Impeachment hearing: 248 former Thai MPs all wish to speak in their defense

[webfact]

248 former MPs all wish to speak in their defense

BANGKOK, 2 July 2015 (NNT) - The former 248 Members of Parliament (MP) accused of an unlawful attempt to amend the previous constitution have all expressed the desire to speak in their defense in their upcoming impeachment hearing on July 15-16.

Samart Kaewmeechai, former Chiang Rai Representative of the Pheu Thai Party and one of the accused, revealed that all 248 defendants have expressed the desire to present individual cases during the case hearing session on July 15-16. The group will soon consult with the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) on providing ample time for all defendants to speak.

Mr Samart said he is confident that the NLA will exercise fair judgement in accordance with the law, citing its previous verdict to not impeach 38 former Senators on the same charge.

-- NNT 2015-07-02

[uty6543]

How childish. It's easy to see the thinking behind this move.

Edited July 2, 2015 by uty6543

[daoyai]

Am wondering what procedure would have made a constitutional ammendment attempt legal... and in what way was this attempt not legal? Since the constitution has "gone on holiday" anyway, why bother?

[than]

A new attemp to buy time....

A poor Red/PTP wrongdoes defense tatics....

[phoenixdoglover]

Excellent idea. Let's see if this is a process that permits each accused person to defend themself...

Or just the political purge it appears to be.

Edited July 2, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[baboon]

How childish. It's easy to see the thinking behind this move.

Quite. Let's scrap all this so called 'court' nonsense and have trial by redneck and pitchfork.

[Ricardo]

Well at least they're willing to show-up to defend themselves, rather than just sending their lawyers, to ask for interminable extensions-of-time.

Or does that come later ?

[candide]

Am wondering what procedure would have made a constitutional ammendment attempt legal... and in what way was this attempt not legal? Since the constitution has "gone on holiday" anyway, why bother?

Is there a mention in the 2007 constitution stating that it's forbidden to amend it? Or is it a retroactive punishing for a decision made before the court deciding that amending constitution was not legal?

[jaidam]

let them all do it at 4am and see how fair they consider that.

[slapout]

each defendent will ask for delay as they need more time to submit a written blow by blow account. each first delay 3 months_+ then the next follow my lead monkey repeats. the numbers of defendents , time concessions which have been normal in the past give apple oppurnity for drfendentsto abscond, die, chane name and/or go into temple.

give no quarter to this group who plundered thailands treasury. i would not be surprtsed to find that the entire national budget was stolen 1 year out of every 3 so this group and their cronies could keep track of whose ahead by score alloted for each million baht skimmed of.

the longer this type are allowed to continue to live/operate in thailand the more the desease of corruption spreads and is pasted on.

how many deaths have been caused due to medical, unpaid wages,etc by this group and the companies they own/control? cap[tal punishment penalty should apply.

[baboon]

each defendent will ask for delay as they need more time to submit a written blow by blow account. each first delay 3 months_+ then the next follow my lead monkey repeats. the numbers of defendents , time concessions which have been normal in the past give apple oppurnity for drfendentsto abscond, die, chane name and/or go into temple.

give no quarter to this group who plundered thailands treasury. i would not be surprtsed to find that the entire national budget was stolen 1 year out of every 3 so this group and their cronies could keep track of whose ahead by score alloted for each million baht skimmed of.

the longer this type are allowed to continue to live/operate in thailand the more the desease of corruption spreads and is pasted on.

how many deaths have been caused due to medical, unpaid wages,etc by this group and the companies they own/control? cap[tal punishment penalty should apply.

... And another poster advocating the death penalty without even the courtesy of a fair trial, to satiate their bloodlust. I swear this place gets worse by the day...

[Eric Loh]

The establishment rule is pretty clear.Charter can't be amended but can be shredded.

[Baerboxer]

How childish. It's easy to see the thinking behind this move.

Quite. Let's scrap all this so called 'court' nonsense and have trial by redneck and pitchfork.

Yes, and like by giving out judges names, addresses and telephone numbers, lobbing grenades and machine gunning houses. Who needs trials.

[Baerboxer]

let them all do it at 4am and see how fair they consider that.

Good idea - they liked voting at 4.00 am so won't mind.

[vaultdweller0013]

Am wondering what procedure would have made a constitutional ammendment attempt legal... and in what way was this attempt not legal? Since the constitution has "gone on holiday" anyway, why bother?

If I recall correctly, there were three points:

First, there were procedural issues: not giving the opposition time to speak and the like and MP's using other MP's cards to place votes (amazingly, these moves really wouldn't have been necessary, since they had a enough votes on board to pass anyway)

Second, the court ruled that by grouping together a set of amendments, instead of as separate bills for each, the amendment was an attempt to overthrow the constitution, which was apparently not allowed at the time.

Third, they ruled that by making the senate fully elected and removing restrictions on who can be senators, like a prohibition on family members of lower house ministers serving in the senate, the amendments were designed to benefit the people voting for it so it was not allowed under anti-graft restriction.

Because of the second and third points, the NACC sent most of the people who voted for it to the Senate for potential impeachment, thus the current situation.

[tbthailand]

Am wondering what procedure would have made a constitutional ammendment attempt legal... and in what way was this attempt not legal? Since the constitution has "gone on holiday" anyway, why bother?

If I recall correctly, there were three points:

First, there were procedural issues: not giving the opposition time to speak and the like and MP's using other MP's cards to place votes (amazingly, these moves really wouldn't have been necessary, since they had a enough votes on board to pass anyway)

Second, the court ruled that by grouping together a set of amendments, instead of as separate bills for each, the amendment was an attempt to overthrow the constitution, which was apparently not allowed at the time.

Third, they ruled that by making the senate fully elected and removing restrictions on who can be senators, like a prohibition on family members of lower house ministers serving in the senate, the amendments were designed to benefit the people voting for it so it was not allowed under anti-graft restriction.

Because of the second and third points, the NACC sent most of the people who voted for it to the Senate for potential impeachment, thus the current situation.

Your summary makes the point that the court decision did use extremely twisted logic to rule that amending the constitution to make the Senate an elected body was somehow unconstitutional.

I was always in favor of an elected Senate.

Given the after-the-fact impeachment process, this does smell rather badly of political purge and vengeance rather than a process interested in justice.

more info: http://asiancorrespondent.com/118006/thailands-nacc-ruling-why-it-happened-and-what-it-means/

[SOTIRIOS]

...considering how long it is taking for their leader to be processed....good plan...they will never be able to get anything done.....

...nobody will be charged with anything at this rate.....

[soalbundy]

The military have amended the constitution by illegally getting rid of it,of course that procedure is now retro actively legal but at the very time that they did it, it wasn't.

[EnglishJohn]

After what these dirty cronies did under orders from their paying master before the decent people of Thailand took to the streets, I have zero respect for a single one of them. I hope they all do jail time.

I'm still wondering why nobody is being charged with abuse of power for the amnesty disgrace. Maybe that one will come next.

What happened to the noble principles of democracy which involve putting the people you represent and your country above yourself ?.

Red-shirt hypocrites should look to these people as the ultimate reason for the coup. But they won't because it doesn't suit them.

[soalbundy]

After what these dirty cronies did under orders from their paying master before the decent people of Thailand took to the streets, I have zero respect for a single one of them. I hope they all do jail time.

I'm still wondering why nobody is being charged with abuse of power for the amnesty disgrace. Maybe that one will come next.

What happened to the noble principles of democracy which involve putting the people you represent and your country above yourself ?.

Red-shirt hypocrites should look to these people as the ultimate reason for the coup. But they won't because it doesn't suit them.

Noble principals of democracy ? We don't even have that in the west, it's a bit rich asking the Thai's to adhere to these principals.

[Eric Loh]

After what these dirty cronies did under orders from their paying master before the decent people of Thailand took to the streets, I have zero respect for a single one of them. I hope they all do jail time.

I'm still wondering why nobody is being charged with abuse of power for the amnesty disgrace. Maybe that one will come next.

What happened to the noble principles of democracy which involve putting the people you represent and your country above yourself ?.

Red-shirt hypocrites should look to these people as the ultimate reason for the coup. But they won't because it doesn't suit them.

Not sure who you referring for abuse of power for the amnesty. The Coup leaders? Don't think the coup was a result of people representation too. Think they broke the noble principles of democracy. Careful what you write less people treat you as a joke.

[Robroona]

each defendent will ask for delay as they need more time to submit a written blow by blow account. each first delay 3 months_+ then the next follow my lead monkey repeats. the numbers of defendents , time concessions which have been normal in the past give apple oppurnity for drfendentsto abscond, die, chane name and/or go into temple.

give no quarter to this group who plundered thailands treasury. i would not be surprtsed to find that the entire national budget was stolen 1 year out of every 3 so this group and their cronies could keep track of whose ahead by score alloted for each million baht skimmed of.

the longer this type are allowed to continue to live/operate in thailand the more the desease of corruption spreads and is pasted on.

how many deaths have been caused due to medical, unpaid wages,etc by this group and the companies they own/control? cap[tal punishment penalty should apply.

Wasting time in court cases appears to be the accepted norm in this country. In order to expedite these cases, just make a statement that there will be no elections until after this lot are finished

[candide]

Am wondering what procedure would have made a constitutional ammendment attempt legal... and in what way was this attempt not legal? Since the constitution has "gone on holiday" anyway, why bother?

If I recall correctly, there were three points:

First, there were procedural issues: not giving the opposition time to speak and the like and MP's using other MP's cards to place votes (amazingly, these moves really wouldn't have been necessary, since they had a enough votes on board to pass anyway)

Second, the court ruled that by grouping together a set of amendments, instead of as separate bills for each, the amendment was an attempt to overthrow the constitution, which was apparently not allowed at the time.

Third, they ruled that by making the senate fully elected and removing restrictions on who can be senators, like a prohibition on family members of lower house ministers serving in the senate, the amendments were designed to benefit the people voting for it so it was not allowed under anti-graft restriction.

Because of the second and third points, the NACC sent most of the people who voted for it to the Senate for potential impeachment, thus the current situation.

I cannot comment on the second point, but the third is interesting, as it seems to be illegal to propose to allow family members of MPs to be democratically elected in senate (elected, not appointed!). Ok, maybe it was the Thai law at this time, but I don't know much countries in which it is forbidden to candidate for election if a close relative is already elected as MP.

[Alwyn]

How childish. It's easy to see the thinking behind this move.

Quite. Let's scrap all this so called 'court' nonsense and have trial by redneck and pitchfork.

You want the PM to try these people??!!

[Alwyn]

So let's see if I understand this. These 240 people are charged with trying to unlawfully amend the constitution? Surely not? The current self-appointed PM and his loyal mates who have been given the plum jobs have destroyed that same constitution and are writing one of their own - how is that legal then? Being charged by the people who actually scrapped the constitution seems a bit of ironic and not at all politically motivated of course.

[ziggy3]

MP's using other MP's cards to place votes

Pheu Thai Party democracy

[candide]

So let's see if I understand this. These 240 people are charged with trying to unlawfully amend the constitution? Surely not? The current self-appointed PM and his loyal mates who have been given the plum jobs have destroyed that same constitution and are writing one of their own - how is that legal then? Being charged by the people who actually scrapped the constitution seems a bit of ironic and not at all politically motivated of course.

Yeah... These PTP MPs are such small players....

[halloween]

How long does it take to say "I was only following orders." They could add "Thaksin would kick me out of the party if I didn't vote as told. I have a wife and children, and couldn't possible live on my MP salary alone."

What I am actually expecting is a filibuster meaningless raving about anything and everything, until eventually they are given a time limit. Then, there supporters can complain they weren't given a fair hearing. Who cares?

BTW there was nothing democratic about their attempt to turn the senate into a rubber stamp so that could get their amnesty approved.

[Docno]

Hmmmm... trying to amend the constitution was unlawful, but suspending it in a military coup is somehow ok. Then the coup-makers want to prosecute the elected officials who were going to amend the constitution while pushing through their own version. Is there a word for 'irony' in the Thai language?

[Manbing]

So let's see if I understand this. These 240 people are charged with trying to unlawfully amend the constitution? Surely not? The current self-appointed PM and his loyal mates who have been given the plum jobs have destroyed that same constitution and are writing one of their own - how is that legal then? Being charged by the people who actually scrapped the constitution seems a bit of ironic and not at all politically motivated of course.

There is a great deal of logical merit to this argument, however...

The non-democratically, unelected military government are revising a previous constitution, written by another non-democratic, unelected military government.

But, When the elected MP's were sworn in, they promised to abide and not screw around with the constitution. Whoever wrote it/under whatever circumstances, because it was ratified by the highest office.

Therefore, the army are abiding by military government rules (previously under emergency powers) and are not in breach..

The 248 MP's on the other hand, were being lead by the nose, like pigs to a trough, and despite swearing to follow the rules; they set about changing them. And are technically guilty of being very naughty little piggies indeed.

Its not unlike treason - legally speaking.

Good luck with the legal defense chaps.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Manbing