Chaturon says Yingluck's impeachment violated democratic, rule of law principles

[halloween]

How many politicians have been a member of 6 parties?

His big contribution was, while serving under Thaksin "he created the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) as a government-controlled special unit to counter the influence of the more independent judiciary, prosecution and police force." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaturon_Chaisang

A true believer in democracy.

Edited January 25, 2015 by halloween

[ratcatcher]

Dear Mr. Moderators

Why do you allow people to say the present government is illegal

The Facts are this Government like them or not has been endorsed and there for approved by his Majesty

Stating that he has approved an illegal government is clearly Majestic and an insult to the Monarchy

I would ask all members to please point this out to all posters who do not accept his majesty word as law

tezza, it is not our job to decide what material is unacceptable to the moderators. They know when you / we cross the line. Trying to involve HM in an argument is sailing very close to the wind and against TV rules.. If TVF members want to insult the present government that is their right providing they meet TVF's rules. Using the lese majeste threat is cynical and dangerous. Previously the Yingluck government received scathing criticism even though they too were endorsed by the highest authority. Maybe ask your Thai wife what she thinks?

[JAG]

I completely agree. Over the last few days there have been several of the more, umm, passionate posters on this forum suggesting, with some relish that any such criticism is tantamount to Lese Majeste. One or two have even suggested jail sentences may be appropriate!

Edited January 25, 2015 by JAG

[rametindallas]

He said the impeachment violated the democratic and rule of law principles.
When your government violates the democratic and rule-of-law principles, you should expect to be impeached. Duh!

He said the post-coup National Legislative Assembly was used to try to get rid of the Shinawatra family from politics.

Well, he certainly got that right; and rightly so. The Shinawatra family are a cancer on society and, for the patient to recover, the cancer must be removed entirely so it doesn't grow back. Time to get away from 'money politics' (where you buy other legislators' votes by promises of future monetary rewards) if Thailand is to progress. I hope the new constitution makes 'money politics' much more difficult.

[garyk]

I first got here about 6 years ago, and Thailand was in a huge turmoil. I thought then, wow I came at a bad time. Now looking back in 6 years nothing has changed? LOL

It's like a broken movie real that keeps playing over and over. All I can figure is Thai's love this kind of stuff.

[firestar]

I first got here about 6 years ago, and Thailand was in a huge turmoil. I thought then, wow I came at a bad time. Now looking back in 6 years nothing has changed? LOL

It's like a broken movie real that keeps playing over and over. All I can figure is Thai's love this kind of stuff.

There was a great opportunity to do things differently this time around, unfortunately it seems like ultimately the hardliners got the upper hand. you're in for years more of color politics.

[trogers]

How many politicians have been a member of 6 parties?

His big contribution was, while serving under Thaksin "he created the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) as a government-controlled special unit to counter the influence of the more independent judiciary, prosecution and police force." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaturon_Chaisang

A true believer in democracy.

Like I have said, "Chaturon teaching the rules of law is like Satan preaching the Bible".

[surangw]

more like it hedged on the social "losing face" system

[Anthony5]

He said the post-coup National Legislative Assembly was used to try to get rid of the Shinawatra family from politics.

All I can say is, good riddance then.

[djjamie]

You know what violation of the rule of law is? Allowing terrorist attacks by your own supporters and then showing an apathy towards it. Showing your concern for these attacks by inspecting fruit the next day and writing a FB comment on the attacks. All controlled narratives too. No televised address by yingluck allowing the majority to see any potential concern she may have. Any human emotion she may feel. A few words on FB and a fruit inspection is what she offered the majority.

yingluck is more concerned about this perceived violation of the rule of law because it affects her than she was about the dead kids in Trat which didn't affect her. This is the PTP lack of empathy the Junta are trying to restore in Thailand. A country were empathy for others, where peace and stability should be held in higher regard than the outcomes of cases against criminals.

There will be no more cheering of terrorist attacks in the democratic future of Thailand and one can be assured that yingluck who is already fading into obscurity will be, but a memory in the minds of all law abiding, peace loving citizens.

The rule of law like the majority is only respected by the PTP when it suits them.

Behead me if I am wrong!!! Heay Chalerm….

Edited January 25, 2015 by djjamie

[casualbiker]

Really her impeachment is valid due to the fact it was based on dereliction of duty. Ie she as PM and head of the Rice pledging committee didn't administer the scheme correctly, even after MANY warnings from multiple avenues. Hence the losses!

[NCFC]

I do love to hear from these (paid) Thaksin propagandists coming out of the woodwork a bit more now, it's always good for a giggle with their fake righteousness.

He's hardly a poster child for virtue or honesty nor was he even good at any of his jobs.

And for those posters that kept calling this an "illegal" coup, just remember that it was approved of and endorsed by the King himself and stating otherwise is against the law and insulting to the Monarchy.

As were the February elections approved of and endorsed by Royal proclamation. So what point are you trying to make? And please do not bring the King into a political discussion.

[casualbiker]

I do love to hear from these (paid) Thaksin propagandists coming out of the woodwork a bit more now, it's always good for a giggle with their fake righteousness.

He's hardly a poster child for virtue or honesty nor was he even good at any of his jobs.

And for those posters that kept calling this an "illegal" coup, just remember that it was approved of and endorsed by the King himself and stating otherwise is against the law and insulting to the Monarchy.

As were the February elections approved of and endorsed by Royal proclamation. So what point are you trying to make? And please do not bring the King into a political discussion.

He's just saying it's :

[NongKhaiKid]

I would have no problem with her impeachment, IF it was done by a democratically elected Senate. However, when you have a coup appointed senate, which is totally illegal, it no longer is a case of "justice", but one of "getting rid of the opposition". Anyone care to prove how all these millionaire Generals came by their wealth?

Didn't the PM suggest they had married rich wives ?

[chainarong]

Chaturon is quite possibly right, but only if there was a Democratically Elected government sitting in power , with the junta in power this changes the position on Democracy, there isn't any, end of story, basically no one in Thailand has any rights to anything, except the Junta.

[Tatsujin]

I do love to hear from these (paid) Thaksin propagandists coming out of the woodwork a bit more now, it's always good for a giggle with their fake righteousness.

He's hardly a poster child for virtue or honesty nor was he even good at any of his jobs.

And for those posters that kept calling this an "illegal" coup, just remember that it was approved of and endorsed by the King himself and stating otherwise is against the law and insulting to the Monarchy.

As were the February elections approved of and endorsed by Royal proclamation. So what point are you trying to make? And please do not bring the King into a political discussion.

I thought the point was self-evident, I even used words and things to explain it.

As for your reference to february elections, that was trumped legally by the coup which happened at a more recent date. Shall we keep going back in time further and further to find references to say what was legal then and what was legal now? Cos right now, it's the coup, no matter what came before it and no matter whether you like it or not.

And let's not forget, this is an executive monarchy where the reigning monarch is effectively the supreme law of the land.

[Baerboxer]

K. Chaturon was Dept. Minister of Finance under PM Chavalit 1996 - 1997. Under Thaksin as Minister to the Office of the PM he was too social and Thaksin moved him to the position of MoJ where he created the DSI. Again moved to be Dept PM. In 2008 banned for 5 years and upon return appointed as MoE by PM Yingluck.

K. Chatuporn seems capable of enraging both pro and con. Read his wiki page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaturon_Chaisang

Rule of law principles.

So he thinks its fine for a convicted criminal fugitive, on the lam from a prison sentence and 15 outstanding charges, to effectively illegally run a country's government? And focus an amnesty for himself as the governments main priority?

As someone banned from politics for 5 years and then upon return appointed to Yingluck's cabinet by Thaksin then yes, I guess he does.

[Emster23]

He said the impeachment violated the democratic and rule of law principles.

When your government violates the democratic and rule-of-law principles, you should expect to be impeached. Duh!

He said the post-coup National Legislative Assembly was used to try to get rid of the Shinawatra family from politics.

Well, he certainly got that right; and rightly so. The Shinawatra family are a cancer on society and, for the patient to recover, the cancer must be removed entirely so it doesn't grow back. Time to get away from 'money politics' (where you buy other legislators' votes by promises of future monetary rewards) if Thailand is to progress. I hope the new constitution makes 'money politics' much more difficult.

2nd sentence: "When your government violates the democratic and rule-of-law principles you should expect an undemocratic coup installing hand picked legislature". Coups are part of "Thainess" business as usual. Why didn't the old elite use democratic method of impeachment? Didn't they write the Constitution While Abby was in power? Impeaching after overthrowing is like doing a performance review at a job you've been fired from. Only to make political hay.

If they want to get rid of Thaksin's power, they need to get rid of his power base or accomodate. He and his gang no better or worse than those who overthrew them.. Until those outside of BKK elite have a real voice and have power equal to their numbers, there will be no real "happiness", unless happiness of oppression counts.

[millwall_fan]

This 'impeachment' proves, if proof were needed, that the army did not step in to 'rescue' the country from the anarchy of the protests, but was part of an organised plot by the Ruling Elite to get rid of the Shinawatras once and for all because their snouts had been removed form the trough and new ones allowed to snaffle up the goodies.

Whether the military government was 'legal' in a Thai sense is not relevent and can't be discussed, but what is clear is that any impartial body would have agreed that Yingluck could not be 'impeached' because she was no longer in office - she was, in effect, impeached by the end of Prayuths gun barrel some months ago. but a parliament stuffed full of Prayuths unelected cronies, was never going to do anything other than get rid of Yingluck. The mnost disgraceful part of the whole proceeding was that Yingluck was not even allowed to hold a press conference afterwards to state her point of view. The army prevented it from happening.

The next job of the puppet parliament is to ban the Puea Thai party because with or without the Shins, PT would win the next election and that, Prayuth and his paymasters cannot countenance.

[NCFC]

I do love to hear from these (paid) Thaksin propagandists coming out of the woodwork a bit more now, it's always good for a giggle with their fake righteousness.

He's hardly a poster child for virtue or honesty nor was he even good at any of his jobs.

And for those posters that kept calling this an "illegal" coup, just remember that it was approved of and endorsed by the King himself and stating otherwise is against the law and insulting to the Monarchy.

As were the February elections approved of and endorsed by Royal proclamation. So what point are you trying to make? And please do not bring the King into a political discussion.

I thought the point was self-evident, I even used words and things to explain it.

As for your reference to february elections, that was trumped legally by the coup which happened at a more recent date. Shall we keep going back in time further and further to find references to say what was legal then and what was legal now? Cos right now, it's the coup, no matter what came before it and no matter whether you like it or not.

And let's not forget, this is an executive monarchy where the reigning monarch is effectively the supreme law of the land.

if your last sentence is correct (which it is) then how can a coup trump a Royal proclamation (Feb elections)?

[ggt]

What "rule of law"? There is no elected government...whatever the military powers say is the rule...will be enforced...could change daily or from case to case...

[Tatsujin]

I do love to hear from these (paid) Thaksin propagandists coming out of the woodwork a bit more now, it's always good for a giggle with their fake righteousness.

He's hardly a poster child for virtue or honesty nor was he even good at any of his jobs.

And for those posters that kept calling this an "illegal" coup, just remember that it was approved of and endorsed by the King himself and stating otherwise is against the law and insulting to the Monarchy.

As were the February elections approved of and endorsed by Royal proclamation. So what point are you trying to make? And please do not bring the King into a political discussion.

I thought the point was self-evident, I even used words and things to explain it.

As for your reference to february elections, that was trumped legally by the coup which happened at a more recent date. Shall we keep going back in time further and further to find references to say what was legal then and what was legal now? Cos right now, it's the coup, no matter what came before it and no matter whether you like it or not.

And let's not forget, this is an executive monarchy where the reigning monarch is effectively the supreme law of the land.

if your last sentence is correct (which it is) then how can a coup trump a Royal proclamation (Feb elections)?

Read the last sentence of my original post:

"it was approved of and endorsed by the King himself and stating otherwise is against the law and insulting to the Monarchy"

The "coup" could be considered "illegal" when it first happened, however as soon as it was subsequently approved/endorsed by the Monarchy, it became "legal", no longer a "coup", and is now in fact the current legal "Government" of Thailand.

[casualbiker]

This 'impeachment' proves, if proof were needed, that the army did not step in to 'rescue' the country from the anarchy of the protests, but was part of an organised plot by the Ruling Elite to get rid of the Shinawatras once and for all because their snouts had been removed form the trough and new ones allowed to snaffle up the goodies.

Whether the military government was 'legal' in a Thai sense is not relevent and can't be discussed, but what is clear is that any impartial body would have agreed that Yingluck could not be 'impeached' because she was no longer in office - she was, in effect, impeached by the end of Prayuths gun barrel some months ago. but a parliament stuffed full of Prayuths unelected cronies, was never going to do anything other than get rid of Yingluck. The mnost disgraceful part of the whole proceeding was that Yingluck was not even allowed to hold a press conference afterwards to state her point of view. The army prevented it from happening.

The next job of the puppet parliament is to ban the Puea Thai party because with or without the Shins, PT would win the next election and that, Prayuth and his paymasters cannot countenance.

Are you actually saying that Yingluck as Pm and Chairperson of the rice pledging committee had nothing to answer for?

Actually the most disgraceful part was Yingluck not actually being present to answer any of the questions!

[mikemac]

This 'impeachment' proves, if proof were needed, that the army did not step in to 'rescue' the country from the anarchy of the protests, but was part of an organised plot by the Ruling Elite to get rid of the Shinawatras once and for all because their snouts had been removed form the trough and new ones allowed to snaffle up the goodies.

Whether the military government was 'legal' in a Thai sense is not relevent and can't be discussed, but what is clear is that any impartial body would have agreed that Yingluck could not be 'impeached' because she was no longer in office - she was, in effect, impeached by the end of Prayuths gun barrel some months ago. but a parliament stuffed full of Prayuths unelected cronies, was never going to do anything other than get rid of Yingluck. The mnost disgraceful part of the whole proceeding was that Yingluck was not even allowed to hold a press conference afterwards to state her point of view. The army prevented it from happening.

The next job of the puppet parliament is to ban the Puea Thai party because with or without the Shins, PT would win the next election and that, Prayuth and his paymasters cannot countenance.

Are you actually saying that Yingluck as Pm and Chairperson of the rice pledging committee had nothing to answer for?

Actually the most disgraceful part was Yingluck not actually being present to answer any of the questions!

I read his post three times and am still not sure what he was actually trying to say.

Perhaps his comment was a cry for help.

[binjalin]

Read the last sentence of my original post:

"it was approved of and endorsed by the King himself and stating otherwise is against the law and insulting to the Monarchy"

The "coup" could be considered "illegal" when it first happened, however as soon as it was subsequently approved/endorsed by the Monarchy, it became "legal", no longer a "coup", and is now in fact the current legal "Government" of Thailand.

it may well be but it's still an unelected military junta

[island hopper]

you will never please all the people all the time but the impeachment is a start in the right direction.

[Tatsujin]

Read the last sentence of my original post:

"it was approved of and endorsed by the King himself and stating otherwise is against the law and insulting to the Monarchy"

The "coup" could be considered "illegal" when it first happened, however as soon as it was subsequently approved/endorsed by the Monarchy, it became "legal", no longer a "coup", and is now in fact the current legal "Government" of Thailand.

it may well be but it's still an unelected military junta

You're free to call in whatever you want to call it, I was merely pointing out that under the laws of Thailand, it's not an "illegal" coup, neither is it an "illegal" Government, and that saying it is is essentially against the law and a criticism of the monarchy who endorsed them (that's how they could/would interpret it).

Also, with the new CCA that was enacted recently, they are now free to arrest anyone for simply saying that it is "illegal" or even "liking" a post here or anywhere else that says that it is for example.

You may have noticed that "some" of the PT bigwigs are being very very careful about the wordings they use when they post online currently. Some are still not so subtle however.

[binjalin]

Read the last sentence of my original post:

"it was approved of and endorsed by the King himself and stating otherwise is against the law and insulting to the Monarchy"

The "coup" could be considered "illegal" when it first happened, however as soon as it was subsequently approved/endorsed by the Monarchy, it became "legal", no longer a "coup", and is now in fact the current legal "Government" of Thailand.

it may well be but it's still an unelected military junta

You're free to call in whatever you want to call it, I was merely pointing out that under the laws of Thailand, it's not an "illegal" coup, neither is it an "illegal" Government, and that saying it is is essentially against the law and a criticism of the monarchy who endorsed them (that's how they could/would interpret it).

Also, with the new CCA that was enacted recently, they are now free to arrest anyone for simply saying that it is "illegal" or even "liking" a post here or anywhere else that says that it is for example.

You may have noticed that "some" of the PT bigwigs are being very very careful about the wordings they use when they post online currently. Some are still not so subtle however.

I accept that point that 'now' it is not illegal but it 'was' when it happened, the elections also had Royal Endorsement I might add, and were 'legal' yet Suthep and his bully boys brought them down

Edited January 26, 2015 by binjalin

[Tatsujin]

Read the last sentence of my original post:

"it was approved of and endorsed by the King himself and stating otherwise is against the law and insulting to the Monarchy"

The "coup" could be considered "illegal" when it first happened, however as soon as it was subsequently approved/endorsed by the Monarchy, it became "legal", no longer a "coup", and is now in fact the current legal "Government" of Thailand.

it may well be but it's still an unelected military junta

You're free to call in whatever you want to call it, I was merely pointing out that under the laws of Thailand, it's not an "illegal" coup, neither is it an "illegal" Government, and that saying it is is essentially against the law and a criticism of the monarchy who endorsed them (that's how they could/would interpret it).

Also, with the new CCA that was enacted recently, they are now free to arrest anyone for simply saying that it is "illegal" or even "liking" a post here or anywhere else that says that it is for example.

You may have noticed that "some" of the PT bigwigs are being very very careful about the wordings they use when they post online currently. Some are still not so subtle however.

I accept that point that 'now' it is not illegal but it 'was' when it happened, the elections also had Royal Endorsement I might add, and were 'legal' yet Suthep and his bully boys brought them down

Welcome to the wonderful world of Thai law/Thai democracy/Thai politics ... the Government at the time of the 2010 red riots was also "legal", but Thaksin and his bully boys tried to bring that down also.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Tatsujin

[casualbiker]

Read the last sentence of my original post:

"it was approved of and endorsed by the King himself and stating otherwise is against the law and insulting to the Monarchy"

The "coup" could be considered "illegal" when it first happened, however as soon as it was subsequently approved/endorsed by the Monarchy, it became "legal", no longer a "coup", and is now in fact the current legal "Government" of Thailand.

it may well be but it's still an unelected military junta

You're free to call in whatever you want to call it, I was merely pointing out that under the laws of Thailand, it's not an "illegal" coup, neither is it an "illegal" Government, and that saying it is is essentially against the law and a criticism of the monarchy who endorsed them (that's how they could/would interpret it).

Also, with the new CCA that was enacted recently, they are now free to arrest anyone for simply saying that it is "illegal" or even "liking" a post here or anywhere else that says that it is for example.

You may have noticed that "some" of the PT bigwigs are being very very careful about the wordings they use when they post online currently. Some are still not so subtle however.

I accept that point that 'now' it is not illegal but it 'was' when it happened, the elections also had Royal Endorsement I might add, and were 'legal' yet Suthep and his bully boys brought them down

Welcome to the wonderful world of Thai law/Thai democracy/Thai politics ... the Government at the time of the 2010 red riots was also "legal", but Thaksin and his bully boys tried to bring that down also.

Yep. The PM at the time was elected in the same way as Yingluck. And was an elected MP.