trevor4

"chairman of the government-appointed independent National Rule of Law Commission"

That pretty much rules out any chance of impartiality, doesn't it?

He was appointed by Yingluck and endorsed for the position by Yingluck's Cabinet, so, yeah, not a lot of impartiality going on.

Wow, they must be really worried at PT if they start rolling out the house trained academics.

Can imagine the profs side of the phone call.

"You want me to say what? Ok, how much do I get? No problem"

Lifelong-politician-but-now-"Professor" Ukrit and a benefactor meet

This fellow was probably just mentally unbalanced. If the reds wanted to disrupt the anti-PT protest, they could just dust off the RPGs that were used against Bangkok, the BTS and other 'anti-redshirt' targets back in 2010, against PAD in 2008.

In addition to the red shirt bombers and RPG users during those years, they also utilized, as posted, the mentally ill, who they promptly abandoned once imprisoned.

It seems obvious to me that someone tried to stir up things by creating such a stunt. Could only be organized by those who would benefit from it.

Red shirts benefit from a situation where others fear violence and stay away.

This is all wrong. The guy is simply a fruitcake and has nothing to do with the reds. If the reds were going to disrupt the rally, would they hire a guy whose only idea is to pick up a chair and start bashing people? Come on.

Actually, he seems to mirror the parameters of previously incarcerated red shirts:

Most of the red-shirt supporters in jail are garbage collectors, homeless people, and the mentally ill who cannot seek legal help or find enough money for bail. The People's Centre for Information (PCI) revealed its initial investigation

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/11/19/politics/Most-red-shirt-detainees-too-poor-to-seek-release--30142601.html

The section of the quote changed to bold makes it quite clear that the Cc has the authority to scrutinise the bill. IMHO section 68 applies because this appears to be an attempt to change the nature of the senate, allowing in persons closely associated to others with political affiliation in an attempt to make the senate a rubber stamp.

Which is how things were during the Thaksin administration using the 1997 Constitution.

It seems to me that, yes the Court does have the authority to rule on the amendment.

"The Constitutional Court has been established under the provisions of the new Constitution, Section 255 through Section 268. Under the provisions of Section 268, the decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, Council of Ministers, Courts and other State organizations. This makes it clear that there is no appeal from the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and its rules are absolutely final. They must be adhered to by the National Assembly (which includes both the House of Representatives and the Senate), and on the Council of Ministers, which includes the ministers of each and every ministry established under Thai law, on the Courts, including all other Courts, and on other State organizations. The scope of the Constitutional Courts powers is very broad. Section 262 of the Constitution provides that any bill or law which is being considered or has been adopted by the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court decides on the legality of the act, and of all provisions of the act. The court has the power to decide whether the bill or law complies with or is in any way contrary to the Constitution, and has the power to declare the law void, or to declare any part of the law void and unenforceable.

The Constitutional Court also has power to review the application of any pertinent law involved in any case before any court. The Constitutional Court can invoke its jurisdiction either by reference by the court before which the case is pending, or by objection by any party involved in that lawsuit claiming that the provisions of the law are inconsistent with the Constitution. Upon such an objection, the court in which the case is pending must stay (delay) the action and refer it to the Constitutional Court."

Yeah, I believe the court has the authority to rule on cases that affect the constitution. But in this case, no one can tell me how government's amendment of the constitution - again, in this specific case - violates section 68. Nevertheless the judges accepted the petition. So let's see... seems many here just want the court to act regardless of whether it's according to the constitution or not. And that makes a mockery of any concern for the rule of law.

The section of the quote changed to bold makes it quite clear that the Cc has the authority to scrutinise the bill. IMHO section 68 applies because this appears to be an attempt to change the nature of the senate, allowing in persons closely associated to others with political affiliation in an attempt to make the senate a rubber stamp.

So you think amendment to make senate fully elected would violate Section 68 which states: "no person shall....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".

Really?

un-highlight your bold overthrow and highlight the OR bit...

acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution

2 better than last year.. good job.

Actually, going from 53rd to 55th is 2 lower than last year.

They got 55th spot out of 60 coz 5 countries didn't participate . . . .

Last year survey they were 53rd, so they've dropped, but they are still above Kazakhstan in this year's survey.

I suppose they could be congratulated for that.