Raymonddiaz Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) the appointed NLA members will always follow the leader who nominated them.....well done Edited January 23, 2015 by Raymonddiaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post HiSoLowSoNoSo Posted January 23, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 23, 2015 Ignored by most here, but let me rejoice in k. Somsak and k. Nikhom having managed to provide sufficient clarifications and are free of any blame. Wonder how Somsak could survive after the 4 am voting fiasco? ( On 31st October, after having convened for an uninterrupted 19 hours, the House of Representatives voted on its second and third reading and passed the Amnesty Bill with 310 to 0 and 4 abstention at 4 am of the nest day. The House extraordinary meeting was urgently called earlier on 29th October by the House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont and regardless to the opposition Democrat pled for more reading time due to the bill was changed from its first reading by the extraordinary committee, the vote was done the Amnesty Bill was forwarded to the Senate for final approval. The Amnesty bill was widely opposed by the civil society on its unclear meaning and multifaceted procedural. The first draft, submitted by Phue Thai Samutprakan MP Worachai Heme, was to grant amnesty to non-leader participants in the numerous rallies and political protest since the military coup in 2006 that ousted Thaksin. This draft was read and approved in principle by the House on 8the August 2013. The House appointed an extraordinary committee to examine the bill and its majority voted, on 28th October 2013, to use another draft proposed by the committee’s vice chairperson Prayut Siripanich. Prayut’s draft was called “a blanket amnesty bill” due to the amnesty was extended to: Pardon all leaders and every participant in the violence. All corruption cased brought up in the aftermath of the 2006 coup. Extension of time span to between 2004 and August 2013.) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Ignored by most here, but let me rejoice in k. Somsak and k. Nikhom having managed to provide sufficient clarifications and are free of any blame. Yes, well even the junta would understand that Thailand would become the laughing stock of the world had these military appointed officials found them guilty...of trying to make the senate more representative. Your bias influences your objectivity. The NLA in majority decided that there was no valid ground to impeach the two gentlemen. Their name is now cleared. That has nothing to do with the junta, Thaksin or the temperature outside. And your belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy remains unshaken. I must admit they are of more comfort to me than politicians 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) Voted to remove her ? Remove her from what exactly ! Exactly! How can you impeach someone who has already been kicked out by a coup? She was kicked out by the court not by a coup Wrong! She resigned. Ms. Yingluck went on record stating that if only the law allowed it she would resign if that would help to un-fuse the tricky situation she herself had created. So, she dissolved the House and became caretaker PM on the 9th of December, 2013 (I think). She was still that when the court ruled against her in a 'conflict-of-interest' case. Edited January 23, 2015 by rubl 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 A post containing an inflammatory image has been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candide Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Ignored by most here, but let me rejoice in k. Somsak and k. Nikhom having managed to provide sufficient clarifications and are free of any blame. My opinion is that the reason for them not to impeach them, is exactly the same reason that led you to make this post! To serve justice and have justice served. Now if only Ms. Yingluck had managed to provide to the point answers rather than the wishi-washi stuff her legal team and merry band of tubers gave her. My opinion is that she would have been impeached even without what you called the washi-washi because the decision was political (it is not a completely extravagant opinion, I guess). Anyway, we have two different opinions that cannot be reconciled: - you think this is a legitimate, fair and unbiased process, - I think it's a process that is led by political objectives. They concentrated on the big fish, and let the two small fishes go, so that people could say "you see, they don't impeach all their political opponents, if they are innocent, they let them free of blame". It's all about political communication from both political sides (i.e. the reason NACC did all these annoucement during the impeachment procedure was not to influence the NLA, it was to influence public opinion) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marinediscoking Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I wonder now if there will be a reaction from other nations over this? Seeing also how there is no date set to return to democracy they might impose some type sanctions that could restrict trade such as what is happening to Russia. That would seriously affect the economy. By this point during the coup the junta had already had a firm date for elections which seems to have gone over better with international perception. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2fishin2 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 And she has been "impeached" after her term has expired. Using what legal law for basis? Oh yeah that pesky constitution that was thrown out with the boys in camouflage came on the seen. Impeaching somebody after the fact? pffft come on ya'll you gotta be smarter than that 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Ignored by most here, but let me rejoice in k. Somsak and k. Nikhom having managed to provide sufficient clarifications and are free of any blame. My opinion is that the reason for them not to impeach them, is exactly the same reason that led you to make this post! To serve justice and have justice served. Now if only Ms. Yingluck had managed to provide to the point answers rather than the wishi-washi stuff her legal team and merry band of tubers gave her. My opinion is that she would have been impeached even without what you called the washi-washi because the decision was political (it is not a completely extravagant opinion, I guess). Anyway, we have two different opinions that cannot be reconciled: - you think this is a legitimate, fair and unbiased process, - I think it's a process that is led by political objectives. They concentrated on the big fish, and let the two small fishes go, so that people could say "you see, they don't impeach all their political opponents, if they are innocent, they let them free of blame". It's all about political communication from both political sides (i.e. the reason NACC did all these annoucement during the impeachment procedure was not to influence the NLA, it was to influence public opinion) Normally people here complain that only 'small fish' are targeted and not the 'big fish' the brains behind the schemes. So with all evidence a 'not guilty' would have been more political than a 'guilty'. The 'guilty' is just a reflection of that, the 'guilty', the 'negligence'. Some may hope it helps politically, but first of all we have a former PM who stated to be in charge and having been taken by her word. Now the accountability which goes with being in charge. As for your "people could say "you see, they don't impeach all their political opponents, if they are innocent, they let them free of blame"" you should really stop now before people could say that obviously you're just obfuscating and try to get around having a 'big fish' found guilty. Life can be tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 Yingluck says her impeachment 'not surprising'BANGKOK: -- Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra posted a message on her Facebook wall, saying she was not surprised by the National Legislative Assembly's decision to impeach her.She insisted in her innocence in the rice-pledging scheme and she thanked the minority NLA members who rejected against the impeachment.Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Yingluck-says-her-impeachment-not-surprising-30252536.html-- The Nation 2015-01-23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Baerboxer Posted January 23, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 23, 2015 180 to 18 , well the NLA is not loaded one way then is it. Shame on them and their anti democratic masters Better than 304 to Nil. What shame - for making a decision based on evidence and reason. The charge was negligence - do you think she wasn't? Please explain why the chair of the rice policy committee never bothered attending, or addressing any issues brought to her attention even by the World bank or IMF; and why that failure wasn't negligence? She certainly didn't answer. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGareth2 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 post 99 The brains behind the scene ??? you having a laugh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oziex1 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 "Ms Yingluck and her brother, tycoon and former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, remain hugely popular among Thailand's rural poor, but are hated by an urban and middle-class elite who accuse them of corruption and abuse of power." BBC Jonathan Head Well, it looks like the 'elite' got something right for once. Ms Yingluck and her brother, tycoon and former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, remain hugely popular among Thailand's rural poor, but are hated by an urban and middle-class elite who accuse them of doing what they always did and not letting them play anymore and and General do something it's not fair ." So when do the Elite recommence "business" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marinediscoking Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Yingluck says her impeachment 'not surprising' BANGKOK: -- Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra posted a message on her Facebook wall, saying she was not surprised by the National Legislative Assembly's decision to impeach her. She insisted in her innocence in the rice-pledging scheme and she thanked the minority NLA members who rejected against the impeachment. Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Yingluck-says-her-impeachment-not-surprising-30252536.html -- The Nation 2015-01-23 The minority NLA members who rejected against the impeachment should be worried, they may be summed to a military base soon. Seems there was some confusion as only 1 was supposed to abstain in keeping with the 99% happiness pole with that press release due out tomorrow. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 This is excellent news. History has been made. Thaksin...you should feel very proud of what you have done to your Sister. She was just your pawn of greed, and now she will pay the ultimate price for your sins. She is not the first Shiniwatra or close relative banned - by a long way. Thaksin will have lined up the next family stooge already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker69 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Voted to remove her ? Remove her from what exactly ! Exactly! How can you impeach someone who has already been kicked out by a coup? She resigned before the coup, just like her brother did and as him she became a Ceartaker Premiere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExPratt Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> 180 to 18 , well the NLA is not loaded one way then is it. Shame on them and their anti democratic masters Is that anything like a 310 to 0 vote by the PTP on the bill to give Thaksin, Abhisit, Suthep and 25,000 + people accused of corruption (and themselves also) a pardon? Shame on the PTP and its anti democratic master. PTP is an individual party not a National Assembly can't you see the difference?? Yes I can. At the time the PTP government was ruling the country and attempting to do just about anything it wanted. The NLA isn't. Bide your time . This is Military dictatorship and citizens have no recourse to the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I wonder now if there will be a reaction from other nations over this? Seeing also how there is no date set to return to democracy they might impose some type sanctions that could restrict trade such as what is happening to Russia. That would seriously affect the economy. By this point during the coup the junta had already had a firm date for elections which seems to have gone over better with international perception. An online Dutch news site seems a bit confused. It mentions the impeachment but at first it had her removed from office for 'conflict-of-interest' in moving someone up to give a relative a job. The latest version has her removed from office by court because her government was deemed to have spent too much in paying rice farmers". The first was true, not the new interpretation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingstonkid Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 The solution now is for the military to provide 24 hour escorts for her. that way she can travel and live a normal life but there is o chance of her leaving by private plane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExPratt Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> 180 to 18 , well the NLA is not loaded one way then is it. Shame on them and their anti democratic masters Better than 304 to Nil. What shame - for making a decision based on evidence and reason. The charge was negligence - do you think she wasn't? Please explain why the chair of the rice policy committee never bothered attending, or addressing any issues brought to her attention even by the World bank or IMF; and why that failure wasn't negligence? She certainly didn't answer. Because she was tried and found guilty by her long term opponents and Supporter of the Junta . Are you saying she had a fair trial ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker69 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 This is excellent news. History has been made. Thaksin...you should feel very proud of what you have done to your Sister. She was just your pawn of greed, and now she will pay the ultimate price for your sins. She is not the first Shiniwatra or close relative banned - by a long way. Thaksin will have lined up the next family stooge already. Oak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Voted to remove her ? Remove her from what exactly ! Exactly! How can you impeach someone who has already been kicked out by a coup? She resigned before the coup, just like her brother did and as him she became a Ceartaker Premiere. Nope, she didn't resign. She dissolved the House and became a caretaker PM. She even stated frequently that the law didn't allow her to resign otherwise she might if that would help to de-fuse the violent situation she herself had created with her blanket amnesty bill. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empireboy Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Yes all of the democracy-hating and military coup junta-loving people here must be feeling very satisfied that.... "Thailand's junta-stacked parliament voted overwhelmingly.... Gee... imagine that! I'm amazed! The General's men voted according to their Boss's wishes.... unheard of! Democracy is over-rated anyway right? Next you'll be telling us how good it is to be under the domination of ISIS... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> 180 to 18 , well the NLA is not loaded one way then is it. Shame on them and their anti democratic masters Better than 304 to Nil. What shame - for making a decision based on evidence and reason. The charge was negligence - do you think she wasn't? Please explain why the chair of the rice policy committee never bothered attending, or addressing any issues brought to her attention even by the World bank or IMF; and why that failure wasn't negligence? She certainly didn't answer. Because she was tried and found guilty by her long term opponents and Supporter of the Junta . Are you saying she had a fair trial ? A trial? We only had an impeachment procedure. The trial before the Supreme Court for political office holders is still to follow. The impeachment seems fair, she stated to be in charge in the November 2013 censure debate. Time to show responsibility and accountability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Yes all of the democracy-hating and military coup junta-loving people here must be feeling very satisfied that.... "Thailand's junta-stacked parliament voted overwhelmingly.... Gee... imagine that! I'm amazed! The General's men voted according to their Boss's wishes.... unheard of! Democracy is over-rated anyway right? Next you'll be telling us how good it is to be under the domination of ISIS... So, does that mean you think Ms. Yingluck should not be held responsible and accountable for something she herself stated as being in charge in the last censure debate ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExPratt Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> 180 to 18 , well the NLA is not loaded one way then is it. Shame on them and their anti democratic masters Better than 304 to Nil. What shame - for making a decision based on evidence and reason. The charge was negligence - do you think she wasn't? Please explain why the chair of the rice policy committee never bothered attending, or addressing any issues brought to her attention even by the World bank or IMF; and why that failure wasn't negligence? She certainly didn't answer. Because she was tried and found guilty by her long term opponents and Supporter of the Junta . Are you saying she had a fair trial ? A trial? We only had an impeachment procedure. The trial before the Supreme Court for political office holders is still to follow. The impeachment seems fair, she stated to be in charge in the November 2013 censure debate. Time to show responsibility and accountability. A fair hearing then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExPratt Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 any issues brought to her attention even by the World bank or IMF; and why that failure wasn't negligence? Because she was tried and found guilty by her long term opponents and Supporter of the Junta . Are you saying she had a fair trial ? She certainly didn't answer. A trial? We only had an impeachment procedure. The trial before the Supreme Court for political office holders is still to follow. The impeachment seems fair, she stated to be in charge in the November 2013 censure debate. Time to show responsibility and accountability. Hearing then , did she have a fair hearing ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokemachine Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Nikhom, meanwhile, thanked the NLA for the votes and said he survived because he adhered firmly to the principle of “Rules of Law.” OH. Is he indirectly saying the impeached lady lost the votes because she did not adhere to the principle of "Rules of Law"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candide Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 My opinion is that the reason for them not to impeach them, is exactly the same reason that led you to make this post! To serve justice and have justice served. Now if only Ms. Yingluck had managed to provide to the point answers rather than the wishi-washi stuff her legal team and merry band of tubers gave her. My opinion is that she would have been impeached even without what you called the washi-washi because the decision was political (it is not a completely extravagant opinion, I guess). Anyway, we have two different opinions that cannot be reconciled: - you think this is a legitimate, fair and unbiased process, - I think it's a process that is led by political objectives. They concentrated on the big fish, and let the two small fishes go, so that people could say "you see, they don't impeach all their political opponents, if they are innocent, they let them free of blame". It's all about political communication from both political sides (i.e. the reason NACC did all these annoucement during the impeachment procedure was not to influence the NLA, it was to influence public opinion) Normally people here complain that only 'small fish' are targeted and not the 'big fish' the brains behind the schemes. So with all evidence a 'not guilty' would have been more political than a 'guilty'. The 'guilty' is just a reflection of that, the 'guilty', the 'negligence'. Some may hope it helps politically, but first of all we have a former PM who stated to be in charge and having been taken by her word. Now the accountability which goes with being in charge. As for your "people could say "you see, they don't impeach all their political opponents, if they are innocent, they let them free of blame"" you should really stop now before people could say that obviously you're just obfuscating and try to get around having a 'big fish' found guilty. Life can be tough. Well, when I read the different articles in the media, it doesn't seem that my assumption of political motives is quite wild. (I know, some will say they don't understand the situation, or are biased, or even are paid Mr T.!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExPratt Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> Yes all of the democracy-hating and military coup junta-loving people here must be feeling very satisfied that.... "Thailand's junta-stacked parliament voted overwhelmingly.... Gee... imagine that! I'm amazed! The General's men voted according to their Boss's wishes.... unheard of! Democracy is over-rated anyway right? Next you'll be telling us how good it is to be under the domination of ISIS... So, does that mean you think Ms. Yingluck should not be held responsible and accountable for something she herself stated as being in charge in the last censure debate ? When you are managing something at the top , you are only as good as the information you are given. Or did you expect her to rifling through draws looking at receipts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now