SGWA upbeat over verdict on Thai water scheme

[webfact]

SGWA upbeat over verdict on water scheme
THE NATION



Today's ruling expected to uphold previous outcome requiring govt to carry out impact assessments

BANGKOK: -- THE SUPREME Administrative Court's ruling today on the Bt350-billion water-management scheme would hopefully set a standard for other similar projects in the future, Stop Global Warming Association (SGWA) chairman Srisuwan Janya said yesterday.

The court is scheduled to read a verdict this morning for a lawsuit that was filed by Srisuwan and 44 others against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra and three water management-related committees.

Srisuwan said he believes this verdict would go in the same direction as the ruling issued by the Central Administrative Court on June 27, 2013. The previous ruling said the government had to first carry out environmental and health impact assessments for projects that could be harmful to the environment and communities, he said.

The Constitution's Articles 57 (2) and 67 (2) also require that the authorities carry out environmental impact assessments and health impact assessment before implementing certain schemes.

"I believe the verdict will serve as a standard of practice for water-management plans in future," Srisuwan said, adding that many SGWA supporters and allies would be present to hear the verdict.

If the court's verdict grants victory to the people's sector, then the next job would be for the public to be present at water-project areas and ensure everything is carried out according to law, Srisuwan added.

On May 1 last year, Srisuwan and 44 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Yingluck, the National Water and Flood Policy Commission, the Water and Flood Management Commission and the Strategic Committee for Water Resources Management. In the lawsuit they said they wanted the mega-project to be cancelled on grounds that the plan had failed to comply with the Constitution and that construction under the plan would cause adverse environmental and social impacts.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/SGWA-upbeat-over-verdict-on-water-scheme-30246655.html


-- The Nation 2014-10-31

[RustBucket]

Did that 350 Bn funding ever make its way back to the central fund?.... If not, where is it?

Has Yingluck returned to Thailand yet?

[ramrod711]

If the court's verdict grants victory to the people's sector, then the next job would be for the public to be present at water-project areas and ensure everything is carried out according to law, Srisuwan added.

That would certainly be a welcome, though unlikely, change. Imagine, everything carried out according to law, I wonder if you can. credit to John Lennon

[Robby nz]

Did that 350 Bn funding ever make its way back to the central fund?.... If not, where is it?

Has Yingluck returned to Thailand yet?

It was off budget no body is supposed to know.

Seems no one knows if it was even obtained or not and if so from where, from whom and on what terms.

But Thaksin was reported to have told Forbs he had increased his wealth 450% during the Yingluck administration so that could be a clue.

[rickirs]

This is bizarre.

How can the Supreme Court rule on whether something was in violation to the 2007 Constitution when that Constitution no longer exists? That was the same issue as to whether Yingluck could be impeached because the Interim Consitution had no such procedures as did the 2007 Constitution. The only business of the Supreme Court now should be the Interim Constitution and it doesn't have any environmental provisions to violate. Thailand's legal system is topsy-turvy right now, virtually arbritary.

It's not the Rule of Law now; it's the Ghoul of law.

[Gunna]

This is bizarre.

How can the Supreme Court rule on whether something was in violation to the 2007 Constitution when that Constitution no longer exists? That was the same issue as to whether Yingluck could be impeached because the Interim Consitution had no such procedures as did the 2007 Constitution. The only business of the Supreme Court now should be the Interim Constitution and it doesn't have any environmental provisions to violate. Thailand's legal system is topsy-turvy right now, virtually arbritary.

It's not the Rule of Law now; it's the Ghoul of law.

I don't think it is bizarre.

When the action occurred it broke the then existing law.

Just because it was abolished ( and maybe re-instated with a new Constitution ) doesn't make a past illegal act now legal

[webfact]

SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Court rejects lawsuit against Yingluck over Bt350bn water scheme

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Administrative Court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit against former PM Yingluck Shinawatra and other water-related panels on the t350-billion water-management scheme, saying it is just a plan therefore it has not yet had impacts on the public.

Srisuwan Janya, chairman of Stop Global Warming Association and 44 plaintiffs filed last year a lawsuit against Yingluck, the National Water and Flood Policy Commission, the Water and Flood Management Commission and the Strategic Committee for Water Resources Management. In the lawsuit they said they wanted the mega-project to be cancelled on grounds that the plan had failed to comply with the Constitution and that construction under the plan would cause adverse environmental and social impacts.

Srisuwan earlier said he believed this verdict would go in the same direction as the ruling issued by the Central Administrative Court on June 27, 2013. The previous ruling said the government had to first carry out environmental and health impact assessments for projects that could be harmful to the environment and communities, he said.

The Constitution’s Articles 57 (2) and 67 (2) also require that the authorities carry out environmental impact assessments and health impact assessment before implementing certain schemes.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Court-rejects-lawsuit-against-Yingluck-over-Bt350b-30246672.html


-- The Nation 2014-10-31

[RustBucket]

This is bizarre.

How can the Supreme Court rule on whether something was in violation to the 2007 Constitution when that Constitution no longer exists? That was the same issue as to whether Yingluck could be impeached because the Interim Consitution had no such procedures as did the 2007 Constitution. The only business of the Supreme Court now should be the Interim Constitution and it doesn't have any environmental provisions to violate. Thailand's legal system is topsy-turvy right now, virtually arbritary.

It's not the Rule of Law now; it's the Ghoul of law.

Because it WAS in effect at the time of the offence and complaint.

Just because a constitution gets suspended later on doesn't make it an automatic amnesty.

That's just wishful thinking on your behalf and nothing whatsoever to do with the real world.

[HUAHIN62]

Did that 350 Bn funding ever make its way back to the central fund?.... If not, where is it?

Has Yingluck returned to Thailand yet?

It was off budget no body is supposed to know.

Seems no one knows if it was even obtained or not and if so from where, from whom and on what terms.

But Thaksin was reported to have told Forbs he had increased his wealth 450% during the Yingluck administration so that could be a clue.

Please get real. The B 350 BN have been used by your friend, the general for drought relief, it was in all the newspapers. The flood plan is supposed to get funded out of the 2015 budget. But as we know next year the drought will be worse and then the money will be spend on that again. When the flood arrives in 2016, 5 years would have passed since the 2011 flood and nothing would have been done to prevent it. The poor suckers that comes to power after the junta would face the same fate PTP faced in 2011 - NO FORWARD THINKING BY PREVIOUS GOVERNMENTS.

[rickirs]

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

This is bizarre.

How can the Supreme Court rule on whether something was in violation to the 2007 Constitution when that Constitution no longer exists? That was the same issue as to whether Yingluck could be impeached because the Interim Consitution had no such procedures as did the 2007 Constitution. The only business of the Supreme Court now should be the Interim Constitution and it doesn't have any environmental provisions to violate. Thailand's legal system is topsy-turvy right now, virtually arbritary.

It's not the Rule of Law now; it's the Ghoul of law.

Because it WAS in effect at the time of the offence and complaint.

Just because a constitution gets suspended later on doesn't make it an automatic amnesty.

That's just wishful thinking on your behalf and nothing whatsoever to do with the real world.

In the real world you need authority to enact the rule of law. With abolishment of the constitution, there is no rule of law to be supported by its terms. Follwing your philosophy, laws written a hundred of years ago still apply even though repealed.