Jump to content

Pheu Thai party demands review of assets seizure order


webfact

Recommended Posts

Pheu Thai party demands review of assets seizure order

 

IMG_4865-wpcf_728x410.jpg

 

BANGKOK: - The Pheu Thai party voiced its objection against the use of Section 44 of the interim constitution to empower the Legal Execution Department to proceed with seizing the assets of those responsible for the rice pledging scheme in order to demand compensation for the loss from the scheme.

 

In a statement issued on Sunday, the party also demanded that the government reviews its decision to demand the compensation, claiming that the use of Section 44 defies the spirit of the constitution.

 

The issuance of the statement came after the civil liability committee of the Finance Ministry decided on Friday to demand 35.7 billion baht in compensation from former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra for her failure to oversee proper management of the rice pledging scheme for losses incurred from two main rice crops – 2555/56 and 2556/57 crops.

 

Earlier, former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyaphirom, former deputy commerce minister Poom Saraphol, Boonsong’s former secretary Veeravuth Watchanapukka and three former commerce officials were ordered to pay a combined total of 20 billion baht in compensation for the loss to the state from the fake government-to-government rice deals.

 

The Pheu Thai party alleged in its statement that the government and head of the National Council for Peace and Order, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha, were intent to find fault with Ms Yingluck and the others responsible for the rice pledging scheme in total disregard of legal procedure as evident from the remarks made by the prime minister and the deputy prime minister concerned.

 

Full story: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/pheu-thai-party-demands-review-assets-seizure-order/

 
thaipbs_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2016-09-26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"The Pheu Thai party alleged in its statement that the government and head of the National Council for Peace and Order, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha, were intent to find fault with Ms Yingluck and the others responsible for the rice pledging scheme in total disregard of legal procedure as evident from the remarks made by the prime minister and the deputy prime minister concerned."

 

I tend to disbelieve politicians as a matter of principle, but I suspect the "intent to find fault", no matter what the facts are, is true in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The three were guilty of massive corruption while members of the ruling government.  Pay up.

Guilty or not guilty that decision and any amount of compensation should be decided by a judicial court. A judicial court is not PM Prayuth and his used and abused Section 44. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Brer Fox said:

Guilty or not guilty that decision and any amount of compensation should be decided by a judicial court. A judicial court is not PM Prayuth and his used and abused Section 44. 

Actually the blanket amnesty given to himself and Article 44 exonerated him of any wrong doing.  He can use the little 44 thingy to clear himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Brer Fox said:

Guilty or not guilty that decision and any amount of compensation should be decided by a judicial court. A judicial court is not PM Prayuth and his used and abused Section 44. 

Agreed!  Sadly, the justice system here is terrible.  And corrupt.  This case would be like many others and go on for 20 years.  Reform of the judiciary here is desperately needed.  Sadly, those in power don't want to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it any surprise that brother Thaksin doesn't like it? or that his mealy-mouthed puppets issue a claim of persecution?

 

"intent to find fault"? How do your ignore the elephant in the corner? Should they say it was only a few hundred billion baht lost to corruption, negligence and incompetence, we'll ignore it this time but don't do it again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brer Fox said:

Guilty or not guilty that decision and any amount of compensation should be decided by a judicial court. A judicial court is not PM Prayuth and his used and abused Section 44. 

 

True - but the usual attempts at filibustering and talking the accused out of the statute of limitations ain't gonna work this time. The accused will have, should they be found guilty, ample time to appeal, and then appeal again to the supreme court. This is just to stop the misuse of the statute of limitations, a favorite trick of the hiso elite accused of anything.

Now, pity this is not being applied in other cases too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, trogers said:

I suspect the use of Section 44 in this case is to prevent the appearance of mysterious biscuit tins...which came to like in a high profile case of the Pheu Thai puppet master.

 

Be fair Trogers, it was pastry boxers. 

 

Interesting that the messenger did time for it but not the boss. As per usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

True - but the usual attempts at filibustering and talking the accused out of the statute of limitations ain't gonna work this time. The accused will have, should they be found guilty, ample time to appeal, and then appeal again to the supreme court. This is just to stop the misuse of the statute of limitations, a favorite trick of the hiso elite accused of anything.

Now, pity this is not being applied in other cases too.

Hold on you're going to fast !

If the sort of thing your'e suggesting came to pass LoS would be in danger of having something close to being a fair and equal justice system and that would never do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

True - but the usual attempts at filibustering and talking the accused out of the statute of limitations ain't gonna work this time. The accused will have, should they be found guilty, ample time to appeal, and then appeal again to the supreme court. This is just to stop the misuse of the statute of limitations, a favorite trick of the hiso elite accused of anything.

Now, pity this is not being applied in other cases too.

Your points are well taken and understood. So the conclusion is that as far as justice in Thailand goes it seems like in selective instances a prejudicial injustice system is preferable to a deficient and corrupt justice system. With the benefit of a combination of the two systems PM Prayut has the privilege of dealing with his enemies all by himself while his "friends", when rarely fingered, go thorough the normal never ending court procedures and come out the other end unscathed

Anyway In the longer term it probably matters nought because after the "democratic" elections Section 44 will be rescinded (ha ha!) and judicial life will go on back to the same old rich/poor discriminatory way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Brer Fox said:

Your points are well taken and understood. So the conclusion is that as far as justice in Thailand goes it seems like in selective instances a prejudicial injustice system is preferable to a deficient and corrupt justice system. With the benefit of a combination of the two systems PM Prayut has the privilege of dealing with his enemies all by himself while his "friends", when rarely fingered, go thorough the normal never ending court procedures and come out the other end unscathed

Anyway In the longer term it probably matters nought because after the "democratic" elections Section 44 will be rescinded (ha ha!) and judicial life will go on back to the same old rich/poor discriminatory way.

 

 

A colleague in the Middle East (UAE) once remarked that the law was what the men in white said it was - referring to the locals wearing their nice white starched dishadashes and usually making things up to suit themselves as they went along. (I was working for the government).

Similar idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

True - but the usual attempts at filibustering and talking the accused out of the statute of limitations ain't gonna work this time. The accused will have, should they be found guilty, ample time to appeal, and then appeal again to the supreme court. This is just to stop the misuse of the statute of limitations, a favorite trick of the hiso elite accused of anything.

Now, pity this is not being applied in other cases too.

 

Now, pity this is not being applied in other cases too.

 

Guaranteed it will not be applied against Prayut's nephew.

 

When the NCPO corrupts the legal system in this way, they show that they are just as corrupt as PT, and that their claim to be in power to reform corruption is a complete farce.

 

But, it has always been a case of vengeance, not justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now, pity this is not being applied in other cases too.

 

Guaranteed it will not be applied against Prayut's nephew.

 

When the NCPO corrupts the legal system in this way, they show that they are just as corrupt as PT, and that their claim to be in power to reform corruption is a complete farce.

 

But, it has always been a case of vengeance, not justice.

" But, it has always been a case of vengeance, not justice."

So true. This case is just one play in a power struggle that has been going on since the bogeyman first upset the natural (Thai style) order of things.

It's hard to feel any sympathy for a group that so thoroughly effed up their mandate but to claim that the mob who took power are actually cleaning up the country is laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...