Jump to content
BANGKOK 17 August 2019 22:04
Sign in to follow this  
webfact

Rice-pledging scheme: PM Yingluck won't acknowledge charges in person

Recommended Posts

An open act of defiance to a constitutionally enabled commission. Yingluck is supposed to go there. Yingluck is supposed to answer questions. This investigation carries impeachment power. They have the power to remove her from office. But is Yingluck actually capable of answering questions ? To date, no one really knows ( though all shockingly suspect ). Yingluck is not to provide a " letter of explanation ". Does she really think this will impress the committee in any shape or form ? She is supposed to answer questions. She is the one under indictment. Others cannot speak on her behalf. Does she need the Constitutional Court to drag her to the proceeding ? ( What if she still said no ? ) She is supposed to show respect for the committee and the institution. This lawless administration has got to come to an end. They won't even show up in court. Two acts of jurisprudence defiance in one day. First Chalerm's blanket and unconstitutional disavowal of the Civil Court's ruling to forbid a violent dispersal of the protest movement. And now this. Defiance of the rule of law. Pure and simple. Impeachment seems to be a secret yearning of this administration.

When did you become an expert in Thailand's constitutional law/civil law/criminal law?

There is no legal requirement for a sitting PM to attend, nor should she. Where exactly in the applicable statutes is a sitting PM compelled to appear in person for this procedure? This is a legal issue and is best left to those qualified to respond to this type of litigation. There is no defiance of the law. Rather, you are offering your personal opinion which is not based upon the applicable law(s).

A similar situation, when the P.M. rarely is in the government sessions, when as defense minister she delegates the assistant defense minister to attend defense matters, and to cap it all on foreign visits she attends most foreign secretaries duties leaving the said minister at HOME.

Does this fact explain the reasons for not attending rather than YOUR explanation re-she doesn't have to. It is called opt out--cop out -whatever main reason when the debate is HOT or technical could it be she cannot cope with that.???

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not recommended that a PM participate in what is essentially a legal procedure. It is accepted practice for the attorney general or a representative of the AG or another designated government legal counsel to appear.

It is also very unusual for a sitting PM/President to appear in court to answer such charges. In recent times, it hasn't happened in the UK, Canada, Australia, South Korea, USA etc. One of the more recent cases in a parliamentary democracy where a charge of malfeasance was brought, was that of the disgraced Lord Black in 2001. He sued the sitting PM of Canada for abuse of power, misfeasance in public office and negligence. He also sued the Government of Canada, represented by the Attorney General of Canada, for negligent misrepresentation. The PM of Canada did not appear in court on what was a significant constitutional issue.

Did Clinton not appear in-person over the Lewinski enquiry? Did Abhisit not appear, even over recent trumped-up charges? Did Saddam not appear against his charges? Bo Xilai? Interesting use if the word 'unusual' you have, Geri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not recommended that a PM participate in what is essentially a legal procedure. It is accepted practice for the attorney general or a representative of the AG or another designated government legal counsel to appear.

It is also very unusual for a sitting PM/President to appear in court to answer such charges. In recent times, it hasn't happened in the UK, Canada, Australia, South Korea, USA etc. One of the more recent cases in a parliamentary democracy where a charge of malfeasance was brought, was that of the disgraced Lord Black in 2001. He sued the sitting PM of Canada for abuse of power, misfeasance in public office and negligence. He also sued the Government of Canada, represented by the Attorney General of Canada, for negligent misrepresentation. The PM of Canada did not appear in court on what was a significant constitutional issue.

Did Clinton not appear in-person over the Lewinski enquiry? Did Abhisit not appear, even over recent trumped-up charges? Did Saddam not appear against his charges? Bo Xilai? Interesting use if the word 'unusual' you have, Geri.

Aren't we discussing Thailand? I get your point, with integrity one has to show up, regardless of country/level of development.

Why GK tries to justify lack of responsibilty of what has been delegated to the role of (puppet) PM I don't know! Giving remote, unrelated examples from abroad...to a. take the piss? b. wind us up? c. play devil's advocate? d. troll? e. all of the above?

Every post is the same i.e. : it is ok to never show up for a single rice pledging scheme meeting, as the duty of a PM is to oversee it by being informed but not necessarily having to go in person..what the heck, you know?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not recommended that a PM participate in what is essentially a legal procedure. It is accepted practice for the attorney general or a representative of the AG or another designated government legal counsel to appear.

It is also very unusual for a sitting PM/President to appear in court to answer such charges. In recent times, it hasn't happened in the UK, Canada, Australia, South Korea, USA etc. One of the more recent cases in a parliamentary democracy where a charge of malfeasance was brought, was that of the disgraced Lord Black in 2001. He sued the sitting PM of Canada for abuse of power, misfeasance in public office and negligence. He also sued the Government of Canada, represented by the Attorney General of Canada, for negligent misrepresentation. The PM of Canada did not appear in court on what was a significant constitutional issue.

Was wondering how keen the Attorney General will be to defend her given that she has repeatedly ignored his orders to explain about her brothers illegal passport ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Thailand and she knows that only politicians with her surname are ever found guilty and sent to prison.

Yes this will tend to happen in many countries when the Prime Minister sells a large, prime piece of Crown Property in the capital city to his wife in a rigged auction at a price significantly below market valuations. Of course in the case involving her brother the prision aspect never eventuated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The caretaker P.M. isn't one to do herself any favours , but not fronting the court you immediately get the impression Guilty, or I thumb my nose at anyone who questions, the Caretaker PM needs to understand that just like her brother she is only a number, shortly that number could be up.bah.gif

Not turning up in person will go against her as it implies guilt.

A coward to the end, at least she will be gone soon and Thailand can return to some semblance of normality!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that she might have to go to Singapore during that time for a medical check up.

What for, non-functioning brain activity?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that she might have to go to Singapore during that time for a medical check up.

What for, non-functioning brain activity?

SCANdinavia would be appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An open act of defiance to a constitutionally enabled commission. Yingluck is supposed to go there. Yingluck is supposed to answer questions. This investigation carries impeachment power. They have the power to remove her from office. But is Yingluck actually capable of answering questions ? To date, no one really knows ( though all shockingly suspect ). Yingluck is not to provide a " letter of explanation ". Does she really think this will impress the committee in any shape or form ? She is supposed to answer questions. She is the one under indictment. Others cannot speak on her behalf. Does she need the Constitutional Court to drag her to the proceeding ? ( What if she still said no ? ) She is supposed to show respect for the committee and the institution. This lawless administration has got to come to an end. They won't even show up in court. Two acts of jurisprudence defiance in one day. First Chalerm's blanket and unconstitutional disavowal of the Civil Court's ruling to forbid a violent dispersal of the protest movement. And now this. Defiance of the rule of law. Pure and simple. Impeachment seems to be a secret yearning of this administration.

When did you become an expert in Thailand's constitutional law/civil law/criminal law?

There is no legal requirement for a sitting PM to attend, nor should she. Where exactly in the applicable statutes is a sitting PM compelled to appear in person for this procedure? This is a legal issue and is best left to those qualified to respond to this type of litigation. There is no defiance of the law. Rather, you are offering your personal opinion which is not based upon the applicable law(s).

A similar situation, when the P.M. rarely is in the government sessions, when as defense minister she delegates the assistant defense minister to attend defense matters, and to cap it all on foreign visits she attends most foreign secretaries duties leaving the said minister at HOME.

Does this fact explain the reasons for not attending rather than YOUR explanation re-she doesn't have to. It is called opt out--cop out -whatever main reason when the debate is HOT or technical could it be she cannot cope with that.???

I will dumb it down for you. The claim was made that the acting PM has defied a law by not appearing at a judicial process. There is no defiance because there is no law that compels an appearance.

It would be irresponsible for a sitting PM to appear at a politically charged hearing instead of designating a competent legal professional to appear and to provide the required response. To top it off, with the current threat by the PDRC that it intends to follow the PM wherever she goes, her presence at a court could put people's life and safety at risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

This woman is supposed to lead the country and fails at every turn.

She chairs committees she never attends, has no time to attend the House, ignores the Ombudsman and court decisions that don't suit her and on and on.

Any supposed rule of law clearly only applies to lesser mortals so why should she personally acknowledge charges against her ?

I don't know the NACC's powers and procedures but wouldn't it be nice if they could order her appearance and have what it takes to see if through ?

From the very beginning of his rule in 2001, Thaksin thumbed his nose at (or gave the finger to) the independent commissions established by the 1997 constitution. He tried to gut the human rights commission by denying it funds and personnel and just generally showing it a contemptuous disrespect; he abused the counter-corruption commission by directing it to investigate the finances of NGOs; and so on. Yingluck declining to acknowledge any constitutional limitations on her power and prerogatives is just par for the course for the Shinawatra clan. These people are dangerous demagogues who will stop at nothing unless absolutely forced to do so by the Army or higher powers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The caretaker P.M. isn't one to do herself any favours , but not fronting the court you immediately get the impression Guilty, or I thumb my nose at anyone who questions, the Caretaker PM needs to understand that just like her brother she is only a number, shortly that number could be up.bah.gif

Not turning up in person will go against her as it implies guilt.

A coward to the end, at least she will be gone soon and Thailand can return to some semblance of normality!!

Only in the minds of those that believe it so.

Can you please cite an example when a sitting PM of a parliamentary democracy has appeared in court on a procedural matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An open act of defiance to a constitutionally enabled commission. Yingluck is supposed to go there. Yingluck is supposed to answer questions. This investigation carries impeachment power. They have the power to remove her from office. But is Yingluck actually capable of answering questions ? To date, no one really knows ( though all shockingly suspect ). Yingluck is not to provide a " letter of explanation ". Does she really think this will impress the committee in any shape or form ? She is supposed to answer questions. She is the one under indictment. Others cannot speak on her behalf. Does she need the Constitutional Court to drag her to the proceeding ? ( What if she still said no ? ) She is supposed to show respect for the committee and the institution. This lawless administration has got to come to an end. They won't even show up in court. Two acts of jurisprudence defiance in one day. First Chalerm's blanket and unconstitutional disavowal of the Civil Court's ruling to forbid a violent dispersal of the protest movement. And now this. Defiance of the rule of law. Pure and simple. Impeachment seems to be a secret yearning of this administration.

When did you become an expert in Thailand's constitutional law/civil law/criminal law?

There is no legal requirement for a sitting PM to attend, nor should she. Where exactly in the applicable statutes is a sitting PM compelled to appear in person for this procedure? This is a legal issue and is best left to those qualified to respond to this type of litigation. There is no defiance of the law. Rather, you are offering your personal opinion which is not based upon the applicable law(s).

A similar situation, when the P.M. rarely is in the government sessions, when as defense minister she delegates the assistant defense minister to attend defense matters, and to cap it all on foreign visits she attends most foreign secretaries duties leaving the said minister at HOME.

Does this fact explain the reasons for not attending rather than YOUR explanation re-she doesn't have to. It is called opt out--cop out -whatever main reason when the debate is HOT or technical could it be she cannot cope with that.???

I will dumb it down for you. The claim was made that the acting PM has defied a law by not appearing at a judicial process. There is no defiance because there is no law that compels an appearance.

It would be irresponsible for a sitting PM to appear at a politically charged hearing instead of designating a competent legal professional to appear and to provide the required response. To top it off, with the current threat by the PDRC that it intends to follow the PM wherever she goes, her presence at a court could put people's life and safety at risk.

555 Thank's for bothering to "dumb it down to me" we were not just talking about the actual law here, I didn't question that. It is the gist of the opt out attitude that really is in question, THAT IS THE POINT. not twisting the theme to -if the law insists.

So if you get my drift without your reasons/excuses for the P.M.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The caretaker P.M. isn't one to do herself any favours , but not fronting the court you immediately get the impression Guilty, or I thumb my nose at anyone who questions, the Caretaker PM needs to understand that just like her brother she is only a number, shortly that number could be up.bah.gif

Not turning up in person will go against her as it implies guilt.

A coward to the end, at least she will be gone soon and Thailand can return to some semblance of normality!!

Only in the minds of those that believe it so.

Can you please cite an example when a sitting PM of a parliamentary democracy has appeared in court on a procedural matter?

Its not a procedural matter it's for fraud, corruption and negligence of duty - all criminal acts!!!

She knew exactly what was happening as Thaksin was directing her, plus, being PM and chairperson of the rice scheme she is top of the pile and should have known more than anyone else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An open act of defiance to a constitutionally enabled commission. Yingluck is supposed to go there. Yingluck is supposed to answer questions. This investigation carries impeachment power. They have the power to remove her from office. But is Yingluck actually capable of answering questions ? To date, no one really knows ( though all shockingly suspect ). Yingluck is not to provide a " letter of explanation ". Does she really think this will impress the committee in any shape or form ? She is supposed to answer questions. She is the one under indictment. Others cannot speak on her behalf. Does she need the Constitutional Court to drag her to the proceeding ? ( What if she still said no ? ) She is supposed to show respect for the committee and the institution. This lawless administration has got to come to an end. They won't even show up in court. Two acts of jurisprudence defiance in one day. First Chalerm's blanket and unconstitutional disavowal of the Civil Court's ruling to forbid a violent dispersal of the protest movement. And now this. Defiance of the rule of law. Pure and simple. Impeachment seems to be a secret yearning of this administration.

When did you become an expert in Thailand's constitutional law/civil law/criminal law?

There is no legal requirement for a sitting PM to attend, nor should she. Where exactly in the applicable statutes is a sitting PM compelled to appear in person for this procedure? This is a legal issue and is best left to those qualified to respond to this type of litigation. There is no defiance of the law. Rather, you are offering your personal opinion which is not based upon the applicable law(s).

But Yingluck is NOT a sitting PM, only a caretaker PM.

Parliament is NOT in session so she cannot claim parliamentary immunity even.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...