NLA to vote on August 14 whether to impeach 248 ex-MPs

[webfact]

NLA to vote on August 14 whether to impeach 248 ex-MPs



BANGKOK: -- The National Legislative Assembly is due to vote on August 14 whether to impeach 248 former MPs of the coalition government for their involvement in the failed attempt to amend the Constitution regarding the composition of the Senate.

Representatives of the National Anti-Corruption Commission which initiated the impeachment move against the former MPs will make a final statement before the NLA on August 13. Likewise, representatives of the ex-MPs will also be given a chance to make their final rebuttal on the same day.

Representing the ex-MPs will be Mr Wannarat Charnnukul, leader of the Chart Pattana party, former Pheu Thai MP for Chiang Rai Samart Kaewmeechai, former Pheu Thai MP for Roip-et Mrs Am-orn Sinthuprai, former Chart Thai Pattana party MP Paradorn Prissanananthakul and others.

The NLA today questioned Mr Wichai Wiwitsevi, a member of the NACC, about the qualification of his colleague, Mr Pakdee Pothisiri, which was challenged by the ex-MPs claiming the latter was unqualified to sit in the panel investigating them.

Mr Wichai told the NLA members that Mr Pakdee was qualified and he cited a ruling of the Criminal Court which had cleared the NACC member of a case brought against him by Surapong Tovichakchaikul of Pheu Thai party challenging Pakdee’s qualification.

He insisted that Mr Pakdee had resigned from all his advisory posts at various companies before he assumed office at the NACC.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/nla-to-vote-on-august-14-whether-to-impeach-248-ex-mps


-- Thai PBS 2015-08-06

[NeilSA1]

I really do hope that the 248 former MP's will be impeached.

Regardless of any political persuasions the guilty have to be punished.

[smutcakes]

I really do hope that the 248 former MP's will be impeached.

Regardless of any political persuasions the guilty have to be punished.

Maybe the NLA could then take up the case of impeachment of those who undertook the coup, they didn't just attempt to amend the constitution, they threw the whole thing in the bin!

[nidieunimaitre]

I really do hope that the 248 former MP's will be impeached.

Regardless of any political persuasions the guilty have to be punished.

Yes I agree 100%.

MP's that have the nerve to wanting to change THE constitution - euh, make that wanting to change A constitution.

But why stop there?

Why not impeach the voters that voted them into parliament?

And if you believe in a creator - god, impeach him too, for creating those ungratefuls.

[mikemac]

I really do hope that the 248 former MP's will be impeached.

Regardless of any political persuasions the guilty have to be punished.

Yes I agree 100%.

MP's that have the nerve to wanting to change THE constitution - euh, make that wanting to change A constitution.

But why stop there?

Why not impeach the voters that voted them into parliament?

And if you believe in a creator - god, impeach him too, for creating those ungratefuls.

Nice ! Sarcasm award for August so far.

[Thai at Heart]

Crazy hypocrisy here. The bunch that threw out the constitution will judge on whether a bunch were changing the old constitution unconstitutionally. Craziness

[phoenixdoglover]

BBC - 20 November 2013

A Thai court has ruled that government plans to amend the constitution are illegal, and rejected an opposition request to dissolve the ruling party. The Constitutional Court rejected proposals from the ruling Pheu Thai party to make the Senate fully elected. It also rejected an opposition petition to dissolve Pheu Thai.

The highest Court in Thailand dealt with this matter. In any sane legal system, that would be the end of it.

[bamnutsak]

MP's that have the nerve to wanting to change THE constitution - euh, make that wanting to change A constitution.

Exactly, shame on an elected body attempting to amend the constitution, albeit to make it more like the 1997 version. Only good people are allowed to modify, change, create or abrogate constitutions in Thailand.

The next you know they'll be wanting to have freedom of religion, speech and the press, give women the right to vote, and free the slaves. This just can't be done.

And it's not like they don't have a judiciary that will overturn anything a pesky elected legislative body might be up to.

In any sane legal system, that would be the end of it.

There is no legal system here. Just Legal Theater, meant to impress and confuse the masses.

Edited August 6, 2015 by bamnutsak

[smutcakes]

Maybe the NLA could then take up the case of impeachment of those who undertook the coup, they didn't just attempt to amend the constitution, they threw the whole thing in the bin!

You're forgetting one minor fact ... the man at the top signed off on the coup which made it not a coup any more and entirely legal.

So presumably he signed off on the new Constitution which means the old Constitution laws they are being impeached under no longer exist to be impeached under?

As per "the law", they'll be impeached under the law that was in existence at the time.

Same principle applies if they suddenly made it legal to commit murder for example, if you killed someone before the law changed you'd be charged and tried under that law, if you committed murder after the new law came into effect, you'd wouldn't be charged at all.

So by that token they could be impeached under the last Constitution regardless of it now being legal?

You can;t have it both ways, well they can, but its laughable and what makes the whole situation a farce.

[tbthailand]

changing the 2007 military sponsored constitution to make it more democratic is clearly unconstitutional...

Hang them all.

This is a purge, so fire at will...

[djjamie]

"representatives of the ex-MPs will also be given a chance to make their final rebuttal on the same day"

​I wonder if like the PTP not giving enough time for the opposition to debate the constitutional change in parliament the NLA will not give the reps of the ex-MP's enough time either.

I doubt it very much as that would be undemocratic and the NLA are here to restore democracy so opposition members in the future can debate bills.

Will the PTP hold their own lawyers accountable for not advising them that they may be violating Section 68 of the 2007 charter? Their own lawyers may well have advised them and probably tried to find loopholes (which is a PTP specialty), but typical PTP run by an accused terrorist, accused mass murderer and convicted criminal fugitive would have ignored them because that type of people have no respect for the law. Incidentally another reason why democracy needed urgent reform (yes yes yingluck was elected!)

Edited August 6, 2015 by djjamie

[mikemac]

changing the 2007 military sponsored constitution to make it more democratic is clearly unconstitutional...

Hang them all.

This is a purge, so fire at will...

Thank God for that. Purge sounds so much better than coup. Anyone can launch a coup, but a purge...................................

[Eric Loh]

So the NLA is considering impeachment for the MPs for their involvement in amending a non existing constitution. More retroactive laws been put to good use to rid their enemies.

[Tatsujin]

So presumably he signed off on the new Constitution which means the old Constitution laws they are being impeached under no longer exist to be impeached under?

As per "the law", they'll be impeached under the law that was in existence at the time.

Same principle applies if they suddenly made it legal to commit murder for example, if you killed someone before the law changed you'd be charged and tried under that law, if you committed murder after the new law came into effect, you'd wouldn't be charged at all.

So by that token they could be impeached under the last Constitution regardless of it now being legal?

You can;t have it both ways, well they can, but its laughable and what makes the whole situation a farce.

It's not having it both ways, they are being impeached for breaking a law that was in effect at the time the offense was committed.

[smutcakes]

It's not having it both ways, they are being impeached for breaking a law that was in effect at the time the offense was committed.

Its having it both ways if those who undertook the coup are not also charged with tinkering with the Constitution. Amending certain sections of it are being deemed illegal so chucking the whole thing in the bin would be to, as, at the time of committing the crime, the law was in effect.

[Baerboxer]

Maybe the NLA could then take up the case of impeachment of those who undertook the coup, they didn't just attempt to amend the constitution, they threw the whole thing in the bin!

You're forgetting one minor fact ... the man at the top signed off on the coup which made it not a coup any more and entirely legal.

So presumably he signed off on the new Constitution which means the old Constitution laws they are being impeached under no longer exist to be impeached under?

As per "the law", they'll be impeached under the law that was in existence at the time.

Same principle applies if they suddenly made it legal to commit murder for example, if you killed someone before the law changed you'd be charged and tried under that law, if you committed murder after the new law came into effect, you'd wouldn't be charged at all.

So by that token they could be impeached under the last Constitution regardless of it now being legal?

You can;t have it both ways, well they can, but its laughable and what makes the whole situation a farce.

The whole situation was and is a farce.

A government being paid a salary by a convicted criminal fugitive who dictates all policy, tells them what to do and appoints and dismisses Ministers. A government with a massive parliamentary majority in seat terms, but with the largest minority of actual votes, who do just as they please; can't be bothered to follow correct parliamentary procedure and keep tripping themselves up through a mixture of arrogance, stupidity and sloppiness; and finally go to far with a crude attempt to give their boss a complete whitewash and make him and themselves immune from any prosecutions for anything.

A coup, another coup in the long history of coups, following repeated statements saying there wouldn't be one - oh, go on then let's have one; followed by a reluctant PM - oh go on then, someone has to do it; followed by the usual announcements of delay after delay before new elections can be held.

Throw in the side shows of CAPO, DSI under Tharit, OAG who don't like prosecuting, NACC and the Keystone cops and you've enough material for a brilliant farce. All paid for, very handsomely by the Thai people.

What's sad is the pantomime goes round and round, the same players sometimes change seats, but the cast varies little.

[EnglishJohn]

I don't care too much about this.

What I really want to know is why the 310 MPs who voted for it are not being prosecuted for the most disgraceful abuse of power I have ever witnessed when they passed the amnesty bill.

And while we're talking about prosecutions, what happened about the terrorists who murdered the protestors ?. Is there even an investigation going on for that ?. Or are they scared because the red-shirts will get even more shirty if they are publicly accused and say how much it has damaged 'reconciliation' ?.

Thais should not be surprised that no other country takes them seriously.

[bamnutsak]

what happened about the terrorists who murdered the protestors ?

Abhisit and Suthep have been charged.

What I really want to know is why the 310 MPs who voted for it are not being prosecuted for the most disgraceful abuse of power I have ever witnessed when they passed the amnesty bill.

Passing a bill is illegal? Oh, right. Of course it is in upside-down Land.

[phoenixdoglover]

I don't care too much about this.

What I really want to know is why the 310 MPs who voted for it are not being prosecuted for the most disgraceful abuse of power I have ever witnessed when they passed the amnesty bill.

And while we're talking about prosecutions, what happened about the terrorists who murdered the protestors ?. Is there even an investigation going on for that ?. Or are they scared because the red-shirts will get even more shirty if they are publicly accused and say how much it has damaged 'reconciliation' ?.

Thais should not be surprised that no other country takes them seriously.

First, I completely agree with you on the lack of law enforcement for the violence during the protest period. The police were ineffective to say the least. And as you suggest, some people got away with murder.

Second, you didn't "witness" the parliament passing the amnesty bill, or anything else they did. You read about it on TVF and possibly some other news sources.

Third, what specifically do you consider to be "abuse of power"? The content of the bill? The conditions of the vote? The vote itself?

I ask these questions, because in most countries with bicameral (2 body) legislatures, the lower house usually produces all kinds of ill-advised and defective legislation; which is typically ignored or quashed by the upper house. And this is what happened in the Thai Senate; they rejected the amnesty bill.

Edited August 6, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[rubl]

So, next week we'll know. In the mean time lots of opportunity for posters to tell their opinion on all this.

Well, at least some seem to agree those MPs did something illegal, but not many who want to agree that having done something illegal should have consequences. Interesting, really.

[rubl]

I don't care too much about this.

What I really want to know is why the 310 MPs who voted for it are not being prosecuted for the most disgraceful abuse of power I have ever witnessed when they passed the amnesty bill.

And while we're talking about prosecutions, what happened about the terrorists who murdered the protestors ?. Is there even an investigation going on for that ?. Or are they scared because the red-shirts will get even more shirty if they are publicly accused and say how much it has damaged 'reconciliation' ?.

Thais should not be surprised that no other country takes them seriously.

First, I completely agree with you on the lack of law enforcement for the violence during the protest period. The police were ineffective to say the least. And as you suggest, some people got away with murder.

Second, you didn't "witness" the parliament passing the amnesty bill, or anything else they did. You read about it on TVF and possibly some other news sources.

Third, what specifically do you consider to be "abuse of power"? The content of the bill? The conditions of the vote? The vote itself?

I ask these questions, because in most countries with bicameral (2 body) legislatures, the lower house usually produces all kinds of ill-advised and defective legislation; which is typically ignored or quashed by the upper house. And this is what happened in the Thai Senate; they rejected the amnesty bill.

I could fill in the gaps you left regarding the shenanigans around the blanket amnesty bill, but that would bring us further off topic.

So let's just concentrate on the MPs who tried to modify the constitution in an illegal way as ruled by a court almost two years ago. That's without going into what they wanted to modify things into, like again allowing 'political families' to control things (implicitly).

[Rimmer]

A post and some repleis have been removed:

1) You will not express disrespect of the King of Thailand or any one member of the Thai royal family, whether living or deceased, nor to criticize the monarchy as an institution.

By law, the Thai Royal Family are above politics. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family.*
Discussion of the Lese Majeste law or Lese Majeste cases is permitted on the forum, providing no comment or speculation is made referencing the royal family.

[smutcakes]

So, next week we'll know. In the mean time lots of opportunity for posters to tell their opinion on all this.

Well, at least some seem to agree those MPs did something illegal, but not many who want to agree that having done something illegal should have consequences. Interesting, really.

Rubl, it is only illegal in so much as that it was the NACC, that well know impartial body have deemed that amending the section of the Constitution to make the Senate fully elected was unconstitutional, which is laughable given how may times it has been ripped up, amended and thrown in the bin before, by both civilian Govts and military ones.

It really is amazing how the NACC failed to notice all the other times sections of the Const had been amended without a problem, or failed to see anywhere that amending certain sections would suddenly be deemed an impeachable offence. Its almost as if the NACC just makes up the rules as it goes along........

In fact on this thread and nearly every international source you can read on the subject are absolutely incredulous that the ruling was even given, so no i don't think people agree something illegal was done, at least it would not have been deemed illegal had anyone else attempted it.

[nidieunimaitre]

"representatives of the ex-MPs will also be given a chance to make their final rebuttal on the same day"

​I wonder if like the PTP not giving enough time for the opposition to debate the constitutional change in parliament the NLA will not give the reps of the ex-MP's enough time either.

I doubt it very much as that would be undemocratic and the NLA are here to restore democracy so opposition members in the future can debate bills.

Will the PTP hold their own lawyers accountable for not advising them that they may be violating Section 68 of the 2007 charter? Their own lawyers may well have advised them and probably tried to find loopholes (which is a PTP specialty), but typical PTP run by an accused terrorist, accused mass murderer and convicted criminal fugitive would have ignored them because that type of people have no respect for the law. Incidentally another reason why democracy needed urgent reform (yes yes yingluck was elected!)

I have my doubts whether the general will manage to bring reconciliation to Thailand.

Good for him that he never said he wanted to reconcile red and yellow farang nutters. Now THAT would be a hopeless task.

[gamini]

All these totally ignorant posts don't seem to realise that thier impeachment has nothing to do with the composition of the Senate or the costitution. The democrats supported the amendment to make the senate fully elected. The tMP's facing impeachment tried to sneak a self servibg clause to extend thier tenure and allow thier children and spouses to become senators so they could control the senate much in the same way as they did with the amnesty fiasco. They deserve to be immpeached.

[smutcakes]

All these totally ignorant posts don't seem to realise that thier impeachment has nothing to do with the composition of the Senate or the costitution. The democrats supported the amendment to make the senate fully elected. The tMP's facing impeachment tried to sneak a self servibg clause to extend thier tenure and allow thier children and spouses to become senators so they could control the senate much in the same way as they did with the amnesty fiasco. They deserve to be immpeached.

Are you sure about that? As far as i have read it was the attempt to amend that section of the Constitution which was deemed impeachable not the way it was done, or the changes that were being made, just the act of altering how the Senate was formed. In fact i even think the NACC issued a statement saying no charges would be issued on the way they tried to pass it.

In addition do you not see the irony in it, that you talk about self serving clauses where the people voting down the Senate, many of them appointed would not be there should the position be elected rather than appointed, is that self serving and a conflict of interest to?

[jesimps]

What a damned cheek. Take over the country by force of arms; shred the previous constitution, then vote to impeach 248 former elected MPs who only wanted to amend the constitution.

Then they all sit around looking smug as though they do this by right, rather than by might.

Festering hypocrits.

[Solomon]

I really do hope that the 248 former MP's will be impeached.

Regardless of any political persuasions the guilty have to be punished.

The guilty being punished would be great.

But that's not what's happening here.

The innocent are being persecuted.

Fear not though my friend, for no matter what extremes the Generals and their cronies stoop to, Thaksin will still win the next election in a landslide.

In the long run, justice always prevails!

[rubl]

So, next week we'll know. In the mean time lots of opportunity for posters to tell their opinion on all this.

Well, at least some seem to agree those MPs did something illegal, but not many who want to agree that having done something illegal should have consequences. Interesting, really.

Rubl, it is only illegal in so much as that it was the NACC, that well know impartial body have deemed that amending the section of the Constitution to make the Senate fully elected was unconstitutional, which is laughable given how may times it has been ripped up, amended and thrown in the bin before, by both civilian Govts and military ones.

It really is amazing how the NACC failed to notice all the other times sections of the Const had been amended without a problem, or failed to see anywhere that amending certain sections would suddenly be deemed an impeachable offence. Its almost as if the NACC just makes up the rules as it goes along........

In fact on this thread and nearly every international source you can read on the subject are absolutely incredulous that the ruling was even given, so no i don't think people agree something illegal was done, at least it would not have been deemed illegal had anyone else attempted it.

My dear smutcakes, in #7 phoenixdoglover already quoted the BBC saying

"The Constitutional Court rejected proposals from the ruling Pheu Thai party to make the Senate fully elected."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-24997184

That's not 'just the NACC'. The rest is based on a wrong starting point, valuable as personal opinion only.

BTW your 'absolute incredulous' statement seems equally based on your opinion. No real surprise though. Mind you 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing bit the truth' has nothing to do with your opinion.

[rubl]

I really do hope that the 248 former MP's will be impeached.

Regardless of any political persuasions the guilty have to be punished.

The guilty being punished would be great.

But that's not what's happening here.

The innocent are being persecuted.

Fear not though my friend, for no matter what extremes the Generals and their cronies stoop to, Thaksin will still win the next election in a landslide.

In the long run, justice always prevails!

Since the 248 MPs are the ones involved in the attempted modification of the constitution, since the Constitutional Court ruled that move illegal (in November 2013), it would seem the guilty are being asked to be accountable. Being held accountable is persecution in your eyes?

As for punishment, what punishment?