ACM Sukamphol says his impeachment was pre-decided

[webfact]

ACM Sukamphol says his impeachment was pre-decided

 

 

BANGKOK: -- Former defence minister ACM Sukamphol Suwantat is indifferent with the National Legislative Assembly’s decision by majority vote to impeach him, saying that the impeachment was pre-decided and lobbied.

 

“This is normal as Thai democracy has always been like this. I have nothing to complain about. Let’s wait and see,” said ACM Sukamphol when asked by a reporter about the NLA’s vote on Friday.

 

The NLA decided by 159 votes for his impeachment against 27. As a result, he will be barred from politics for five years.

 

Full story: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/acm-sukamphol-says-impeachment-pre-decided/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2016-09-16

[ratcatcher]

You were batting for the wrong team mate.

[smutcakes]

No one and i mean no one in any Governments have ever and i repeat ever tried to influence positions..... this is a unique case........

[jamesbrock]

 

16 hours ago, smutcakes said:

No one and i mean no one in any Governments have ever and i repeat ever tried to influence positions..... this is a unique case........

 

I was just thinking the same thing. I mean imagine a Defence Minister having the gall to try and influence the appointment of the Defence Permanent Secretary! This has to be infinitely worse than handpicking your entire government!

 

16 hours ago, ratcatcher said:

You were batting for the wrong team mate.

 

No truer words were spoken.

 

In what sort of a backwards administration does the incumbent have more of a say over his successor than the Minister in charge?

[halloween]

2 hours ago, jamesbrock said:

 

 

I was just thinking the same thing. I mean imagine a Defence Minister having the gall to try and influence the appointment of the Defence Permanent Secretary! This has to be infinitely worse than handpicking your entire government!

 

 

No truer words were spoken.

 

In what sort of a backwards administration does the incumbent have more of a say over his successor than the Minister in charge?

 

What's worse than handpicking your entire government is letting your fugitive criminal brother do it.

You do realise that government ministers are not necessarily elected, and those that are usually come from the crony list method?

[jamesbrock]

25 minutes ago, halloween said:

What's worse than handpicking your entire government is letting your fugitive criminal brother do it.

 

And your point? Other than the tiresome and utterly predictable 'but, but, Thaksin!'?

 

If you're saying 'yes, Prayuth did handpick his entire government, but but Thaksin handpicked Yingluck's entire government so there' - then you've pretty much made my point for me.

 

25 minutes ago, halloween said:

You do realise that government ministers are not necessarily elected, and those that are usually come from the crony list method?

 

 

Of course I do - and that's exactly the point. This guy did no different to anyone in any government of any persuasion, yet he is impeached?

 

If you can't see this as the junta and its backers continuing the witch hunt against the Shins, then your blinkers must be more opaque than I first thought.

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, jamesbrock said:

 

And your point? Other than the tiresome and utterly predictable 'but, but, Thaksin!'?

 

If you're saying 'yes, Prayuth did handpick his entire government, but but Thaksin handpicked Yingluck's entire government so there' - then you've pretty much made my point for me.

 

 

 

Of course I do - and that's exactly the point. This guy did no different to anyone in any government of any persuasion, yet he is impeached?

 

If you can't see this as the junta and its backers continuing the witch hunt against the Shins, then your blinkers must be more opaque than I first thought.

 

The one thing that's more tiresome than the "but, but, Thaksin" is those who feel the need to continually quote it as if it somehow legitimizes a crook on the run regularly shuffling the cabinet of his sister's "government" so all his mates get a turn at the trough. Was it 7 or 8 shuffles in less than 3 years? And all handpicked high performers with expert knowledge. BS.

 

There are ways of doing things here. Step outside what's allowed and you get trodden on. Especially once your mates get booted out and new regimes gets it's magnifying glass out.

 

 

[jamesbrock]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

The one thing that's more tiresome than the "but, but, Thaksin" is those who feel the need to continually quote it as if it somehow legitimizes a crook on the run regularly shuffling the cabinet of his sister's "government" so all his mates get a turn at the trough. Was it 7 or 8 shuffles in less than 3 years? And all handpicked high performers with expert knowledge. BS.

 

There are ways of doing things here. Step outside what's allowed and you get trodden on. Especially once your mates get booted out and new regimes gets it's magnifying glass out.

 

I really don't see any people at all trying to legitimise the crook on the run.

 

For most of us foreigners the Thaksin era is over, and the vast majority of us are quite happy that it is. But the sad truth is, while we've moved on to rightfully criticising the current illegitimate government, a small number of people simply can not let it go. It's quite sad, actually, that, for whatever reason, they can't compute that criticising the current junta does not correlate to supporting the Shincrims. They keep giving credence to this false dichotomy that if one is against the junta, then one must be for the others.

 

There is barely a day goes by that this junta does not bring derision upon itself, and each time it does a sad few feel the need to remind us, again, that the Shincrims were just as bad, if not worse. We get it. We know. We understand. But they're not the ones currently ruining the country - of course, they did their fear share of ruination, but they're not in power any more. These persistent, relentless, utterly pointless comparisons with the Shincrims each and every time someone dares criticise the junta are tiresome and completely worthy of derision themselves.

 

Getting back on topic, your last sentence basically agrees that this impeachment ACM Sukamphol is just the way it's done here once one's mates get booted out. This does not make it any less hypocritical, or any less of a witch hunt.

[candide]

3 hours ago, halloween said:

 

What's worse than handpicking your entire government is letting your fugitive criminal brother do it.

You do realise that government ministers are not necessarily elected, and those that are usually come from the crony list method?

Well, what's worse than handpicking the entire government is also handpicking  the NLA,  the NRSA, the CDC, etc... (plus to a large extent the so-called independent organisations)

[lvr181]

Let it go folks - there is no cronyism or corruption here! 

[halloween]

6 hours ago, jamesbrock said:

 

And your point? Other than the tiresome and utterly predictable 'but, but, Thaksin!'?

 

If you're saying 'yes, Prayuth did handpick his entire government, but but Thaksin handpicked Yingluck's entire government so there' - then you've pretty much made my point for me.

 

 

 

Of course I do - and that's exactly the point. This guy did no different to anyone in any government of any persuasion, yet he is impeached?

 

If you can't see this as the junta and its backers continuing the witch hunt against the Shins, then your blinkers must be more opaque than I first thought.

I was just wondering why you bothered to mention handpicking your entire government , as if it was at all unusual. Some of us think that allowing a criminal fugitive to select ministers is unusual, even if he is paying them himself.

It seems you don't understand the case, or that Public Service appointments are not at the whim of the government of the day.

[Chris Lawrence]

So this guy is sent packing; what happened to the guy who employed his wife and son in Government? his only crime may be that he was not thinking the right way.