Fate of two former Pheu Thai MPs to be decided
NLA impeachment decision over voting
THE NATIONAL Legislative Assembly (NLA) is due to decide today whether two Pheu Thai Party politicians should be impeached for illegally voting on behalf of absent colleagues and illegally making changes to a constitutional amendment.
Former Pheu Thai MPs Narisorn Thongthiraj and Udomdej Rattanasatien will be banned from politics for life if they are impeached. It will require at least 150 of the 250 legislators to vote against them.
Related Story: Pheu Thai politicans grilled by NLA, deny illegal voting and illegal charter changes
The NLA yesterday heard closing statements from the accused and the accuser, the National Anti-Corruption Com-mission (NACC).
Supa Piyajitti, the NACC representative, said the investigation conducted by her agency was fair and had followed due process. It found that Narisorn had used the ID cards of three other MPs to vote on their behalf, she said.
She refuted Narisorn’s claim that the video clip showing him using three ID cards had been doctored, by saying that experts had already proved the footage was authentic. In addition, Parlia-mentary officials had also testified that Narisorn did not hold a second or third ID card, she added.
As for Narisorn’s claim that he has a health condition that makes his hands twitchy, Supa said |it was unreasonable and called |on the NLA to impeach the politician.
Narisorn, meanwhile, denied all allegations yesterday and insisted that he did not vote |for any absent colleagues, claiming he personally had extra ID cards.
He explained that he had a habit of voting several times using several cards, but his vote was always counted once.
He also said that the accusations against him were groundless and that there was no concrete evidence to prove he had voted for other MPs. He said the other MPs he had allegedly voted for had not been named.
Narisorn claimed that he was being defamed, pointing out there were hundreds of other MPs, yet he was the only one recorded on video.
He claimed that he was being subjected to selective justice – where one set of people are |always guilty, while the others get away with whatever they have done.
As for Udomdej’s case, the NACC representative said an investigation found that the proposal amending the origin of the Senate had two different versions. The one that was with the chamber was unlawful, as it had not been endorsed by Parliament, Supa said.
She said the bogus draft law had been tampered with, allowing the Senate to run in elections without any break.
Supa pointed out that the Constitutional Court’s verdict finding the draft law illegal was binding in every way.
She also rebutted Udomdej’s claim that it was traditionally viable for a draft law to be amended if the House president had not yet added it to the meeting agenda. She said the change had affected the very essence of the law, instead of making some minor changes to the wording. She stressed that this amendment was not viable, especially when it came to a change in the country’s supreme law.
Closing statements
She said strict procedures had to be followed when amending the charter and just having Parliament officials say that the change Udomdej made was viable did not make it the law.
Supa called on the NLA to be fair in its decision on Udomdej, and not take into consideration the personal ties many members have with him.
Udomdej insisted that there was no bogus draft law as alleged.
He said the amendment was made openly after some members of the House of Representatives complained that it was incomplete and should allow the Senate |to run in the next term without |a break as discussed in the |chamber.
Udomdej said he had consulted with officials and learned that the amendment was feasible. He said that he had no intention to be secretive with the changes, adding that if the officials did not find it viable he would have found other lawful means of amending the law.
He also complained that calling it a bogus draft or saying he had played about with the draft were comments that made it appear his actions were unlawful.
NLA member Somjade Boonthanom said he wanted his fellow NLA members to pay attention to the closing statements before deciding whether the two politicians should be impeached. He also pointed out that this was the last such case for the NLA to handle, as the new constitution does not give such powers to the legislative assembly.