Decision on impeachment of 248 ex-MPs 'may not have big impact'

[webfact]

Decision on impeachment of 248 ex-MPs 'may not have big impact'
Kasamakorn Chanwanpen
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- NO matter how impeachment charges against 248 former MPs turn out, there is likely to be little impact on the Thai political landscape, political observers have predicted.

The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) started its first hearing on the impeachment case last week when the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) presented the case's opening statement accusing the 248 ex-MPs.

The NACC accused them of abusing their power by proposing and passing an amendment that contravened the 2007 Constitution on the make-up of the Senate.

While most suggested that there would be no changes to the political outlook, the move has drawn a variety of responses.

On one side, Sukhum Nuansakul, a political analyst and a former rector of Ramkhamhaeng University, believed the outcome of the impeachment case would be positive for the MPs.

"I don't believe they will be impeached. In the meeting [on July 15], the former MPs defended themselves very well and were on point. So, It wouldn't be reasonable to impeach them," he said.

"Plus, the same standard should be applied to the 248 [after] the 38 ex-senators facing the same charge were not impeached," he said.

Another political scientist, Siripan Nogsuan Sawasdee from Chulalongkorn University, made a similar reference to the case of the 38 former senators.

"The NLA will have to answer to a lot of questions if they don't spare the 248 this time, when they did [spare] the 38 ex-senators," she said.

She said the attempt to impeach and ban the former Members of Parliament was extreme and could be viewed as part of a political move to uproot the opposition.

"Thai society in the past 10 years has been trying to play this zero-sum game - where there are outright winners and losers. But it is too extreme and it doesn't serve the purpose of moving forward. And in the end, both sides will lose," she said, referring to attempts by political opponents to destroy their rivals.

In regard to the legal aspect, Siripan said she questioned the amendment in its substance. However, she did not see that it breached Article 291 of the 2007 Constitution, and thus, was not unconstitutional, as claimed by the prosecutor - the NACC.

"The revision was not unconstitutional, according to Article 291 of the 2007 Constitution, as it neither undermined democracy nor changed the form of state.

'Amended charter in their favour'

"However, I disagree with the amendment to Article 116 in its substance, as it deviated from the international norms where those putting forward the amendment cannot be the beneficiaries," Siripan said.

She reiterated that the MPs and the senators proposing and ratifying the draft could have benefited from it, which was not right. It should have been stipulated that the revision took effect during the following term and that the proposers could not run for election. Otherwise, it would appear that they amended the charter in their own favour, she said.

The political scientist also noted the that 2007 Constitution no longer exists. Thus, it could not be a reference post for the wrongdoing, if any. Moreover, the 248 MPs' membership of the House had expired since it was dissolved in 2013, so, she said, there was no-one to impeach.

"They can't fire you from a job that you've already quit," Siripan said as an example.

Attasit Pankaew, a political science lecturer at Thammasat University, saw the case a little differently. He agreed the 248 MPs may not be impeached because their action was against the former constitution, which was no longer in force. However, he said it could still be seen as "political bleaching".

"Perhaps, they are trying to reform politics by rooting out all the old-faces. But really, these people are not going to lose influence - despite impeachment - as they'll be sending families and relatives to run in the election for them," Attasit said.

Currently, a sub-committee has been set up to collect questions from NLA members on the impeachment. In a second meeting on August 6, representatives of the 248 will answer inquiries from the sub-committee.

The case's closing statement has to be read no later than August 13, seven days after the inquiry, and the final say on the impeachment will come three days after the closing statement is read.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Decision-on-impeachment-of-248-ex-MPs-may-not-have-30265287.html

-- The Nation 2015-07-27

[oneday]

"...could be viewed as part of a political move to uproot the opposition..."

Could be? Would be and is.

[quandow]

If impeaching 248 MP's doesn't make much of an impact, then why are they there in the first place?

[FangFerang]

Um, the 2007 Charter was not in force at the time, and further, retroactive legal manipulations are preventing any reconciliation...much less reform.

It's a witch hunt, and everyone knows it, but all are required to pretend it is not.

Go ahead junta cheerleaders, keep up the farce.

the rest of us love a good laugh.

[Emster23]

"They can't fire you from a job that you've already quit," Siripan said as an example.

Seems more like fire from job you've already been fired from.... or thrown out from.... like hostile corporate take over.....

[BSJ]

If they were charged with treason, once found guilty they could be lined up against a wall and given the .303 solution. But lucky for them the charge isn't treason......yet!

[scorecard]

Winners and losers.

The winner should be that the appropriate laws have been applied to the situation and the ultimate decision is clearly following the appropriate laws.

What should also be apparent is that the public at large:

- Understands that there are appropriate laws and understands why such laws exist.

- Understands that the case has followed the law.

- Understands how the given punishment (if there is any) has been constructed.

Thailand urgently, desperately needs to make gains in terms of the public at large understanding that the law exists for good reasons, and especially in terms of building and maintaining a solid, balanced, fair and ethical civil society.

What's also desperately needed is that the public can see that immoral people should be punished and are punished.

IMHO until there is solid, swift and fair punishment for politicians, all colours and flavours (and others of course), Thailand will make no ground on encouraging the large numbers of highly capable, highly ethical Thai folks to contribute (through government) to building and maintaining a balanced civil society with equal opportunities for all, and with a better quality of life for all.

Edited July 27, 2015 by scorecard

[EnglishJohn]

I don't care too much about this charge.

When will the 310 who voted for the amnesty bill via that disgraceful pantomime ending at 4:30am get charged with abuse of power ?.

[SOTIRIOS]

.........so in other words...the groudnwork is being laid.....to do nothing....???

[Srikcir]

"The NACC accused them of abusing their power by proposing and passing an amendment that contravened the 2007 Constitution on the make-up of the Senate."

If there is anything that contravenued the 2007 Constitution, it was the military insurrection by military government officers. The overthrow also contravened existing Organic Law. What is the likelihood that the NACC will charge the NCPO with abuse of power or that the Office of the Attorney General will charge NCPO with criminal insurrection?

Abuse of power in Thailand is a mockery in Thai justice.

If the Junta truly wants reform, let it curb its own political power first.

[jesimps]

Winners and losers.

The winner should be that the appropriate laws have been applied to the situation and the ultimate decision is clearly following the appropriate laws.

What should also be apparent is that the public at large:

- Understands that there are appropriate laws and understands why such laws exist.

- Understands that the case has followed the law.

- Understands how the given punishment (if there is any) has been constructed.

Thailand urgently, desperately needs to make gains in terms of the public at large understanding that the law exists for good reasons, and especially in terms of building and maintaining a solid, balanced, fair and ethical civil society.

What's also desperately needed is that the public can see that immoral people should be punished and are punished.

IMHO until there is solid, swift and fair punishment for politicians, all colours and flavours (and others of course), Thailand will make no ground on encouraging the large numbers of highly capable, highly ethical Thai folks to contribute (through government) to building and maintaining a balanced civil society with equal opportunities for all, and with a better quality of life for all.

The "crime" of the 248 pales into insignificance compared to the crime of treason. I take it then that you think this "government" should be impeached too? Can't happen though because the junta calls the shots.

[candide]

""However, I disagree with the amendment to Article 116 in its substance, as it deviated from the international norms where those putting forward the amendment cannot be the beneficiaries," Siripan said."

So apparently, one of the main problems is that there was an amendment allowing former MPs to be elected Senators. So the MPs who voted the law could have been beneficiaries if ELECTED as Senators.

I was just wondering: is it forbidden in other countries for former MPs to candidate for Senate seats? It's not the case in my country.

Additionally, doesn't it create a precedent as the draft constitution includes the creation of several unelected bodies that will be obviously stacked with former NLA and NRC members. Would it be possible that they could be impeached on the same ground (putting forward a constitution of which they could be beneficiaries)?

[harada]

I can hear the lawyers rubbing their hands together from here, money that could be better spent elsewhere.

[Baerboxer]

Winners and losers.

The winner should be that the appropriate laws have been applied to the situation and the ultimate decision is clearly following the appropriate laws.

What should also be apparent is that the public at large:

- Understands that there are appropriate laws and understands why such laws exist.

- Understands that the case has followed the law.

- Understands how the given punishment (if there is any) has been constructed.

Thailand urgently, desperately needs to make gains in terms of the public at large understanding that the law exists for good reasons, and especially in terms of building and maintaining a solid, balanced, fair and ethical civil society.

What's also desperately needed is that the public can see that immoral people should be punished and are punished.

IMHO until there is solid, swift and fair punishment for politicians, all colours and flavours (and others of course), Thailand will make no ground on encouraging the large numbers of highly capable, highly ethical Thai folks to contribute (through government) to building and maintaining a balanced civil society with equal opportunities for all, and with a better quality of life for all.

The "crime" of the 248 pales into insignificance compared to the crime of treason. I take it then that you think this "government" should be impeached too? Can't happen though because the junta calls the shots.

Is it a treasonable offense to break your oath and accept payment to vote as instructed by a convicted fugitive criminal who dare not even return to his own country without a contrived whitewash amnesty?

[EnglishJohn]

"The NACC accused them of abusing their power by proposing and passing an amendment that contravened the 2007 Constitution on the make-up of the Senate."

If there is anything that contravenued the 2007 Constitution, it was the military insurrection by military government officers. The overthrow also contravened existing Organic Law. What is the likelihood that the NACC will charge the NCPO with abuse of power or that the Office of the Attorney General will charge NCPO with criminal insurrection?

Abuse of power in Thailand is a mockery in Thai justice.

If the Junta truly wants reform, let it curb its own political power first.

Fair enough.

But before that, Pheu-Thai must be held accountable for state terrorism and the murder of it's own people.

Because that is what they did and that is what caused the 'insurrection' by the Army.

Or do you choose to ignore that because it doesn't fit with your agenda ?.

The simple truth is that the Army intervened to stop the government murdering it's own people to cling on to power. Whatever rhetoric you regurgitate, it doesn't change that basic fact.

[JAG]

I believe that if impeached they face a ban from politics for a considerable time.

As there is unlikely to be anything resembling an election, other than in name, for a considerable time, such a ban will not have any effect upon the political landscape.

The reality of the political landscape is that one man rules by what amounts to decree.

The individual in the post may change ( I suspect he is getting a bit twitchy on that score), but the reality is unlikely to change.

Edited July 27, 2015 by JAG

[ginjag]

I believe that if impeached they face a ban from politics for a considerable time.

As there is unlikely to be anything resembling an election, other than in name, for a considerable time, such a ban will not have any effect upon the political landscape.

The reality of the political landscape is that one man rules by what amounts to decree.

The individual in the post may change ( I suspect he is getting a bit twitchy on that score), but the reality is unlikely to change.

One man ruled at the time PTP were in power, they had 3-4 years to show if they were clean--trustworthy-and ruling democratically.

All they did was shoot themselves in the foot and someone had to take over the SH#t and have a go at turning it round.

They now may be not the flavour of the month, and to me it hardly is acceptable BUT they have to do it, elections are no remedy AT THIS TIME.

[FarangKyAy]

What are they accused for exactly? I thought it was because they tried to move to a fully elected senate (instead of indirect election), don't look like a foul move in my eyes ...

If so many politicians were barred from political activities, let say for 5 years, it would be quite significant if general elections were organised in the meantime .. this might be the condition the Junta was waiting to be fulfilled before setting up elections, have to make sure the Red side can't win and yellow have some good chances to form a coalition government (weak because of alliances games so easily removable, just have to turn 1 or 2 parties to get their ways)