firecat69 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Thailand's anti-graft body on Thursday launched impeachment proceedings against 250 ex-lawmakers, the majority from the toppled ruling party of Yingluck Shinawatra, in a move that could be a bodyblow to her family's political network. If the junta-picked National Legislative Assembly (NLA) votes for impeachment the former MPs will be banned from politics for five years, eviscerating the political base of the Shinawatra clan whose parties have swept every Thai election since 2001. The National Anti-Corruption Commission says a 2013 attempt by Yingluck's Peau Thai party to tweak the kingdom's charter to make the upper house a fully elected chamber was unconstitutional. "The NACC decided to file case to the NLA to impeach 250 MPs who signed up to support charter amendment because they intended to breach the 2007 constitution," the anti-graft body said in a statement. The decision came just hours after the NLA voted not to impeach 38 former senators over the same issue, initially appearing to lessen the likelihood of the NACC pressing ahead with impeachment proceedings for the lawmakers. As yet there is no date set for the assembly to vote on the impeachment. View gallery Thai army soldiers take positions outside the army auditorium where prominent figures including form … Thailand's junta says it was forced to take power in May last year to restore order after months of street protests against Yingluck's government. Critics say those protests were choreographed to prod an army intervention on behalf of the Thai elite, who accuse the Shinawatra clan of poisoning Thai politics with money and nepotism. Peau Thai member Amnuay Klangpa told AFP that 160 party members were in the firing line after the NACC decision. "I am confident they cannot impeach us because MPs had the right to amend the constitution and all processes were carried out within the law," he added. Retroactive impeachment has already been brought down on Yingluck -- the younger sister of billionaire former premier Thaksin Shinwatra -- over her role in a bungled rice subsidy scheme. She also faces criminal prosecution carrying up to 10 years in jail over the scheme, which funnelled cash to her family's rural support base. Thailand's political landscape has been battered by nearly a decade of violent street protests, coups and legal manoeuvres leaving the country deeply divided. Thaksin sits at the heart of the kingdom's political rupture after sweeping the 2001 polls with his pledge to represent Thailand's poor and drive the nation's economy. Thaksin was toppled by a 2006 coup and now lives in self-exile to avoid jail on a corruption charge. His sister Yingluck was ousted by a court decision eight years later, weeks before the latest coup knocked out the remnants of her government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Of course, most of this is just theater arranged by the elite [the military, the wealthy (which is somewhat redundant with "military"), and others who won't be described] and, from a westerner's point of view, most of it is both illogical and even illegal under whatever Thai constitution happened to be in place at the moment. The bottom line is that the elite in Thailand neither like nor trust the notion that the people as a whole get to either elect their leaders or decide what rules govern them. Following the 2006 coup, they put into place a new (2007) constitution which provided for a Senate consisting of 150 members, one elected from each province and the rest being chosen by a select committee. That change (from a fully elected Senate) was exactly what the military in Burma did to effectively retain all important power. Now, these "democrats" (laughable, I know) want a fully appointed senate with additional powers. Absent a true revolution here (and that's not going to happen), my view is why even bother going through these silly theatrics? Just maintain the current dictatorship (or any system which doesn't allow the majority of voters to decide anything) and quit even attempting to call Thailand a democracy. P.S. How anybody can argue that you can legally impeach anybody who's no longer in office is beyond me; besides, even if you get over that rather massive hurdle of logic, the Dear Leader abrogated the 2007 Consititution which was the only document which gave anybody the power to impeach in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Up2u Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Firecat, what is the article source? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firecat69 Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 http://news.yahoo.com/thai-former-mps-face-impeachment-screw-tightens-shinawatras-151059132.html?soc_src=copy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinapu Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 I agree with Bob that this is just theater, but very cynical at that. Sooner or late it will backfire since I doubt it's much room for paternalistic power in the age of internet unless heavy repression is employed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colmx Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Following the 2006 coup, they put into place a new (2007) constitution which provided for a Senate consisting of 150 members, one elected from each province and the rest being chosen by a select committee. That change (from a fully elected Senate) was exactly what the military in Burma did to effectively retain all important power. Now, these "democrats" (laughable, I know) want a fully appointed senate with additional powers Sounds pretty similar to the upper house in the "democratic" system that we have had in Ireland since the British occupation ended in 1937 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_%C3%89ireann Or the UK house of lords: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords Have never heard of anyone calling either of these 2 houses undemocratic in the last 70+ years... Except of course those in the opposition parties! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinapu Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Canada has a system where Senate members are appointed for life by Prime Minister. But similarly to UK real power lies with elected lower chamber, if 's why not much attention is piad in both countries to those unelected bodies IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Up2u Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Sounds pretty similar to the upper house in the "democratic" system that we have had in Ireland since the British occupation ended in 1937 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_Éireann Or the UK house of lords: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords Have never heard of anyone calling either of these 2 houses undemocratic in the last 70+ years... Except of course those in the opposition parties! Are you saying the House of Lords, an unelected body, has the power to impeach and remove an elected Prime Minister? This is will be the power of the new Thailand Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ButterballBruce Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 P.S. How anybody can argue that you can legally impeach anybody who's no longer in office is beyond me; Why not. If the walking dead can believe that a Thai boy one-third his age is in love with him and not his money, then anything is possible! Keep an open mind, Bob, TIT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colmx Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Are you saying the House of Lords, an unelected body, has the power to impeach and remove an elected Prime Minister? This is will be the power of the new Thailand Senate. Who knows in the UK... given that there is no official constitution... it would be a very grey area in the case of Ireland the Senate can delay any (non financial) legisltion for up to 9 months and petition the head of state (President) to call a referendum of the people to decide outcome of any legislation. So whilst they can't impeach the PM, they can effectively completely grind the PMs wheels to a halt. They can also call a motion of no confidence in the PM, which if lost would force the PM to request permission of the President to dissolve the parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve1903 Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Will it ever end? Not as long as there are people who crave power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gumbleby Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 I've got a certain fascination for the way the Doge was selected in the former Republic of Venice, i.e. with multiple consecutive rounds of elections and winnowing by lottery. In a democratic society, the first round would of course have to be a popular election. A similar solution might be applied to designating a senate or constitutional court judges,... An unusual solution, but Thailand claims to be different. By spreading nominations over time, some degree of stability might be obtained, while still avoiding inbreeding within a ruling class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest frequentflier Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 They must be very afraid of Thaksins supporters.Sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinapu Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 They must be very afraid of Thaksins supporters.Sad. rightly so , he seemed to receive in his days quite a firm mandate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colmx Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 rightly so , he seemed to receive in his days quite a firm mandate As did Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Genghis Khan etc etc That doesn't mean that any of their mandates were actually legimate or even legimately founded! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinapu Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Genghis Khan popularly elected? That's the stretch. You forgot Alexander the Great in that list perhaps Hitler was elevated to power by quite fair election. Other guys mentioned made mistake of many dictators by not allowing for popular election looking for 100 % approval on paper instead of 55% sufficient to keep them in power by electoral means. In their best days many of them would be still elected by fair means if they allowed to. And so would Europe's last remaining dictator Lukashenka of Belarus. Placing Thaksin in the same league like guys you mentioned probably points to gall bladder problems. Not trying to be sarcastic but you went too far IMNSHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colmx Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Placing Thaksin in the same league like guys you mentioned probably points to gall bladder problems. Not trying to be sarcastic but you went too far IMNSHO I think the families of the 2275 people that were extrajudicially executed (in 3 months) under Thaksins regime during the so called war on drugs of 2003 may take umbridge at you not so humble opinion! Just because he has so far avoided prosecution in an international court - does not mean he will avoid it forever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest frequentflier Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I look forward to the day when the people of Thailand get the government they voted for without fear of a coup d'etat.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Up2u Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I think the families of the 2275 people that were extrajudicially executed (in 3 months) under Thaksins regime during the so called war on drugs of 2003 may take umbridge at you not so humble opinion! Just because he has so far avoided prosecution in an international court - does not mean he will avoid it forever I first came to Thailand last century. I like many of us I fell in love with the culture and people of this country. I felt safe, I walked to the bars wearing a big gold chain, no drugs, no gangs, no tattoos...... the good old days. Naive yes. Everything changed quickly and of course the newly elected and popular Thaksin announces an end to drugs in 90 days. The police were given arrest quotas and financial rewards for meeting them. The drug policy was popular across all elements of Thai society and endorsed by the King. Looking back we have learned the number of police killings was grossly overstated as the military junta of 2006 investigated Thaksin and did not charge him but greater than the 50 Thaksin claimed. I am not defending Thaksin,a terrible solution to a problem that still exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Genghis Khan popularly elected? That's the stretch. You forgot Alexander the Great in that list perhaps Hitler was elevated to power by quite fair election. Other guys mentioned made mistake of many dictators by not allowing for popular election looking for 100 % approval on paper instead of 55% sufficient to keep them in power by electoral means. In their best days many of them would be still elected by fair means if they allowed to. And so would Europe's last remaining dictator Lukashenka of Belarus. Well, Mr Putin of Russia is getting to the stage where he should also be classed as a dictator. Elections may create an illusion of democracy. However when Putin controls the media and arranges the execution or imprisonment of any opposition leaders, then that's a dictatorship. He was originally elected democratically as well, but the process is no longer truly democratic. Ideally a democracy needs some kind of safeguard against the election of unsuitable people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moses Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Well, Mr Putin of Russia is getting to the stage where he should also be classed as a dictator. Elections may create an illusion of democracy. However when Putin controls the media and arranges the execution or imprisonment of any opposition leaders, then that's a dictatorship. He was originally elected democratically as well, but the process is no longer truly democratic. Ideally a democracy needs some kind of safeguard against the election of unsuitable people. You are right, but partially: there is no democracy in Russia. But Putin is still supported about 3/4 of Russians since he gave them better economical life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkguy Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Elections may create an illusion of democracy. in Thailand as well as many other countries Ideally a democracy needs some kind of safeguard against the election of unsuitable people. the current junta is being vilified for just such a belief - do we take it you support their actions? bkkguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 In principle, I think a competent and benevolent junta that replaces a crap government and stabilises the political and economic situation could be a good solution. However, I'm not in a position to say if that's where Thailand is, so will be neither supporting nor objecting to the junta. What I have seen is daft policies from the Junta and their immediate predecessors, so ideally neither would govern. What you do see in European & American countries is democratically elected governments that just borrow too much. Greece and Argentina are examples of where it can end up, but many other countries are on the same path. If current voters keep mucking it up for future generations, morally there needs to be some body that can keep the governments in check. Some non-excecs that can impeach the Prime Ministers for excessive borrowing would be a very good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinapu Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 . Some non-excecs that can impeach the Prime Ministers for excessive borrowing would be a very good idea. First they impeach crappy Prime Minister than they discover that they like their new power very much and not before long we have non-execs in power without any checks and balances, knowing everything the best. I'd rather take a cash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 First they impeach crappy Prime Minister than they discover that they like their new power very much and not before long we have non-execs in power without any checks and balances, knowing everything the best. I'd rather take a cash Admittedly this is a dangerous game, however excessive borrowing will cause long term problems. Democracy seems not to have the proper checks in place. Worse still, we are borrowing heavily in the era of cheap oil & I don't really see the investment going in for when that ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
