Showing 1 - 6 of 6
Oh no, he's put his foot in it again!
Oped, Veera Prateepchaikul, Published on 29/11/2023
» Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin is no stranger to verbal gaffes, which may hurt the feelings of Thais or, worse, inflict political damage. His latest "slip of the tongue" at a meeting of the Pheu Thai Party's executive and MPs over special favours for police promotions is a case in point which could also expose him to legal action.
B100k 'bribes' a hot topic in parliament
News, Veera Prateepchaikul, Published on 25/07/2022
» The opposition Move Forward party had hoped for a miracle -- that the so-called Group of 16 MPs from small parties would vote to censure Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and his 10 ministers along with the opposition.
Bribe case demands police response
News, Veera Prateepchaikul, Published on 14/12/2020
» It takes two to tango. Likewise, it takes two consenting parties to commit an offence of bribery -- that is one who offers or gives the money or other reward and the other who receives the offering as a means of influencing his actions.
Taweesilp's limelight fully earned
News, Veera Prateepchaikul, Published on 13/04/2020
» Taweesilp Visanuyothin is the "New Kid in Town" at the moment.
FFP voters in search of a new home
News, Veera Prateepchaikul, Published on 24/02/2020
» It was one of those dark days in Thai political history when the Constitutional Court decided to condemn the Future Forward Party (FFP) to premature death for the crime of receiving a 191.2 million baht loan from its leader, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.
Future Forward boss faces Supreme Court test
News, Veera Prateepchaikul, Published on 29/04/2019
» The media shareholding case against Future Forward Party (FFP) leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit and a few other prospective MPs appear to revolve around two issues -- firstly, the interpretation of Section 98 (3) of the 2017 constitution and Section 42 (3) of the MPs Election Act which forbid an election candidate from being a proprietor or shareholder of a media company and, secondly, whether a verdict of the Supreme Court can be reversed.