Impeached Thai politicians 'not eligible' for poll

[webfact]

Impeached politicians 'not eligible' for poll
KRIS BHROMSUTHI
THE NATION

NEW CHARTER TO BRING FORMER THAI RAK THAI AND OTHER BANNED MPS BACK IN THE FOLD

BANGKOK: -- IMPEACHED politicians - including former premier Yingluck Shinawatra - will not be able to run in the upcoming election scheduled for early next year.

However, the so-called "groups of 111 and 109 MPs" from the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai, People Power, Chart Thai, and Matchimatippatai, who were banned from politics for five years by the Constitutional Court in 2006 and 2007, can seek election.

The Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) members yesterday finalised draft provisions on the qualifications of MPs, which would allow previously banned politicians to stand during election. However, previously impeached officials would be disqualified.

The article stipulates that "individuals who were convicted for corruption, illegal acts or were involved in electoral fraud" will be disqualified to stand for election.

CDC member Banjerd Singkaneti explained that those individuals who fell in such a category would include former PM Yingluck, who was impeached for dereliction of duty that led to large-scale losses in the infamous rice-pledging scheme launched by her government.

However, Banjerd said that the 111 and 109 MP groups will not be disqualified because these politicians were banned as a result of the Constitutional Court dissolving their parties while they themselves had not directly violated the laws.

Under the new charter provision, MPs from political parties that are dissolved will lose their seats within 60 days after the ruling becomes effective. However, MPs fired from their political parties can retain their status.

CDC chairman Borwornsak Uwanno said if everything went as planned the next election would take place around February or March next year.

Meanwhile, Election Commis-sioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn yesterday held discussions with CDC members regarding the EC's objections to various CDC proposals to reform the commission. The discussions included the proposal to take away its responsibility to organise elections and its authority to hand out a "red card" to politicians that would result in a five-year ban.

The members of the new EC, under the new charter provision, will come from appointments by permanent secretaries of various ministries.

Somchai said "the proposal put forward by the CDC will be open to interference by the political [government] sector. They can choose their own people in the commission and it could become a problem. Therefore, the commission proposes that each permanent secretary nominate three candidates. The commission will scrutinise their profiles and choose one from the three proposed."

Somchai said the EC should be continue to have the power to hand out the "red card", because without that authority politicians will not fear a yellow card, as they will have enough money to buy votes again and again.

The EC's authority to disqualify candidates was recently transferred to the Administrative Court.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Impeached-politicians-not-eligible-for-poll-30255917.html


-- The Nation 2015-03-13

[Somtamnication]

Shock!

[bkkcanuck8]

Impeachment is a political act and not a criminal one, so it should not be lumped with criminal ones.

If a politician violates the law then they should be charged, convicted and serve time in prison.... If they are in prison they obviously are not available to serve or get elected in the first place.

[Robby nz]

If they have been kicked out because of what they did then they are not eligible to stand but if it was because of what their party did and not them personally then they can stand.

That sounds fair.

Should not forget any other crime that they have been convicted of, not just the political kind.

And if they are on bail awaiting trial or appeal for any crime they should be suspended from standing until such time as they are either found guilty or not guilty.

Guilty they are out, not guilty they can stand.....next time.

[bkkcanuck8]

If they have been kicked out because of what they did then they are not eligible to stand but if it was because of what their party did and not them personally then they can stand.

That sounds fair.

Should not forget any other crime that they have been convicted of, not just the political kind.

And if they are on bail awaiting trial or appeal for any crime they should be suspended from standing until such time as they are either found guilty or not guilty.

Guilty they are out, not guilty they can stand.....next time.

The problem is that impeachment itself is not a criminal offense - it is a political mechanism to relieve someone of power. It is just another mechanism like a recall election to remove someone from power. Once they are removed from power they can be charged with criminal offenses and brought before the courts. Impeachment is and will be used by politicians to remove politicians for purely political reasons if the politician is in a weakened position (they are not brought before a court it is in front of a bunch of politicians). Of course we all know that Thai constitutions are not worth the paper they are written on so they really don't have to worry about long term effects of trying to write laws to prevent certain politicians from running having long term detrimental consequences.

Edited March 12, 2015 by bkkcanuck8

[englishoak]

the upcoming election scheduled for early next year.

Is that a fact ?

[smedly]

I've said it before and will say it again - the 5 year ban should be a life ban - flush these corrupt dinosaurs out of the political system for good - they did no good in the past and will serve nobody in the future but themselves - get rid of the lot of them and get some new blood in there

[Daniel Ingalls]

A fox in the hen house shows intent, whether the act was done or acknowledgment of facts leading up to potential mistrust

of their position in government. They should not be allowed to partake in any new form of government. A fox disguised under a lambs wool does not gain acceptance or trust.

[mango66]

I've said it before and will say it again - the 5 year ban should be a life ban - flush these corrupt dinosaurs out of the political system for good - they did no good in the past and will serve nobody in the future but themselves - get rid of the lot of them and get some new blood in there

all this politicans are a big family , they will not heart each other - !!

( family like in Italy known as Maf -

here family name is Corrup.. )

so they all not interested really to change anything serious in this corrupt state !!

bec it would take off from them the funding pot !!

[Srikcir]

Impeachment of public officer holders for political crimes and ethics violations (distinguished from criminal acts) are justified as long as proceedings are conducted with due process without conflict of interests. Just like criminal proceedings, impeachment proceedings should be free of bias and hearsay, and based on evidence. They should be conducted without regard to political affiliation, gender, race, wealth, etc. Verdicts of impeachment must be appealable.

Guilty verdicts do justify 1-5 years ban from similar public office but not from all public offices. Different levels of public offices require different threashholds for guilt that need to match appropriate ban periods. For example, an elected village chief does not have equal political significance as compared to a governor, or in turn to a PM cabinet minister. However, permanent bans are contrary to democratic justice that provides for rehabilitation and changes in societal norms.

[Robby nz]

If they have been kicked out because of what they did then they are not eligible to stand but if it was because of what their party did and not them personally then they can stand.

That sounds fair.

Should not forget any other crime that they have been convicted of, not just the political kind.

And if they are on bail awaiting trial or appeal for any crime they should be suspended from standing until such time as they are either found guilty or not guilty.

Guilty they are out, not guilty they can stand.....next time.

The problem is that impeachment itself is not a criminal offense - it is a political mechanism to relieve someone of power. It is just another mechanism like a recall election to remove someone from power. Once they are removed from power they can be charged with criminal offenses and brought before the courts. Impeachment is and will be used by politicians to remove politicians for purely political reasons if the politician is in a weakened position (they are not brought before a court it is in front of a bunch of politicians). Of course we all know that Thai constitutions are not worth the paper they are written on so they really don't have to worry about long term effects of trying to write laws to prevent certain politicians from running having long term detrimental consequences.

You must try to understand that those who have been impeached have been impeached because they have abused their position while in power.

Do you really believe that those who would abuse the position they have been elected to or put in should be allowed to return to a position where they may do the same again.

I would say it was more likely to have detrimental consequences by letting those abusers of power back.

Far better to show those of the future that abuse of their position will have negative consequences for them.

No it is not politicians getting rid of their opposition, and stop the 'we all know' crap, just because you think you know everything doesn't mean its true.

[bkkcanuck8]

If they have been kicked out because of what they did then they are not eligible to stand but if it was because of what their party did and not them personally then they can stand.

That sounds fair.

Should not forget any other crime that they have been convicted of, not just the political kind.

And if they are on bail awaiting trial or appeal for any crime they should be suspended from standing until such time as they are either found guilty or not guilty.

Guilty they are out, not guilty they can stand.....next time.

The problem is that impeachment itself is not a criminal offense - it is a political mechanism to relieve someone of power. It is just another mechanism like a recall election to remove someone from power. Once they are removed from power they can be charged with criminal offenses and brought before the courts. Impeachment is and will be used by politicians to remove politicians for purely political reasons if the politician is in a weakened position (they are not brought before a court it is in front of a bunch of politicians). Of course we all know that Thai constitutions are not worth the paper they are written on so they really don't have to worry about long term effects of trying to write laws to prevent certain politicians from running having long term detrimental consequences.

You must try to understand that those who have been impeached have been impeached because they have abused their position while in power.

Do you really believe that those who would abuse the position they have been elected to or put in should be allowed to return to a position where they may do the same again.

I would say it was more likely to have detrimental consequences by letting those abusers of power back.

Far better to show those of the future that abuse of their position will have negative consequences for them.

No it is not politicians getting rid of their opposition, and stop the 'we all know' crap, just because you think you know everything doesn't mean its true.

I understand that perfectly, I also understand that it is open for abuse.

Political trials for politics.

Criminal trials for violations of laws.

Mixing the two in constitutions only will lead to undesired outcomes in the future after Yingluck is long dead (assuming the constitution is a constitution and not a temporary document of convenience).

If she did something criminally wrong, charge her and bring her to trial.

In a democracy, everything else is left up to the voters to decide -- given all the facts.

In a properly functioning government as in law -- process is important. In politics -- process is often thrown aside in favour of a preferred outcome. In Canada we pretty well know that PM Mulroney was corrupt, unfortunately there is not enough evidence to convict of a crime.... He could run for office again, and if people wanted him he could go back in...

The problem with corrupt systems is that often the outcome is decided, then they go back in and justify the outcome.... If Thailand ever wants to move forward they have to put process ahead of outcome. Currently the "good people" are determined to be innocent or not culpable, then they figure out if it is because they did not file charges in time, or if he was temporarily not responsible for his actions, or whatever works. The "bad people" are determined to be guilty and will be found that way regardless if the evidence has to be manufactured. This is all connected, and will continue until process is important. Societal rifts will also never be healed until this is the case, because no matter what it will always be seen as selective enforcement etc.

Edited March 13, 2015 by bkkcanuck8