing they should be allowed to impeach them.

I hold that idea simply because it would send a message to future politicians that they are never immune to punishment. After all part of what the new government is trying to do is set up a system to keep dishonest politicians out. There will always be some but any tool you have to cut back on the number in my opinion is a good idea.

Remember I am talking about trying to keep dishonest politicians out not every one.

[Searat7]

Yingluck should definitely be impeached for her role in the Rice Scheme. As chairman she never attended one meeting and ignored many warnings about corruption and financial losses for the country. I feel that this is more serious than the charges brought against other politicians

[Frank James]

I think this is a misuse of the concept of impeachment. As I understand it, only current office holders can be impeached. Past office holders can be indicted for "crimes" committed while in office, but there is a subtle difference. Anyway, the motive in this case is clearly elimination of all past and future "enemies" of the current temporary place holders.

Ride out the storm, bide your time, come back stronger and wiser than before.

[trainman34014]

Don't ya all know by now....''The Rule Of Law '' does not apply to rich people in the Land Of Scams. It's all smoke and mirrors......NEXT !

[Thanet]

Yingluck should definitely be impeached for her role in the Rice Scheme. As chairman she never attended one meeting and ignored many warnings about corruption and financial losses for the country. I feel that this is more serious than the charges brought against other politicians

Ummm .... how do you know?

The rice scheme was a silly idea, but in spite of using it as the pretext for a coup the assembled might of the junta hasn't yet managed to pin any wrongdoing on her ....

[Searat7]

She was Chairman of the Rice Committee and never attended one meeting. It's well documented that she received warnings that there was corruption involved and that the cost of the program would be devastating for the country. Her negligence is quite obvious.

[Thai at Heart]

She was Chairman of the Rice Committee and never attended one meeting. It's well documented that she received warnings that there was corruption involved and that the cost of the program would be devastating for the country. Her negligence is quite obvious.

Firstly,how do you know she didn't attend any meetings. Secondly, thousands of govt policies lose money for all governments, particularly subsidies. Losing money for a govt is not the same as losing from your own pocket. Govts borrow from markets and repay over decades.

If its so obvious, I am amazed that they haven't managed to pin it on her yet. Its definitely not an open and shut case. I see the current govt is in your eyes throwing good money after bad. I can't wait for them to impeach this lot.

[northernjohn]

I think this is a misuse of the concept of impeachment. As I understand it, only current office holders can be impeached. Past office holders can be indicted for "crimes" committed while in office, but there is a subtle difference. Anyway, the motive in this case is clearly elimination of all past and future "enemies" of the current temporary place holders.

Ride out the storm, bide your time, come back stronger and wiser than before.

Yes you are correct in my opinion.

I go for the impeachment even if they have to change a few laws. In my mind that would be an easier way to handle it. Take Yingluck and the rice scam. It would be far more acceptable to the public(remember we are seeking reunification here) than locking her up.

Just my opinion.

[rickirs]

"NLA has an obligation to answer a key basic question of legitimacy before proceeding with the impeachment of politicians of the previous regime"

The NLA certainly needs to answer the question in terms of legitimacy as to how it can ignore the illegality (as Gen. Prayuth admits) of the military coup, the coup illegal suspension of the 2007 Constitution, the coup's self-created amensty for its own illegal acts, and creation of NCPO's absolute power over the government. The NLA should also answer to its own legitimacy to subject any former government politician to impeachment having itself become an impeachable act under the 2007 Constitution through its creation by the coup leaders and staffed with members through direct NCPO nomination and appointment, including active military subordinates under the Junta's chain of Command.

Until the NLA can judge itself as legitimate and free of conflict of interest, it has no right to judge others.

[tbthailand]

... acting on a Constitutional Court ruling that the amendment of the previous charter was unconstitutional and equivalent to an attempt to abolish the democratic system.

That ruling by the CC on changing the Senate to an elected body was such a juicy self-contradiction.

But the fact is that the May 22 military coup intervened to abolish both the 2007 Constitution and democracy.

Oops, some one new to impeach?

If they seriously regarded an attack on the Constitution as a permanent sin, why did none of the NLA members feel there was anything wrong with the coup?

There just may be hope for the Nation after all

[Robby nz]

So it would seem that the argument is not about whether they did or did not do wrong only about whether the present NLA has the authority to rule on their wrong doing.

I think it is reasonable to say that those of us who were here at the time and followed both the attempts to change section 190 of the constitution and the rice pledging scheme, which were both parts of the reason that people went out on the street in protest, can say that there were dirty deeds associated with both and that those who committed those deeds should be called to justice.

The NACC have investigated this and have decided that impeachment is the best way to deal with this and that the NLA do have the authority to deal with the matter.

No matter which way they rule there will be those who call their decision political so they might as well go with rule of law.

[Robby nz]

... acting on a Constitutional Court ruling that the amendment of the previous charter was unconstitutional and equivalent to an attempt to abolish the democratic system.

That ruling by the CC on changing the Senate to an elected body was such a juicy self-contradiction.

But the fact is that the May 22 military coup intervened to abolish both the 2007 Constitution and democracy.

Oops, some one new to impeach?

If they seriously regarded an attack on the Constitution as a permanent sin, why did none of the NLA members feel there was anything wrong with the coup?

There just may be hope for the Nation after all

This is not about changing the constitution to an all elected body and I am sure you now this by now.

The opposition agreed the senate should be all elected and the bill (190) passed the first reading in the house.

It then went to a scrutiny committee which against the opposition of the other parties on that committee added amendments that would allow relatives of MP's to become senators and to abolish the 6 year term.

That was when the trouble started, you do know the rest don't you ?

[dominique355]

I thought to impeach someone is to remove him/her from office. But if he/she is no longer in office, simple criminal charges should be brought against that person.

Maybe this is a language problem and the word "impeach" was just an unfortunate translation of a Thai word, I don't know. But the way this impeachment is brought forward smells awfully like revenge. If these former PT politicians didn't commit any crime, why punish them? To gag them?

[Thanet]

She was Chairman of the Rice Committee and never attended one meeting. It's well documented that she received warnings that there was corruption involved and that the cost of the program would be devastating for the country. Her negligence is quite obvious.

Interesting. I must have missed it.

Now tell us where and how it's 'well documented' please.

The NACC is still desperately trying to pin blame on her, but they don't seem to have made any progress yet. That seems rather odd, given that corruption was one of the main reasons for launching the coup in the first place.

Do you know something that we don't?

Edited October 7, 2014 by Thanet

[Robby nz]

She was Chairman of the Rice Committee and never attended one meeting. It's well documented that she received warnings that there was corruption involved and that the cost of the program would be devastating for the country. Her negligence is quite obvious.

Interesting. I must have missed it.

Now tell us where and how it's 'well documented' please.

The NACC is still desperately trying to pin blame on her, but they don't seem to have made any progress yet. That seems rather odd, given that corruption was one of the main reasons for launching the coup in the first place.

Do you know something that we don't?

By looking back at your posts you sure have missed an awful lot.

2013-06-07

Cumulative Losses From Thaksin Govts' Farm Schemes Touch Almost Bt400 Billion

The Finance Ministry's Post-Audit Committee on the Rice Pledging Scheme revealed yesterday that the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra had overspent the budget for the rice-pledging project - Bt661.22 billion, well in excess of the Bt500 billion earmarked for the project.

http://www.thaivisa....-bt400-billion/

2013-06-03

Higher-Than-Expected Losses Negative For Thailand's Rating: Moody's

Recent losses and any future losses from the unmodified rice buying scheme will increase the difficulty of the Thai government's task of reaching its goal of a balanced budget by 2017, and are credit negative for the Thai sovereign, warned Moody's Investors Service.

http://www.thaivisa....-rating-moodys/

2013-04-18

Thailand's Farmer-Friendly Rice Subsidy Backfires

http://www.businessw...bsidy-backfires

2013-03-18

Govt must be held accountable for ruinous rice scheme

http://www.thaivisa....us-rice-scheme/

2013-03-06

Govt's Rice-Pledging Scheme Taking A Toll On Thailand's Budget

http://www.thaivisa....ailands-budget/

2012-11-14

Govt will not heed warnings on rice subsidy scheme

http://www.thaivisa....subsidy-scheme/

That enough to go on with ? can fill a page if you wish.

[rubl]

Yingluck should definitely be impeached for her role in the Rice Scheme. As chairman she never attended one meeting and ignored many warnings about corruption and financial losses for the country. I feel that this is more serious than the charges brought against other politicians

Ummm .... how do you know?

The rice scheme was a silly idea, but in spite of using it as the pretext for a coup the assembled might of the junta hasn't yet managed to pin any wrongdoing on her ....

In failing to be properly informed you seem to be just as negligent as Ms. Yingluck.

[rubl]

"NLA has an obligation to answer a key basic question of legitimacy before proceeding with the impeachment of politicians of the previous regime"

The NLA certainly needs to answer the question in terms of legitimacy as to how it can ignore the illegality (as Gen. Prayuth admits) of the military coup, the coup illegal suspension of the 2007 Constitution, the coup's self-created amensty for its own illegal acts, and creation of NCPO's absolute power over the government. The NLA should also answer to its own legitimacy to subject any former government politician to impeachment having itself become an impeachable act under the 2007 Constitution through its creation by the coup leaders and staffed with members through direct NCPO nomination and appointment, including active military subordinates under the Junta's chain of Command.

Until the NLA can judge itself as legitimate and free of conflict of interest, it has no right to judge others.

The Constitutional Court might have the obligation, not the NLA. So someone should ask them, like the Pheu Thai party may or may not have asked the C.C. already about impeachment as they said they would.

As for legitimacy, you may jump up, you may jump down, but at the moment the NLA, and the PM and his cabinet form the legal government of Thailand. Even the UN has accepted the MoFA as representing the government of Thailand, unconditionally.

[Thanet]

Yingluck should definitely be impeached for her role in the Rice Scheme. As chairman she never attended one meeting and ignored many warnings about corruption and financial losses for the country. I feel that this is more serious than the charges brought against other politicians

Ummm .... how do you know?

The rice scheme was a silly idea, but in spite of using it as the pretext for a coup the assembled might of the junta hasn't yet managed to pin any wrongdoing on her ....

In failing to be properly informed you seem to be just as negligent as Ms. Yingluck.

If you're so 'well informed' you'd better go and work for the NACC then. They seem to be having an awful lot of trouble proving all these allegations.

Perhaps all this focus on corruption is rather embarrassing for the old generals, some of whom are filthy rich on their army salaries ... including Prayuth's little bro.

[Thanet]

"NLA has an obligation to answer a key basic question of legitimacy before proceeding with the impeachment of politicians of the previous regime"

The NLA certainly needs to answer the question in terms of legitimacy as to how it can ignore the illegality (as Gen. Prayuth admits) of the military coup, the coup illegal suspension of the 2007 Constitution, the coup's self-created amensty for its own illegal acts, and creation of NCPO's absolute power over the government. The NLA should also answer to its own legitimacy to subject any former government politician to impeachment having itself become an impeachable act under the 2007 Constitution through its creation by the coup leaders and staffed with members through direct NCPO nomination and appointment, including active military subordinates under the Junta's chain of Command.

Until the NLA can judge itself as legitimate and free of conflict of interest, it has no right to judge others.

The Constitutional Court might have the obligation, not the NLA. So someone should ask them, like the Pheu Thai party may or may not have asked the C.C. already about impeachment as they said they would.

As for legitimacy, you may jump up, you may jump down, but at the moment the NLA, and the PM and his cabinet form the legal government of Thailand. Even the UN has accepted the MoFA as representing the government of Thailand, unconditionally.

It's amusing how you talk about all these parts of the government like they actually are separate entities, when in actual fact they are all puppets of the NCPO.

[Nickymaster]

She was Chairman of the Rice Committee and never attended one meeting. It's well documented that she received warnings that there was corruption involved and that the cost of the program would be devastating for the country. Her negligence is quite obvious.

Interesting. I must have missed it.

Now tell us where and how it's 'well documented' please.

The NACC is still desperately trying to pin blame on her, but they don't seem to have made any progress yet. That seems rather odd, given that corruption was one of the main reasons for launching the coup in the first place.

Do you know something that we don't?

Because it is all part of the deal and you don't see that. If Yingluck and Thaksin had nothing to lose they would have been more active.

[ThailandNoob]

"NLA has an obligation to answer a key basic question of legitimacy before proceeding with the impeachment of politicians of the previous regime"

The NLA certainly needs to answer the question in terms of legitimacy as to how it can ignore the illegality (as Gen. Prayuth admits) of the military coup, the coup illegal suspension of the 2007 Constitution, the coup's self-created amensty for its own illegal acts, and creation of NCPO's absolute power over the government. The NLA should also answer to its own legitimacy to subject any former government politician to impeachment having itself become an impeachable act under the 2007 Constitution through its creation by the coup leaders and staffed with members through direct NCPO nomination and appointment, including active military subordinates under the Junta's chain of Command.

Until the NLA can judge itself as legitimate and free of conflict of interest, it has no right to judge others.

The Constitutional Court might have the obligation, not the NLA. So someone should ask them, like the Pheu Thai party may or may not have asked the C.C. already about impeachment as they said they would.

As for legitimacy, you may jump up, you may jump down, but at the moment the NLA, and the PM and his cabinet form the legal government of Thailand. Even the UN has accepted the MoFA as representing the government of Thailand, unconditionally.

"Even the UN" 555

The UN has given similar recognition to such wonderful regimes as the Khmer Rouge (and Idi Amin's dictatorship too, I seem to recall). So I think that bar is set pretty low.

A better way to gauge international attitudes towards the junta would be to look at my home country, which I am proud to say has blocked them from setting foot in the country.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Thanet]

She was Chairman of the Rice Committee and never attended one meeting. It's well documented that she received warnings that there was corruption involved and that the cost of the program would be devastating for the country. Her negligence is quite obvious.

Interesting. I must have missed it.

Now tell us where and how it's 'well documented' please.

The NACC is still desperately trying to pin blame on her, but they don't seem to have made any progress yet. That seems rather odd, given that corruption was one of the main reasons for launching the coup in the first place.

Do you know something that we don't?

Because it is all part of the deal and you don't see that. If Yingluck and Thaksin had nothing to lose they would have been more active.

Corruption in the judicial system is certainly possible in Thailand, but how do you know that is what happened here? Are you in the army?

And how would you suggest that Yingluck could be 'more active', when the press are forbidden to report on anything she, or nay other politician says, and when any kind of demonstration is forbidden? The threat of being arrested, then banged up incommunicado in an army base without trial, is a rather compelling reason to keep your mouth shut, wouldn't you think?

Seems like you are making up a conspiracy theory, based on mere conjecture.

[Nickymaster]

She was Chairman of the Rice Committee and never attended one meeting. It's well documented that she received warnings that there was corruption involved and that the cost of the program would be devastating for the country. Her negligence is quite obvious.

Interesting. I must have missed it.

Now tell us where and how it's 'well documented' please.

The NACC is still desperately trying to pin blame on her, but they don't seem to have made any progress yet. That seems rather odd, given that corruption was one of the main reasons for launching the coup in the first place.

Do you know something that we don't?

Because it is all part of the deal and you don't see that. If Yingluck and Thaksin had nothing to lose they would have been more active.

Corruption in the judicial system is certainly possible in Thailand, but how do you know that is what happened here? Are you in the army?

And how would you suggest that Yingluck could be 'more active', when the press are forbidden to report on anything she, or nay other politician says, and when any kind of demonstration is forbidden? The threat of being arrested, then banged up incommunicado in an army base without trial, is a rather compelling reason to keep your mouth shut, wouldn't you think?

Seems like you are making up a conspiracy theory, based on mere conjecture.

Doesn't affect Amsterdam.

[jesimps]

Not sure if I can agree with the rule of law here. Perhaps the rule should be changed.

Enforcement of the law has to be done in good faith, and not for political revenge. The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) has an obligation to answer a key basic question of legitimacy before proceeding with the impeachment of politicians of the previous regime.

Seems to me that if they have the proof of wrong doing they should be allowed to impeach them.

I hold that idea simply because it would send a message to future politicians that they are never immune to punishment. After all part of what the new government is trying to do is set up a system to keep dishonest politicians out. There will always be some but any tool you have to cut back on the number in my opinion is a good idea.

Remember I am talking about trying to keep dishonest politicians out not every one.

What you're really talking about is keeping the PTP out, dishonest or not and letting the Democrats in, dishonest or not. Admit it.

[rubl]

"NLA has an obligation to answer a key basic question of legitimacy before proceeding with the impeachment of politicians of the previous regime"

The NLA certainly needs to answer the question in terms of legitimacy as to how it can ignore the illegality (as Gen. Prayuth admits) of the military coup, the coup illegal suspension of the 2007 Constitution, the coup's self-created amensty for its own illegal acts, and creation of NCPO's absolute power over the government. The NLA should also answer to its own legitimacy to subject any former government politician to impeachment having itself become an impeachable act under the 2007 Constitution through its creation by the coup leaders and staffed with members through direct NCPO nomination and appointment, including active military subordinates under the Junta's chain of Command.

Until the NLA can judge itself as legitimate and free of conflict of interest, it has no right to judge others.

The Constitutional Court might have the obligation, not the NLA. So someone should ask them, like the Pheu Thai party may or may not have asked the C.C. already about impeachment as they said they would.

As for legitimacy, you may jump up, you may jump down, but at the moment the NLA, and the PM and his cabinet form the legal government of Thailand. Even the UN has accepted the MoFA as representing the government of Thailand, unconditionally.

It's amusing how you talk about all these parts of the government like they actually are separate entities, when in actual fact they are all puppets of the NCPO.

Its amazing indeed, just like we're told that the Yingluck government, the Yingluck cabinet, , Pheu Thai and UDD are totally different entities while in actual fact they are just puppets of the criminal fugitive hiding abroad.

[rubl]

Yingluck should definitely be impeached for her role in the Rice Scheme. As chairman she never attended one meeting and ignored many warnings about corruption and financial losses for the country. I feel that this is more serious than the charges brought against other politicians

Ummm .... how do you know?

The rice scheme was a silly idea, but in spite of using it as the pretext for a coup the assembled might of the junta hasn't yet managed to pin any wrongdoing on her ....

In failing to be properly informed you seem to be just as negligent as Ms. Yingluck.

If you're so 'well informed' you'd better go and work for the NACC then. They seem to be having an awful lot of trouble proving all these allegations.

Perhaps all this focus on corruption is rather embarrassing for the old generals, some of whom are filthy rich on their army salaries ... including Prayuth's little bro.

Corruption? You mean the 'negligence' case ? The one which seems obvious to all but some who don't want to see?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/766276-thai-editorial-rule-of-law-versus-political-revenge/#entry8498739

[Thanet]

It's amusing how you talk about all these parts of the government like they actually are separate entities, when in actual fact they are all puppets of the NCPO.

Its amazing indeed, just like we're told that the Yingluck government, the Yingluck cabinet, , Pheu Thai and UDD are totally different entities while in actual fact they are just puppets of the criminal fugitive hiding abroad.

I've never said that Thaksin, Yingluck, PTT, UDD et al are anything other than one and the same thing. They don't seem to make any effort to deny it either. Its obviously the case, and I share your distaste for them.

If you were honest, you'd now concede that the NLA, NRC, judiciary, army, police, air force and navy are all under the same command -- the NCPO. After all, it's written into the constitution that the NCPO has total control over everything, in having the power of veto.

Instead, you purport this silly pretence that all these organs of government act autonomously, lecturing people about this or that dummy legal process, as if you believed that the result is anything other than a foregone conclusion. You talk as if there is some kind of separation between parts of the administration, similar to what you'd see in Holland, even though here everything is working under the complete control of a dictator.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Thanet