The Constitutional Tribunal Disbands Thai Rak Thai - Election cheating

[Tony Clifton]

Has anybody seen the interview with Noppadon today?

He was asked a question by a journalist, in English, refused to answer in public and then offered the journalist an interview ''in private'' .

What was the question asked?

[TAWP]

First after-verdict protest is today at 4 pm at Royal Plaza. Many Thais who do not want to life with "Thailand style" politics anymore will attend.

Funny, I thought it was the ones that wanted the corrupt practises of vote-buying that would attend...

[younghusband]

Under TRT too much money was going to the common people and not enough was going to the traditional elite...the common people were starting to think that they actually could run the country by democratic means....their sense of ownership of the gov't was increasing yearly and the traditional elite were scared and fed up. The military took over the country to put an end to this nonsense...everything is being realigned so that the traditional elite will again be the beneficiary of gov't actions and policies...the common people have surely been shown that they will not be allowed to run the country and they had better start a55 ki55ing alot more and with increased tongue action if they want to get anything at all!!!!!

Thank god (aka Sondhi) that the social order has been restored and all is once again right in Thailand!!!.....now how to divide up the pie!!!!

LOL Chownah

It was more like this .....

Under Thaksin/TRT those in the direst straights were set up the way a drug dealer sets up is junkies. They were given a drug and were not aware of the consequences. No the drug wasn't democrazy .... the drug was debt/loans. It wasn't hard to see where this would lead! The demand for the drug would create a population loyal to the dealer.

People with any sense ... <much of the country> could see that in the long run this would ruin the country and create such intense destabilization that it would take decades to dig out from under this debt. But in the short run MrT could sell off the state assets and make money! In the long run there'd be a new drug .. there always is!

I, just one amongst many, am hoping that a sound fiscal policy can be created to deal with poverty here in Thailand in a rational way that preserves the uniqueness that we all ove abuot Thailand and still allows for progress!

I really don't see why people should get away with such ignorant and misleading nonsense.The village loan scheme of the TRT may have been flawed (I think it was in some ways) but it is absolute economic illiteracy to suggest that the actual or prospective impact of the programme was undermining the national economy.The impact on the economy as a whole was very marginal.The truth is that the macro economy at the time of the coup was in excellent shape, and this has been acknowledged by the current Minister of Finance and this can be verified by a multitude of economic research reports.As for the selling off of state assets, I have no real idea what he is referring to though I fear the poor booby is thinking of the Shin/Temasek deal!

It's equally absurd to suggest as some others have in another thread that the junta has resulted in economic crisis.The truth is the economy is still in relatively good shape, although there are some external challenges that need to be dealt with.I have no doubt that they will.

Edited May 31, 2007 by younghusband

[TAWP]

Gary A>>Paying off parties to run to bypass election-laws are illegal and are in part what brought this on.

nick2k>>Yes, you might think it would be funny...I wouldn't expect any less from you.

TAWP, can you prove that? No you can't and neither could anyone else. They would have loved to prosecute him for that but they couldn't prove it even though everyone knows it.

Him? Who are you talking about? What do you think the 50.000 was about in the verdict-speech? Why do you think the dissolved the party? Did you even watch it? Read it?

[younghusband]

Perhaps my old memory is failing me but I recall that the coup was a popular one and had the blessing of HRH and many of the populace.

It was brought about because the upcoming election had developped into a sham ,thanks to thaksin and TRT.

His Highness the King at his recent meeting with the Tribunal judges told them that justice had to be seen to be done in a way that the majority of Thais could comprehend, (hence the long explanations of the verdicts and the reasoning behind those verdicts), It seems to be only certain farang who preferred to do an ostrich act .

The people around my area seem to have accepted the decision and life goes on as usual,perhaps they have more sense than the Psuedo interlectuals posting here give them credit for.

My old man used to say ,stay out of discussions on politics and religion as they always degenerate into brawls, which is probably where this thread is headed.

Yes your old memory is failing you.I could point out at least four major misconceptions in your post, but frankly I can't be bothered given your reference to "Psuedo interlectuals".The use of that expression, even when spelled correctly. is a well known giveaway of the mind behind it.

If the cap fits younghusband,I,m sure it fits you well, some are born with a silver spoon and blessed with a good education,others had to leave school at 13 to help support a dirt poor family,we get by on nous,humility and compassion which seem sadly lacking in your demeanour.

And did you live in a paper bag on the motorway, sustained by the odd spoonful of gravel?

[jdinasia]

Under TRT too much money was going to the common people and not enough was going to the traditional elite...the common people were starting to think that they actually could run the country by democratic means....their sense of ownership of the gov't was increasing yearly and the traditional elite were scared and fed up. The military took over the country to put an end to this nonsense...everything is being realigned so that the traditional elite will again be the beneficiary of gov't actions and policies...the common people have surely been shown that they will not be allowed to run the country and they had better start a55 ki55ing alot more and with increased tongue action if they want to get anything at all!!!!!

Thank god (aka Sondhi) that the social order has been restored and all is once again right in Thailand!!!.....now how to divide up the pie!!!!

LOL Chownah

It was more like this .....

Under Thaksin/TRT those in the direst straights were set up the way a drug dealer sets up is junkies. They were given a drug and were not aware of the consequences. No the drug wasn't democrazy .... the drug was debt/loans. It wasn't hard to see where this would lead! The demand for the drug would create a population loyal to the dealer.

People with any sense ... <much of the country> could see that in the long run this would ruin the country and create such intense destabilization that it would take decades to dig out from under this debt. But in the short run MrT could sell off the state assets and make money! In the long run there'd be a new drug .. there always is!

I, just one amongst many, am hoping that a sound fiscal policy can be created to deal with poverty here in Thailand in a rational way that preserves the uniqueness that we all ove abuot Thailand and still allows for progress!

I really don't see why people should get away with such ignorant and misleading nonsense.The village loan scheme of the TRT may have been flawed (I think it was in some ways) but it is absolute economic illiteracy to suggest that the actual or prospective impact of the programme was undermining the national economy.The impact on the economy as a whole was very marginal.The truth is that the macro economy at the time of the coup was in excellent shape, and this has been acknowledged by the current Minister of Finance and this can be verified by a multitude of economic research reports.As for the selling off of state assets, I have no real idea what he is referring to though I fear the poor booby is thinking of the Shin/Temasek deal!

It's equally absurd to suggest as some others have in another thread that the junta has resulted in economic crisis.The truth is the economy is still in relatively good shape, although there are some external challenges that need to be dealt with.I have no doubt that they will.

I think you should reread what I wrote

Edited May 31, 2007 by jdinasia

[A_Traveller]

There does seem to be a consistent approach here, answer a point with redirection to another subject or 'unintentional' misreading of a post to provide traction for the respondents perspective.

Not very illuminating all round, but somehow not surprising either.

Regards

[ColPyat]

There does seem to be a consistent approach here, answer a point with redirection to another subject or 'unintentional' misreading of a post to provide traction for the respondents perspective.

Not very illuminating all round, but somehow not surprising either.

Regards

As un-illuminating is the approach to either completely ignore the context, or invent contexts to suit ones personal opinion.

How can be a judgment legal of a tribunal that has been set up by an illegal military junta, and a judgement that, according to tettyan, used opposing measurements to come to a conclusion over dissolving one party and not another? Care to enlighten me?

[jdinasia]

There does seem to be a consistent approach here, answer a point with redirection to another subject or 'unintentional' misreading of a post to provide traction for the respondents perspective.

Not very illuminating all round, but somehow not surprising either.

Regards

As un-illuminating is the approach to either completely ignore the context, or invent contexts to suit ones personal opinion.

How can be a judgment legal of a tribunal that has been set up by an illegal military junta, and a judgement that, according to tettyan, used opposing measurements to come to a conclusion over dissolving one party and not another? Care to enlighten me?

The same 'measurements' were used for all 5 parties

illegal Junta? LOL

[blaze]

There does seem to be a consistent approach here, answer a point with redirection to another subject or 'unintentional' misreading of a post to provide traction for the respondents perspective.

Not very illuminating all round, but somehow not surprising either.

Regards

I believe that JD claimed that anyone with any sense could see that the village fund scheme would eventually ruin the country.

YH stated that the actual impact on the economy was marginal. How is that redirection?

[A_Traveller]

At the risk of being a repeat offender, as I said at one o'clock this morning:-

...

The court today confirmed the legal advice the Democrats received at the time that their actions were entirely legal within the constitutional law at that time. The court critically found that TRT's position was not constitutional at that time and therefore for that key reason the party was forfeit.

As has been said during the day the judgements were rigorous and not a flexible response. Nor had they been drafted in the last week. Ultimately the court has discharged its duty in a manner commensurate with its mandate.

Regards

...

[Siripon]

There does seem to be a consistent approach here, answer a point with redirection to another subject or 'unintentional' misreading of a post to provide traction for the respondents perspective.

Not very illuminating all round, but somehow not surprising either.

Regards

As un-illuminating is the approach to either completely ignore the context, or invent contexts to suit ones personal opinion.

How can be a judgment legal of a tribunal that has been set up by an illegal military junta, and a judgement that, according to tettyan, used opposing measurements to come to a conclusion over dissolving one party and not another? Care to enlighten me?

Get it right colonel for god's sake.

The Constitutional Court comprises judges from the 2 highest courts in the land, The Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, it's not a hodge podge 'tribunal'.

The reasoning of the court on every charge facing both parties was in the Thai papers today and no doubt will be in The Bangkok Post and The Nation tomorrow.

[Plus]

As I understand it, the judges said the election code couldn't apply to the Democrats because the law had lapsed after the coup. Yet they didn't seem to have much trouble applying the same set of laws to dissolve TRT!

The very first news about the verdict were that the laws actaully DO apply to Democrats. Did you see that, Tettyan?

Only one of the charges was ruled as not applicable. Look it up on the Nation's site, it's somewhere at the bottom of the breaking news section.

Also your one of your first points about inconsitency in the verdict was incorrect and taken out of the context.

[bingobongo]

welcome to the dark ages.....and good luck because thailand will need it.......

Thailand

The party is over

May 31st 2007 | BANGKOK

From Economist.com

Thailand takes a step away from democracy and freedom

Reuters

Local newspapers had quoted one of the nine judges as saying they would "apply the spirit" of the coup-makers in making their rulings. This, plus the severity of the punishment meted out to Mr Thaksin and his party, and the absolution of the Democrats, will only raise suspicions that the destruction of TRT was a pre-determined outcome. Hopes of a peaceful move back to democracy have dimmed.

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displa...amp;top_story=1

Edited May 31, 2007 by bingobongo

[A_Traveller]

There does seem to be a consistent approach here, answer a point with redirection to another subject or 'unintentional' misreading of a post to provide traction for the respondents perspective.

Not very illuminating all round, but somehow not surprising either.

Regards

I believe that JD claimed that anyone with any sense could see that the village fund scheme would eventually ruin the country.

YH stated that the actual impact on the economy was marginal. How is that redirection?

IMHO the point JD was making was a social one, using drugs as an analogy, which is how I read it, and not strictly speaking a fiscal one. However, to be fair I can see with rereading and with the benefit of your directional post, how the alternative construct could be placed upon it.

JD maybe able to confirm his intent.

Regards

/edit typo//

Edited May 31, 2007 by A_Traveller

[ColPyat]

The same 'measurements' were used for all 5 parties

illegal Junta? LOL

You being an expert on constitutional law, would you please point out where in the then valid '97 constitution was it legal to make a military coup?

If you can't - i am afraid the junta is illegal, nothing to laugh out loud about it though.

And, tettyan has pointed out in a previous post that a different set of measures has been applied to the verdict against the Democrats and the TRT. Me not being anything close to a legal expert - i do trust his judgment there. Funny though that none of you junta supporters have even bothered to comment on his post.

[ColPyat]

At the risk of being a repeat offender, as I said at one o'clock this morning:-

...

The court today confirmed the legal advice the Democrats received at the time that their actions were entirely legal within the constitutional law at that time. The court critically found that TRT's position was not constitutional at that time and therefore for that key reason the party was forfeit.

As has been said during the day the judgements were rigorous and not a flexible response. Nor had they been drafted in the last week. Ultimately the court has discharged its duty in a manner commensurate with its mandate.

Regards

...

Not very illuminating, i am afraid. Why was one party within constitutional law, and one wasn't?

[BlackJack]

Amazing Thailand

[A_Traveller]

At the risk of being a repeat offender, as I said at one o'clock this morning:-

...

The court today confirmed the legal advice the Democrats received at the time that their actions were entirely legal within the constitutional law at that time. The court critically found that TRT's position was not constitutional at that time and therefore for that key reason the party was forfeit.

As has been said during the day the judgements were rigorous and not a flexible response. Nor had they been drafted in the last week. Ultimately the court has discharged its duty in a manner commensurate with its mandate.

Regards

...

Not very illuminating, i am afraid. Why was one party within constitutional law, and one wasn't?

OK, I'll bite one last time.

The actions of the Democrats were adjudged to be within the constitution. The actions of the AG bringing the charges, after complaints by TRT was heavily criticised during the verdicts yesterday. Critically, however, the Democrats were found not have broken constitutional law, they were exonerated of the charges brought against them.

Contrary to those who have said this, applying the same standards the court found that TRT has broken the constitution {Section 26 I think} in force at the time of the offences.

This is the most serious charge and led to the dissolution verdict.

There are two sets of laws here, the electoral law, and the constitutional law, which takes precedent.

One final thing, I wish that we were not in the situation we are, but the present position is a fact of life {for reasons we cannot discuss} and we, as guests here, have to accept that. We may influence individuals but this is after all Thailand and it is their country.

Regards

[LaoPo]

- i am afraid the junta is illegal, nothing to laugh out loud about it though.

...as were the previous 18 coups d'Etat in Thailand, I suppose.

That this one, is the last one, is 'wishfull thinking'...

..I suppose

LaoPo

[jdinasia]

At the risk of being a repeat offender, as I said at one o'clock this morning:-

...

The court today confirmed the legal advice the Democrats received at the time that their actions were entirely legal within the constitutional law at that time. The court critically found that TRT's position was not constitutional at that time and therefore for that key reason the party was forfeit.

As has been said during the day the judgements were rigorous and not a flexible response. Nor had they been drafted in the last week. Ultimately the court has discharged its duty in a manner commensurate with its mandate.

Regards

...

Not very illuminating, i am afraid. Why was one party within constitutional law, and one wasn't?

The courts findings stated the Demos did not bribe small parties ... TRT did ... how is that hard to understand? The Demo's choice not to contest the elections were legal etc etc etc ...

the same rules were applied to both cases! Even I followed that in the proceedings <in Thai> and I am a baby here in Thailand

[ColPyat]

At the risk of being a repeat offender, as I said at one o'clock this morning:-

...

The court today confirmed the legal advice the Democrats received at the time that their actions were entirely legal within the constitutional law at that time. The court critically found that TRT's position was not constitutional at that time and therefore for that key reason the party was forfeit.

As has been said during the day the judgements were rigorous and not a flexible response. Nor had they been drafted in the last week. Ultimately the court has discharged its duty in a manner commensurate with its mandate.

Regards

...

Not very illuminating, i am afraid. Why was one party within constitutional law, and one wasn't?

OK, I'll bite one last time.

The actions of the Democrats were adjudged to be within the constitution. The actions of the AG bringing the charges, after complaints by TRT was heavily criticised during the verdicts yesterday. Critically, however, the Democrats were found not have broken constitutional law, they were exonerated of the charges brought against them.

Contrary to those who have said this, applying the same standards the court found that TRT has broken the constitution {Section 26 I think} in force at the time of the offences.

This is the most serious charge and led to the dissolution verdict.

There are two sets of laws here, the electoral law, and the constitutional law, which takes precedent.

One final thing, I wish that we were not in the situation we are, but the present position is a fact of life {for reasons we cannot discuss} and we, as guests here, have to accept that. We may influence individuals but this is after all Thailand and it is their country.

Regards

Well, i am still not illuminated. And i doubt that i ever will be, even if i would read the transcripts. Which i won't.

As to being "guests", well that is the last resort crop out. By that reasoning we should have never made one single post criticizing Thaksin, or any other critical post of anything in Thailand. We should close this folder to discussion, and only allow a general "i love Thailand" folder.

You may be a guest, i am not. I am a taxpaying non-immigrant resident on work permit providing for my family of Thai nationals.

But yes, there are many things we cannot discuss here. But some (and i don't mean you here) should inform themselves more widely at least.

[ColPyat]

At the risk of being a repeat offender, as I said at one o'clock this morning:-

...

The court today confirmed the legal advice the Democrats received at the time that their actions were entirely legal within the constitutional law at that time. The court critically found that TRT's position was not constitutional at that time and therefore for that key reason the party was forfeit.

As has been said during the day the judgements were rigorous and not a flexible response. Nor had they been drafted in the last week. Ultimately the court has discharged its duty in a manner commensurate with its mandate.

Regards

...

Not very illuminating, i am afraid. Why was one party within constitutional law, and one wasn't?

The courts findings stated the Demos did not bribe small parties ... TRT did ... how is that hard to understand? The Demo's choice not to contest the elections were legal etc etc etc ...

the same rules were applied to both cases! Even I followed that in the proceedings <in Thai> and I am a baby here in Thailand

Well, as i did not read the verdict, and the televised speech sent me into drift off dreamland, i may not be the most competent poster to ask these questions here (one statement though bothered me a bit, and that was one judge explaining the he was not "happy", and i wondered how that belongs into this verdict), but still - did the court establish a clear connection, beyond reasonable doubt, between the party and the individuals who have bribed the smaller parties?

Just curious.

That still leaves us with the general legalities of a tribunal set up by a junta that came to power through clearly illegal means.

My head spins now.

[A_Traveller]

You may be a guest, i am not. I am a taxpaying non-immigrant resident on work permit providing for my family of Thai nationals.

Guess we shall have to agree to disagree, which is at least civil. By the by I used the term 'Guest' in its widest connotation. If it's good enough for Mr. Heinecke even though he has citizenship, it should be good enough for us.

Regards

[ColPyat]

You may be a guest, i am not. I am a taxpaying non-immigrant resident on work permit providing for my family of Thai nationals.

Guess we shall have to agree to disagree, which is at least civil. By the by I used the term 'Guest' in its widest connotation. If it's good enough for Mr. Heinecke even though he has citizenship, it should be good enough for us.

Regards

Well, up to Bill Heinecke. And up to you how you feel. But please don't include me into the "we", in whatever connotation.

I have my own feelings about nationalism and its connotations.

[teko]

an honest and straight forward decision ... Thankfully!

Honest, straightforward, what do i know? I didn't understand the ten hour legal blathering, and so did not 90% of the Thai population either. It was a language used way over the head of the majority of the population.

What about the so called aim of healing the "divisions" in Thai society? Todays decision made those even worse.

No today's decision gave an honest and rather transparent reasoning behind EVERY decsion .... will everyone understand? well in some smaller places that don't get papers and don't get radio or TV ... and ONLY rely on the local kanman to tell them what is right ... no in those places people will not understand

The only problem here is that the language used was for most Thais not understandable, mostly a very complicated legal Thai, so detailed that most people just could not concentrate long enough to get the context.

Even several educated people i have asked about that had difficulties to follow, and lesser educated Thais understood nothing. After the first 20 minutes into the statement there were even cheers, as many listeners have misunderstood and thought that both parties were exonerated. The same happened at the end of the sentencing, when at first people cheered, because they thought that TRT was not dissolved.

it was not that difficult in the way of formal language

gee you must be really good and an american

[John K]

welcome to the dark ages.....and good luck because thailand will need it.......

Thailand

The party is over

May 31st 2007 | BANGKOK

From Economist.com

Thailand takes a step away from democracy and freedom

Reuters

Local newspapers had quoted one of the nine judges as saying they would "apply the spirit" of the coup-makers in making their rulings. This, plus the severity of the punishment meted out to Mr Thaksin and his party, and the absolution of the Democrats, will only raise suspicions that the destruction of TRT was a pre-determined outcome. Hopes of a peaceful move back to democracy have dimmed.

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displa...amp;top_story=1

To say the hopes of a peaceful move back to democracy have dimmed is a bit premature in my opinion. I will agree another veil has been removed from the face of the Junta, but there is still two more veils in this dance of the veils. They will be removed in the next month after the dust has settled from this ruling. One veil is on censorship, the other is on tolerance of (legitimate) political parties getting up to speed for the elections. I can see they may have to get nasty with the TRT based on their arrogance and announcement that they don’t plan to go away. As I see it if the Junta wants to stay in power then it will be very apparent with an overreaction of force. I do fully expect the TRT to make noise but how loud that ultimately will be will be established today with the PTV rally. From what I did not see today I expect a small very vocal group trying to look bigger as others have decided to move on and look to the future.

[ozzydom]

Perhaps my old memory is failing me but I recall that the coup was a popular one and had the blessing of HRH and many of the populace.

It was brought about because the upcoming election had developped into a sham ,thanks to thaksin and TRT.

His Highness the King at his recent meeting with the Tribunal judges told them that justice had to be seen to be done in a way that the majority of Thais could comprehend, (hence the long explanations of the verdicts and the reasoning behind those verdicts), It seems to be only certain farang who preferred to do an ostrich act .

The people around my area seem to have accepted the decision and life goes on as usual,perhaps they have more sense than the Psuedo interlectuals posting here give them credit for.

My old man used to say ,stay out of discussions on politics and religion as they always degenerate into brawls, which is probably where this thread is headed.

Yes your old memory is failing you.I could point out at least four major misconceptions in your post, but frankly I can't be bothered given your reference to "Psuedo interlectuals".The use of that expression, even when spelled correctly. is a well known giveaway of the mind behind it.

If the cap fits younghusband,I,m sure it fits you well, some are born with a silver spoon and blessed with a good education,others had to leave school at 13 to help support a dirt poor family,we get by on nous,humility and compassion which seem sadly lacking in your demeanour.

And did you live in a paper bag on the motorway, sustained by the odd spoonful of gravel?

Nope,it was a lovely 15foot x 15foot stone house with a dirt floor,sustained by the 10shillings I got for 5 round bouts every Saturday night.

[bentrein]

Sorry, I'm not able to answer your question, but...

That still leaves us with the general legalities of a tribunal set up by a junta that came to power through clearly illegal means.

Not being a great fan (euphemism) of the current junta , nor liking the previous junta - er, Thugsin & Co. - I can't see the problem with the tribunal. And well because the following: Yes, it was set up by an illegal junta, but the members are the top judges in the country, and they were told to check if the old laws (the constitutional - the one that was hailed as the most democratic constitution Thailand has ever had - and the electoral) were broken. They applied those laws to both parties and found that one hadn't broken the law, and the other had.

It remains debatable if the verdict was handed down, though I dare say I highly doubt it. I've heard it, and it's been said here many times before; the verdict was very thorough - and elaborate.

So this is to others as well who say that TRT was disbanded based on a different law (supposedly one they weren't bound by at the time of wrongdoing), than the Democrats... This is not true.

On a seperate note, anyone reading and thinking about the news before hand, could feel the verdict coming. TRT was calling on the tribunal to take into consideration national unity (or something like it) and asking for mercy, while the Democrats asked the tribunal to stick to the facts. Now who, I ask you, sounds like a guilty party?

[jdinasia]

At the risk of being a repeat offender, as I said at one o'clock this morning:-

...

The court today confirmed the legal advice the Democrats received at the time that their actions were entirely legal within the constitutional law at that time. The court critically found that TRT's position was not constitutional at that time and therefore for that key reason the party was forfeit.

As has been said during the day the judgements were rigorous and not a flexible response. Nor had they been drafted in the last week. Ultimately the court has discharged its duty in a manner commensurate with its mandate.

Regards

...

Not very illuminating, i am afraid. Why was one party within constitutional law, and one wasn't?

The courts findings stated the Demos did not bribe small parties ... TRT did ... how is that hard to understand? The Demo's choice not to contest the elections were legal etc etc etc ...

the same rules were applied to both cases! Even I followed that in the proceedings <in Thai> and I am a baby here in Thailand

Well, as i did not read the verdict, and the televised speech sent me into drift off dreamland, i may not be the most competent poster to ask these questions here (one statement though bothered me a bit, and that was one judge explaining the he was not "happy", and i wondered how that belongs into this verdict), but still - did the court establish a clear connection, beyond reasonable doubt, between the party and the individuals who have bribed the smaller parties?

Just curious.

That still leaves us with the general legalities of a tribunal set up by a junta that came to power through clearly illegal means.

My head spins now.

Courts all over the world often make statements about findings .... and yes they answered the question of Guilt.

again ... illegal junta! lol

while almost everyone would like to see democracy returned to Thailand ... the current government here is legitimate ... even if they did take power through a coup!

<again as Juntas go ... this one aint bad! >