Impeachment rulings on Nikhom, Somsak, Yingluck set for Jan 23

[webfact]

Impeachment rulings on Nikhom, Somsak, Yingluck set for Jan 23
By Digital Content



BANGKOK, Jan 15 -- Pornpetch Wichitcholchai, president of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), set the closing statements for the impeachment case against Senate Speaker Nikom Wairatpanich and former House speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont for Jan 21 and the impeachment case against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra for Jan 22.

The impeachment rulings on these cases are set to be announced on Jan 23.

Mr Nikom and Mr Somsak were accused of legal violations in past attempts to amend the 2007 Constitution in its parts concerning the composition of the Senate. Ms Yingluck was charged with failing to stop her loss-ridden rice-pledging scheme.

Mr Pornpetch warned NLA members not to make any comment relating to the rulings on the cases before the Jan 23 voting day; otherwise, they could be considered as influencing the cases and violating NLA meeting regulations and laws.

He encouraged NLA members to attend the meeting on Jan 23 because, he said, the cases attracted public attention.

Mr Nikom appeared at the Assembly today to answer questions.

He said that he had not received questions in advance but still hoped he could answer them and receive fair treatment from the NLA.

Assembly Vice President Surachai Liangboonlertchai said that the body had not sent its questions to Mr Nikom beforehand because there was no regulation requiring that. (MCOT online news)


-- TNA 2015-01-15

[JOC]

Why wait!!

The sentence has been ready for months!!

[rubl]

Why wait!!

The sentence has been ready for months!!

Allegedly that is.

Not sure about the two "House Speakers", but a sentence of "guilty as charged with negligence" on Ms. Yingluck should not surprise as even her most fervent TVF supporters seem to get desperate with all their 'interesting' distractions.

[Thailand]

5 years out of politics likely already agreed and a waste of taxpayers money?

[Reigntax]

Charged with attempting to ammend part of the 2007 Constitution by those appointed by the General who repealed the whole Constitution.

So will the General be charged next? Or should we just wait in anticipation for hyprocracy to become a new law.

[scorecard]

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

5 years out of politics likely already agreed and a waste of taxpayers money?

So are you suggesting there should be no due process?

[djjamie]

"Mr Nikom appeared at the Assembly today to answer questions. He said that he had not received questions in advance but still hoped he could answer them and receive fair treatment from the NLA."

So Nikom wants the democratic right to be able to answer questions and defend himself. He would like the ability to debate his position and argue his point. One can be assured that under the Junta he will be given the floor to express his views.

It is only a pity that when he was the chairman he did not afford the opposition the same democratic right that the Junta afforded him. (yes yes yingluck was elected)

​This guy that wants to be heard did not allow the opposition to debate the constitutional amendments in 2013. A (democratic?) PTP minister proposed to call off the parliamentary debate and Nikorn another (democratic?) PTP lac key agreed.

So he wants the same democratic freedom from an unelected Junta that he (as an elected entity) did not afford the opposition.

Kinda shows why reform is needed and that democracy should start after elections. Not stop after elections.

[djjamie]

BTW. I love how the red apologists narrative has evolved quicker than Darwins theory of evolution could have ever predicted.

Not 1 month ago it was "yingluck will never be impeached. There is no evidence. She is innocentt" Of course these are the same people that predicted the amnesty bill will bring unheralded peace to Thailand because the UDD said it would!

Now the impeachments are on the table the evolved arguments are put forward to "keep up with the times" That narrative being. "Why wait!! The sentence has been ready for months!!. Or my current favorite "5 years out of politics likely already agreed and a waste of taxpayers money?"

Just watch this space in on the 24th of January IF she is not impeached. We will see reverse evolution and the old narrative will return. "yingluck was not impeached. See, there was no evidence. She was innocent". And all the old arguments will disappear into the abyss quicker than democracy did in 2011.

The reds are a funny lot and I do, with all my heart, pity them.

Edited January 15, 2015 by djjamie

[JOC]

Of course the "trial" is all about justice (in a country where even the judges have to google it) and nothing to do with politics??

Not even you are that naive djjamie?

When was the last time a "yellow' was banned from politics and/or removed from office by the the military and/or the "juridical" system?

All about fairness!!

[candide]

BTW. I love how the red apologists narrative has evolved quicker than Darwins theory of evolution could have ever predicted.

Not 1 month ago it was "yingluck will never be impeached. There is no evidence. She is innocentt" Of course these are the same people that predicted the amnesty bill will bring unheralded peace to Thailand because the UDD said it would!

Now the impeachments are on the table the evolved arguments are put forward to "keep up with the times" That narrative being. "Why wait!! The sentence has been ready for months!!. Or my current favorite "5 years out of politics likely already agreed and a waste of taxpayers money?"

Just watch this space in on the 24th of January IF she is not impeached. We will see reverse evolution and the old narrative will return. "yingluck was not impeached. See, there was no evidence. She was innocent". And all the old arguments will disappear into the abyss quicker than democracy did in 2011.

The reds are a funny lot and I do, with all my heart, pity them.

Well, we can also be sure that if she's not impeached, we'll see the reverse narrative from the yellows "Yingluck was not impeached because there has been a negotiation with Mr "T" in order to keep the red shirts quiet".

[Baerboxer]

Was Yingluck negligent? Of course she was, but she wasn't really in charge of anything or allowed to make any decisions. Eye candy puppet, albeit a very expensive one. Remember she wanted to use taxpayers money to buy, run and maintain 4 jet liners for exclusive use by her family government. She was prevented from attending any rice policy committee meetings by her brother. He wanted her distanced from anything that could, and did, go tits up so she could claim she wasn't involved, nothing to do with her and certainly never responsible. The fact she swore oaths to do a job and took salary is not even on her radar.

Did these guys breach the rules and prevent fairness according to parliamentary procedure? Of course they did, on more than one occasion. They were told that they could do what they wanted and use the "we were elected" get out of jail card. Two more lackeys, again very expensive ones no doubt, who simply followed the boss's instructions.

Should they be punished - for sure they should. Will the punishment have any major effect on them or their wealth - highly doubtful. Will the real instigator and controller of all this ever be punished - not a chance.

[djjamie]

BTW. I love how the red apologists narrative has evolved quicker than Darwins theory of evolution could have ever predicted.

Not 1 month ago it was "yingluck will never be impeached. There is no evidence. She is innocentt" Of course these are the same people that predicted the amnesty bill will bring unheralded peace to Thailand because the UDD said it would!

Now the impeachments are on the table the evolved arguments are put forward to "keep up with the times" That narrative being. "Why wait!! The sentence has been ready for months!!. Or my current favorite "5 years out of politics likely already agreed and a waste of taxpayers money?"

Just watch this space in on the 24th of January IF she is not impeached. We will see reverse evolution and the old narrative will return. "yingluck was not impeached. See, there was no evidence. She was innocent". And all the old arguments will disappear into the abyss quicker than democracy did in 2011.

The reds are a funny lot and I do, with all my heart, pity them.

Well, we can also be sure that if she's not impeached, we'll see the reverse narrative from the yellows "Yingluck was not impeached because there has been a negotiation with Mr "T" in order to keep the red shirts quiet".

Ha ha the belief over facts again.

Through facts I show you what the red supporters have said. You show through beliefs what yellows may well say, but in fact haven't.

Love it…..

[candide]

BTW. I love how the red apologists narrative has evolved quicker than Darwins theory of evolution could have ever predicted.

Not 1 month ago it was "yingluck will never be impeached. There is no evidence. She is innocentt" Of course these are the same people that predicted the amnesty bill will bring unheralded peace to Thailand because the UDD said it would!

Now the impeachments are on the table the evolved arguments are put forward to "keep up with the times" That narrative being. "Why wait!! The sentence has been ready for months!!. Or my current favorite "5 years out of politics likely already agreed and a waste of taxpayers money?"

Just watch this space in on the 24th of January IF she is not impeached. We will see reverse evolution and the old narrative will return. "yingluck was not impeached. See, there was no evidence. She was innocent". And all the old arguments will disappear into the abyss quicker than democracy did in 2011.

The reds are a funny lot and I do, with all my heart, pity them.

Well, we can also be sure that if she's not impeached, we'll see the reverse narrative from the yellows "Yingluck was not impeached because there has been a negotiation with Mr "T" in order to keep the red shirts quiet".

Ha ha the belief over facts again.

Through facts I show you what the red supporters have said. You show through beliefs what yellows may well say, but in fact haven't.

Love it…..

No time to check in which post, but I read this several times in this forum, at the time it was not sure that the NLA would accept this task. I assume it was from Yellow supporters as the tone was rather to complain about the possibility that the NLA would not accept it.

If it happens (which I don't believe), they will even find arguments in press articles (2 days ago): "Rumours abound that Mr Thaksin is quietly negotiating with the generals, presumably in order to get Ms Yingluck off the hook but perhaps also to safeguard that part of his immense fortune that is still in the country."

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21639568-ousted-prime-minister-faces-impeachment-it-show-yingluck-dock

[ExPratt]

You would have thought 1 day to consider the verdict hardly gives confidence they are listening to any argument

As mentioned. they made their mind up a long time a ago

[rubl]

You would have thought 1 day to consider the verdict hardly gives confidence they are listening to any argument

As mentioned. they made their mind up a long time a ago

The Yingluyck case was started begin of last year. Both NACC and Ms. Yingluck provided lots of info, cupboards full. While the NACC seems to have been gathering more information to support it case, Ms. Yingluck and her legal team don't seem to have done much, especially if one looks at the defence statement Ms. Yingluck read out, or the 'interesting' youtube answers.

Of course if Ms. Yingluck or her legal team would come with new, relevant info on Thursday I'm sure the NLA committee would be willing to postpone a decision as far as is possible without passing the statute of limitation.

So, do you think Ms. Yingluck will come with an explanation and justification regarding 700 billion Baht loss on a 'self-financing' scheme?

[Robby nz]

He encouraged NLA members to attend the meeting on Jan 23 because, he said, the cases attracted public attention.

Encouraged to attend ?

It should be mandatory for them all to attend, that is what they are being paid for and they should all have to vote one way or the other no abstaining.

Any of them who don't attend or abstain should be booted out and someone who can do the job put in their place. If they cant make decisions on facts put before them they have no right to be sitting where they are.

No excuses, if they are in so bad health they cant attend then they are to sick for the job.