NACC to refer impeachment case against Yingluck to the NLA

[webfact]

NACC to refer impeachment case against Yingluck to the NLA
The Nation


Yingluck

BANGKOK: -- The anti-graft agency resolved yesterday to refer its impeachment case against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, in connection with the previous government's controversial rice price-pledging scheme, to the National Legislative Assembly (NLA).

Members of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) made the decision by a majority vote at their meeting, according to NACC secretary-general Sansern Poljieak. He did not reveal the vote result.

Sansern said the NACC members discussed yesterday whether to submit the agency's investigation report into the allegation of dereliction of duty against the previous PM to the assembly. The majority of the NACC members agreed that although the constitution of 2007 was abolished after the coup, the anti-corruption law still exists, which makes it possible to impeach political office holders, Sansern said.

He also noted that the NLA recently issued regulations empowering the assembly to consider impeachment cases, the power given to the now-defunct Senate under the old constitution.

Unlike the previous constitution, the post-coup provisional charter does not clearly specify the legislative assembly's power to impeach political office holders. This has led to questions as to whether the NLA has the power to do this.

However, NLA chairman Pornpetch Wichitcholchai has maintained that the interim charter empowers the assembly to act as the Senate and therefore it has the power inherited from the previous Upper House.

Politicians from Yingluck's Pheu Thai Party plan to take the matter to the Constitutional Court for a ruling as to whether the NLA has the power to impeach her.

The NACC earlier forwarded separate impeachment cases against former House speaker Somsak Kiartsuranont and former Senate speaker Nikom Wairatpanit to the NLA.

The assembly is expected to debate next week whether to impeach them, deputy NLA president Surachai Liengboonlertchai said yesterday.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/NACC-to-refer-impeachment-case-against-Yingluck-to-30245143.html


-- The Nation 2014-10-10

[wackybacky]

Try getting out of that one.

The abolishing of the 2007 constitution is not a 'get out of jail free' card.

They tried that one with the 'Amnesty Bill'..... That one turned out to be one huge political 'banana skin'.

[Chris Lawrence]

I wonder if they will be able to use her name? Her older brother's name has apparently been removed from new history books?

[In Town]

I don't understand. Impeachment is a process used to remove a political office holder. Since Yingluck and all the other officials threatened with impeachment have already been removed from office, I don't see the point. Maybe the NACC should seek competent legal council.

[whybother]

I don't understand. Impeachment is a process used to remove a political office holder. Since Yingluck and all the other officials threatened with impeachment have already been removed from office, I don't see the point. Maybe the NACC should seek competent legal council.

Impeachment can also lead to civil or criminal charges, not just kicking out of office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

[In Town]

Yes, of course. It is often used to remove an official from office so that they can be prosecuted for a crime. But it is always used to remove an official from office. Crimes committed by people out of office, or committed by people while in office but discovered after they leave office, would be prosecuted through normal judicial processes. There is not need for impeachment because the person in question is not a political office holder.

On another issue, I love that Thailand has criminalised bad policy-making by politicians. This newly discovered legal principal will be so useful in many western countries.

Edited October 10, 2014 by In Town

[whybother]

Yes, of course. It is often used to remove an official from office so that they can be prosecuted for a crime. But it is always used to remove an official from office. Crimes committed by people out of office, or committed by people while in office but discovered after they leave office, would be prosecuted through normal judicial processes. There is not need for impeachment because the person in question is not a political office holder.

On another issue, I love that Thailand has criminalised bad policy-making by politicians. This newly discovered legal principal will be so useful in many western countries.

What is done in office isn't necessarily a crime out of office, so you can't prosecute through normal judicial processes. But if a crime was committed while in office, being out of office doesn't always make that crime go away.

"Bad policy making" isn't criminalised. Turning a blind eye to corruption is.

[tim armstrong]

I believe she can e impeached. There is no statute of limitations in these cases, even if she is not in office.

[Eric Loh]

I don't understand. Impeachment is a process used to remove a political office holder. Since Yingluck and all the other officials threatened with impeachment have already been removed from office, I don't see the point. Maybe the NACC should seek competent legal council.

The impeachment carries a 5 years political ban. Clearly they are scare stiff of Yingluck winning another election and they are doing their dirty best to ban her from the next election.

[In Town]

Yes, of course. It is often used to remove an official from office so that they can be prosecuted for a crime. But it is always used to remove an official from office. Crimes committed by people out of office, or committed by people while in office but discovered after they leave office, would be prosecuted through normal judicial processes. There is not need for impeachment because the person in question is not a political office holder.

On another issue, I love that Thailand has criminalised bad policy-making by politicians. This newly discovered legal principal will be so useful in many western countries.

What is done in office isn't necessarily a crime out of office, so you can't prosecute through normal judicial processes. But if a crime was committed while in office, being out of office doesn't always make that crime go away.

"Bad policy making" isn't criminalised. Turning a blind eye to corruption is.

Are you sure? Impeachment is not a synonym of "prosecution". Sometimes people in office are immune to prosecution while in office, and the process of impeachment is used to remove them from office so they can then be prosecuted.

[In Town]

I believe she can e impeached. There is no statute of limitations in these cases, even if she is not in office.

There is no statute of limitations when you make the law as you go.

[Cuchulainn]

Impeached, fined. jailed and shot. (Any order you like).

[In Town]

I don't understand. Impeachment is a process used to remove a political office holder. Since Yingluck and all the other officials threatened with impeachment have already been removed from office, I don't see the point. Maybe the NACC should seek competent legal council.

The impeachment carries a 5 years political ban. Clearly they are scare stiff of Yingluck winning another election and they are doing their dirty best to ban her from the next election.

Possibly, but it seems a lot of work. Why not just ban her? Pretending to follow some sort of legal process just makes them look foolish and vindictive. Anyway, banning Yingluck will have little effect, as I doubt she is much interested in re-entering the political fray. Their time would be better spent trying to figure out how to prevent any PTP candidates from standing in the next election, and I think the obvious solution to that is to ban th party.

[whybother]

Yes, of course. It is often used to remove an official from office so that they can be prosecuted for a crime. But it is always used to remove an official from office. Crimes committed by people out of office, or committed by people while in office but discovered after they leave office, would be prosecuted through normal judicial processes. There is not need for impeachment because the person in question is not a political office holder.

On another issue, I love that Thailand has criminalised bad policy-making by politicians. This newly discovered legal principal will be so useful in many western countries.

What is done in office isn't necessarily a crime out of office, so you can't prosecute through normal judicial processes. But if a crime was committed while in office, being out of office doesn't always make that crime go away.

"Bad policy making" isn't criminalised. Turning a blind eye to corruption is.

Are you sure? Impeachment is not a synonym of "prosecution". Sometimes people in office are immune to prosecution while in office, and the process of impeachment is used to remove them from office so they can then be prosecuted.

I think it would depend on what the "crime" was. Impeachment can include criminal punishment. Here it might just be banning from politics.

[In Town]

Impeached, fined. jailed and shot. (Any order you like).

Why would you like to shoot her? for "allegation of dereliction of duty". Seems a bit harsh.

[whybother]

I don't understand. Impeachment is a process used to remove a political office holder. Since Yingluck and all the other officials threatened with impeachment have already been removed from office, I don't see the point. Maybe the NACC should seek competent legal council.

The impeachment carries a 5 years political ban. Clearly they are scare stiff of Yingluck winning another election and they are doing their dirty best to ban her from the next election.

Possibly, but it seems a lot of work. Why not just ban her? Pretending to follow some sort of legal process just makes them look foolish and vindictive. Anyway, banning Yingluck will have little effect, as I doubt she is much interested in re-entering the political fray. Their time would be better spent trying to figure out how to prevent any PTP candidates from standing in the next election, and I think the obvious solution to that is to ban th party.

Whether they ban her or the party, they need to go through a legal process. Whether it's a legitimate legal process is up to ones opinion.

[siampolee]

whybother post # 16.

Whether they ban her or the party, they need to go through a legal process. Whether it's a legitimate legal process is up to ones opinion.

In reality the current administration are going down the same road that the Shinwatra sponsored administration constructed to railroad any opposition to their puppet masters power.

Poetic justice really

[webfact]

NACC proceeds impeachment attempt on Ms Yingluck



BANGKOK: -- The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) agreed to formally ask the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) to impeach former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra over her handling of the controversial rice-pledging scheme.

In a majority decision voted at the NACC’s board Thursday, it agreed to forward the case file of the scheme and its impeachment recommendations to NLA president Pornpetch Wichitcholchai for consideration.

NACC secretary general Sansern Poljiak said that the NACC board also resolved that the NLA could proceed to remove Ms Yingluck and other politicians facing impeachment charges from office under the 1999 anti-corruption organic law even though the 2007 constitution was scrapped after the May 22 coup.

Section 6 of the 2014 interim charter states the NLA shall act as the House of Representatives, the Senate and the National Assembly.

Meeting regulation of the NLA also stipulates clearly that NLA members are authorised to impeach politicians under the anti-corruption organic law, he said.

The NACC decided in a majority vote last week that it had the mandate to start impeachment proceedings against politicians under the 1999 anti-corruption organic law.

Ms Yingluck has been accused of dereliction of duty for failing to stop corruption and massive losses in her government’s rice-pledging scheme.

She will face a 5-year ban from politics if a majority of the NLA vote to impeach her.

She will also face trial by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Posts that will deal prison term with the wrongdoer.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/nacc-proceeds-impeachment-attempt-ms-yingluck/


-- Thai PBS 2014-10-10

[Costas2008]

For the unity of this country and the happiness of Thai people, I believe they should leave her alone.

It was not her idea, she was just a pawn in her evil brothers hands.

But many Thais still like her and they will be very upset if she is impeached.

Let time heal the wounds, do not keep them bleeding all the time.

[fab4]

Try getting out of that one.

The abolishing of the 2007 constitution is not a 'get out of jail free' card.

They tried that one with the 'Amnesty Bill'..... That one turned out to be one huge political 'banana skin'.

oh please explain just how "they tried that one with the Amnesty Bill"......................?

[Dogmatix]

She and the others who were indicted by the NACC should all be impeached. Otherwise they get off the hook. The problem is that Visanu failed to draft that provision into the interim constitution because he thought it was too complicated for him.

[fab4]

I don't understand. Impeachment is a process used to remove a political office holder. Since Yingluck and all the other officials threatened with impeachment have already been removed from office, I don't see the point. Maybe the NACC should seek competent legal council.

An interesting point. abhisit was found guilty of dereliction of duty for not reinstating Police Chief Patcharawat when ordered to do so by the Courts. He was not impeached for this retrospective act. Different folks, different strokes.

ps obviously his case was treated urgently by the NACC (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/NACC-to-discuss-request-to-reinstate-top-cops-30120608.html)

Edited October 10, 2014 by fab4

[pookiki]

When the NACC forwarded the matter to the AG's office, wasn't it to consider criminal matters? And the AG said there NACC had failed to present sufficient evidence? The NACC is engaging in what is known as 'forum shopping'. And what better forum is there for the NACC than a group of people groomed and hand-picked by the junta? The clear objective is to see that she is banned from politics for the next five years.

[pookiki]

Oh, and I forgot to mention. The NACC is sending an impeachment request based on violations of a Constitution that no longer exists and retroactively applying the provisions of a provisional Constitution that just came into existence. I think the same thing arose in 2006. And don't forget, the junta gave itself immunity in the current Constitution.

Edited October 10, 2014 by pookiki

[tbthailand]

I don't understand. Impeachment is a process used to remove a political office holder. Since Yingluck and all the other officials threatened with impeachment have already been removed from office, I don't see the point. Maybe the NACC should seek competent legal council.

The impeachment carries a 5 years political ban. Clearly they are scare stiff of Yingluck winning another election and they are doing their dirty best to ban her from the next election.

Possibly, but it seems a lot of work. Why not just ban her? Pretending to follow some sort of legal process just makes them look foolish and vindictive. Anyway, banning Yingluck will have little effect, as I doubt she is much interested in re-entering the political fray. Their time would be better spent trying to figure out how to prevent any PTP candidates from standing in the next election, and I think the obvious solution to that is to ban th party.

Whether they ban her or the party, they need to go through a legal process. Whether it's a legitimate legal process is up to ones opinion.

to your point, the interim constitution states that the 'NCPO' actions are legal.

One down.

Number two:

For the impeachment, I have to agree it seems like Thai-style revenge/justice. In the US you impeach a seated politician, not a former politician. When it comes to criminal charges, you indict them - typically and practically speaking, they are usually no longer in office when indicted, but it happens. The governor of the great state of Virginia and his wife were both recently convicted for corruption. Fascinating to watch.

So why not just go straight to criminal charges? It seems like political show-boating rather than a necessary process.

OK, I know one reason. The lacky-filled NLA doesn't need complex legal gymnastics to impeach her - that could go as fast as approving the 2015 budget.

[Dogmatix]

Bad hair day?

[scorecard]

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

Try getting out of that one.

The abolishing of the 2007 constitution is not a 'get out of jail free' card.

They tried that one with the 'Amnesty Bill'..... That one turned out to be one huge political 'banana skin'.

oh please explain just how "they tried that one with the Amnesty Bill"......................?

No need to explain, it's been discussed / outlined / facts presented at least a thousand times.

[scorecard]

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

Yes, of course. It is often used to remove an official from office so that they can be prosecuted for a crime. But it is always used to remove an official from office. Crimes committed by people out of office, or committed by people while in office but discovered after they leave office, would be prosecuted through normal judicial processes. There is not need for impeachment because the person in question is not a political office holder.

On another issue, I love that Thailand has criminalised bad policy-making by politicians. This newly discovered legal principal will be so useful in many western countries.

So deliberate massive scams to kamoy billions of taxpayers funds is suddenly just 'bad policy.

[ginjag]

I don't understand. Impeachment is a process used to remove a political office holder. Since Yingluck and all the other officials threatened with impeachment have already been removed from office, I don't see the point. Maybe the NACC should seek competent legal council.

The impeachment carries a 5 years political ban. Clearly they are scare stiff of Yingluck winning another election and they are doing their dirty best to ban her from the next election.

[wackybacky]

Try getting out of that one.

The abolishing of the 2007 constitution is not a 'get out of jail free' card.

They tried that one with the 'Amnesty Bill'..... That one turned out to be one huge political 'banana skin'.

oh please explain just how "they tried that one with the Amnesty Bill"......................?

'get of jail free card'

Is basic English really that complex to you or are you just severely limited?