gregb

This whole thing is about power. Rich Bangkok folks don't want to be governed by the elected officials of poor farmers. Is there really anything more to it than that? What is money for if it can't be used to play chess with people?

Malcolm Gladwell wrote what I consider to be a great article regarding the behavior of pro -sports franchise owners in the states.. He explained how back in the day, an owner would make an irrational economic decision in favor of the satisfaction they got from racially discriminating against minorities..

Here is the article: http://grantland.com/features/psychic-benefits-nba-lockout/

Anti Democrats will win, the game has changed though, they can't just send the tanks out. They will buy the right people, and the rest is history.

Rich upcountry overlords also don't like to be governed by elected official of poor farmers. That's why they appoint their own choice of officials. Ask the Silpa-archas, the Chidlobs, the Shinawatra's, various other 'families', all regional 'political powers'. The Democrat party as regional power down South, although their middle class support is more spread over the country.

So who are the Rich Bangkok folks you're talking about?

The problem is that under try/ptp all of a sudden, money really started to flow into the provinces. Just look at the up country development in the last 10 years.

If thaksin goes now, all that money dries up, and it will ruin quite a lot of the wealthy up country. You think they are going to just sit back and watch it happen? They might not be bangkok rich but they have a Bob or two.

That is not really the issue. Newin and Bhumjai Thai would easily direct as much money to the provinces as Thaksin and then some. There are 2 real problems that are intractible.

One, Thaksin has had more than a decade to put the tentacles of his network into everything. It has nothing to do with money going to the provinces, it has to do with money going to the entrenched elite old boys network that Thaksin has created. Money would still go to the provinces if he were gone and someone else took his place, but it wouldn't go to *THEM*. This could have been avoided, and of course everyone expected it would resolve itself, after the coup in 2006 when Thaksin was offered the opportunity to retire in luxury abroad. If he had simply had an iota of sense instead of an ego the size of a planet, there would be no issues at all right now. But he dug in, and now his supporters really are royally screwed. This time, if he goes down, they are going to be kicked to the curb, and they know it. That makes them really dangerous.

The second issue is the fact that "Love Thaksin" has advanced to a religion in many places throughout the North and the Northeast. You can no longer reason with these groups, or speak to them using logic. Much like any religious fanatics, if you attempt to discredit their lord and saviour, you are simply accused of blasphemy. Contradictory evidence, no matter how strong, is ignored because it must be wrong as it disagrees with their dogma. This is not a healthy environment for a democracy. If we are ever going to get back to a secular democracy, it is necessary to address this religious component, and this can not be done while the lord and saviour is still preaching to his flock.

Anyone who wants to make peace needs to figure out how to institute a massive reeducation program among the whole Thai population and fast. Some of the nicest people I know are mebers of the "Love Thaksin" religion. I think about this every time I get angry with the red shirts for being intransigent. No matter how unreasonable they are, deep down I really don't want to see them hurt, as I imagine how I would feel if they were the red shirts I know and call friends. But religious wars have a way of spiraling out of control, and unless we can do something about the square faced fugitive in Dubai and reeducate the cult of people who worship him, I think a bloody civil war is much more of a certainty than many of us care to admit.

This is not a simple problem of money and/or power, and anyone who thinks it is hasn't spent enough time analyzing the situation. This is a tremendous cultural divide that has been nurtured for more than a decade. How anyone thinks you can have a legitimate democracy right now is beyond me. We need a unifying element to remind all of Thailand what it is we have in common, and then over time the "Love Thaksin" religion can be eradicated, and with it the reactionary "Hate Thaksin" side. The larger issue may not be all about one man, but the solution requires the removal of this man if there is any hope to avoid bloodshed.

You want to make it all about Yingluk or would like to expand it to include Mr heads to head with Siri or Abhisit etc etc ? they are all a nightmare to talk to.

Ms Pedrosa is streets ahead of J.Head when it comes to HONEST journalism. question, Abhisit a nightmare to talk to ??? I would have thought he is one of the best English spoken Thai to interview, and pretty honest.

I am all out of LIKES but Mr Abhisit is very well spoken and comments he has made have all been on queue and target. And so was Thaksin thus making him popular.

And for that matter so was Hitler... I do see some similarities, Thaky and Hits both wanted total control

Though I deeply detest the missunderstood fugitive for what he did and still does to Thaiand and the people, there can NOT be a comparison to Adolf. That one is a whole different league and luckily quite unique in the history of mankind.

If only that were true, this world would be a much better place. Sadly, demagogues like Hitler are all too common in history, with only the extent of his depravity thrusting him to the pinnacle of a rather ignoble list. No, demagogues date back thousands of years, the very word being coined by the ancient Greeks. Thaksin most certainly meets this definition. I have a personal theory that all demagogues are also psycopaths, as only a psycopath would possess the characteristics necessary to rise to such a consideration, but there is no true study I know of which would confirm that hypothesis.

Do not automatically discount that which seems unpalatable. While it is ridiculous to say Thaksin is as bad as Hitler, that may only be due to circumstance and not because of inclination. Much like Hitler, Thaksin played to the emotions of his followers, and created a false enemny in the form of the "amart", that were responsible for all of the ills of the "prai". Just as the underlying resentment of the Jews in Nazi Germany did not make them responsible for all of the countries ills, the even less well defined "amart", while not being angels by any means, are not the whole of the reason for Thailand's trouble. Much like Hitler, Thaksin rallyed the people around himself as the solution to this false threat. And much like Hitler, he has a charisma that creates devout followers, or sworn enemies. There are few that have listened to him that have no opinion, and that opinion is largely based on personal, emotional proclivities.

There can and absolutely should be a comparison, as it is disingenuous not to consider the facts. While he has never been given the chances Hitler had to act on the situation, don't dismiss the fundamental truths without making a rational, informed choice. Demagogues are not uncommon in history, and the one unifying factor they always bring is that they destroy any democracy that gave rise to them.

It is not about control, or corruption, or any of a hundred other issues that people bring up when discussing Thaksin. It is about the methods he uses to gain the adoration of such a large segment of the population. Those methods fit a pattern, and sadly it is the exact same pattern Hitler used. That is what makes him dangerous, and that is why he must be purged for Thailand to continue.

Did you try talking to your bank, using the car as collateral for the loan?

You would obviously have to transfer them the car registration as security for the duration of the loan. I take it that is what you mean when talking of "auto license".

Furthermore, your 350 K car is probably worth at most 200 K when resold, margin of the dealer taken out.

"Loan against auto license" means they don't transfer title unless the loan defaults, thus no VAT due on the transfer. That is the kind of loan I am looking for. I do not want a hire purchase loan. I'll take 60,000 baht if that is all I can get it. The point is I can not show proof of income, so need a legitimate company who deals routinely with these types of loans and can gauge the risk properly.

It is not to us that you have to answer that, but if you have no legitimate income, just an old car and do not want to transfer title to the lender, what guarantee has this lender that you would repay and why, oh why, would they ever agree to lend you any money at all? At least when talking of a legitimate company.

No income = no way to repay in the eyes of a bank, unless a Thai citizen with a stable income stands as guarantor.

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. A "loan against auto license" does give the lender recourse to repossess the car. It simply does not happen until the loan defaults. It is not as easy for the lender as a hire purchase loan where the title is transferred at the beginning of the loan (and thus incurs VAT), but the lender still has recourse via collection and the courts.

It is not an unsecured loan.

I am looking for a legitimate company that is willing to do this. Most banks, such as TISCO, offer these types of loans, generally at up to 70% of the car's value. But I have difficulty qualifying as I have no current income. So I am looking for a company that specializes in doing this for high risk loans at a lesser valuation vs. what TISCO would lend.

Did you try talking to your bank, using the car as collateral for the loan?

You would obviously have to transfer them the car registration as security for the duration of the loan. I take it that is what you mean when talking of "auto license".

Furthermore, your 350 K car is probably worth at most 200 K when resold, margin of the dealer taken out.

"Loan against auto license" means they don't transfer title unless the loan defaults, thus no VAT due on the transfer. That is the kind of loan I am looking for. I do not want a hire purchase loan. I'll take 60,000 baht if that is all I can get it. The point is I can not show proof of income, so need a legitimate company who deals routinely with these types of loans and can gauge the risk properly.

You might also wish to report her to the Thai police (or his bank) for using your fathers account after his death. That isn't allowed.

Maybe maybe not...not wholly illegal if he willing handed over the card & pin number and there is only her word

Did he have a will in Thailand is the question. If he didn't, then the standard laws apply and the wife is only entitled to half his estate in Thailand at the time of his death, with the remainder to be distributed to his other statutory heirs, of which his children are one. It doesn't matter whether she had his permission or not. At the time of his death, his permission stopped being meaningful, and either his written will or the default will took over. If there was no Thai will, the wife has effectively stolen the money from the other heirs, and they absolutely can report that to the police, and sue for its return.

It is very questionable whether a will from the UK will be admissible in a Thai court, especially one that is contested in the UK.

This could be a nasty legal battle. But my advice would be that if you are up for it, to contest in every way possible, in both Thailand and the UK.

A bit more information.

I am told that this authorization code number is required due to an HSBC policy to verify the signature of the bank official who signs the letter of reference. But that still doesn't tell me what it is or how to explain to a Thai bank clerk exactly what this means.

Can anyone shed any more light on this for me?

In order to open a bank account at HSBC in HK, I have been requested to obtain a letter of reference from my current bank. The sample they gave me includes a simple clause that notes the type of account maintained, and the date it was opened.

It then includes the final statement (from the perspective of the bank officer drafting the letter)

My authorization code number is ________________.

What the heck is an authorization code number, why would a bank official have one, and how to I describe exactly what this is to a Thai bank clerk? Has anyone ever obtained a letter of reference in order to open an HSBC account, and what exactly was in it?

Thank you for any assistance with this, as I am completely lost as to how to proceed. Apparently, HSBC requires this clause.

It seemed rather odd to me. It seems like a basic legal issue that should be handled like any harassment situation. Not to deny that there is something special about intimidating courts or other government officials, it is just that the method for handling it seems off.

'basic legal issue'?, 'handled like any other harassment situation'? Well this may surprise you, but in Thailand this type of harassment leads to defamation and/or intimidations accusations and charges.

You may throw pebbles almost with impunity, but that's all

Do you think I have a case for harassment and intimidation?

Assuming you are willing to publish your real name then you may have a case. Right now, you are only a fictional entity called "phiphidon" on an electronic forum. That fictional entity does not have the right to file a defamation suit. Only you, the real person, could do so. So before you decide on whether you may or may not have a case, you have to first make sure that everyone knows your actual identity. Otherwise, how can you the person claim you are injured?

1- Is there any way my step daughter can be counted as a child a I support (which I do!) in the eyes of the Thai tax man?

2 - I heard about tax deductions if you take out health / life insurance / pensions - any info on this?

If you are legally married to your wife, and you are filing a joint return, and you meet all the other restrictions for claiming a dependent, then there should be no issues claiming her. If your wife files a separate return, then your wife may claim the deduction.

As for other deductions, they are all listed here:

http://www.rd.go.th/...ish/6045.0.html

You and your husband can adopt fairly easily here in Thailand. But, it would only be recognized in Thailand. If you want to adopt and give your child your nationality and be recognized as her legal parents in your own country and all other 1st world countries, you will have to go through an international adoption agency in your home country.

Not true, at least for Canada. By Canadian law all you have to do is 1) prove that it is a legal adoption in Thailand and 2) prove that at least one of the adoptive parents are Canadian citizens. Then the child will get Canadian citizenship.

This doesn't seem likely, as Canada is a signatory to the Hague Convention on Intercountry Child Adoptions, which requires a very specific protocol be followed. Adoption through the Thai DSDW does not follow this protocol.

Your information may be out of date.

In fact, you can verify that this protocol must be followed at the following official Canadian government site:

http://www.hrsdc.gc....on/index.shtml/

As was pointed out above, it may be possible to give the child a residence permit on humanitarian grounds without violating the convention, but in order to officially transfer citizenship and be recognized as the legal mother and father the Hague Convention protocol is an absolute requirement.

If you are considering adopting through the DSDW, here is something to consider. While you are in Thailand, this option seems perfectly acceptable. However, if you ever need to return to South Africa, you may have a serious problem. South Africa is also a signatory to the Hague convention, and therefore necessarily requires Hague protocols to be followed.

If you should ever need to return to your home country, it could be very messy, as under the rules of countries who subscribe to the Hague convention you will not actually be the parents of the child. Further, having substantial contact with the child before receiving official approval to proceed with an international adoption through the proper channels in many cases renders you ineligible to complete the adoption according to international standards. This is all there to prevent child trafficking under the guise of adoption. They don't want you influencing a child before the biological mother and father have been counselled and the agency has definitively determined that the child is eligible for international adoption, and they don't want you creating a bond and making his life difficult if they should rule you as improper adoptive parents. Thus, you could find that you may never be able to be the mother and father of the child outside of Thailand no matter what you do if you take the easy route and go via the DSDW.

Do yourself a favor. Call your embassy. Tell them you wish to adopt, do exactly as they tell you, and plan on spending 3 years getting approved through the proper channels. Do not go straight to the DSDW. This is your child, and it is the one thing in the world that is worth doing right.

As for finding a Thai child, the waiting list is long. You will have much better luck going through an international agency anyway. It will cost more. Accept it. How bad do you want a child?

I set my thermostat all the way down to "meat locker" and it is still too dam_n hot.

There are many nice things about this country. The weather isn't one of them. How I yearn to blow the snow off the driveway in the morning....

Ahh memories...

Because I may not necessarily trust the police breathalyzer unit. I would happily submit to a blood test at a nearby hospital, but how can I trust a breath test? Given the meagre budgets of police departments, how can we know the unit is properly maintained and accurate?

It comes down to trust, and there are many who legitimately don't trust the police enough to take a test on the side of the road. Even in most states in the US, people are allowed to refuse a breath test if they agree to a blood or urine test, and the police there are trusted. Of course, they do have to wait in a cell at the police station until those results come back, but since some don't trust the equipment, they opt for a blood test so there can be no doubt.

Given the history of corruption within the police department in Thailand, giving them any kind of power like this is worrying. As much as I detest drunk drivers, the police are not honest enough to get this kind of authority without adequate safeguards. There should be a provision in the law for people stopped to demand an independent blood test at a nearby hospital, and for the police to be responsible for restitution if their equipment is found to be faulty.

Don't drink and drive and calibration won't be an issue.

Naiive statement. And nowhere did I use the word "calibration". You introduced that word to make a straw man argument, as if the only thing that could go wrong was a small error in the absolute level. There is no guarantee that someone who hasn't touched a drop might not be found guilty with an incorrectly maintained device.

A blood test is the only thing I would trust in Thailand.

I introduced the word calibration because breathalyzer accuracy is dependent upon calibration. If calibrated correctly, they are very accurate. I can assure you that no way anyone will blow a .08 or .10 without having "touched a drop." Yeah, mas spec/gas chromograhpy is always most reliable way to find anything in someone's blood stream, but hardly necessary for alcohol content. I think even Thais could get BAC from a breathalzer correct. Just blow in straw. Sheez, the cops running these things is small rural USA communities are far from rocket scientist . . . Now Thais doing stuff like HGN at road side would make a bit concerned . . . Again, don't drink and drive and you will be good and won't have to worry about calibration.

My previous statement stands. There are many ways to have errors, up to an including malicious intent, which could cause someone who had not touched a drop to register incorrectly. Calibration is only a small subset of this.

The law should include the ability to demand a blood test. Without that safeguard, I don't support giving this kind of authority to the Thai police.

...I would really rather stay on the topic of this forum however, which is visa regulations.

Does anyone have any information on how to obtain a marriage visa after changing your country of citizenship?

" to detain suspicious motorists who refuse to take a breath test without a sound reason."

So basically someone stone cold sober can be told to take a breath test,

with no other valid reason given, and if they think that is just nuts, they can be detained.

How long? Where? What mechanism gets them un-detained?

I'm not against stopping drunk drivers at all,

but there seems to be some stuff not written in to this, that leaves it too open ended.

Why would someone that is not drunk want to refuse a breath test?

They have had random breath tests in Australia for years. It is an excellent way to reduce drunk drivers. If drunk drivers can refuse breath tests, how do you stop them?

Sent from my shoe phone

Because I may not necessarily trust the police breathalyzer unit. I would happily submit to a blood test at a nearby hospital, but how can I trust a breath test? Given the meagre budgets of police departments, how can we know the unit is properly maintained and accurate?

It comes down to trust, and there are many who legitimately don't trust the police enough to take a test on the side of the road. Even in most states in the US, people are allowed to refuse a breath test if they agree to a blood or urine test, and the police there are trusted. Of course, they do have to wait in a cell at the police station until those results come back, but since some don't trust the equipment, they opt for a blood test so there can be no doubt.

Given the history of corruption within the police department in Thailand, giving them any kind of power like this is worrying. As much as I detest drunk drivers, the police are not honest enough to get this kind of authority without adequate safeguards. There should be a provision in the law for people stopped to demand an independent blood test at a nearby hospital, and for the police to be responsible for restitution if their equipment is found to be faulty.

Don't drink and drive and calibration won't be an issue.

Naiive statement. And nowhere did I use the word "calibration". You introduced that word to make a straw man argument, as if the only thing that could go wrong was a small error in the absolute level. There is no guarantee that someone who hasn't touched a drop might not be found guilty with an incorrectly maintained device.

A blood test is the only thing I would trust in Thailand.

I have been researching this extensively over the past few months, as I am also of the opinion there is no value in retaining US citizenship. I hear people mention that the overseas income exclusion is $91,500, but has anyone considered how quickly that would go as the USD inflates away its value due to the Bernanke's QE to infinity? And yes, if you happen to live in a country with higher taxes than the US, then aside from the additional filing burden there is no tax cost to being an American. But what if you happen to live in a country with lower taxes, or have structured your compensation in such as way as to minimize your taxes? Then you are at a severe disadvantage as compared to your UK neighbor who enjoys the freedoms of a government that isn't smoking crack...at least in this instance. So he'll work for less and enjoy a higher standard of living.

I would like to suggest to the OP that while this isn't my first choice of options for citizenship based on my research, he give serious consideration to obtaining Cambodian citizenship through the payment of $50,000++ to the Cambodian government. There is a bunch of scare tactics on the internet claiming this citizenship could be revoked in the future, but it isn't clear how right now, and people tend to go quiet when you press them on it. It appears to be allowed through the Cambodian Law on Nationality of 1993, Chapter 4, Article 16. While we all know how fluid laws can be interpreted here, they also tend to follow the path of least resistance in most instances. And I would assume that if any government ever seriously did want to consider revoking this citizenship even in the face of its apparent legality, they would have a hard time doing it to someone who had learnt Khmer and had no other citizenship to fall back on.

So if the OP wants a citizenship that works mainly for travel in Cambodia and Thailand, go for Cambodia. It seems to be the obvious choice. But do try and respect your new country once you have obtained a passport and learn its language and history.

As for reasons to remain an American? I truly can't think of any. History shows that empires in decline are notoriously bad places to live, and it is quite clear the US intends to solve its problems by becoming increasingly aggressive and exercising the only advantage they have left...the world's largest military. Given the recent increases in restriction of freedoms to ordinary citizens and their disingenuous commitments to honesty and justice in horrible crimes like 911, it all adds up to be a place where only the truly desperate or delusional would want to stay.

Bina may say Israel is the pariah today, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the US trailing a close second as the decline of global industrial civilization starts to bite a bit harder.

But do make sure to get all your visas and passport issues resolved before renouncing. Being stateless in Thailand is not something I would want to try. And yes, the US will allow you to renounce, even if you don't have another citizenship to fall back on. You'd be insane to do it, but the option is there.

There are many reasons to renounce American citizenship, and almost no reason I can see to keep it. The only problem is, my marriage certificate has my US passport information and nationality clearly written on it. If I renounce, what happens?

Can I obtain a new marriage visa and subsequent extensions of stay by showing the passport of my new country and a copy of my old American passport with my certificate of loss of nationality? Or do I need to get my marriage documents updated somehow to reflect my new status?

Does anyone have any knowledge of how to proceed in this instance? Has anyone ever been in this situation?

Nope, name on birth cert counts for nothing, you can just say I put a friends name down as I didn't think the father was coming back. They'll often 'correct' the birth certificate for a few $$$ if you ask nicely.

Sorry Tommo, did I get this right?

(i) There is a child of a Thai women and a Thai man, with a birth certificate stating mother is Thai women XY and Thai father is XX.

(ii) Seven years after the birth of the child, the Thai woman starts claiming there was a mistake: the Thai man is not the father but a Caucasian man is the father.

I disagree with TommoPhysicist in practice. It is technically true that under the letter of the law, the name on the birth certificate could simply be a "mistake". But for the people I've dealt with at the local ampur in Pathumthani you are going to get a bunch of questioning looks if you actually try this. They aren't stupid and do take their job seriously. Of course, carefully placed money may help to relieve some of their concerns, but my experience tells me that your request is going to go over like a lead balloon. They are not required to accept anyone's word that the father on the birth certificate was a mistake. It is an option available to them, but if they doubt your honesty they can quite equally just say "no" and tell you you'll have to go to family court. A smooth talking, influential Thai might also be a valuable asset in helping to alleviate their concerns.

Also, do keep in mind that what is being suggested works in Thailand only. It is extremely questionable whether any Western embassy would accept your petition for citizenship for your son after waiting 7 years to correct the "mistake" on the birth certificate. Do you honestly believe they don't know about the loopholes in the Thai laws? It is highly likely they would ask for a DNA sample to prove that this is really your child. If you don't care about this aspect of it, then it might not be a concern for you. But what happens if your wife dies unexpectedly and you want to return to your birth country? Your child wouldn't have citizenship, and you would be ineligible to adopt him at that point. It would be a very nasty problem.

If it were me, I would still go the international adoption route. It will take about 2 years, be a tremendous headache and cost substantially more than just going down to the ampur, but in the end you will have a completely legitimate process that you can truthfully recount to anyone who asks. Do remember, when you say "this is my son" at the ampur, and your wife says "this is the child's father" you are both actually lying. While I can't say how at the moment, it is not inconceivable that this could eventually come back to cause you problems.

In the end though, the decision on which method you take is entirely up to you.

Constitution amendment needs to be done carefully and put to a public referendum for each change. For each change, the people need to be able to keep the existing clause or select one or more alternatives.

Politicians cannot be trusted with changes as important as this and going via public referendum reduces the chances of corruption. Fair and Democratic.

The Constitutional Court has also very cleverly initiated the precedence in law whereby people can now invoke article 88 and by pass the public prosecutors, which means it is now embedded in Thai Law. The result of this is controversial issues may be referred to the Constitutional Court and Politicians do not have a redress against this procedure in future. Hopefully this will form one of the many needed checks and balances needed in Thai Politics.

Finally. Someone who recognizes how important this decision is for the people of Thailand, and what it means for the future. I was beginning to think everyone had gone mad.

I am trying to find a top rated insurer who will quote a policy for a 2 million baht townhouse all risks policy including flood. The townhouse is in an area of Rangsit that was severely flooded during the storms last year.

If anyone knows of a company that is willing to write a policy like this, please let me know.

3. Sign up for a DID service in the US that can supply you with a US number that is routed via SIP to anywhere you are. Then you can use any service in the states , have the call forwarded to a domestic US number, and that will route to you in Thailand via the internet. (Replace US with UK or Hong Kong for a local access number in those countries.)

Just search for US DID SIP. You'll get about 42 million results, nearly all of them relevant.

Todays requests were proven spurious, submitted by a few politicians and a pad guy. Why should they be considered more important than say my wide and kids if they feel that something unconstitutional is going on.

Because nobody is mobilizing for civil war based on a constitutional issue about your wife and kids. People were about to die over that bill. It was a very shrewd move to accept it. So far it appears they engineered a compromise and not a single shot was fired.

I would say they have been extremely effective so far, and their judgement in this entire crisis has been spot on.

You have evidence that she has threatened and defamed you. Get a lawyer to spell it out for her, either she leaves you alone or you sue her for defamation. Serious business in Thailand.

Defamation only works if you have proof she sent the offending message to someone else. If she only sent it to you, it is not defamation. If she posted it on her FB page or CC'ed someone in an email, then you can bring the law into the picture.

Threatening is not really against the law unless it hits another statute (like extortion) or she actually acts on the threat. There is likely nothing the police could do otherwise.

A lawyer could advise you on what legal basis you may have to go after her in a Thai court.

Greg are you thinking what you are saying?

Today the constitutional court did a great thing for the country to judge on the merits of some spurious requests. But on the same breath you are saying they should selectively decide which requests aware spurious without considering them because some how the already know which requests are spurious and which not?

Are they telepathically able to read the requests before they arrive?

I am saying the judges get to decide by themselves, and neither you, nor I, nor the country, can question the method they use to come to that decision. If a judge believes he is telepathic, then that is his right. But remember they can be impeached, and in this case there would be strong ground for claiming that he is mentally unstable.

In practice, most people won't submit directly to the CC, because they know it won't be accepted. And any attorney who presents it is going to be tarnishing his reputation if it is frivolous and there is no danger of people dying. This mechanism is there as an outlet for the extreme case where for whatever reason the traditional path is not working correctly, or not working fast enough.

If people abuse it, then yes, expect the judges to simply ignore requests that come this route. And I wouldn't blame them a bit for it. However, if people and the lawyers who represent them exercise even a small modicum of decorum, it is a great advance for the people of Thailand. The worries about how the court would respond to thousands of requests are ridiculous. There won't be thousands. And if I am wrong and it is abused in such a way, then the only thing that will be accomplished is the wilful destruction of a wonderful liberty.

To Greg.

They still have to at least read and then consider every submission.

No. They don't. They probably would in practice. But in your extreme example, if 1 million people submitted cases in an attempt to swamp them with cases, and there was no clear and present danger that dictated otherwise, it is within their power to dismiss them all without reading them.

They have the right, NOT the obligation, to accept any case presented to them.

If you can't see how impractical your suggestion is, you are mad.

All it takes us for assembled coloured shirts to submit millions of requests and the country stops. The constitution doesn't just extend to reforming lese majeste. Ok, environmental impact assessments? As much as i don't like big business dominating the little guy so much here. said company passes the requirements, and 10000 villagers industrially submit conditional challenges? Takes 10 years of their time to judge them all.

This us the ultimate absurdity of what they did by premptively jumping into this case. They will be deluged.

I absolutely prefer a clear and concise legal definition, of how, when where and for what reasons anything can happen, than "up to you".

This is the constitutional court not a customer service helpline.

I would simply have to disagree with you. The court is the final determinant on interpretations of law. It is "up to them" to decide what they will and will not accept. There has to be someone in that position.

Even in the US the supreme court can bypass lower courts and hear any case directly if they feel it is important enough. And this is extremely rare. They only exercise this right in the most extreme circumstances. For nearly everything else, a petition is denied without having to explain why and the case is required to go through normal channels. What the CC is saying in this case is no different. They have the right, but not the obligation, to accept any case of critical importance presented to them. And they get to decide what is critical.

I'm not sure how you can consider a very normal function of a court to be equivalent to a "customer service helpline".

They have the right, but not the obligation, to accept any case of critical importance presented to them

the public have the right to bring their case directly to the cc, how does that not give the cc the obligation of having to look at it?

Now you are being ridiculous. How about the CC simply invest in a 200 baht stamp that says "petition denied". I suspect with a little practice a single clerk could deny somewhere on the order of 20,000 petitions per day with this simple mechanism. I just don't see the argument you are trying to make. The CC has the right, NOT the obligation, to look at any case presented to them.

The CC is only going to accept cases directly that are serious. And they will know LONG before the case is presented to them that it is serious. They can tell by reading the paper. Or are you claiming the judges are illiterate and stupid?

One more time. The CC gets to decide what they feel is important enough to hear. Every court in the world operates this way. That is just the way it is.