NLA hears impeachment case against 38 former senators

[webfact]

NLA hears impeachment case against 38 former senators
The Nation



BANGKOK: -- THIRTY-EIGHT FORMER senators and the National Anti-Corruption Commission yesterday faced questions from the National Legislative Assembly during impeachment proceedings over the senators voting to amend the 2007 charter to change the composition of the Senate.

NLA vice president Surachai Liengboonlertchai chaired the meeting to question the senators as the accused and the NACC as the complainant.

The NACC accused the politicians of abuse of power for voting to pass the amendment even though they knew the bill was a different version from the one they had endorsed for amendment.

The NACC was asked why the agency filed the complaint even though the 2007 charter had been revoked.

The NACC was asked if one member was qualified to make a decision on the matter as he had failed to resign from a state agency before a given time after being appointed an NACC member.

The NACC was also asked if another member was qualified to decide on the case as she had yet to be royally endorsed.

The NACC was asked why it did not accept the senators' answer that they did not realise the bill they voted to pass was different from the bill they had endorsed to change.

The body was also asked to comment on how it believed the senators' alleged wrongdoing impacted on democracy and how did the accused benefit from the passing the amendment.

The amendment stated that senators could contest another term without taking a political break.

NACC member Vichai Vivitsevi replied that although the 2007 charter was revoked, the Anti-Corruption Act 1999 was still in force.

He said that although the 38 were no longer senators, if they were impeached they would be banned from politics for five years.

Vichai also said there were no legality issues over the qualification of the two NACC members.

He said the ex-senators had abused their power and violated the charter, which were offences under Article 58 of the Anti-Corruption Act 1999.

He said the agency did not accept their claim that they did not know the bill was a different version from the one they had endorsed because copies of the bill would have been distributed to all lawmakers publicly before it was amended.

He said the senators put democracy and the country's rule of law in jeopardy.

Former Nakhon Phanom senator Withaya I-nala said there was just one version of the charter amendment bill tabled for deliberation, which was the same one that 308 parliamentarians had endorsed. He said then-Nonthaburi senator Udomdej Rattansatien made one change to the bill before it was tabled to Parliament.

He denied that the senators had a conflict of interest in seeking to amend the charter.

The NLA has scheduled Saturday for the closing statements and the assembly will vote on whether to impeachment the 38 on Monday.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/NLA-hears-impeachment-case-against-38-former-senat-30255435.html


-- The Nation 2015-03-06

[phoenixdoglover]

Many reports on these supposed crimes by political figures fail to describe the crime in any detail. Phrases like "corruption" and "conflict of interest" are used, and the reader is expected to accept that broad definition.

In this case, the charge, evidently, is that Senators were trying to make it possible for sitting Senators to run for office again, without an interruption. (What a radical concept! )

"Conflict of interest" implies that an individual would expect to receive financial or material gain from their own official action. What financial or material gain could a Senator expect from running for office again, without a break in service, as opposed to taking a break and then running after the break? Other than the attitude among the current crowd in charge that "all politicians are corrupt", what is the basis for this odd theory of financial and material gain?

Anyway, the conclusion seems foregone, doesn't it. Softball questions by the NLA, duly answered by the NACC. All nicely staged as a parody of due process.

Carry on with your purge.

[Daniel Ingalls]

The show is about to begin folks, ..........bring out the whips, the Caning sticks, eye pokers, tongue yonkers........They're say

anything you want to hear.....but the truth!!

[billd766]

You did that.

Oh no I didn't.

Oh yes you did.

Why does this remind me of when I was a small child at primary school over 60 years ago?

I will tell the teacher/my Mum/my Dad on you and my Dad will come around and bash your Dad.

You are supposed to be adults and responsible.

GROW UP!!!!!

Edited March 6, 2015 by billd766

[Pigdog474]

Did these 38 former senators represent others rather than the Bangkok Rich and Elite?

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

"He said the agency did not accept their claim that they did not know the bill was a different version from the one they had endorsed because copies of the bill would have been distributed to all lawmakers publicly before it was amended."

So ignorance of the law is not an excuse unless you are a law maker?

So by their reasoning it is ok to sign a contract then not be bound by it because you did not read it before signing? Throw the book at these criminals. They and all politicians that are caught breaking the law should be banned for life not just 5 years. It's not like they will be rehabilitated just sneakier next time.

Examples need to be made and harshly.

[Fat Haggis]

I truly wish that some farangs here would stop harping on about the Thai law when it's been broken left right and centre and constitutions ripped up and rejigged by the Military time and time and time again.

The Law is an ass, and it suits those in absolute power only!!

[Daniel Ingalls]

Gee, is beginning to sound like Peplosi , saying "lets vote on the bill and pass it so that we can read what was passed"

"He said the agency did not accept their claim that they did not know the bill was a different version from the one they had endorsed because copies of the bill would have been distributed to all lawmakers publicly before it was amended."

So ignorance of the law is not an excuse unless you are a law maker?

So by their reasoning it is ok to sign a contract then not be bound by it because you did not read it before signing? Throw the book at these criminals. They and all politicians that are caught breaking the law should be banned for life not just 5 years. It's not like they will be rehabilitated just sneakier next time.

Examples need to be made and harshly.

[Daniel Ingalls]

Common sense is blind to the deaf, as is hearing wisdom is blind to those who can see!

I truly wish that some farangs here would stop harping on about the Thai law when it's been broken left right and centre and constitutions ripped up and rejigged by the Military time and time and time again.

The Law is an ass, and it suits those in absolute power only!!