Abhisit fights removal from teaching post

News > Politics

Abhisit fights removal from teaching post

Sukumpol accused of 'ulterior motives'

Published: 4 Jan 2013 at 00.00
Newspaper section: News

Opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva is petitioning the Administrative Court and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to intervene against a fresh order aimed at retroactively removing him as an instructor at an army cadet school.

Abhisit: Fighting to keep his military rank

Defence Minister Sukumpol Suwanatat signed an order retroactively nullifying Mr Abhisit's appointment as a lecturer of the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy (CRMA) 25 years ago.

This article is older than 60 days, which we reserve for our premium members only.You can subscribe to our premium member subscription, here.

Forum

Your comments

patchar
Post : 409
Send message

Discussion 41 : 07 Jan 2013 at 12.0141
Post this to my Facebook
All they acts against AV are signs of vengeance. These are worthless and a waste of time. It seems the oppositions got no room to escape.
Like dislike 5 people liked / 1 people disliked this comment
brilliant
Post : 1,476
Send message

Discussion 40 : 07 Jan 2013 at 02.3340
Post this to my Facebook
ricefield - " This was a military court and they don't use the same rules as a civil or criminal court, postponements are seldom given unless the person is seriously ill."

Seems to me he was just following the example set by UDD and PTP members who ignore every request to appear in court. And it wasn't a military court or tribunal, it was an inquiry.
Like dislike 9 people liked / 1 people disliked this comment
ricefield
Post : 2,378
Send message

Discussion 39 : 06 Jan 2013 at 02.2039
Post this to my Facebook
D 36 - "AV asked them to postpone" and the court said "no". Abhisit went to Hong Kong he didn't even send a representative. Abhisit has no one to blame but himself. This has been ongoing for years if he doesn't know what's required by now, he should. Again Abhisit's problem. This was a military court and they don't use the same rules as a civil or criminal court, postponements are seldom given unless the person is seriously ill.
Like dislike 5 people liked / 15 people disliked this comment
brilliant
Post : 1,476
Send message

Discussion 38 : 06 Jan 2013 at 02.0638
Post this to my Facebook
ricefield - "Nope, as it's not relevant to this article now is it?"

Well, since you aren't posting on that story(no reds are, funny that), I knew you'd see this. You're always going on about being censored so what is you're take on the government censoring Thai TV now?
Like dislike 11 people liked / 2 people disliked this comment
ricefield
Post : 2,378
Send message

Discussion 37 : 05 Jan 2013 at 22.4837
Post this to my Facebook
D 34 - "ricefiel;d - any comments about the government censorship of Thai TV?" Nope, as it's not relevant to this article now is it?
Like dislike 1 people liked / 7 people disliked this comment
howell
Post : 1,661
Send message

Discussion 36 : 05 Jan 2013 at 22.4336
Post this to my Facebook
@rice. You have your facts wrong. AV asked them to postpone the hearing while he went on a prior engagement to HK and he asked them to clarify what documents they wanted to see. Despite these reasonable requests they went ahead with a 'trial'.
Like dislike 11 people liked / 3 people disliked this comment
howell
Post : 1,661
Send message

Discussion 35 : 05 Jan 2013 at 22.0535
Post this to my Facebook
@rice. AV told the kangaroo court he had a prior and important engagement in HK and asked them to postpone so that he could be there in person. They did not postpone.

He also asked them to clarify which documents they wanted to see. They did not clarify but went ahead with their modern day witch hunt 'trial' that is no more than dirty Thaksin inspired mud slinging.
Like dislike 10 people liked / 3 people disliked this comment
brilliant
Post : 1,476
Send message

Discussion 34 : 05 Jan 2013 at 21.4734
Post this to my Facebook
ricefiel;d - any comments about the government censorship of Thai TV?
Like dislike 8 people liked / 0 people disliked this comment
ricefield
Post : 2,378
Send message

Discussion 33 : 05 Jan 2013 at 09.5133
Post this to my Facebook
All this back and forth argument and court petitioning is not warranted. Abhisit was called to testify at the Military tribunal, he went to Hong Kong instead and didn't even give them the evidence they asked for. It's Abhisit's fault that this problem has not been resolved. He had the chance to clarify the matter but he made a conscious decision to ignore the Military court which was not wise. IMHO.
Like dislike 9 people liked / 22 people disliked this comment
android
Post : 2,251
Send message

Discussion 32 : 05 Jan 2013 at 07.5832
Post this to my Facebook
Discussion 29/30 brilliant : you are ambiguious in that the government has never laid any charge against AV at this moment. It is said that AV should stand up and fight against his defamation case should he supposed that he is innocent. And in this kind of defamation lawsuit case, burden of proof rests with both the plaintiff and defendent sides. Some AV supporters appear to be over reacting in this case.
Like dislike 7 people liked / 20 people disliked this comment

1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Abhisit fights removal from teaching post | Bangkok Post: news