rickirs

If Jatuporn is smart, he'll pick the next election day.

"Suthep Thaugsuban has vowed to ask His Majesty the King to approve his effort to seize power from government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra."

Suthep just went from the Twilight Zone to a Land Where No Man Has Gone Before.

Thailand 2007 Constitution:

CHAPTER II-The King, Section 8. The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action.

CHAPTER III-Rights and Liberties of Thai People, Part 13. Right to Protect the Constitution, Section 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

If Suthep is really serious, there will be (and maybe already is) some constitutional issues with his proposal. But I doubt he will even be granted to speak to the King. Maybe Suthep's comment was just a late April Fool's joke.

The Army should take heed that where ever it deploys its soldiers, it should check-in with the local private armed militias to get clearance and assure its presence is monitored so as not to create accidentals shootings. If fact why is the Army even showing itself in public. The STR and PDRC militias seem more than capable of keeping THEIR peace and practice their brand of justice as they see fit. Frankly, the idea of allowing private militias in public political protests is another step into a lawless society and follow a path away from democracy. Thailand may become the next "liberated" Libya. The Army should not be operating as a law enforcement agency within Thailand and the private militias need to be banned. How's that for Reform?

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

i wonder who the new business partners will be

That was probably the problem. Police were not partners in the business.

"...Mr Suthep said in case the court ruled in favor of Yingluck, the PDRC would still protest until she was overthrown on other serious crimes she has committed to the country.

They were ready to accept any ruling by the court, but the redshirts would never and would turn to violence, Suthep predicted."

Suthep is then no different than redshirts. As much as redshirts are committed to see the PTP stay in power, Suthep is as committed to see Democrats return to power. Maybe an elections could settle this political conflict. Oh, it was held but nullified, so another will b eheld but PDRC will continue to blockade election polls. Suthep and his PDRC is as much a political problem to get Thailand back on a democratic track as the PTP.

"He however asserted that election commissioners were keen to have a new election decree issued as soon as possible."

Looks like the EC has finally given up the idea that the Government must issue a royal decree to hold the elections and the EC is really capable of scheduling the election within 60 days after it told the Government that it couldn't. Looks like Yingluck scored on this one front.

"The government could argue by citing Article 181 of the Constitution that the outgoing Cabinet must remain in office until a new government is sworn in." Sorry but any constitutional arguments by the PTP are automatically unconstitutional. The Courts has shown absolute consistency in rulings that violate the constitution and clearly operates above the law. It's no wonder the PTP supporters feel frustrated by the loss of the democratic process beyond their control to preserve it.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"Deputy Prime Minister Phongthep Thepkanjana added that only the EC has the power to issue a new election decree."

I thought that it was the (caretaking) government which had to issue a Royal Decree, after which the EC will set a new election date ?

No. This was already taken to the Court by the EC last year and the court ruled that no decree was required but the EC and Government had to agree to the election date. They subsequently agreed to Feb. 2, 2014 as the new election date. Now the EC is pullin the same stall tactic again.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

He said he believes that NACC won't charge Ms. Yingluck with corruption but might on neglect of the PMs duty. Mr. Chalerm added that although he is one of the witnesses who is to be questioned by the NACC, he isn't worried about it since the fact is the Prime Minister only launched the policy and assigned the appropriate minister to carry out the scheme.

He isn't worried about testifying because he wouldn't recognize the truth if he tripped over it, and even if he did, he wouldn't speak it.

So if the ship runs aground you blame the ship's cook that the captain hired? Is that about it? YL is supposedly the captain of this ship.

If the ship cook poisoned the crew with poorly cooked food, would you blame the captain? No. If you bought stock through a stockbroker and the value subsequently decreases because the company's products could no longer attract customers, would you blame the stockbroker? No.

A major cause of the rice program loss of revenues had to do with the WORLD MARKETPLACE. Believe it or not the PTP does not control world prices for rice. That loss in value was exerbated by the delay of sale of government rice because of the shutdown of the government, delays caused by numerous Democrat court challenges, and late entry of competitive rice volumes into the markeplace. At the end of 2013 Maynamar was realizing record rice prices while Thailand was prevented from making any sales.

Regardless of people's prejudgment of Yinluck's guilt or innocence, what is more fair than allowing the defendent to have all its witnesses testify? The Court basically says it allowed three witnesses to testify but anymore will upset its self-imposed deadline for a verdict. What's the rush? Such judicial control over Yingluck's ability to present her defense implies judicial bias at best and conflict of interest at worse. This Court is another throwback to the Democrat Government dictatorship and I doubt it can render any decision that would ever favor the PTP Government.

A woman's wet T-shirt contest between the PTP and PDRC would be more productive.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

For me the part that stands out the most is they neglected to mention that of the 20 million voters they quoted 12 million were NO-Votes or spoiled and only 8 million actually supported a candidate and of those 8 million it would be wrong to assume they were all for PTP

That photo just says it all - the face of red Thaksin Democracy at work - maybe the 1 finger salute means they all got 1000 baht each for being there

Can you provide a reference for the voting results? I haven't heard of anything other than speculation.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Is the flipping of the bird the new red shirt salute now the Jatuporn has been passed the conch?

Or is it a gesture towards the CC?

Either way I don't see any court in the land telling the constitution court how to interpret the constitution. Some people will pick up a legal bill for failure

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

"I don't see any court in the land telling the constitution court how to interpret the constitution", maybe not, but it is not the interpretation that is being challenged. It is how that interpretation was made. The courts are now in a very difficult position.If they refuse to accept the charges, they will be perceived as being against the people and that would undermine public confidence in the judicial system upon which it relies for its legitimacy.

The Constitutional Court might have a way out of the mess they created by referring its decision back to itself for review. If done quickly enough, that would also avoid the need for another court to consider criminal charges against members of the Constitutional Court. Will it happen? I don't know. Nor do I know if the result will be any different even if it did happen.

As much as I'd like the Constitutional Court be held accountable to a decision that violates the constitution and disrespects the will of millions of voters, I don't see how the police have the authority to bring charges against the court. I think such charges would have to come throught the Democrat-dominated Senate. Yes I know Senators are supposed to be party nuetral but the unelected senators and court judges were selected by the Democrat party when it who also controlled the House.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

" ...Termed "The National Complaint Day", the campaign encouraged the Redshirts to file charge of treason

and attempt to overthrow sovereign power of the Legislative Branch

under Article 113 of the Criminal Codes against the 6 majority Constitutional Court judges who ruled in the election verdict... "

SOVEREIGNTY.

The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Story on the Const. Sec. 207.

2. Abstractedly, sovereignty resides in the body of the nation and belongs to the people. But these powers are generally exercised by delegation.

3. When analysed, sovereignty is naturally divided into three great powers;

namely, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary;

the first is the power to make new laws, and to correct and repeal the old;

the second is the power to execute the laws both at home and abroad;

and

the last is the power to apply the laws to particular facts; to judge the disputes which arise among the citizens, and to punish crimes.

Te obvious point being that sovereign power devolves into ALL THREE

and each answerable to the other through their Differing POWERS of function.

So the Legislative has no sovereign power if not

used in delegation legally with The People.

used in concert with the other 2 branches,and their independent functions with in soverignty.

And under the constitutional framework The People have decide to implement.

They should in the big picture direct their complaints to not at the protestors,

nor the courts making a verdict on if the Executive branch has done it's job.

In this case, the Executive did not for what ever reasons successfully fulfil

'it's mandate to run an election country wide in one day.' Even with the aide of early voting days.

It's not like other nations do NOT have protestors on election days, nor violence,

but it seems Thailands executive did a particularly bad job of keeping order to run the election,

in spite pf truck loads of talk that they would.

In the end they did not and the Court ruled it was insufficient in fulfilling

it's sovereign duty as the executive.

.

"They should in the big picture direct their complaints to not at the protestors, nor the courts making a verdict on if the Executive branch has done it's job. In this case, the Executive did not for what ever reasons successfully fulfil 'it's mandate to run an election country wide in one day."

A very nice academic discussion but no connection with reality. The Government (or "Executive" as you call it) did fullfil its responsibility to schedule Country-wide elections on Feb. 2nd after being delayed by EC's complaint to the Constitutional Court that it was not capable of of meeting the 60-day deadline to hold new elections AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Elections should have been held prior to Dec. 2013 but because the Constitutional Court accepted to hear EC's compliant, the Court violated the Constitution by rendering a decision after the mandated deadline. That decision was that both the EC and Government had to agree to a scheduled date and that contrary to EC's position that the Government had to issue a royal decree for an election date, no such decree was required as per the Government's position. The country-wide election was then held on Feb. 2nd with advanced voting that is also contrary to the Constitution Court's later ruling that the country-wide election must all be held on the same day.

The Government has no control over the CAPO and the EC to secure election poll stations. When the PDRC announced that it would blockade candidate registration stations so election could not be held, the Government requested the EC provide alternate stations; the EC REFUSED sayting that was unconstitutional to use stations not offically designated but during the registration period EC did in fact provide some alternate registration places IN VIOLATION OF WHAT THE EC WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. Then in response Suthep's announcement that the PDRC will blockade polls to keep people from voting on Feb. 2nd, the Government requested that the EC and police coordinate to guarantee the people's right to vote. The EC and police subsequently FAILED THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to keep 10% of the polls open.

The Government did everything within its AUTHORITY to hold elections in accordance to the constitution repeatedly. Blame must nullification of the Feb. 2nd lies solely with the PDRC, the police, and EC.

End at the end of April? That only leaves 30 Final Pushes - will that be enough or will end of May be the new goalpost?

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) protesters have blocked both in-bound and out-bound lanes of the Thai-Belgiun and Thai-Japanese bridges, causing heavy traffic congestion on Rama 4 road, according to the police traffic control centre.

The blockades have slowed vehicles on both in-bound and out-bound lanes of Rama 4 road and connected roads to a crawl.

Jor Sor 100 radio station's website advises motorists to avoid Rama 4 road. Silom/SAthorn/Wireless all screwed up...Thanks again Suthep's ..big battle must have begun lolol

For a politcal party that is against populist policies that support building public highways and roads, the PDRC sures spends a lot of time on those highways and roads, not to mention public parks and public buildings. Maybe the PDRC should pay rent to the Thai people for their occupation.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Pheu Thai secretary-general Phumtham Wechayachai said the objective of yesterday's multi-party meeting was to gather information for the EC so it could learn from the mistakes of the February 2 election.

Yes the majority of Thai people don't want an election they want reform first - I thought that was obvious from the last turn out and the massive no votes

Strictly conjecture as to the last election results. They were to be announced on Feb. 23rd but to date I have not seen any election results, perhaps pending the court's decision to nullify the election. Now that the Court has nulllified the election I doubt there is any incentive to release the results because that would only create more anger.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"We are ready [to contest an election] if the political turmoil ends. But the impasse is still continuing,...."

Well, let me give the DP some free advice in case they decide to participate in the election, replacing the one they were fearful of:

My advice?..."Reform yourself before it"....

• Re-brand yourself,
• Get a new leader who has a chance to relate to the diverse electorate,
• Present policies not rooted in your own arrogance of "supreme political wisdom", but in the needs of that diverse electorate.
• Commit to Electoral and Parliamentary Democracy. Quite trying to make a coup not seem to be a coup. 'Fess" up and straighten yourself out.
• Avoid impulses to alienate yourself from majority voters not of your own station, such as bad-mouthing Thaksin and Yingluck and their huge electoral base. That may please your own minority but is "cutting off your nose to spite your face"

And what is this nonsense about political turmoil and impasse?....Trying to avoid calling a 'spade a spade' again?.........As if power plays to force one's way into power via means other than an election equates to "political turmoil and impasse"....Not sure whether to call that "illusions of grandeur".....or simply being embarrassed by one's own actions, hiding motives and trying to apply a normative political veneer to anti-democratic folderol.

What a bitter and uninformed soul you are.

Truth is always a stinging rebuke.

Looking at this suspension from a different perspective raises concern with some PDRC proposed reforms. One such reform was that an unelected people's committee (possibly selected by Suthep's national people's committee) would review governors' performance, may suspend a governor due to lack of adequate performance, and hold new elections for a replacement. Such a reform would bypass the EC, the court, and appeal process currently in place. I guess the elimination of due process of law by Suthepo's "reforms" can make for a more efficient system of governance if one doen't mind the trampling of democracy.

"...the ruling of Thailands Constitutional Court of 21 March 2014 and calls upon the relevant authorities to set a clear timetable for new elections in line with Thailands democratic and constitutional framework."

That was not the Court's ruling. The Court simply nullified the Feb. 2nd election because 10% of the voting took place in March.

In reaction to the Court's ruling the EC approached the Government to schedule new elections. But in order for any new election to occur, the Constitution must be ignored as now Thailand is long past the constitutional deadline not to exceed 60 days (end of November 2013) after dissolution of the parliament. So the PDRC could again challenge the ligitimacy of any subsequent election as being unconstitutional even if 100% of the polls were open on election day.

EU might well read Thailand's constitution first before it provides advice.