NLA to Hear G2G Rice Distribution Scheme Case on April 2

[webfact]

NLA to Hear G2G Rice Distribution Scheme Case on April 2

BANGKOK, 19 March 2015 (NNT) - The President of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) has announced that the legislative body will begin hearing the impeachment case of the former officials in the Commerce Ministry associated with the rice pledging scheme on April 2.

NLA President Ponpetch Wichitcholchai yesterday announced that the assembly was slated to open the impeachment cases of former Commerce Minister Boonsong Teriyapirom, former Deputy Commerce Minister Poom Sarapol and former Director General Department of Foreign Trade Manas Soiploy on April 2.

The NLA has received the case files from the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) which has accused the defendants of power abuse and dereliction of duty which led to financial damages in the government-to-government (G2G) rice distribution scheme.

In a similar case, the NLA voted on January 23 to impeach former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for her failure to halt or rectify the costly and corrupt rice-pledging scheme, effectively banning her from political activity for 5 years. The case was also submitted by the NACC.

-- NNT 2015-03-19

[Srikcir]

I would have thought that the overthrow of an elected government, abolishment of the constitution, and a military handcrafted government would constitute an abuse of power. Under the 2007 Constitution the NLA is an illegal body with no authority to conduct any government oversight or legislative actions. So it becomes a double standard for the NLA to take any action against former government officials for alleged crimes for which itself has committed.

For all the contrived excuses one may allow the Junta and its clones government organizations to apply such double standards, the ultimate result will be a government without public legitimacy to pass judgement. The military government will be viewed as engaged in political suppression. This will not contribute towards any national reconciliation if such was ever the intent of the Junta. Frankly, as long as the Junta power is preserved with any subsequent change in government leadership, "reconciliation" is just a two baht word.

[Daniel Ingalls]

I think the former PM is going to take a slow boat to china, get lost in the crowd of 4 billion people!

[candide]

Couldn't they wait for the court decision if they are judged guilty or not?

[rubl]

I would have thought that the overthrow of an elected government, abolishment of the constitution, and a military handcrafted government would constitute an abuse of power. Under the 2007 Constitution the NLA is an illegal body with no authority to conduct any government oversight or legislative actions. So it becomes a double standard for the NLA to take any action against former government officials for alleged crimes for which itself has committed.

For all the contrived excuses one may allow the Junta and its clones government organizations to apply such double standards, the ultimate result will be a government without public legitimacy to pass judgement. The military government will be viewed as engaged in political suppression. This will not contribute towards any national reconciliation if such was ever the intent of the Junta. Frankly, as long as the Junta power is preserved with any subsequent change in government leadership, "reconciliation" is just a two baht word.

The usual rubbish and talking about reconciliation as if that should stop criminals from being prosecuted.

[rubl]

Couldn't they wait for the court decision if they are judged guilty or not?

Of course, but why should they? Looking at Ms. Yingluck's affairs I wonder why you don't ask why the case has been deposited at the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders before the chaps are impeachment (if ever they will). Mind you, the criminal intend with the G2G deals seems much clearer documented and there's no legal need for impeachment to follow Supreme Court case v.v.

[candide]

Couldn't they wait for the court decision if they are judged guilty or not?

Of course, but why should they? Looking at Ms. Yingluck's affairs I wonder why you don't ask why the case has been deposited at the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders before the chaps are impeachment (if ever they will). Mind you, the criminal intend with the G2G deals seems much clearer documented and there's no legal need for impeachment to follow Supreme Court case v.v.

Of course if they do it, it's because they are allowed to do it according to whatever law is decided to be applicable under current conditions. It doesn't mean it's the most rational way to do it. It's problematic if the two verdicts diverge:

Case 1- They are impeached but later the Court decides they are not guilty. How can you impeach someone who's not guilty?

Case 2- They are not impeached and then the Court decides they are guilty. How can you not impeach someone who's guilty?

I know I'm too rational.....

[Chris Lawrence]

I would have thought that the overthrow of an elected government, abolishment of the constitution, and a military handcrafted government would constitute an abuse of power. Under the 2007 Constitution the NLA is an illegal body with no authority to conduct any government oversight or legislative actions. So it becomes a double standard for the NLA to take any action against former government officials for alleged crimes for which itself has committed.

For all the contrived excuses one may allow the Junta and its clones government organizations to apply such double standards, the ultimate result will be a government without public legitimacy to pass judgement. The military government will be viewed as engaged in political suppression. This will not contribute towards any national reconciliation if such was ever the intent of the Junta. Frankly, as long as the Junta power is preserved with any subsequent change in government leadership, "reconciliation" is just a two baht word.

The usual rubbish and talking about reconciliation as if that should stop criminals from being prosecuted.

Only three in the kangroo court/military hearing?

They are not before a judicial court? So how can criminals be prosecuted?

[Chris Lawrence]

Couldn't they wait for the court decision if they are judged guilty or not?

Of course, but why should they? Looking at Ms. Yingluck's affairs I wonder why you don't ask why the case has been deposited at the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders before the chaps are impeachment (if ever they will). Mind you, the criminal intend with the G2G deals seems much clearer documented and there's no legal need for impeachment to follow Supreme Court case v.v.

What is "Supreme Court for Political Office Holders"? Before the chaps are impeachment impeached.

Impeachment is the first step to exclude elected representatives from being re-elected.

The G2G deals will be held by 2 Government Panels, attached to the Finance and Commerce Ministry. It’s a first of its kind. How will these panels review the cases? Do you have the documents to say how these two panels work? As you say the criminal intend intent with the G2G deals seem much clearer documented?

"Of course, but why should they?" A court usually means a judicial process has been followed. As compensation will be sought if wrong doing is found, these panels are going to exercise a lot of power?

It does sound as though due process of natural justice may be treated with contempt in order to get a conviction. But then again I may be wrong?

[rubl]

Couldn't they wait for the court decision if they are judged guilty or not?

Of course, but why should they? Looking at Ms. Yingluck's affairs I wonder why you don't ask why the case has been deposited at the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders before the chaps are impeachment (if ever they will). Mind you, the criminal intend with the G2G deals seems much clearer documented and there's no legal need for impeachment to follow Supreme Court case v.v.

Of course if they do it, it's because they are allowed to do it according to whatever law is decided to be applicable under current conditions. It doesn't mean it's the most rational way to do it. It's problematic if the two verdicts diverge:

Case 1- They are impeached but later the Court decides they are not guilty. How can you impeach someone who's not guilty?

Case 2- They are not impeached and then the Court decides they are guilty. How can you not impeach someone who's guilty?

I know I'm too rational.....

With all information already provided it would seem

Case 3. to speed up matters both impeachment procedure and court case are pursued in parallel.

[rubl]

I would have thought that the overthrow of an elected government, abolishment of the constitution, and a military handcrafted government would constitute an abuse of power. Under the 2007 Constitution the NLA is an illegal body with no authority to conduct any government oversight or legislative actions. So it becomes a double standard for the NLA to take any action against former government officials for alleged crimes for which itself has committed.

For all the contrived excuses one may allow the Junta and its clones government organizations to apply such double standards, the ultimate result will be a government without public legitimacy to pass judgement. The military government will be viewed as engaged in political suppression. This will not contribute towards any national reconciliation if such was ever the intent of the Junta. Frankly, as long as the Junta power is preserved with any subsequent change in government leadership, "reconciliation" is just a two baht word.

The usual rubbish and talking about reconciliation as if that should stop criminals from being prosecuted.

Only three in the kangroo court/military hearing?

They are not before a judicial court? So how can criminals be prosecuted?

For your information, this is not about Australia, but Thailand. No kangaroos here, only posters making fun it would seem.

[whybother]

I would have thought that the overthrow of an elected government, abolishment of the constitution, and a military handcrafted government would constitute an abuse of power. Under the 2007 Constitution the NLA is an illegal body with no authority to conduct any government oversight or legislative actions. So it becomes a double standard for the NLA to take any action against former government officials for alleged crimes for which itself has committed.

For all the contrived excuses one may allow the Junta and its clones government organizations to apply such double standards, the ultimate result will be a government without public legitimacy to pass judgement. The military government will be viewed as engaged in political suppression. This will not contribute towards any national reconciliation if such was ever the intent of the Junta. Frankly, as long as the Junta power is preserved with any subsequent change in government leadership, "reconciliation" is just a two baht word.

You might have missed it, but the 2007 constitution is no longer in use.

[rubl]

Couldn't they wait for the court decision if they are judged guilty or not?

Of course, but why should they? Looking at Ms. Yingluck's affairs I wonder why you don't ask why the case has been deposited at the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders before the chaps are impeachment (if ever they will). Mind you, the criminal intend with the G2G deals seems much clearer documented and there's no legal need for impeachment to follow Supreme Court case v.v.

What is "Supreme Court for Political Office Holders"? Before the chaps are impeachment impeached.

Impeachment is the first step to exclude elected representatives from being re-elected.

The G2G deals will be held by 2 Government Panels, attached to the Finance and Commerce Ministry. It’s a first of its kind. How will these panels review the cases? Do you have the documents to say how these two panels work? As you say the criminal intend intent with the G2G deals seem much clearer documented?

"Of course, but why should they?" A court usually means a judicial process has been followed. As compensation will be sought if wrong doing is found, these panels are going to exercise a lot of power?

It does sound as though due process of natural justice may be treated with contempt in order to get a conviction. But then again I may be wrong?

Chris, no offence, but your post is rambling.

You mix the handling of G2G deals with the case in the Supreme Court. furthermore you are perfectly capable to look up the description of said court.

As for documents, would the Thai description of G2G deal processing panels help you?

As for the fake G2G deals, read this

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/808264-top-commerce-officials-fired-for-fake-g2g-thai-rice-deal-with-china/#entry9182575

[billd766]

I would have thought that the overthrow of an elected government, abolishment of the constitution, and a military handcrafted government would constitute an abuse of power. Under the 2007 Constitution the NLA is an illegal body with no authority to conduct any government oversight or legislative actions. So it becomes a double standard for the NLA to take any action against former government officials for alleged crimes for which itself has committed.

For all the contrived excuses one may allow the Junta and its clones government organizations to apply such double standards, the ultimate result will be a government without public legitimacy to pass judgement. The military government will be viewed as engaged in political suppression. This will not contribute towards any national reconciliation if such was ever the intent of the Junta. Frankly, as long as the Junta power is preserved with any subsequent change in government leadership, "reconciliation" is just a two baht word.

YOU would have thought?

Well unless you are a Thai person with a degree on constitutional law it really doesn't matter what you, I or any other non Thai thinks or says because it means nothing to the Thai people.

It matters little to the people of Thailand what the world thinks either as it is a Thai problem and the Thais will deal with it in their own way.

If you don't understand that or like that it is your problem to deal with and not theirs. You can spend your whole life on TV complaining (as you seem to do constantly) and you will change nothing.