Unusual circumstances open door to unusual occurrences

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Unusual circumstances open door to unusual occurrences
CHULARAT SAENGPASSA

BANGKOK: -- THE NATIONAL Legislative Assembly (NLA)'s decision to impeach former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra last week was stunning in that it marked several firsts for the country - not all of them positive.

This was the first time since the parliamentary system was created here that a prime minister has been impeached.

It was also the first time in Thai history that a prime minister has been impeached after leaving office, and the first time that the impeachment process has been carried out under a constitution torn up by coup-makers.

Of course, few people think that the rice-pledging policy introduced by the Yingluck government was great idea. No government in the world, not even the richest one, would have come up with such a grand scheme, especially since any benefit that could be reaped would be short term and the country's finances would pay dearly over the long term.

Yet, there is no government in the world that has been prosecuted for launching a policy it promised while campaigning for votes.

And if a government scheme is riddled with corruption, then it is the anti-graft agency's job to point the finger and take action.

The Yingluck government obviously knew that this project could not go on forever, which is why it made some adjustments in the third year. Some farmers also realised that the subsidy would be scrapped sooner or later.

The impeachment, however, appears to have cut short the learning process for Thai voters.

Some of the people who voted for Pheu Thai Party see the impeachment as part of a grand scheme to remove the Shinawatra clan from Thai politics, while those who voted for the party without considering the negative impacts of its policies will do so again - albeit next time with compassion.

Meanwhile, few among those who oppose the Shinawatras will understand that corruption is rooted deep in Thai culture and can only be eradicated if all elements in society join hands, instead of holding protests.

After all, many in power escape punishment for their crimes - be it encroaching on forests or embezzling state funds.

It also remains to be seen if politicians will learn from this. Populist policies thrive in a place where few understand the ideals of democracy and protecting people's rights.

Hence, Pheu Thai's landslide victories in the past can almost guarantee that - with or without a leader from the Shinawatra clan - it will only need a new populist policy to win votes again.

Since Thailand still lacks a clear rule of law to remove corrupt politicians, few people think it is important to teach youngsters to be ethical, to punish those who commit small offences or to strengthen the country's anti-corruption mechanism.

On the one hand, nobody involved in the Hopewell project has been punished for costing the country billions. Many have also turned a blind eye to the fact that the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration has extended the BTS (Skytrain) operating contract without opening a bid.

On the other, when the Yingluck government proposed a scheme to sell agricultural products to China in return for funding a rail project, it drew heavy criticism. Now, few bother to question the transparency of a similar plan introduced by the junta. Its decision to give a similar project to China and its apparent move to give some others to Japan - without an auction - was also met with silence.

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva made an interesting remark last weekend - he said Yingluck's impeachment was possible due to unusual circumstances, but hoped this does not become prevalent in Thai politics.

Unfortunately, this impeachment has set unhealthy conditions in Thailand.

If politicians who are not in office are still at risk of being impeached for "negligence", few will want to join politics. Worse yet, many ordinary Thais have lost faith in politics, and it is doubtful if anybody will bother to protest against the impeachment, even if martial law is lifted.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Unusual-circumstances-open-door-to-unusual-occurre-30252692.html

-- The Nation 2015-01-27

[NeverSure]

Well said. Maybe people are catching on.

[sjjmmi]

Amazing Thailand the hub of the world's first's

[chainarong]

How you do impeach someone not in office is interesting, normal procedure is the state V Y. Shinawatra, the situation in Thailand as rightly pointed out and no one except a few here in TV voiced any opposition to Prauth - O doing a Government to Government contract for a railway from Nong Khai to BKK and then everyone being told that transparency is important to stamp out corruption , the proper way for transparency to gain acceptance is to advertise all tenders for Government contracts in the public notices in a Sat paper along with any successful tenders, this includes BMA and local governments .

[animatic]

So after their crimes of negligence they can still be prosecuted,

or impeached by the legislators to remove re-election rights for a spell.

Sounds like a step forward.

Fewer will want to join politics if they can be held accountable during AND after their time in office?

Oh boo hoo to the corrupt profiteers!

Well that sounds like fewer will enter politics expecting to graft with impunity. Oh my, that sounds good to me.

And those more honest or altruistic citizens who do enter politics, will have to worry less about being tarred with the brush of gross across the board corruption. So those who never would enter politics before might now.

Sending a message; that the ubers are now unaccountable, even after leaving office.

It was said corruption is culturally endemic, and to prosecute the small crimes to teach the children and change the culture. That would also remain true to doing the same for those at the top, during AND after they are in office. If the children see consequences for the actions of the elites even after leaving office, that is a strong object lesson that can change a core cultural element. No matter your station, you will be held accountable of crimes of action and inaction.

Yes, the 'who who came first chicken / egg / bird sex' vs. 'legislation / coup / constitutional prosecution' is a jumbled mess, but the basic point remains, and in theory can be expected to be in the next constitution;

If you do crime(s) in office, that significantly damages the nation whether it was a campaign promise or not, you can expect to face prosecution during or after your term in office. So ; don't promise things that will damage the country even if politically expedient, and don't prolong ones that are proving to be damaging, just for your own and/or cronies political expediences.

Normally impeachment is used to charge and prosecute a sitting politician, with the aim of preventing them from continuing to act criminally and prevent them from being in office. Or simply because what they did was criminal. In this case it is now stated this impeachment is being done, based on their actions in office, and to specifically create a 5 year reelection ban. The parallel expected criminal prosecution will deal with the legal criminal action and provide an actual punishment phase, not just blockage from reelection. It also will highlight publicly the actions and ineptitudes involved in what actually happened.

The obvious national divisions and serial violence stemming from the machinations of the Shinawatra clan, can easily be seen as a clear and present danger to the nation, even if some patina of laudable goals has be grafted over the top of the acquisitive nature of their actions. And even if a segment of society might benefit from their actions, the over-all affect nationally is far worse and harms that benefiting segment into the future, even if they don't see it happening yet. Chinese inter-clan wars should not be allowed to damage the country for all.

Getting a more honest political class via winnowing out, or scaring off, the most graft prone and manipulative, is a step forward no matter how it was done. If it lowers even slightly the expectation of cradle to grave corruption by the elites, and shows, by whatever mechanism, that the country won't as a whole tolerate this corruption, no matter the face gained by doing it, that is the kind of fundamental change needed to allow the nation to rise and better help all it's citizens to prosper, and not just the uber classes by their crony driven corruptions. Nor sign off on a single societal segment benefiting from one uber class clique manipulating them for acquisition of power and profits, at the expense of the nation as a whole and future generations.

Edited January 27, 2015 by animatic

[englishoak]

Oh please.......

[oneday]

Outstanding article.

"...Yet, there is no government in the world that has been prosecuted for launching a policy it promised while campaigning for votes..."

This is what makes what the NACC, NLA and the Supreme Court want to do, sending Yingluck to jail, unbelievable. Did Yingluck stand behind an ill-conceived program, did she ignore problems, did she fail to stop an obvious train-wreck...almost certainly partly or wholly true on all counts. However, politicians do not get sent to jail for this.

So NACC, NLA and everyone else in the Bangkok elite if you want this country to fall apart in front of the world then go ahead and send Yingluck to jail. Even if there is no intention of sending her to jail, just continuing this farce is damaging to the country.

[ggt]

This unelected government can do anything it wants to anyone...this has now become the common occurrence...

[klauskunkel]

If politicians who are not in office are still at risk of being impeached for "negligence", few will want to join politics

I don't quite believe that there will be a shortage of politicians. If you have a trough, they will come, no matter what.

[binjalin]

Good article... it is obvious, the world over, that elected representatives make mistakes, support policies that turn out to be weak and ineffective (100s of examples) but they do not get hounded, bullied and persecuted when out of power.

Abhisit's respect would go up 1000 fold if he stopped pussy footing around and called a cigar a cigar. This is about POWER plain and simple and very little to do with rice.

[halloween]

"The impeachment, however, appears to have cut short the learning process for Thai voters."

Well it has already cost the Thai populace around B10,000 for every man, woman, 3rd gender and child. Just how expensive a lesson can they afford? And won't sending corrupt politicians to jail achieve the same thing, if not quite as well, at a lower cost?

The next time Thaksin sets up a proxy with vote-buying, bugger the cost we're not paying, pocket-lining electoral scam, he/she might consider the consequences, if they turn out to be 10 years in the slammer.

[heybruce]

"The impeachment, however, appears to have cut short the learning process for Thai voters."

Well it has already cost the Thai populace around B10,000 for every man, woman, 3rd gender and child. Just how expensive a lesson can they afford? And won't sending corrupt politicians to jail achieve the same thing, if not quite as well, at a lower cost?

The next time Thaksin sets up a proxy with vote-buying, bugger the cost we're not paying, pocket-lining electoral scam, he/she might consider the consequences, if they turn out to be 10 years in the slammer.

You don't grasp the concept of politically motivated selective justice, or the adverse consequences, or the dangers of the precedent established here, do you?

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

Outstanding article.

"...Yet, there is no government in the world that has been prosecuted for launching a policy it promised while campaigning for votes..."

This is what makes what the NACC, NLA and the Supreme Court want to do, sending Yingluck to jail, unbelievable. Did Yingluck stand behind an ill-conceived program, did she ignore problems, did she fail to stop an obvious train-wreck...almost certainly partly or wholly true on all counts. However, politicians do not get sent to jail for this.

So NACC, NLA and everyone else in the Bangkok elite if you want this country to fall apart in front of the world then go ahead and send Yingluck to jail. Even if there is no intention of sending her to jail, just continuing this farce is damaging to the country.

The point is, they should go to jail for this and other crimes they commit while in office!!! This was not just a bad mistake on the part of the PTP. This was a finely crafted attempt to rob the country blind.

The only reason it failed is because once again Taksin pushed too hard (just like when he changed the constitution while in power so he could sell a Thai utility to a foreign company, then not pay any taxes on it).

If he was able to push through his amnesty bill then he would have skated from this as well. This is corruption and embezzlement on an unprecedented scale. It is time to show Thailand that this will not be tolerated.

Future politicians need to understand that they are there to serve the people not there to steal from them with impunity.

[trogers]

Outstanding article.

"...Yet, there is no government in the world that has been prosecuted for launching a policy it promised while campaigning for votes..."

This is what makes what the NACC, NLA and the Supreme Court want to do, sending Yingluck to jail, unbelievable. Did Yingluck stand behind an ill-conceived program, did she ignore problems, did she fail to stop an obvious train-wreck...almost certainly partly or wholly true on all counts. However, politicians do not get sent to jail for this.

So NACC, NLA and everyone else in the Bangkok elite if you want this country to fall apart in front of the world then go ahead and send Yingluck to jail. Even if there is no intention of sending her to jail, just continuing this farce is damaging to the country.

The point is, they should go to jail for this and other crimes they commit while in office!!! This was not just a bad mistake on the part of the PTP. This was a finely crafted attempt to rob the country blind.

The only reason it failed is because once again Taksin pushed too hard (just like when he changed the constitution while in power so he could sell a Thai utility to a foreign company, then not pay any taxes on it).

If he was able to push through his amnesty bill then he would have skated from this as well. This is corruption and embezzlement on an unprecedented scale. It is time to show Thailand that this will not be tolerated.

Future politicians need to understand that they are there to serve the people not there to steal from them with impunity.

Serve the people? These people need to know it's just business. They have been paid for their votes. Now we have to be paid as well for our investment.

This is not theft. It's democracy.

Edited January 27, 2015 by trogers

[rickirs]

"Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva made an interesting remark last weekend - he said Yingluck's impeachment was possible due to unusual circumstance."

Interestingly, Abhisit's own impeachment could be in the making if he doesn't lower his profile. While the Supreme Court ruled that he and Suthep cannot be tried by the Administrative Criminal Court for alleged murder of red shirt protesters in 2010, thus dismissing charges against them, it did rule that the appropriate authority to investigate such charges is the NACC. The rationale was that the allegations relate to a time when both Abhisit and Suthep were government officials. The murder of protesters by government-directed forces under the eladership of Abhisit and Suthep could constitute abuse of power.

The question now is whether the NACC operates on a political agenda with regards to justice. Or whether it functions without political bias or political pressure to investigate Abhisit and Suthep for potentially impeachable and criminal acts. Both may find as a consequence that unusual circumstance is more frequent than they expect.

[halloween]

"The impeachment, however, appears to have cut short the learning process for Thai voters."

Well it has already cost the Thai populace around B10,000 for every man, woman, 3rd gender and child. Just how expensive a lesson can they afford? And won't sending corrupt politicians to jail achieve the same thing, if not quite as well, at a lower cost?

The next time Thaksin sets up a proxy with vote-buying, bugger the cost we're not paying, pocket-lining electoral scam, he/she might consider the consequences, if they turn out to be 10 years in the slammer.

You don't grasp the concept of politically motivated selective justice, or the adverse consequences, or the dangers of the precedent established here, do you?

Ah, politically motivated. That BS gets dragged out every time a red criminal gets charged. Courts don't ask about the motivation of the prosecution, only the evidence, and if it is sufficient to convict, I don't give a monkey's which side they are on.

Adverse consequences? That would be Thaksin's mercenaries let loose again I assume. Every time a red gets charged, the same old threats of intimidation and violence, because "We dun nuffink rong!"

Precedent established? You mean I should care if the government changes and the other sides criminals get theirs? Not bloody likely.

[halloween]

"Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva made an interesting remark last weekend - he said Yingluck's impeachment was possible due to unusual circumstance."

Interestingly, Abhisit's own impeachment could be in the making if he doesn't lower his profile. While the Supreme Court ruled that he and Suthep cannot be tried by the Administrative Criminal Court for alleged murder of red shirt protesters in 2010, thus dismissing charges against them, it did rule that the appropriate authority to investigate such charges is the NACC. The rationale was that the allegations relate to a time when both Abhisit and Suthep were government officials. The murder of protesters by government-directed forces under the eladership of Abhisit and Suthep could constitute abuse of power.

The question now is whether the NACC operates on a political agenda with regards to justice. Or whether it functions without political bias or political pressure to investigate Abhisit and Suthep for potentially impeachable and criminal acts. Both may find as a consequence that unusual circumstance is more frequent than they expect.

Yes it could constitute abuse of power, except there was an armed insurrection taking place in the capital, security officers (in this case soldiers) were being killed and injured by military weapons, people's lives being disrupted, and the government of the time had not only the right but the duty to disperse the protesters.

[heybruce]

"The impeachment, however, appears to have cut short the learning process for Thai voters."

Well it has already cost the Thai populace around B10,000 for every man, woman, 3rd gender and child. Just how expensive a lesson can they afford? And won't sending corrupt politicians to jail achieve the same thing, if not quite as well, at a lower cost?

The next time Thaksin sets up a proxy with vote-buying, bugger the cost we're not paying, pocket-lining electoral scam, he/she might consider the consequences, if they turn out to be 10 years in the slammer.

You don't grasp the concept of politically motivated selective justice, or the adverse consequences, or the dangers of the precedent established here, do you?

Ah, politically motivated. That BS gets dragged out every time a red criminal gets charged. Courts don't ask about the motivation of the prosecution, only the evidence, and if it is sufficient to convict, I don't give a monkey's which side they are on.

Adverse consequences? That would be Thaksin's mercenaries let loose again I assume. Every time a red gets charged, the same old threats of intimidation and violence, because "We dun nuffink rong!"

Precedent established? You mean I should care if the government changes and the other sides criminals get theirs? Not bloody likely.

You skipped the selective justice part of my post, and the fact that the OP gives examples of the selective nature of these prosecutions. The military junta investigates the past government, but no government dares investigate the military because if its history of coups. As far as the military investigating itself, I'll let Prayuth speak on that topic:

"Prayuth appeared angry when Thais demanded the government increase transparency. He reportedly said, “I beg you not to dig up anything. There is no benefit in so doing. My government is here today to solve problems. I have so many burdens on my shoulder. My wife is also in this difficult situation. I just want some kind of moral support from you. I need your understanding. But the media has tried to dig up many issues. So have some politicians. I must say that you cannot do that for the time being.”" http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/

In summary, only corruption of the last government will be investigated, not corruption in the military or junta leaders.

I could go on, but since you to seem unable or unwilling to comprehend the problems of selective justice, I don't think there's any point in identifying the obvious problems with a military that stages coups, writes, suspends, and rewrites constitutions at will, tramples human rights, etc. You clearly aren't interested in the crimes of the current bunch of criminals running the country.

[Wilsonandson]

Lets hope that its the last.

[halloween]

You skipped the selective justice part of my post, and the fact that the OP gives examples of the selective nature of these prosecutions. The military junta investigates the past government, but no government dares investigate the military because if its history of coups. As far as the military investigating itself, I'll let Prayuth speak on that topic:

"Prayuth appeared angry when Thais demanded the government increase transparency. He reportedly said, “I beg you not to dig up anything. There is no benefit in so doing. My government is here today to solve problems. I have so many burdens on my shoulder. My wife is also in this difficult situation. I just want some kind of moral support from you. I need your understanding. But the media has tried to dig up many issues. So have some politicians. I must say that you cannot do that for the time being.”" http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/

In summary, only corruption of the last government will be investigated, not corruption in the military or junta leaders.

I could go on, but since you to seem unable or unwilling to comprehend the problems of selective justice, I don't think there's any point in identifying the obvious problems with a military that stages coups, writes, suspends, and rewrites constitutions at will, tramples human rights, etc. You clearly aren't interested in the crimes of the current bunch of criminals running the country.

Selective justice? While you seem to be stuck on the first word, i note that is still justice. As Graham Greene pointed out, it is the message that is important, not the delivery boy.

BTW I can't help thinking that your intense interest in the sins of the junta has more to do with diverting attention away from the Shinawatras than a desire to see honest government.

[Thai at Heart]

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva made an interesting remark last weekend - he said Yingluck's impeachment was possible due to unusual circumstances, but hoped this does not become prevalent in Thai politics.

Surely he hasn't just worked out that this precedent will now be used to impeach anyone for losing money on a policy?

He can't be that dumb surely.

[heybruce]

You skipped the selective justice part of my post, and the fact that the OP gives examples of the selective nature of these prosecutions. The military junta investigates the past government, but no government dares investigate the military because if its history of coups. As far as the military investigating itself, I'll let Prayuth speak on that topic:

"Prayuth appeared angry when Thais demanded the government increase transparency. He reportedly said, “I beg you not to dig up anything. There is no benefit in so doing. My government is here today to solve problems. I have so many burdens on my shoulder. My wife is also in this difficult situation. I just want some kind of moral support from you. I need your understanding. But the media has tried to dig up many issues. So have some politicians. I must say that you cannot do that for the time being.”" http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/

In summary, only corruption of the last government will be investigated, not corruption in the military or junta leaders.

I could go on, but since you to seem unable or unwilling to comprehend the problems of selective justice, I don't think there's any point in identifying the obvious problems with a military that stages coups, writes, suspends, and rewrites constitutions at will, tramples human rights, etc. You clearly aren't interested in the crimes of the current bunch of criminals running the country.

Selective justice? While you seem to be stuck on the first word, i note that is still justice. As Graham Greene pointed out, it is the message that is important, not the delivery boy.

BTW I can't help thinking that your intense interest in the sins of the junta has more to do with diverting attention away from the Shinawatras than a desire to see honest government.

I was correct, you don't understand the concept of selective justice, and the dangers.

Of course I am more interested in the crimes of the junta. The past government tried to give the people the opportunity to reject them and elect a new government, the junta doesn't allow the people that opportunity. In addition the junta is guilty of the same crimes as the past government--corruption, nepotism, incompetence, etc., but also additional major crimes such as the coup, martial law, suspension of basic human rights, etc.

BTW, I can't help thinking that your intense interest in the sins of the Shinawatras had more to do with diverting attention away from the junta than a desire to see honest government.