[ad_1]
Forward Party has one eye on the ruling in the “Big Tu” case in Ban Luang
Date Dec 01, 2020 at 8:41 PM
The Kao Klai Party MPs suggested keeping an eye on the details of the decision on the Gen Prayut case. Living in the royal house Although many people believe that salvation
On December 1, 2020, Kao Klai MP Wirot Lakkhanadisorn said that the society is awaiting the Constitutional Court’s decision in the case of General Prayut Chan-ocha, Prime Minister and Defense Minister. Stay at the military house on December 2, 20. What will be the result? Although many commented that from the processes and statistics of the past, General Prayut was able to survive this diagnosis. But I would like to be attentive to the details of the decision of how to write it.
The point, however, is that the constitution states that political officials are prohibited from taking advantage of any other advantage. Not comparable to the provisions of the Constitution
Mr. Wiroj said that while General Apirat Kongsompong, the Army (General Staff) commander at the time, had announced that he would solve the problem of accommodation for military officers. If a retired officer still lives in a military area and moves from the Army to any unit. You must move out of the unit by February 2020 to allow people who do not have a home in their place. But so far Gen. Prayut I still stay in Ban Luang Since his retirement for a total of 4 years and 11 months, the total rental value is more than 3 million baht, which is more than 3,000 baht, according to the Office of the National Anticorruption Commission. (NACC) defined
Mr. Thiraj Chaipanthamas, MP, Kao Klai’s Party List, said that since the Prime Minister retired, the military have always stayed in the Royal House. Which constitutes a conflict of interest under Section 184 (3) by not receiving money or benefits from the government. And despite the modifications to the regulations of the Ministry of Defense But he should not occupy a political position AND regulations of the Ministry of Defense It cannot be compared with the constitutional law. Therefore, it is not likely to be legitimate.
[ad_2]
