Thread: Guilty or not...

Maybe, well probably I am stupid...
Bangkok Post : General news

Charter writers have decided to seek the public's views on whether a prime minister or cabinet ministers found guilty of a criminal offence should be sacked, and on the barring of people even facing a suspended sentence from assuming these posts.

WTF?

I put this issues as it is an issue. Debate and response please...

Originally Posted by hillbilly

Maybe, well probably I am stupid...
Bangkok Post : General news

Charter writers have decided to seek the public's views on whether a prime minister or cabinet ministers found guilty of a criminal offence should be sacked, and on the barring of people even facing a suspended sentence from assuming these posts.

WTF?

I put this issues as it is an issue. Debate and response please...

I think one concern is defamation cases. It is too easy to get charged with this offence in Thailand (you can get charged and sentenced even if what you said can be proven correct!), and it would end up with ministers spending too much time fighting off defamation suits from the opposition.

I believe this is a bit more complicated than it looks at first sight.

I initially thought it odd that they even needed to discuss the sacking of ministers convicted of (most) criminal offences, which even in Thailand should include corruption and abuse of authority, but would agree things like defamation, libel, and slander remain unclear and prone to manipulation.

Classic examples would include the Toxin trait of litigation to discredit and otherwise silence opposition.