Legal question over PM's remarks

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's election campaign statement in support of Pheu Thai candidate Pongsapat Pongcharoen could constitute a violation of the Constitution, Green Politics coordinator Suriyasai Katasila said yesterday.

Suriyasai said his group had asked its legal team to check and file a complaint with the Election Commission within a few days if they believe the PM committed a constitutional offence.

He said Yingluck made a campaign statement that if residents voted for Pongsapat, the government and the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration would work together without conflict. Bangkok voters would gain benefits if they voted for number 9 because the government had funds to support mega projects, such as more Skytrain routes. But if people voted for other candidates, they would not receive support from the government.

"The PM's public address was deemed misleading. As the PM, she has the responsibility to provide mass transit systems and other services to the public in accordance with the Constitution," Suriyasai said.

Suriyasai said that according to the anti-corruption law, the PM spoke at the election rally as a state official because she was introduced to the stage to speak as the PM, so her statement could constitute abuse of authority.

"Her statement (in support of Pongsapat) aims to mislead the public into voting for number 9 and not other candidates, which is not right," Suriyasai said.

Latest stories in this category

• Campaigning fires up as tight election looms


• Democrats raised the 'burning of the city' in 2010..


• Get serious about cycling, candidates told


• Legal question over PM's remarks

We Recommend

• Bookship drops anchor in Bangkok




• Thailand does the 'Harlem Shake'


• Investors warned on Myanmar land

Comments conditions

Users are solely responsible for their comments.We reserve the right to remove any comment and revoke posting rights for any reason withou prior notice.

Article source: http://www.thethailandlinks.com/2013/02/25/legal-question-over-pms-remarks/