Use reason and law, Nikom tells NLA

[webfact]

Use reason and law, Nikom tells NLA
NITIPOL KIRAVANICH
THE NATION


The National Legislative Assembly yesterday convenes a session, with an opening statement on the impeachment case against former Parliament deputy president Nikom Wairatpanich for alleged constitutional offence over the proposed amendment of the 2007 charter

Responding to NACC charges, Parliament ex-vice president says he got no personal benefits from charter change

BANGKOK: -- Former Parliament vice president Nikom Wairatpanich yesterday defended himself against impeachment charges, telling the National Legislative Assembly that his management of the 2007 charter amendment was not unconstitutional and there was no hidden agenda nor personal benefits from changing the charter.

The NLA heard the opening statement in the impeachment cases against former Parliament president Somsak Kiatsuranon and his deputy Nikom. They have been charged with violating the 2007 Constitution by trying to push through an amendment to change the make-up of the Senate. The case was filed by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).

Nikom told the NLA that the amendment was not against the charter but abided by the authority given to the president and vice president of Parliament. He also pointed out that the case against him was brought under the 2007 charter that is no longer used.

He said his case was rather seen as the personal prejudice of some agencies and politicians who disliked him and wanted to impeach him personally.

The NACC's earlier allegation that the amendment was for his personal gain was not true. There was no secret intention to benefit personally by amending the composition of the Senate, he said.

"Another accusation against me was that I did not allow MPs who opposed the amendment to debate it. That is not true because they reserved their rights on a different topic. They wanted to debate on selected senators while we were focusing on elected senators," he said.

If any member faced a similar case that is unjust, they would understand how he feels, he said.

The NLA should consider the impeachment case with reason and abide by the legality to not impeach him, because this impeachment would leave a negative imprint on Thailand's history, he said.

Nikom's statement came after NACC member Wicha Mahakhun's opening statement.

"Nikom and Somsak's actions were against the 2007 charter's Article 3, which stipulated that the actions of Parliament, the cabinet, courts and government agencies must abide by the rule of law", said Wicha, who represented the NACC.

Although the 2007 charter was already defunct, the NACC had agreed that according to the Anti-Corruption Act, the impeachment process could go ahead, he said.

"This violation of the charter by Somsak and Nikom is against the rule of law and can be considered as highly lacking in integrity and it is the important reason for this impeachment," he said.

The accused did not give MPs a chance to discuss their opinions on amending charter articles, even though many of the MPs had reserved their right to speak out on the issue, he said.

"Amending charter articles is a very important matter, which needs to be informed to all the MPs. And opportunities must be given to them to argue whether it is lawful and acceptable or not.

"The former Parliament president and his deputy failed to do so by neglecting more than a hundred members of the Parliament's opposition," he said.

In Somsak's case, he was also found guilty under Articles 270 and 291 of the Constitution of 2007 along with several articles in the anti-corruption law.

"Somsak and Nikom's cases are very important for the country in scrutinising corrupt actions, which is not only about accepting bribes or about misconduct but also any action that is against morals and integrity," he said.

Somsak did not come to defend himself, or even give authority to his counsel to represent him.

The NLA later told its members to submit their questions on the case to an inquiry panel by Monday. It set the date for the inquiry session against the accused and the accuser on Thursday.

Before the opening statement, Pol General Chatchawal Suksomjit recommended to the NLA to hold a closed-door trial, as the impeachment scrutinising process would affect social stability, he said.

The NLA later turned down the closed-door opening statement motion by a 107-70 vote.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Use-reason-and-law-Nikom-tells-NLA-30251545.html


-- The Nation 2015-01-09

[Robby nz]

Seems from reading this and other reports that the main defense is that the NLA has no jurisdiction to decide on impeachment.

As well as Nikom saying that he didn't benefit personally.

But then was he ever accused of personal benefit ?

[The stuttering parrot]

Hold a closed door trial!

Yep sounds about right for this lot.

Whatever happened to being transparent for the good of the people?

[NongKhaiKid]

And please don't forget I'm a VIP, sort of, and therefore should be regarded as a Protected Specie.

[smutcakes]

I don't think i will ever understand how this attempt at amending the Constitution was so wildly different and illegal compared to the many other times it has been amended without impeachment over it.

[Robby nz]

I don't think i will ever understand how this attempt at amending the Constitution was so wildly different and illegal compared to the many other times it has been amended without impeachment over it.

I suspect that's because you don't want to understand.

It was not the original amendment itself as first proposed, approved and passed by all parties at the first reading but the way the extra clauses were added in the committee stage and the sneaky way the amended bill was passed, including the illegal use of voting cards when the card holders were not present in the house that is the problem.

If the original of the bill (190) had not been changed then it would have been passed and the senate would now be a fully elected body.

It is the illegalities that were associated with the changes and the way things were done that have led to this impeachment motion.

This is not about amending the constitution as such, it is about the way it was done to subvert the law.

[smutcakes]

I don't think i will ever understand how this attempt at amending the Constitution was so wildly different and illegal compared to the many other times it has been amended without impeachment over it.

I suspect that's because you don't want to understand.

It was not the original amendment itself as first proposed, approved and passed by all parties at the first reading but the way the extra clauses were added in the committee stage and the sneaky way the amended bill was passed, including the illegal use of voting cards when the card holders were not present in the house that is the problem.

If the original of the bill (190) had not been changed then it would have been passed and the senate would now be a fully elected body.

It is the illegalities that were associated with the changes and the way things were done that have led to this impeachment motion.

This is not about amending the constitution as such, it is about the way it was done to subvert the law.

As far as I can read in various publications, the case has nothing to do with how it was done, it is simply a case based on the legality of changing the Constitution to be fully elected.

You seem to be mixing up cases like the amnesty one with this one.

If my first sentence is correct, my original comment stands in that i am unsure how this amendment to the Constitution differs from the multitude of times it has been amended previously, particularly in the drafting of the 2007 Constitution which changed the Senate from and elected to an appointed body, so their is precedent of this.

[Baerboxer]

I don't think i will ever understand how this attempt at amending the Constitution was so wildly different and illegal compared to the many other times it has been amended without impeachment over it.

I suspect that's because you don't want to understand.

It was not the original amendment itself as first proposed, approved and passed by all parties at the first reading but the way the extra clauses were added in the committee stage and the sneaky way the amended bill was passed, including the illegal use of voting cards when the card holders were not present in the house that is the problem.

If the original of the bill (190) had not been changed then it would have been passed and the senate would now be a fully elected body.

It is the illegalities that were associated with the changes and the way things were done that have led to this impeachment motion.

This is not about amending the constitution as such, it is about the way it was done to subvert the law.

Thank you Robby - there are none so blind as those that don't want to see.

Remember one PTP man charged with illegal multiple voting pleaded alzheimer's as his defense. PTP, and previous Thaksin political vehicle just cannot do things in the correct way, even when they have a majority. They are happy to create a law illegally and then try to force everyone else to abide by that law, because its "now law", Make it up as they go along to suit themselves; and lie if questioned. PTP at their finest.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Baerboxer

[Bakseeda]

Hold a closed door trial!

Yep sounds about right for this lot.

Whatever happened to being transparent for the good of the people?

Since I take it you are NOT Thai, may I ask you...What ? do you know about " the good of the people" .

Pray tell us all .... or are you just listening to your wife... or are you trying to bring your home countrys rules and way of life to Thailand .... if that is the case its simple... pack up and go home... Take her with you..!

[Bakseeda]

Double Post sorry

Edited January 9, 2015 by Bakseeda

[vaultdweller0013]

I don't think i will ever understand how this attempt at amending the Constitution was so wildly different and illegal compared to the many other times it has been amended without impeachment over it.

I suspect that's because you don't want to understand.

It was not the original amendment itself as first proposed, approved and passed by all parties at the first reading but the way the extra clauses were added in the committee stage and the sneaky way the amended bill was passed, including the illegal use of voting cards when the card holders were not present in the house that is the problem.

If the original of the bill (190) had not been changed then it would have been passed and the senate would now be a fully elected body.

It is the illegalities that were associated with the changes and the way things were done that have led to this impeachment motion.

This is not about amending the constitution as such, it is about the way it was done to subvert the law.

The constitutional court threw out the amendments for two reasons. One was, as you stated, technical parliamentary procedural and voting issues in passage. However, they also voided the amendments for violating Article 68 of the constitution, ruling that the amendments and having a fully elected sentate would “overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.” Note that the invocation of Article 68 was related to the senate being changed to being fully elected and not related to the procedural irregularities.So, even if PTP had followed the proper procedures amendments would have still been rejected by the constitutional court. It was this second ruling that was more controversial. It basically closed the door on a fully elected senate and was the reason that some were seeking punishment for anyone that voted in favor of the amendment, arguing that is doing so, they were trying to overthrown the government.

[rickirs]

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

I don't think i will ever understand how this attempt at amending the Constitution was so wildly different and illegal compared to the many other times it has been amended without impeachment over it.

I suspect that's because you don't want to understand.

It was not the original amendment itself as first proposed, approved and passed by all parties at the first reading but the way the extra clauses were added in the committee stage and the sneaky way the amended bill was passed, including the illegal use of voting cards when the card holders were not present in the house that is the problem.

If the original of the bill (190) had not been changed then it would have been passed and the senate would now be a fully elected body.

It is the illegalities that were associated with the changes and the way things were done that have led to this impeachment motion.

This is not about amending the constitution as such, it is about the way it was done to subvert the law.

"it is about the way it was done to subvert the law"

Wasn't the military coup a subversion of the law? Wasn't the abolishment of the 2007 Constitution, the creation of the NLA, and the appointment of General Prayut as PM subversions of the law? Justice is best served blind. In these proceedings justice is an unwilling partner of criminal dimensions.

[rubl]

Luckily this is not a court of law.

Imagine someone tells the judges to use "reason and the law"

[AleG]

I suspect that's because you don't want to understand.

It was not the original amendment itself as first proposed, approved and passed by all parties at the first reading but the way the extra clauses were added in the committee stage and the sneaky way the amended bill was passed, including the illegal use of voting cards when the card holders were not present in the house that is the problem.

If the original of the bill (190) had not been changed then it would have been passed and the senate would now be a fully elected body.

It is the illegalities that were associated with the changes and the way things were done that have led to this impeachment motion.

This is not about amending the constitution as such, it is about the way it was done to subvert the law.

The constitutional court threw out the amendments for two reasons. One was, as you stated, technical parliamentary procedural and voting issues in passage. However, they also voided the amendments for violating Article 68 of the constitution, ruling that the amendments and having a fully elected sentate would “overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.” Note that the invocation of Article 68 was related to the senate being changed to being fully elected and not related to the procedural irregularities.So, even if PTP had followed the proper procedures amendments would have still been rejected by the constitutional court. It was this second ruling that was more controversial. It basically closed the door on a fully elected senate and was the reason that some were seeking punishment for anyone that voted in favor of the amendment, arguing that is doing so, they were trying to overthrown the government.

I don't know if this was used in the reasoning over the ruling that amendment "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.”, but one of the changes sneaked in by PTP was to allow relatives of MPs to be elected to the senate, since the senate and parliament are supposed to be independent of each other that would ipso facto be a threat to the system of government as per the constitution at that time then it follows that such amendment can be construed as aiming at or incidentally leading to the "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.”.

[AleG]

Hold a closed door trial!

Yep sounds about right for this lot.

Whatever happened to being transparent for the good of the people?

This happened: "The NLA later turned down the closed-door opening statement motion by a 107-70 vote."

They voted down the notion of a closed door trial.