Pheu Thai questions impartiality of draft bill on court procedures against politicians in criminal cases

[webfact]

Pheu Thai questions impartiality of draft bill on court procedures against politicians in criminal cases

By The Nation

 

BANGKOK: -- The Pheu Thai Party on Tuesday issued a statement calling for the review and revision of the new draft bill on court procedures against politicians in criminal cases, arguing that the draft law is not impartial.

The party threatened to bring the issue to the attention of international human-rights organisations as well as to the prime minister, asking him to forward the bill to the Constitutional Court to look into its constitutionality.

 

The party raised three points that it objects to, the first being that the draft law’s provision for a court proceeding without defendants being present went against a universal principle concerning fundamental human rights, as it was deemed to violate defendants’ right for justice. 

 

Second, Pheu Thai said in its statement, the wavier of the statute of limitations under this law would contradict a conventional principle of justice.

 

It would also allow partiality in case proceedings and enforcement, as witnesses or evidence could be incomplete over time and become selective if no statute of limitations were set, the party said.

 

Lastly, the new law as drafted would be applied retroactively, and its enactment would therefore have retroactive effects on those still defending cases in court. 

 

This, the party argued, would violate the rule of law.

 

The new draft bill on court procedures against political office holders was passed last week by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) despite concerns over emerging challenges to the rule of law and human rights.

 

NLA lawmakers have defended the bill’s content, saying it was appropriate, considering changes and the complexity of corruption that has developed over time. 

 

They claim that they have addressed a sufficient degree of rights protection for political office holders to defend themselves via their lawyers if they are absent from court. 

 

The waiver of the statute of limitations, meanwhile, has been introduced to give fair treatment to the public as well as to the state, both of which face losses resulting from corruption, lawmakers also argue. 

 

Moreover, they reason, the provision for court proceedings to be applied retroactively could mean that more cases continue to the end of the judicial process, especially those that are put on hold.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30321115

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-07-19

[yellowboat]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Lastly, the new law as drafted would be applied retroactively, and its enactment would therefore have retroactive effects on those still defending cases in court. 

 

This, the party argued, would violate the rule of law.

It would be nice to see due process and rule of law in Thailand one day.  But that would entail it being applied equally to everyone.  That will never happen. 

[halloween]

Of course they do. Thaksin wouldn't like it.

[seajae]

hahahaha, these laws apply to every politician not just them but they are the ones that do most of the corrupt practices  so of course they are against it. The fact that their leader and his family would be wiped out by the laws doesnt help, there goes his amnesty. It is a joke that people can run away to another country to avoid facing the law then expect to come back a free person after a set amount of time, if you do the crime you have to do the time in jail like everyone else. These proposals are good for the country as they will make politicians think a lot more before trying to rip the country off like they have in the past, it shows they are not a protected species. 

[yellowboat]

7 minutes ago, halloween said:

Of course they do. Thaksin wouldn't like it.

We all know you are being facetious, but it sounds good coming from you anyway. 

[halloween]

1 minute ago, yellowboat said:

We all know you are being facetious, but it sounds good coming from you anyway. 

Facetious, far from it. PTP will vote unanimously (with a rare abstention) for any law that benefits the Shinawatra family, and object strenuously and diligently for any law that disadvantages them.

Policy is set by the man that owns the party (Thaksin thinks, PTP acts), a criminal who wouldn't recognise altruism if it bit him. 

After all, what is the point of paying billions to own a political party if there is no return from your investment?

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

Facetious, far from it. PTP will vote unanimously (with a rare abstention) for any law that benefits the Shinawatra family, and object strenuously and diligently for any law that disadvantages them.

Policy is set by the man that owns the party (Thaksin thinks, PTP acts), a criminal who wouldn't recognise altruism if it bit him. 

After all, what is the point of paying billions to own a political party if there is no return from your investment?

What about sharing some of the laws that PTP voted unanimously that benefit them only. 

[halloween]

Just now, Eric Loh said:

What about sharing some of the laws that PTP voted unanimously that benefit them only. 

Thaksin's amnesty, rejected unanimously by the senate and very strongly by the voters.

Now why don't you give me one law disadvantaging the Shinawatras, either passed by them or not opposed.

[JAG]

Thaksin's amnesty, rejected unanimously by the senate and very strongly by the voters.
Now why don't you give me one law disadvantaging the Shinawatras, either passed by them or not opposed.

Umh, in which election were the voters allowed to express their opposition to the proposed amnesty for Thaksin?
As I seem to recall the election which was called (amongst other reasons) to gauge public opinion on the proposed amnesty was prevented by a mob calling for a military coup, and who eventually got one...

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, JAG said:

Umh, in which election were the voters allowed to express their opposition to the proposed amnesty for Thaksin?
As I seem to recall the election which was called (amongst other reasons) to gauge public opinion on the proposed amnesty was prevented by a mob calling for a military coup, and who eventually got one...

Do you need an election to express your disapproval? Even the UDD voiced disapproval, though of course the MP members voted for it with one abstention. somebody was at pains to point out he wouldn't lose his regular bribe because of it.

Now instead of nitpicking, do you deny PTP is a Thaksin owned vehicle to promote and protect his interests? Even Eric isn't THAT mendacious.

[Pridilives]

27 minutes ago, halloween said:

Thaksin's amnesty, rejected unanimously by the senate and very strongly by the voters.

Now why don't you give me one law disadvantaging the Shinawatras, either passed by them or not opposed.

555556 you make mistake. First say ptp always unanimous for Thaksin then say senate unanimous reject amnesty bill. You forget ptp have some elect senator. Just have senate appoint and half elect. This mean ptp senator vote against amnesty. You wrong!

[halloween]

13 minutes ago, Pridilives said:

555556 you make mistake. First say ptp always unanimous for Thaksin then say senate unanimous reject amnesty bill. You forget ptp have some elect senator. Just have senate appoint and half elect. This mean ptp senator vote against amnesty. You wrong!

555555 you wrong. No senators were members of PTP.

" Despite the requirement to be non-partisan, several new Senators are informally linked to different political camps. "  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Senate_election,_2014

[Cadbury]

12 minutes ago, Pridilives said:

555556 you make mistake. First say ptp always unanimous for Thaksin then say senate unanimous reject amnesty bill. You forget ptp have some elect senator. Just have senate appoint and half elect. This mean ptp senator vote against amnesty. You wrong!

Sorry! Halloween never wrong. Always right.

[JAG]

Do you need an election to express your disapproval? Even the UDD voiced disapproval, though of course the MP members voted for it with one abstention. somebody was at pains to point out he wouldn't lose his regular bribe because of it.
Now instead of nitpicking, do you deny PTP is a Thaksin owned vehicle to promote and protect his interests? Even Eric isn't THAT mendacious.

Yes, if you claim that "the voters strongly oppose" then it follows that was demonstrated by voting on the matter.

The only chance the voters had to demonstrate their opposition was prevented.

That is a simple fact. To state that fact is neither mendacious nor nitpicking.

However to state that they opposed it, whilst failing to recognise that they were not allowed, and are still not allowed to express an opinion on the matter is an unverifiable claim. Perhaps even bullshit?

[halloween]

1 minute ago, JAG said:

 

Yes, if you claim that "the voters strongly oppose" then it follows that was demonstrated by voting on the matter.

The only chance the voters had to demonstrate their opposition was prevented.

That is a simple fact. To state that fact is neither mendacious nor nitpicking.

However to state that they opposed it, whilst failing to recognise that they were not allowed, and are still not allowed to express an opinion on the matter is an unverifiable claim. Perhaps even bullshit?

I guess I am guilty of assuming the thousands of Thai citizens that expressed their disapproval by coming on to the streets and other forms of protest were in fact "voters".  Are you claiming that the move was popular?

And back on topic, do you deny PTP is a Thaksin owned vehicle to promote and protect his interests?  Or are you avoiding that?

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

Thaksin's amnesty, rejected unanimously by the senate and very strongly by the voters.

Now why don't you give me one law disadvantaging the Shinawatras, either passed by them or not opposed.

The amnesty was a bill not law that was withdrew. Strongly opposed by many including UDD.

 

Any more examples from you?  

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post and a reply have been removed. 

[Pridilives]

33 minutes ago, halloween said:

555555 you wrong. No senators were members of PTP.

" Despite the requirement to be non-partisan, several new Senators are informally linked to different political camps. "  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Senate_election,_2014

555555

Matichon has a breakdown for the North and you can clearly see candidates with Puea Thai or Thai Rak Thai links winning although obviously in the South those candidates with close ties to the Democrats won; but overall analysis so far is that the government did quite well for the Senate election with Nation Group putting the government (this would include coalition partners) getting 40 seats, opposition 16, and 21 being independent as per below graphic:

[Pridilives]

24 minutes ago, halloween said:

I guess I am guilty of assuming the thousands of Thai citizens that expressed their disapproval by coming on to the streets and other forms of protest were in fact "voters".  Are you claiming that the move was popular?

And back on topic, do you deny PTP is a Thaksin owned vehicle to promote and protect his interests?  Or are you avoiding that?

Thousands Thai come streets

millions thai not come streets

easy see which side strong support

 

 

Edited July 19, 2017 by Pridilives

[JAG]

I guess I am guilty of assuming the thousands of Thai citizens that expressed their disapproval by coming on to the streets and other forms of protest were in fact "voters".  Are you claiming that the move was popular?

And back on topic, do you deny PTP is a Thaksin owned vehicle to promote and protect his interests?  Or are you avoiding that?

1. The thousands who came on to the streets were (or would have been if the election had been allowed to happen) voters. What is unknown, because the election was stopped, is how many would not have opposed it, in other words just how popular it was. I think that number would have been significantly more, but there again I may be wrong, we will never know.

 

2. The topic is Pheu Thai's claim of partiality in the proposed bill, rather than Thaksins influence over Pheu Thai, (which is undoubtedly very significant) and which you introduce at every opportunity.

 

[Pridilives]

6 minutes ago, JAG said:

1. The thousands who came on to the streets were (or would have been if the election had been allowed to happen) voters. What is unknown, because the election was stopped, is how many would not have opposed it, in other words just how popular it was. I think that number would have been significantly more, but there again I may be wrong, we will never know.

 

2. The topic is Pheu Thai's claim of partiality in the proposed bill, rather than Thaksins influence over Pheu Thai, (which is undoubtedly very significant) and which you introduce at every opportunity.

 

Very good talk mr jag!

 

retroactively law should be illegal

different law for different people should be illegal

 

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, Pridilives said:

Very good talk mr jag!

 

retroactively law should be illegal

different law for different people should be illegal

 

 

And owning a political party, appointing relatives to be PM's, joining cabinet meetings by phone, and having off shore regular meetings with ministers and MP's should be illegal for convicted criminals on the run from a prison sentence and several more serious charges awaiting their appearance in court.

 

Unless you believe in one law for all, but some people above that law perhaps?

[Baerboxer]

6 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

The amnesty was a bill not law that was withdrew. Strongly opposed by many including UDD.

 

Any more examples from you?  

 

Wrong Eric. The contentious version of the Amnesty Bill, the one that benefited Thaksin was never withdrawn. Yingluck claimed all the versions of the bill, and there were several had been withdrawn. Another little white lie. The Thaksin whitewash version, voted against by the senate, would have returned to the lower PTP majority house, and then could've been voted into law without the senate.

 

TVF had threads on it if you want to read what actually happened.

 

Perhaps you could confirm your links to the opposition of the UDD to that version?

[Pridilives]

18 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Wrong Eric. The contentious version of the Amnesty Bill, the one that benefited Thaksin was never withdrawn. Yingluck claimed all the versions of the bill, and there were several had been withdrawn. Another little white lie. The Thaksin whitewash version, voted against by the senate, would have returned to the lower PTP majority house, and then could've been voted into law without the senate.

 

TVF had threads on it if you want to read what actually happened.

 

Perhaps you could confirm your links to the opposition of the UDD to that version?

So easy for find fact so why put lie. I really not understand why you do it.

 

why not choose to be honest person.

 

https://www.pressreader.com/thailand/bangkok-post/20131104/281552288613829

 

 

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/876335?quicktabs_today_popular_most_shared=0

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2017 by Pridilives

[Pridilives]

26 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

And owning a political party, appointing relatives to be PM's, joining cabinet meetings by phone, and having off shore regular meetings with ministers and MP's should be illegal for convicted criminals on the run from a prison sentence and several more serious charges awaiting their appearance in court.

 

Unless you believe in one law for all, but some people above that law perhaps?

You have not healthy obsession with someone!!!