NLA to start impeachment of ex-senators on Wednesday

[Lite Beer]

NLA to start impeachment of ex-senators on Wednesday
THE SUNDAY NATION

BANGKOK: -- The National Legislative Assembly will call a special meeting on Wednesday to start impeachment proceedings against 38 ex-senators for seeking to amend the 2007 Constitution to change the set-up of the Senate.

NLA president Pornpetch Wichitcholchai said he issued the order in response to the National Anti-Corruption Commission's recommendation that impeachment proceedings be launched.

NLA member Jetn Sirathranont said the NACC and the ex-senators would give their opening statements to the assembly on Wednesday.

A nine-member committee would be appointed to question both parties, he said.

He said the committee would question both parties in the first week then allow them to give closing statements. Three days after that, the NLA would call a vote on the matter.

If all the ex-senators do not make a closing statement, the NLA would call the vote on March 12 or 13.

Jetn said this impeachment proceedings was different to proceedings against former Parliament president Somsak Kiatsuranont and his deputy Nikom Wairatpanich, both of whom escaped impeachment last month.

He said the charges against the 38 politicians included voting on an issue they had a conflict of interest in and voting on the third reading on the charter amendment, whereas Somsak and Nikom were charged with chairing a House meeting that deprived others of the right to speak against the amendment.

Ex-senator Nonthaburi Direk Tungfang said his group would send four representatives to give opening statements.

He said they felt that the charges against them were less severe than the charges levelled against Somsak and Nikom and were confident they would escape impeachment.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/NLA-to-start-impeachment-of-ex-senators-on-Wednesd-30254614.html

-- The Nation 2015-02-22

[ExPratt]

This is really Through the Looking glass stuff.

[NCFC]

Brother Number One

[rametindallas]

This is really Through the Looking glass stuff.

For Thailand, it really is. Isn't it great!

Every politician from every party is corrupt to the core so a clean sweep can only be a good thing.

[ExPratt]

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

This is really Through the Looking glass stuff.

For Thailand, it really is. Isn't it great!

Every politician from every party is corrupt to the core so a clean sweep can only be a good thing.

If it was all of them I'd be happy with that

[chainarong]

This is important , more important than Ms Yingluck impeachment , this gets to the shonky, underhanded , corrupt type of politics that Thailand needs to eradicate to have a political structure that cannot be made into a international laughing stock and a gerrymander of numbers to suit one party.

[JAG]

By impeaching senators for having supported moves to replace appointed senators with elected senators you make Thailands governance into an international laughing stock! Particularly when the impeachment is carried out under a junta which kicked out the elected government of which those being impeached formed a part.

[rubl]

By impeaching senators for having supported moves to replace appointed senators with elected senators you make Thailands governance into an international laughing stock! Particularly when the impeachment is carried out under a junta which kicked out the elected government of which those being impeached formed a part.

Shouldn't we wait for the proceedings to finish with a verdict before laughing, if we feel like laughing that is?

BTW the 'elected' senators were NOT a part of the 'elected' government as senators are non-party candidates.

[Gunna]

By impeaching senators for having supported moves to replace appointed senators with elected senators you make Thailands governance into an international laughing stock! Particularly when the impeachment is carried out under a junta which kicked out the elected government of which those being impeached formed a part.

Shouldn't we wait for the proceedings to finish with a verdict before laughing, if we feel like laughing that is?

BTW the 'elected' senators were NOT a part of the 'elected' government as senators are non-party candidates.

I totally agree

In accordance with the 2007 Constitution of Thailand, the Senate is a non-partisan legislative chamber, composed of 150 members. 76 Senators are directly elected from the 75 Provinces of Thailand and Bangkok, while the other 74 are appointed from various sectors by the Senate Selection Committee. The Senate operates under fixed terms of six years.

But many were actually PTP and they wanted to get rid of the appointed Senators so that they could get more PTP Senators elected, thereby the Senate would become a rubber stamp for all the corrupt and illegal behaviour of PTP and not a check.

So they should be impeached and banned for politics just for not being non-partisan, and under the control of the criminal in Dubai - we all know what would have happened once TS/PTP had control of the Senate

[candide]

The unelected members of the previous senate non-partisan? Hmmmmm.....

[gabruce]

By impeaching senators for having supported moves to replace appointed senators with elected senators you make Thailands governance into an international laughing stock! Particularly when the impeachment is carried out under a junta which kicked out the elected government of which those being impeached formed a part.

I think you have it wrong. They are being impeached for cheating basically. Isn't the issue that the speaker told the senate they were finished for the day, but had the PTP senators stay behind, and then when everyone else had left, then they did their vote. If this had happened in most any other country people would have been on the streets demanding impeachment. Of course I could be wrong, and this is all based on news reports, which may or may not have an resemblance to reality.

[Baerboxer]

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

This is really Through the Looking glass stuff.

For Thailand, it really is. Isn't it great!

Every politician from every party is corrupt to the core so a clean sweep can only be a good thing.

If it was all of them I'd be happy with that

You have to start somewhere. The ones who voted more than once using colleagues cards as well as their own, those who allowed their cards to be used, those who breached conflict of interest rules and especially those who used their positions to conspire to deprive others of their rights to debate and to actually vote by tricking them would be good starts.

[Baerboxer]

By impeaching senators for having supported moves to replace appointed senators with elected senators you make Thailands governance into an international laughing stock! Particularly when the impeachment is carried out under a junta which kicked out the elected government of which those being impeached formed a part.

Really - and are whoever it is you describe as "international" laughing at the UK, Canada, Ireland and all those other countries where the second house are not all elected?

Those being brought to book cheated - pure and simple. Lying and cheating has been the downfall of all Thaksin controlled puppet regimes. Don't you find that a little revealing in itself?

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed as well as a reply.

[Emster23]

"But many were actually PTP and they wanted to get rid of the appointed Senators so that they could get more PTP Senators elected, thereby the Senate would become a rubber stamp for all the corrupt and illegal behaviour of PTP and not a check."

Ah, there it is, that anti democratic stance "get more PTP senators elected". If voters don't like what demos are offering, they don't vote for them. Can't have that! The argument seems to be that elections are undemocratic. And please don't start in on vote buying. International monitoring group reported made no difference in outcome.

[Srikcir]

The 2007 Constitution was the result of the 2006 military junta that overthrew the then elected government. It was created in a manner similar to the current “new” constitution by the Junta appointed legislative, reform and constitution draft bodies.

The elected PTP government was attempting to amend 10 articles of the constitution. Essentially, it was trying to “reset” the constitution to what it was before the 2006 coup. A petition filed by 40 (mostly appointed) senators called for a halt to the amendment process, dismissal of the PTP party from government, ban of the PTP. The nine-member Constitutional Court judges voted 3-2 to accept the petition (4 judges were out of the country on a trip).

While the Court ruled that the group of the amendments was unconstitutional, it suggested that the constitution could be amended article by article. It also dismissed the petition to dissolve the PTP.

Now almost paradoxically, the Junta’s rubberstamp NLA is being asked to impeach those 38 senators who supported the amendments because of “conflict of interest,” and not for any unconstitutional acts. Nevermind the fact that NCPO that violated Article 68 of the 2007 Constitution by overthrowing the government and the government it created is occupied by military officers and political supporters.

This is just another politically biased process that intends revenge upon a popular political party that has effectively challenged Junta supported politicians for government positions. Whether deserved or not, this is not a process that encourages public reconciliation. It will only reinforce opposition, however silent it may be, against the Junta-led reforms and against the new constitution.

History will be repeated.

[rametindallas]

The 2007 Constitution was the result of the 2006 military junta that overthrew the then elected government. It was created in a manner similar to the current “new” constitution by the Junta appointed legislative, reform and constitution draft bodies.

The elected PTP government was attempting to amend 10 articles of the constitution. Essentially, it was trying to “reset” the constitution to what it was before the 2006 coup. A petition filed by 40 (mostly appointed) senators called for a halt to the amendment process, dismissal of the PTP party from government, ban of the PTP. The nine-member Constitutional Court judges voted 3-2 to accept the petition (4 judges were out of the country on a trip).

While the Court ruled that the group of the amendments was unconstitutional, it suggested that the constitution could be amended article by article. It also dismissed the petition to dissolve the PTP.

Now almost paradoxically, the Junta’s rubberstamp NLA is being asked to impeach those 38 senators who supported the amendments because of “conflict of interest,” and not for any unconstitutional acts. Nevermind the fact that NCPO that violated Article 68 of the 2007 Constitution by overthrowing the government and the government it created is occupied by military officers and political supporters.

This is just another politically biased process that intends revenge upon a popular political party that has effectively challenged Junta supported politicians for government positions. Whether deserved or not, this is not a process that encourages public reconciliation. It will only reinforce opposition, however silent it may be, against the Junta-led reforms and against the new constitution.

History will be repeated.

The elected PTP government was attempting to amend 10 articles of the constitution. Essentially, it was trying to “reset” the constitution to what it was before the 2006 coup.

I have to wonder if you are intentionally misleading readers or you are just ignorant of the true facts. Your statement above is provably wrong as they wanted to change the way senators were chosen from the way every constitution previous had stipulated, to having them all elected. That is NOT a reset but an entirely new thing.

[Thai at Heart]

Has anyone concluded 100% that trying to modify the constitution is illegal?

Thailand is a complete farce.

[phoenixdoglover]

I have not seen any description of what constituted "Conflict of Interest" in this matter. This term, like the term "corruption", seems to be used frequently, and without supporting examples.

[englishoak]

Has anyone concluded 100% that trying to modify the constitution is illegal?

Thailand is a complete farce.

If modifying a constitution is illegal whats scrapping one and replacing it with another ?

[halloween]

If nothing else, I'm happy that conflict of interest is being recognised. I can think of many instances of conflict of interest during the PTP government, but not one recusal or even declaration.

A close examination of which PTP MPs and ministers profited from the rice scam should provide enough court cases to warrant a special court and keep it busy for years.

[oneday]

NLA to start impeachment of ex-senators on Wednesday

More great moves to reconcile...ah, wait a minute -- nah, I guess not.

[TheDiva]

The 2007 Constitution was the result of the 2006 military junta that overthrew the then elected government. It was created in a manner similar to the current “new” constitution by the Junta appointed legislative, reform and constitution draft bodies.

The elected PTP government was attempting to amend 10 articles of the constitution. Essentially, it was trying to “reset” the constitution to what it was before the 2006 coup. A petition filed by 40 (mostly appointed) senators called for a halt to the amendment process, dismissal of the PTP party from government, ban of the PTP. The nine-member Constitutional Court judges voted 3-2 to accept the petition (4 judges were out of the country on a trip).

While the Court ruled that the group of the amendments was unconstitutional, it suggested that the constitution could be amended article by article. It also dismissed the petition to dissolve the PTP.

Now almost paradoxically, the Junta’s rubberstamp NLA is being asked to impeach those 38 senators who supported the amendments because of “conflict of interest,” and not for any unconstitutional acts. Nevermind the fact that NCPO that violated Article 68 of the 2007 Constitution by overthrowing the government and the government it created is occupied by military officers and political supporters.

This is just another politically biased process that intends revenge upon a popular political party that has effectively challenged Junta supported politicians for government positions. Whether deserved or not, this is not a process that encourages public reconciliation. It will only reinforce opposition, however silent it may be, against the Junta-led reforms and against the new constitution.

History will be repeated.

The elected PTP government was attempting to amend 10 articles of the constitution. Essentially, it was trying to “reset” the constitution to what it was before the 2006 coup.

I have to wonder if you are intentionally misleading readers or you are just ignorant of the true facts. Your statement above is provably wrong as they wanted to change the way senators were chosen from the way every constitution previous had stipulated, to having them all elected. That is NOT a reset but an entirely new thing.

You're the one who is wrong and attempting to mislead people. The popular 1997 "Peoples Constitution" (you know, the one that was ripped up by the military after the last coup?) had a Senate of 200 Senators, all elected.

[TheDiva]

Has anyone concluded 100% that trying to modify the constitution is illegal?

Thailand is a complete farce.

If modifying a constitution is illegal whats scrapping one and replacing it with another ?

A coup......................... or for the more PC amongst us, an "intervention"

[Baerboxer]

Has anyone concluded 100% that trying to modify the constitution is illegal?

Thailand is a complete farce.

If modifying a constitution is illegal whats scrapping one and replacing it with another ?

A coup......................... or for the more PC amongst us, an "intervention"

Democracy PTP style - or for the more PC among us "a people's popular government owned, ran and controlled by one amply rich billionaire family headed by a non elected criminal fugitive for his and his family's benefit regardless of laws, rules, transparency or accountability.

[chainarong]

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

The 2007 Constitution was the result of the 2006 military junta that overthrew the then elected government. It was created in a manner similar to the current “new” constitution by the Junta appointed legislative, reform and constitution draft bodies.

The elected PTP government was attempting to amend 10 articles of the constitution. Essentially, it was trying to “reset” the constitution to what it was before the 2006 coup. A petition filed by 40 (mostly appointed) senators called for a halt to the amendment process, dismissal of the PTP party from government, ban of the PTP. The nine-member Constitutional Court judges voted 3-2 to accept the petition (4 judges were out of the country on a trip).

While the Court ruled that the group of the amendments was unconstitutional, it suggested that the constitution could be amended article by article. It also dismissed the petition to dissolve the PTP.

Now almost paradoxically, the Junta’s rubberstamp NLA is being asked to impeach those 38 senators who supported the amendments because of “conflict of interest,” and not for any unconstitutional acts. Nevermind the fact that NCPO that violated Article 68 of the 2007 Constitution by overthrowing the government and the government it created is occupied by military officers and political supporters.

This is just another politically biased process that intends revenge upon a popular political party that has effectively challenged Junta supported politicians for government positions. Whether deserved or not, this is not a process that encourages public reconciliation. It will only reinforce opposition, however silent it may be, against the Junta-led reforms and against the new constitution.

History will be repeated.

Your last 2 lines I entirely agree with, how you get reconciliation when you are out witch hunting, regardless whether the impeachments are lawful or not.

[Robby nz]

By impeaching senators for having supported moves to replace appointed senators with elected senators you make Thailands governance into an international laughing stock! Particularly when the impeachment is carried out under a junta which kicked out the elected government of which those being impeached formed a part.

Shouldn't we wait for the proceedings to finish with a verdict before laughing, if we feel like laughing that is?

BTW the 'elected' senators were NOT a part of the 'elected' government as senators are non-party candidates.

I totally agree

In accordance with the 2007 Constitution of Thailand, the Senate is a non-partisan legislative chamber, composed of 150 members. 76 Senators are directly elected from the 75 Provinces of Thailand and Bangkok, while the other 74 are appointed from various sectors by the Senate Selection Committee. The Senate operates under fixed terms of six years.

But many were actually PTP and they wanted to get rid of the appointed Senators so that they could get more PTP Senators elected, thereby the Senate would become a rubber stamp for all the corrupt and illegal behaviour of PTP and not a check.

So they should be impeached and banned for politics just for not being non-partisan, and under the control of the criminal in Dubai - we all know what would have happened once TS/PTP had control of the Senate

Not quite, and of course JAG has twisted things as usual.

All parties in the house agreed that the senate should be fully elected and the bill passed the first reading.

The problems arose when there were clauses added before the second and third readings that abolished the 6 year term, which meant that senators could stay on as long as they were elected.

And that relatives of sitting MP's could become senators, which meant that a party with a majority in the house had a good chance of getting their relations into the senate thereby giving them control of the senate.

This is what would have made the senate a rubber stamp for any party with a majority.

As those of us who have followed this know the second and third readings of the bill were got through the lower house in an underhand and frankly illegal manner.

When the bill got to the senate there was considerable opposition to it and that was when the 38 now charged, colluded to get it through in the manner already described.

[TheDiva]

I totally agree

In accordance with the 2007 Constitution of Thailand, the Senate is a non-partisan legislative chamber, composed of 150 members. 76 Senators are directly elected from the 75 Provinces of Thailand and Bangkok, while the other 74 are appointed from various sectors by the Senate Selection Committee. The Senate operates under fixed terms of six years.

But many were actually PTP and they wanted to get rid of the appointed Senators so that they could get more PTP Senators elected, thereby the Senate would become a rubber stamp for all the corrupt and illegal behaviour of PTP and not a check.

So they should be impeached and banned for politics just for not being non-partisan, and under the control of the criminal in Dubai - we all know what would have happened once TS/PTP had control of the Senate

Not quite, and of course JAG has twisted things as usual.

All parties in the house agreed that the senate should be fully elected and the bill passed the first reading.

The problems arose when there were clauses added before the second and third readings that abolished the 6 year term, which meant that senators could stay on as long as they were elected.

And that relatives of sitting MP's could become senators, which meant that a party with a majority in the house had a good chance of getting their relations into the senate thereby giving them control of the senate.

This is what would have made the senate a rubber stamp for any party with a majority.

As those of us who have followed this know the second and third readings of the bill were got through the lower house in an underhand and frankly illegal manner.

When the bill got to the senate there was considerable opposition to it and that was when the 38 now charged, colluded to get it through in the manner already described.

And you're taking a bit of a leap of imagination on the support shown by Senators towards the PTP with this statement;

When the bill got to the senate there was considerable opposition to it and that was when the 38 now charged, colluded to get it through in the manner already described.

It has been been stated by an appointed Senator, Somchai Sawaengkarn, that 63 of the appointed Senators were anti government, the remaining 13 being Pro- PTP. With only 150 Senators in the Senate it doesn't take many more elected Senators to ensure the anti-PTP Senators can block any proposals from the government of the time. Let's face it, how many Provinces south of the PTP heartland would have a PTP leaning Senator elected? They'd only need 15 Elected Senators to be anti-PTP to get the majority in the Senate.

So you're happy with a rubber stamp Senate as long as it wasn't pro PTP - which was the reality of the political leanings of the Senate at the time - the 38 weren't going to be able to "collude to get it through in the manner described" as you put it.

Let's get to the basics of the case. The Constitution Court ruled the bill to change the Senate to Fully Elected as unconstitutional. As one of those "who followed this", tell me Why?

[rubl]

I totally agree

In accordance with the 2007 Constitution of Thailand, the Senate is a non-partisan legislative chamber, composed of 150 members. 76 Senators are directly elected from the 75 Provinces of Thailand and Bangkok, while the other 74 are appointed from various sectors by the Senate Selection Committee. The Senate operates under fixed terms of six years.

But many were actually PTP and they wanted to get rid of the appointed Senators so that they could get more PTP Senators elected, thereby the Senate would become a rubber stamp for all the corrupt and illegal behaviour of PTP and not a check.

So they should be impeached and banned for politics just for not being non-partisan, and under the control of the criminal in Dubai - we all know what would have happened once TS/PTP had control of the Senate

Not quite, and of course JAG has twisted things as usual.

All parties in the house agreed that the senate should be fully elected and the bill passed the first reading.

The problems arose when there were clauses added before the second and third readings that abolished the 6 year term, which meant that senators could stay on as long as they were elected.

And that relatives of sitting MP's could become senators, which meant that a party with a majority in the house had a good chance of getting their relations into the senate thereby giving them control of the senate.

This is what would have made the senate a rubber stamp for any party with a majority.

As those of us who have followed this know the second and third readings of the bill were got through the lower house in an underhand and frankly illegal manner.

When the bill got to the senate there was considerable opposition to it and that was when the 38 now charged, colluded to get it through in the manner already described.

And you're taking a bit of a leap of imagination on the support shown by Senators towards the PTP with this statement;

When the bill got to the senate there was considerable opposition to it and that was when the 38 now charged, colluded to get it through in the manner already described.

It has been been stated by an appointed Senator, Somchai Sawaengkarn, that 63 of the appointed Senators were anti government, the remaining 13 being Pro- PTP. With only 150 Senators in the Senate it doesn't take many more elected Senators to ensure the anti-PTP Senators can block any proposals from the government of the time. Let's face it, how many Provinces south of the PTP heartland would have a PTP leaning Senator elected? They'd only need 15 Elected Senators to be anti-PTP to get the majority in the Senate.

So you're happy with a rubber stamp Senate as long as it wasn't pro PTP - which was the reality of the political leanings of the Senate at the time - the 38 weren't going to be able to "collude to get it through in the manner described" as you put it.

Let's get to the basics of the case. The Constitution Court ruled the bill to change the Senate to Fully Elected as unconstitutional. As one of those "who followed this", tell me Why?

Oh come on, my dear. You can find a lot but not the text of the ruling of the Constitutional Court? They always read out the reasoning which led to the ruling, even if it takes half a day or more.

BTW interesting the mix of government and Pheu Thai party. The government was a coalition government. Forty seats provided by coalition partners of Pheu Thai. In a democracy you can be pro government but against a coalition partner aprt from other combinations.

[TheDiva]

I totally agree

In accordance with the 2007 Constitution of Thailand, the Senate is a non-partisan legislative chamber, composed of 150 members. 76 Senators are directly elected from the 75 Provinces of Thailand and Bangkok, while the other 74 are appointed from various sectors by the Senate Selection Committee. The Senate operates under fixed terms of six years.

But many were actually PTP and they wanted to get rid of the appointed Senators so that they could get more PTP Senators elected, thereby the Senate would become a rubber stamp for all the corrupt and illegal behaviour of PTP and not a check.

So they should be impeached and banned for politics just for not being non-partisan, and under the control of the criminal in Dubai - we all know what would have happened once TS/PTP had control of the Senate

Not quite, and of course JAG has twisted things as usual.

All parties in the house agreed that the senate should be fully elected and the bill passed the first reading.

The problems arose when there were clauses added before the second and third readings that abolished the 6 year term, which meant that senators could stay on as long as they were elected.

And that relatives of sitting MP's could become senators, which meant that a party with a majority in the house had a good chance of getting their relations into the senate thereby giving them control of the senate.

This is what would have made the senate a rubber stamp for any party with a majority.

As those of us who have followed this know the second and third readings of the bill were got through the lower house in an underhand and frankly illegal manner.

When the bill got to the senate there was considerable opposition to it and that was when the 38 now charged, colluded to get it through in the manner already described.

And you're taking a bit of a leap of imagination on the support shown by Senators towards the PTP with this statement;

When the bill got to the senate there was considerable opposition to it and that was when the 38 now charged, colluded to get it through in the manner already described.

It has been been stated by an appointed Senator, Somchai Sawaengkarn, that 63 of the appointed Senators were anti government, the remaining 13 being Pro- PTP. With only 150 Senators in the Senate it doesn't take many more elected Senators to ensure the anti-PTP Senators can block any proposals from the government of the time. Let's face it, how many Provinces south of the PTP heartland would have a PTP leaning Senator elected? They'd only need 15 Elected Senators to be anti-PTP to get the majority in the Senate.

So you're happy with a rubber stamp Senate as long as it wasn't pro PTP - which was the reality of the political leanings of the Senate at the time - the 38 weren't going to be able to "collude to get it through in the manner described" as you put it.

Let's get to the basics of the case. The Constitution Court ruled the bill to change the Senate to Fully Elected as unconstitutional. As one of those "who followed this", tell me Why?

Oh come on, my dear. You can find a lot but not the text of the ruling of the Constitutional Court? They always read out the reasoning which led to the ruling, even if it takes half a day or more.

BTW interesting the mix of government and Pheu Thai party. The government was a coalition government. Forty seats provided by coalition partners of Pheu Thai. In a democracy you can be pro government but against a coalition partner aprt from other combinations.

My dear? Been watching the Oscars and become a luvvy have we, rubl?

OK, I have since found out that the ruling apparently was that the PTP government had breached Section 291 and I do believe that the B/S at the time was that in particular it had breached Section 291/1 i.e the judges ruled that the government were attempting to "change the democratic regime of government"

(1) a motion for amendment must be proposed either by the Council of Ministers or members of the House of Representatives of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members of the House of Representatives or members of both Houses of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members thereof or persons having the right to votes of not less than fifty thousand in number under the law on the public submission of a bill;

A motion for amendment which has the effect of changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of State shall be prohibited;

As for your last point I can only gather that in the absence of any credible answer you have decided to latch on to pedantry. The source I referred to called the senators whose voting patterns were against the government, anti-government. Using your terms of reference, that means both the PTP and their coalition partners.

Satisfied?