Yingluck verdict tipped to have lasting impact

[webfact]

Yingluck verdict tipped to have lasting impact

By WASAMON AUDJARINT, 
JAKRAWAN SALAYTOO, 
WICHIT CHAITRONG 
THE NATION

 

 

Country braced for historic verdict against former PM.

BANGKOK: -- WHILE THE political scene after the upcoming court judgement in the case against former PM Yingluck Shinawatra may not be suddenly affected due to suppression by the junta, the verdict itself could be a reminder to future governments to not “cross the line”, say political figures and observers.

 

The country is anxiously holding its breath to see if chaos arises after the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders delivers its verdict on Yingluck in the rice-pledging scheme on Friday. 

 

Pheu Thai Party former minister Chaturon Chaisang said it was hard to comment on the case since legal processes against Yingluck had not strictly followed the rule of law. 

 

The proceedings had contained many “irregularities” due to the junta’s Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha’s direct order to particularly scrutinise the damage caused by the rice-pledging scheme and add evidence after the case had started, he said.

 

Whatever the ruling, he said it should not politically affect Yingluck and Pheu Thai any further, adding: “We have already been curbed in the political arena by existing laws, in line with the will of the powers-that-be.”

 

A former Democrat Party MP, Warong Dechgitvigrom, a key critic of Yingluck’s project, said he was optimistic about the ruling, saying it should help create more awareness among future governments on the consequences of corrupt actions.

 

“Pheu Thai will portray itself as a victim as always,” Warong said. “It’s not wrong to help the poor but it is wrong to seek an advantage from policymaking. Any government, including that of the Democrat Party, has to be subjected to scrutiny.”

 

A key figure in the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, Weng Tochirakarn, said Yingluck’s case could discourage future governments from coming up with new policies, fearing that they could break law in the process.

 

What has happened to Yingluck was one example of bureaucracy usurping the role of the judiciary and politicians, Weng said. 

 

“Yingluck declared the rice-pledging scheme in Parliament, followed it and did not touch a baht involved in the case, yet she has become a defendant,” he added.

 

People’s Democratic Reform Foundation President Suthep Thaugsuban, while choosing not to hypothesis about future scenarios, insisted that he believed in the standards of justice in Thai courts.

 

Satithorn Thananithichot, a researcher in politics at the King Prajadhipok's Institute, believed the ruling should not affect the opinions of “political fans”. What mattered instead, said Satithorn, was how people not usually interested in politics viewed it.

 

“If the ruling is negative, an affected political party may use it to gain legitimacy and draw attention to itself,” Satithorn said. “But if the ruling comes out clear and fair enough, any ripple should be automatically settled.”

 

Independent academic Sirote Klampai-boon said he feared the legal case against Yingluck could create a precedent for politics and the judiciary in the future.

 

The prosecutors’ reasoning that the rice-pledging scheme lacked the support of academics or the involvement of the constitutionally independent auditor could indicate some “political irregularities” in the preparation and management of the case, Sirote said. “If this should become a legal standard, damage will be done to the judicial process. 

 

“Meanwhile, if this standardises future politics, damage will fall upon our society,” Sirote said.

 

Super Poll results released yesterday showed that most people did not expect the ruling to improve the ailing political scene.

 

Of 1,309 people questioned nationwide from August 11-18, 49 per cent said post-ruling politics were likely to remain as bad, 54 per cent were concerned about possible upcoming conflicts, and 79 per cent said that the current authorities should take action to ensure public order.

 

However, business leaders did not appear to be as worried about the impact of the court verdict. 

 

Kalin Sarasin, chairman of the Board of Trade of Thailand and Thai Chamber of Commerce, said the private sector had confidence in the outlook for the economy as the government had laid out a strategic development plan and many reform committees had been recently created to carry out reforms.

 

Stanley Kang, chairman of the Joint Foreign Chambers of Commerce in Thailand, said the public may be worried about conflict arising from the court verdict but such political events would not have much effect on the economy. Politics and the economy do not correlate strongly with each other, he said. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30324381

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-08-21

[candide]

9 minutes ago, webfact said:

 

Yingluck verdict tipped to have lasting impact

By WASAMON AUDJARINT, 
JAKRAWAN SALAYTOO, 
WICHIT CHAITRONG 
THE NATION

 

 

Country braced for historic verdict against former PM.

BANGKOK: -- WHILE THE political scene after the upcoming court judgement in the case against former PM Yingluck Shinawatra may not be suddenly affected due to suppression by the junta, the verdict itself could be a reminder to future governments to not “cross the line”, say political figures and observers.

 

The country is anxiously holding its breath to see if chaos arises after the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders delivers its verdict on Yingluck in the rice-pledging scheme on Friday. 

 

Pheu Thai Party former minister Chaturon Chaisang said it was hard to comment on the case since legal processes against Yingluck had not strictly followed the rule of law. 

 

The proceedings had contained many “irregularities” due to the junta’s Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha’s direct order to particularly scrutinise the damage caused by the rice-pledging scheme and add evidence after the case had started, he said.

 

Whatever the ruling, he said it should not politically affect Yingluck and Pheu Thai any further, adding: “We have already been curbed in the political arena by existing laws, in line with the will of the powers-that-be.”

 

A former Democrat Party MP, Warong Dechgitvigrom, a key critic of Yingluck’s project, said he was optimistic about the ruling, saying it should help create more awareness among future governments on the consequences of corrupt actions.

 

“Pheu Thai will portray itself as a victim as always,” Warong said. “It’s not wrong to help the poor but it is wrong to seek an advantage from policymaking. Any government, including that of the Democrat Party, has to be subjected to scrutiny.”

 

A key figure in the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, Weng Tochirakarn, said Yingluck’s case could discourage future governments from coming up with new policies, fearing that they could break law in the process.

 

What has happened to Yingluck was one example of bureaucracy usurping the role of the judiciary and politicians, Weng said. 

 

“Yingluck declared the rice-pledging scheme in Parliament, followed it and did not touch a baht involved in the case, yet she has become a defendant,” he added.

 

People’s Democratic Reform Foundation President Suthep Thaugsuban, while choosing not to hypothesis about future scenarios, insisted that he believed in the standards of justice in Thai courts.

 

"People’s Democratic Reform Foundation President Suthep Thaugsuban, while choosing not to hypothesis about future scenarios, insisted that he believed in the standards of justice in Thai courts",

 

No additionnal comment is needed! 

[Samui Bodoh]

33 minutes ago, webfact said:

WHILE THE political scene after the upcoming court judgement in the case against former PM Yingluck Shinawatra may not be suddenly affected due to suppression by the junta, the verdict itself could be a reminder to future governments to not “cross the line”, say political figures and observers.

 

This raises the interesting question of the Junta's "line". Is every future government subject to the military having a veto over policies? If so, and it seems to be so, what is the value of a vote?

 

36 minutes ago, webfact said:

The proceedings had contained many “irregularities” due to the junta’s Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha’s direct order to particularly scrutinise the damage caused by the rice-pledging scheme and add evidence after the case had started

 

Can this be a fair verdict when the military leader of the country drives the prosecution? One has to wonder if justice is blind or influenced.

 

38 minutes ago, webfact said:

Any government, including that of the Democrat Party, has to be subjected to scrutiny.”

 

Is that not the purpose of an election?

 

39 minutes ago, webfact said:

“Meanwhile, if this standardises future politics, damage will fall upon our society,”

 

Damage has already fallen on Thai society, and I fear that the damage will continue and grow. One only needs to examine the relative stats on economic growth in the region.

 

Thailand should be very, very careful. It can return to a democratic path or suffer the consequences felt in neighbouring Burma.

 

Cheers?

[ezzra]

42 minutes ago, webfact said:

the verdict itself could be a reminder to future governments to not “cross the line”, say political figures and observers.

It's sad and pity at the same time that government officials sworn to upheld thier

positions and duty with due care and honesty have to be reminded of the dier

acquaintances should they be caught with their hands in the cookie jars or fall 

foul of their duties to properly and diligently mange the country....

[z42]

As Candide said in the above post, the fact Suthep who is a total crook believes so highly in the righteous judgements of Thai courts is frankly absurd. I personally believe that YS is guilty of negligence (knowingly or unknowlingly), and I also believe that she should have some recourse for that as I have paid taxes in this country, and I do feel some accountability is needed for what was a corruption riddled scheme.

I have no sympathy for YS, not 1 iota, I also hold the coupmakers and utterly rotten ex politicians and army brass in complete contempt for their bleating of the law, order, and accountability rhetoric.. All have amassed insane wealth that would never stand up to proper scrutiny.. Bottom line, the only good people in this whole thing are the hard working folks whose tax money has been squandered and robbed. And I do think the way the junta handles the crowds come verdict time will come back to bite them later

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

the verdict itself could be a reminder to future governments to not “cross the line”, say political figures and observers.

Yeah, right, sure it will...

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

A key figure in the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, Weng Tochirakarn, said Yingluck’s case could discourage future governments from coming up with new policies, fearing that they could break law in the process.

Good. 

Government policies should follow the law, not the whims of whoever is pulling the strings of the puppets masquerading as prime minister. 

 

Mind understanding the need to follow the law and rules of good governance is something the UDD have always struggled with. 

Edited August 21, 2017 by Bluespunk

[George Bowman]

[klauskunkel]

4 hours ago, candide said:

Suthep Thaugsuban insisted that he believed in the standards of justice in Thai courts.

 

I also believe firmly in the standards of justice, multiple standards

[Jimbo2014]

Dont cross the line... into democracy :D

[leeneeds]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Yingluck declared the rice-pledging scheme in Parliament, followed it and did not touch a baht involved in the case, yet she has become a defendant,” he added.

All I can say is accountability 

[BangkokReady]

4 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Is that not the purpose of an election?

The purpose of an election is to allow the people of a country to choose who rules over them. 

 

Scrutiny comes from the institutions put in place to watch over the elected government.

 

It would be terribly inefficient to have to wait for an election to come around just to keep politicians from behaving badly. Especially since, as we have seen, elections in no way guarantee that wrong doers are held accountable.

 

If, for example, the government has paid enough people to vote them in no matter how they behave, then elections become completely redundant as a way of keeping politicians in line. 

[AGareth2]

I hope the determinations  made by the judges are translated into English so that I may understand their rulings

[Eric Loh]

58 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

If, for example, the government has paid enough people to vote them in no matter how they behave, then elections become completely redundant as a way of keeping politicians in line. 

If only elections are all about paying enough people, then the royalist back political parties with their deep pockets would have won every elections easily and there are no need for coups.  

[robblok]

55 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

I hope the determinations  made by the judges are translated into English so that I may understand their rulings

 

Besides the verdict having to be translated well, you would also need to have sufficient THAI legal background. So I doubt it would be an easy thing to do. It would be an interesting read, but I doubt translating it would be high on the list o fthings to do.

[robblok]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

The purpose of an election is to allow the people of a country to choose who rules over them. 

 

Scrutiny comes from the institutions put in place to watch over the elected government.

 

It would be terribly inefficient to have to wait for an election to come around just to keep politicians from behaving badly. Especially since, as we have seen, elections in no way guarantee that wrong doers are held accountable.

 

If, for example, the government has paid enough people to vote them in no matter how they behave, then elections become completely redundant as a way of keeping politicians in line. 

Great post, the red supporters here always seem to think that voting gives politicians all rights and checks and balances are not important. Accountable is a word they also prefer not to use. 

[Srikcir]

42 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

Besides the verdict having to be translated well, you would also need to have sufficient THAI legal background. So I doubt it would be an easy thing to do. It would be an interesting read, but I doubt translating it would be high on the list of things to do.

Unofficial English translations of the new Constitution were done by the The Thailand Office of the Council of State and by a collaboration of the International IDEA (Australia), International Commission of Jurists (Thailand) and the Office of the United Nations Resident Coordinator in Thailand (Thailand). Given the political importance of the court's ruling on Yingluck's case, hopefully they will again provide translations.

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Unofficial English translations of the new Constitution were done by the The Thailand Office of the Council of State and by a collaboration of the International IDEA (Australia), International Commission of Jurists (Thailand) and the Office of the United Nations Resident Coordinator in Thailand (Thailand). Given the political importance of the court's ruling on Yingluck's case, hopefully they will again provide translations.

I take it these guys are unbias, would be a nice read. Though i figure it could be many many pages.

[Srikcir]

15 minutes ago, robblok said:

Though i figure it could be many many pages.

Probably depend on the verdict.

[MrJohnson]

There will be no chaos until after October. After that, all bets are off.

 

[AGareth2]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

you would also need to have sufficient THAI legal background.

thanks

I am a shareholder in a Thai Law firm

[Zack61]

Thai politicians hard at work. 

 

 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, AGareth2 said:

thanks

I am a shareholder in a Thai Law firm

Then that part is covered if its about criminal law.

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

The government is accountable to the electorate which has the choice to remove the elected government.

 

It's how modern democracy works. The concept is incredibly simple, and if allowed to take its course it works.

 

Of course there are too many corrupt vested interests in Thailand to allow democracy to take its course, and they never have allowed it, which is why we have only ever had one elected government that has fulfilled its term (Thaksin 2001-05) and only one re-election of an elected government to office (again Thaksin in a landslide 2005). The trouble started shortly after as the old guard saw this particular democracy wasn't working for them.

 

We have had 22 coups, some successful in overthrowing the previous government or regime, but you know what? 

 

NONE OF THEM WORKED! 

 

If they had we wouldn't be having the same old problems again and again. 

 

It isn't democracy that is the problem and even a blind man can see that. 

The government is accountable to the laws and regulations of a country too.. That is what you red lot love to forget. You forgot it again. They are NOT only accountable to the electorate. 

[Srikcir]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

The government is accountable to the laws and regulations of a country too.

Well, except for the Prayut regime and all previous coup-led governments.

Coups who replaced the constitution with their own self-serving constitutions - 2017 Constitution being no exception.

Military coup leadership who still hold extra-constitutionality despite the endorsement of new constitutions and promulgation of laws that represent the rule of law only for the polity.

 

[stephen tracy]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

Great post, the red supporters here always seem to think that voting gives politicians all rights and checks and balances are not important. Accountable is a word they also prefer not to use. 

Most of us that criticize the junta are not red-shirt supporters (once again, I know how hard this is for you to understand), and we would like to see accountability applied to all. not just one side of the "political" divide.  Accountability regarding the junta is not something the junta-huggers wish to discuss or even acknowledge. And I am still waiting for one of them to finally answer my question regarding Prayut's wealth... I have posed it so many time I've lost track, and not once have any of them responded. 

[stephen tracy]

26 minutes ago, robblok said:

The government is accountable to the laws and regulations of a country too.. That is what you red lot love to forget. You forgot it again. They are NOT only accountable to the electorate. 

Once again the brain goes tilt.  Simply cannot process the concept that a junta critic is not a red-shirt supporter.  Amazing!

[candide]

5 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

The purpose of an election is to allow the people of a country to choose who rules over them. 

 

Scrutiny comes from the institutions put in place to watch over the elected government.

 

It would be terribly inefficient to have to wait for an election to come around just to keep politicians from behaving badly. Especially since, as we have seen, elections in no way guarantee that wrong doers are held accountable.

 

If, for example, the government has paid enough people to vote them in no matter how they behave, then elections become completely redundant as a way of keeping politicians in line. 

If it is the role of "insitutions" to watch over policy choices made by governments, can you give us a few examples (in Thailand or elsewhere) of PMs or Presidents convicted for implementing policies that have been voted in Parliament, even in the case of innefective or loss-making policies?

[BangkokReady]

32 minutes ago, candide said:

If it is the role of "insitutions" to watch over policy choices made by governments, can you give us a few examples (in Thailand or elsewhere) of PMs or Presidents convicted for implementing policies that have been voted in Parliament, even in the case of innefective or loss-making policies?

I'm not sure that anyone has ever done something as immoral and destructive as the rice scheme without being part of a military dictatorship (and therefore beyond reprisal). Herein lies the Shinawatras' mistake. They mistook purchased votes for invulnerability.

 

This is quite the test case.

[BangkokReady]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

The government is accountable to the laws and regulations of a country too.

This is why Thaksin felt the need to change legislation to make it easier for his corruption to go unchecked.