Ousted Thai PM's impeachment hearing tests fragile calm

[Old Man River]

how can they impeach someone who does not hold office??? it's absurd

If found guilty she would be banned from holding political office for 5 years. Hence, this case is going on due to the possible 5 year ban.

[DLock]

What's the matter?

You still have that unnaturally large headed, flat faced sister and the fruity-looking son to contend with.

Actually, thinking about it, they are a rather odd looking family.

Judging people on their appearance is a good indicator of intellect.

You'd be a pretty odd looking person then.

I never mentioned intellect there Whaleboner.

Whaleboner, your point is thus made, methinks.

Ha Ha...you called him Whaleboner.

Irony at it's finest.

[rubl]

how can they impeach someone who does not hold office??? it's absurd

If found guilty she would be banned from holding political office for 5 years. Hence, this case is going on due to the possible 5 year ban.

Actually this case goes on as there seems sufficient proof that Ms. Yingluck was at the very minimum 'negligent'

[candide]

how can they impeach someone who does not hold office??? it's absurd

If found guilty she would be banned from holding political office for 5 years. Hence, this case is going on due to the possible 5 year ban.

Actually this case goes on as there seems sufficient proof that Ms. Yingluck was at the very minimum 'negligent'

An alternative explanation can be that they know they don't have enough proof to nail her in court, so they do it in the NLA, which is not subject to the same formal requirements as in court. It's much easier here....

[rubl]

how can they impeach someone who does not hold office??? it's absurd

If found guilty she would be banned from holding political office for 5 years. Hence, this case is going on due to the possible 5 year ban.

Actually this case goes on as there seems sufficient proof that Ms. Yingluck was at the very minimum 'negligent'

An alternative explanation can be that they know they don't have enough proof to nail her in court, so they do it in the NLA, which is not subject to the same formal requirements as in court. It's much easier here....

Actually the 'nailing in court' (your words, not an expression I would chose with the person involved ) may still happen after a possible impeachment.

Having sufficient imagination I can also come with alternative explanations, but I'll take pity on you. With a certain effort though, 700,000,000,000 of them

Edited January 9, 2015 by rubl

[candide]

Actually this case goes on as there seems sufficient proof that Ms. Yingluck was at the very minimum 'negligent'

An alternative explanation can be that they know they don't have enough proof to nail her in court, so they do it in the NLA, which is not subject to the same formal requirements as in court. It's much easier here....

Actually the 'nailing in court' (your words, not an expression I would chose with the person involved ) may still happen after a possible impeachment.

Having sufficient imagination I can also come with alternative explanations, but I'll take pity on you. With a certain effort though, 700,000,000,000 of them

Hmmmm.... There may be a freudian explanation to my vocabulary

We'll see what happens in court, but obviously the OAG has not been convinced by the evidence provided by the NACC (which is, I guess the same as presented here).

Anyway we are losing our time (apart from the pleasure of discussing), because it will be a political decision.

If one looks at the NLA composition (all appointed by the Junta), it's about 50% military, plus a certain number of people related to PDRC and the Dems, plus a certain number of supposed neutral people. (please correct me if you have a more precise count). So military + PDRC/Dems should be enough for 3/5 (60%) of votes

We know already what the people related to PDRC and Dems will vote, and we know which rules the military follow.

So basically it will be a one man's decision (name starting with P )

The decision will not be based on wether she deserves or not to be impeached, it will be a political decision, with two options:

- option 1: get rid of the Shins, at least of her during 5 years

- option 2: preserve political peace, in particular with respect to an unfortunate event that may happen this year.

My personal guess is that, if option 2 is chosen, it will be a score like 55-57% for impeachment, in order to save face.

[binjalin]

how can they impeach someone who does not hold office??? it's absurd

How can posters keep presenting this absurd inanity ?

The 'legal point' is to ban politicians for their past transgressions

Please try and keep up

your grasp is... well... less than a 'Thrilla' there is no 'legal point' that you proffer i suggest you leave the Chang alone and concentrate on the issues? now let's start again? she holds NO office so HOW can they impeach her? get it?

ok have another swig

Edited January 9, 2015 by binjalin

[halloween]

your grasp is... well... less than a 'Thrilla' there is no 'legal point' that you proffer i suggest you leave the Chang alone and concentrate on the issues? now let's start again? she holds NO office so HOW can they impeach her? get it?

ok have another swig

It has long been the tradition here that when a politician resigns a position, they can no longer be held accountable for their actions in that position. It seems the rules have changed, and for the better (aka reform).

Get it?

[candide]

your grasp is... well... less than a 'Thrilla' there is no 'legal point' that you proffer i suggest you leave the Chang alone and concentrate on the issues? now let's start again? she holds NO office so HOW can they impeach her? get it?

ok have another swig

It has long been the tradition here that when a politician resigns a position, they can no longer be held accountable for their actions in that position. It seems the rules have changed, and for the better (aka reform).

Get it?

It's not a justice issue, it's a political issue.

Get it?

PS Additionally, yes the rules have changed (no 2007 constitution any more), but they still apply the old rules when (and only) it suits them.

Edited January 9, 2015 by candide

[The stuttering parrot]

Well I had a read through the posts and one thing I have taken away from them is derogatory misogynistic remarks of the yellow dem junta supporters on here.

They have since the coup made remarks on her ability her appearance and any little her sprained ankle etc.

You junta supporters and shame on you kept posting that she would flee overseas and yet here she is standing up defending herself it what well all know is just a complete sham.

It really rattles you macho men how this woman has presented herself with dignity and grace and unlike suthep does not seeke the refuge of a temple to avoid her accusers .

Your biggest triumph will be if she sheds a tear that's what your hoping for yet I wouldn't blame her considering the pressure the unelected general are putting on here.

Your insecurity in your comments on reflect the fear the junta have of the truly two elected PMs in the last decade or so.

You should be outraged not supportive!

[Thrilla]

how can they impeach someone who does not hold office??? it's absurd

How can posters keep presenting this absurd inanity ?

The 'legal point' is to ban politicians for their past transgressions

Please try and keep up

No it is you that must keep up.Various senior lawyers and legal academics have queried the use of the impeachment instrument in the case of someone who holds no office and under a constitution that no longer exists.Any crimes committed by politicians can be dealt with laws under the existing statute book - except of course those guilty of sedition and high treason that have awarded themselves free pardons.

But being impeached she is !

As I said ..please try and keep up

[wwest5829]

What's the matter?

You still have that unnaturally large headed, flat faced sister and the fruity-looking son to contend with.

Actually, thinking about it, they are a rather odd looking family.

Judging people on their appearance is a good indicator of intellect.

You'd be a pretty odd looking person then.

I never mentioned intellect there Whaleboner.

Whaleboner, your point is thus made, methinks.

Ha Ha...you called him Whaleboner.

Irony at it's finest.

Dumb and dumber exist in Thailand!

[mikemac]

Regardless of alleged guilt, the legal process looks is politcally driven and flawed.

There, fixed that for you.

As an aside, she has stated in another news source how could she be impeached when she no longer holds power. Can't argue with that. Although I'm sure some here will give it a go

Trying to explain anything to Yingluk would be difficult. It equates to translating the F-4 Phantom repair manual into words an Iranian high school graduate could understand.

Did you watch & critique her speech today, Einstein? She was confident, eloquent & reasoned, much more than I can say about your childish post.

Amazing ! This forum is getting better and better every day, as a comedy venue.

A classic example was waitforusalso mentioning Yingluck in the same sentence as Einstein ! Next thing you know she will be on the short list to win the Nobel Peace Prize !!!!!!!!!!!

Please, keep em' comin' !

[mikemac]

AFP bias come out very clear in that lot.

Agreed. Where do they come up with this nonsense that the rice-pledging scheme was popular with the rural power base? It was only popular with large rice growers, rice mills, rice warehouse owners and PTP politicians who received kickbacks and other favors from these special interest groups.

My wife's family grow rice in Surin and last year the only member of her family who was involved in the rice scheme was her older sister who thought she would make better money going that way.

The rest of the family sold their rice to the regular buyer and were paid almost immediately. Older sister waited for months and no money was paid to her and I am not sure if she ever did get paid.

As a result we helped her out with money to get her through.

But the drama did not stop there. When I went down for the last harvest everyone was complaining about the low prices being paid and were blaming the PTP and the rice scheme for it.

They would probably still sell their vote to them but they have lost faith in them.

The red propaganda in the op is typical of the stuff AFP churn out these days. Reads like it was taken from the pages of Asian Correspondent or the like.

Absolute crap and bs !

[rubl]

Well I had a read through the posts and one thing I have taken away from them is derogatory misogynistic remarks of the yellow dem junta supporters on here.

They have since the coup made remarks on her ability her appearance and any little her sprained ankle etc.

You junta supporters and shame on you kept posting that she would flee overseas and yet here she is standing up defending herself it what well all know is just a complete sham.

It really rattles you macho men how this woman has presented herself with dignity and grace and unlike suthep does not seeke the refuge of a temple to avoid her accusers .

Your biggest triumph will be if she sheds a tear that's what your hoping for yet I wouldn't blame her considering the pressure the unelected general are putting on here.

Your insecurity in your comments on reflect the fear the junta have of the truly two elected PMs in the last decade or so.

You should be outraged not supportive!

I AM outraged!

A 'self-financing' scheme defended till it managed to rake up a loss of 700,000,000,000 Baht. Following some posters try to describe the issue as 'political'. Well, my foot on that. As Tax payer here I'm angry.

700 billion Baht on a 'self-financing' scheme. Left out of the National Budget, so it didn't effect the 8 - 12% deficit there already. Defended to the teeth, already in January 2012 we had Dr. Olarn as Advisor to the PM say there were no issues and all would work out profitable. A case of 'negligence'? 'Criminal intend to deceive and steal from the country to pay off some cronies' that would be more like it.

[Oziex1]

AFP bias come out very clear in that lot.

The whole thing is about accountability of politicians to the country and the people, they must do the job they were elected to do and if they don't or cant do it they have no right to be in the job.

Same as any other business or profession, incompetent doctors, builders, electricians and pilots can and are dumped from their jobs. Why not politicians ?

That one sector will be unhappy if this occurs should not be a factor in any decision and if that sector would make trouble because the law is being applied and they cant accept that decision then that puts them outside the law.

But there is a mechanism for dumping unpopular politicians.It is called a general election.That remedy is not now open to the Thai people.

Were they unpopular, were they going to be dumped or were the populace just going to continue to be conned and paid to vote them in?

Had an election been held would she have been returned to power, if so would the peoples choice have been accepted or the unrest continued.

Military rule may not be ideal but the alternative was deadly.

[jayboy]

AFP bias come out very clear in that lot.

The whole thing is about accountability of politicians to the country and the people, they must do the job they were elected to do and if they don't or cant do it they have no right to be in the job.

Same as any other business or profession, incompetent doctors, builders, electricians and pilots can and are dumped from their jobs. Why not politicians ?

That one sector will be unhappy if this occurs should not be a factor in any decision and if that sector would make trouble because the law is being applied and they cant accept that decision then that puts them outside the law.

But there is a mechanism for dumping unpopular politicians.It is called a general election.That remedy is not now open to the Thai people.

Were they unpopular, were they going to be dumped or were the populace just going to continue to be conned and paid to vote them in?

Had an election been held would she have been returned to power, if so would the peoples choice have been accepted or the unrest continued.

Military rule may not be ideal but the alternative was deadly.

I will answer as best I can to your questions.

1.Yingluck's government was becoming more unpopular.

2.Most commentators believed they would have scraped to victory - but impossible to prove.

3.The Thai people are not conned in the way you suggest nor is vote buying a significant factor.

4.If an election had been held and she was returned to power the unrest would certainly have continued.

5.Military rule is the worst possible outcome - putting a plaster on a cancer.

Comment: The best approach would have been to defeat the PTP at the polls.This would have entailed massive reform of the Democrat Party which instead pandered to the forces dedicated to undermining democracy (or Thailand's embryonic version of it).

[Robby nz]

AFP bias come out very clear in that lot.

The whole thing is about accountability of politicians to the country and the people, they must do the job they were elected to do and if they don't or cant do it they have no right to be in the job.

Same as any other business or profession, incompetent doctors, builders, electricians and pilots can and are dumped from their jobs. Why not politicians ?

That one sector will be unhappy if this occurs should not be a factor in any decision and if that sector would make trouble because the law is being applied and they cant accept that decision then that puts them outside the law.

But there is a mechanism for dumping unpopular politicians.It is called a general election.That remedy is not now open to the Thai people.

Were they unpopular, were they going to be dumped or were the populace just going to continue to be conned and paid to vote them in?

Had an election been held would she have been returned to power, if so would the peoples choice have been accepted or the unrest continued.

Military rule may not be ideal but the alternative was deadly.

I will answer as best I can to your questions.

1.Yingluck's government was becoming more unpopular.

2.Most commentators believed they would have scraped to victory - but impossible to prove.

3.The Thai people are not conned in the way you suggest nor is vote buying a significant factor.

4.If an election had been held and she was returned to power the unrest would certainly have continued.

5.Military rule is the worst possible outcome - putting a plaster on a cancer.

Comment: The best approach would have been to defeat the PTP at the polls.This would have entailed massive reform of the Democrat Party which instead pandered to the forces dedicated to undermining democracy (or Thailand's embryonic version of it).

You have forgotten one small thing. If the Democrats had won an election Thaksin would have brought his reds out in a repeat of 2010.

The only reason for the riots of 2010 was Thaksin being sidelined from the seat of power, his ego could not stand that and if the Dems had won an election he would have done the same thing again.

[mikemac]

You have forgotten one small thing. If the Democrats had won an election Thaksin would have brought his reds out in a repeat of 2010.

The only reason for the riots of 2010 was Thaksin being sidelined from the seat of power, his ego could not stand that and if the Dems had won an election he would have done the same thing again.

Actually Robby I always put the 2010 protests down to spite and vengeance on Thaksin's behalf. They began just after the decision regarding the seizing of his assets.

Will be interesting to see what happens if they hang Yingluck out to dry, the redshirts will not play up unless they are paid to, they are only cowardly mercenaries after all.

Thaksin is smart enough to distance himself from them when it suits him, but he also knows they will obey his commands and accept his money if need be.

[jayboy]

AFP bias come out very clear in that lot.

The whole thing is about accountability of politicians to the country and the people, they must do the job they were elected to do and if they don't or cant do it they have no right to be in the job.

Same as any other business or profession, incompetent doctors, builders, electricians and pilots can and are dumped from their jobs. Why not politicians ?

That one sector will be unhappy if this occurs should not be a factor in any decision and if that sector would make trouble because the law is being applied and they cant accept that decision then that puts them outside the law.

But there is a mechanism for dumping unpopular politicians.It is called a general election.That remedy is not now open to the Thai people.

Were they unpopular, were they going to be dumped or were the populace just going to continue to be conned and paid to vote them in?

Had an election been held would she have been returned to power, if so would the peoples choice have been accepted or the unrest continued.

Military rule may not be ideal but the alternative was deadly.

I will answer as best I can to your questions.

1.Yingluck's government was becoming more unpopular.

2.Most commentators believed they would have scraped to victory - but impossible to prove.

3.The Thai people are not conned in the way you suggest nor is vote buying a significant factor.

4.If an election had been held and she was returned to power the unrest would certainly have continued.

5.Military rule is the worst possible outcome - putting a plaster on a cancer.

Comment: The best approach would have been to defeat the PTP at the polls.This would have entailed massive reform of the Democrat Party which instead pandered to the forces dedicated to undermining democracy (or Thailand's embryonic version of it).

You have forgotten one small thing. If the Democrats had won an election Thaksin would have brought his reds out in a repeat of 2010.

The only reason for the riots of 2010 was Thaksin being sidelined from the seat of power, his ego could not stand that and if the Dems had won an election he would have done the same thing again.

I am afraid there is no evidence for this.The parties associated with Thaksin are so dependent on electoral democracy that it is not in their interests to undermine it.Eventually all parties become tired and the electorate seeks other alternatives.The Democrats would have been better advised to replace their leadership and broaden their appeal.Instead they disgracefully took a less salubrious path.

[billd766]

All these recent articles are general this and general that.

A deep seated hatred of the Shinawatras by the bangkok elite and the military is a well known fact so what's so new in this article.

Everyone's in place so it only remains to serif a deal has been done or she somehow gets impeached and how they do that legally is beyond me.

Most things are beyond you.

Respect and obedience of the law by politicians is one.

Another is the acceptance of responsibility for the job and task she took on.

[jayboy]

All these recent articles are general this and general that.

A deep seated hatred of the Shinawatras by the bangkok elite and the military is a well known fact so what's so new in this article.

Everyone's in place so it only remains to serif a deal has been done or she somehow gets impeached and how they do that legally is beyond me.

Most things are beyond you.

Respect and obedience of the law by politicians is one.

Another is the acceptance of responsibility for the job and task she took on.

But presumably those who trash democracy and the constitution and bring the country into disrepute are exempted from the need to respect and obey the law? Anyway no problem - they can always award themselves a free pardon.

[rubl]

All these recent articles are general this and general that.

A deep seated hatred of the Shinawatras by the bangkok elite and the military is a well known fact so what's so new in this article.

Everyone's in place so it only remains to serif a deal has been done or she somehow gets impeached and how they do that legally is beyond me.

Most things are beyond you.

Respect and obedience of the law by politicians is one.

Another is the acceptance of responsibility for the job and task she took on.

But presumably those who trash democracy and the constitution and bring the country into disrepute are exempted from the need to respect and obey the law? Anyway no problem - they can always award themselves a free pardon.

Like the Yingluck Government tried in their blanket amnesty bill which covered their own first year in office.

[candide]

All these recent articles are general this and general that.

A deep seated hatred of the Shinawatras by the bangkok elite and the military is a well known fact so what's so new in this article.

Everyone's in place so it only remains to serif a deal has been done or she somehow gets impeached and how they do that legally is beyond me.

Most things are beyond you.

Respect and obedience of the law by politicians is one.

Another is the acceptance of responsibility for the job and task she took on.

But presumably those who trash democracy and the constitution and bring the country into disrepute are exempted from the need to respect and obey the law? Anyway no problem - they can always award themselves a free pardon.

Like the Yingluck Government tried in their blanket amnesty bill which covered their own first year in office.

Yingluck and the PTP are small players, trying to pass an amnestry bill after wrongdoings. Smart players grant themselves amnesty before!

[rubl]

But presumably those who trash democracy and the constitution and bring the country into disrepute are exempted from the need to respect and obey the law? Anyway no problem - they can always award themselves a free pardon.

Like the Yingluck Government tried in their blanket amnesty bill which covered their own first year in office.

Yingluck and the PTP are small players, trying to pass an amnestry bill after wrongdoings. Smart players grant themselves amnesty before!

Actually with Yingluck c.s it's worse. They corrupt the Democracy, state all their actions are democratic while more-or-less raping the Democracy. Dancing to the tune of a criminal fugitive billionair.

With the NCPO there is no doubt they put whatever there was left of the democracy on hold.

Edited January 10, 2015 by rubl

[jayboy]

But presumably those who trash democracy and the constitution and bring the country into disrepute are exempted from the need to respect and obey the law? Anyway no problem - they can always award themselves a free pardon.

Like the Yingluck Government tried in their blanket amnesty bill which covered their own first year in office.

Yingluck and the PTP are small players, trying to pass an amnestry bill after wrongdoings. Smart players grant themselves amnesty before!

Actually with Yingluck c.s it's worse. They corrupt the Democracy, state all their actions are democratic while more-or-less raping the Democracy. Dancing to the tune of a criminal fugitive billionair.

With the NCPO there is no doubt they put whatever there was left of the democracy on hold.

That's a pity.You seemed to be becoming more rational in the last month or so but you appear to have lost it again.Whatever the defects of Yingluck's administration only the utterly deranged would regard the current government as more democratic.Incidentally the likely influence of Thaksin on the last government was hardly a secret.The Thai people nevertheless gave Yingluck a resounding mandate.

[rubl]

Like the Yingluck Government tried in their blanket amnesty bill which covered their own first year in office.

Yingluck and the PTP are small players, trying to pass an amnestry bill after wrongdoings. Smart players grant themselves amnesty before!

Actually with Yingluck c.s it's worse. They corrupt the Democracy, state all their actions are democratic while more-or-less raping the Democracy. Dancing to the tune of a criminal fugitive billionair.

With the NCPO there is no doubt they put whatever there was left of the democracy on hold.

That's a pity.You seemed to be becoming more rational in the last month or so but you appear to have lost it again.Whatever the defects of Yingluck's administration only the utterly deranged would regard the current government as more democratic.Incidentally the likely influence of Thaksin on the last government was hardly a secret.The Thai people nevertheless gave Yingluck a resounding mandate.

Read again, my dear boy. I didn't say the current government is democratic. In my own words as non-native English speaker I tried to say that a government which positions itself as democratic but isn't, is worse than a temporary government which says it put democracy on hold.

BTW the well-know control of Thaksin over his Yingluck Government is a clear indication of the lack of democracy. Furthermore you implicitly also suggest the electorate was either fooled or not ready for democracy (as we know it).

[Old Man River]

how can they impeach someone who does not hold office??? it's absurd

How can posters keep presenting this absurd inanity ?

The 'legal point' is to ban politicians for their past transgressions

Please try and keep up

your grasp is... well... less than a 'Thrilla' there is no 'legal point' that you proffer i suggest you leave the Chang alone and concentrate on the issues? now let's start again? she holds NO office so HOW can they impeach her? get it?

ok have another swig

Again, it is not about someone who holds office being removed (what you are referring to). It is about whether she gets banned from holding office for the next 5 years. The potential ban doesn't matter whether she is still in office or not.

Decision expected Jan. 23rd.

[Thrilla]

how can they impeach someone who does not hold office??? it's absurd

How can posters keep presenting this absurd inanity ?

The 'legal point' is to ban politicians for their past transgressions

Please try and keep up

your grasp is... well... less than a 'Thrilla' there is no 'legal point' that you proffer i suggest you leave the Chang alone and concentrate on the issues? now let's start again? she holds NO office so HOW can they impeach her? get it?

ok have another swig

Oh I comprehend this - and the language better than yourself -

The stark reality is, there she was on Friday defending herself - did you miss it ?