The Constitutional Tribunal Disbands Thai Rak Thai - Election cheating

[ColPyat]

I was recently in several European countries and that was most definitely not the perception of Thailand. People still think of Thailand as a beach or travel destination and most dont even know or care what kind of government Thailand has.

It all depends in which circles one moves there. In politically informed and academic circles who do base their opinions and perceptions more on academic studies than the mass media, a very negative view on Thailand's development is indeed the position people take (and that is not to be mistaken with a pro Thaksin position).

It always takes time and certain reportable/marketable incidents before the mass media decides to report. For the mass media anything apart from beaches and Thai food is just not marketable presently, other situations closer to Europe take precedence.

[Prakanong]

"The reality is Thailand is not a big issue in the West. People and organizations in the west are more concerned about Turkey, Venezuela, Africa in genral and of course Iraq and Iran right now. That helps to keep Thailand out of mind for many."

So true - they see it as a cute beach resort.

If another Hok tulaa or Black May happened it would only get a little more press because lots of people had been on holiday there.

Even in the region peole are secretly smirking at the place - even taxi drivers joke about the place.

[larvidchr]

I get it you are 'not happy' with their choosing to do what they thought was right! But ... well ... too bad! Again they have a higher moral place to stand upon than the convicted opponents

"A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission

THAILAND: The judiciary is the real loser

On 30 May 2007 Thailand's senior judges participated in a farce that was not of their making but has, thanks to their acquiescence to the country's military regime, been made to appear one of their doing. By sanctioning a decision that was made well before 19 September 2006, they have caused immense damage to already diminished judicial institutions, with far-reaching consequences."

Jdinasia, There is no law in Thailand, only the law of the gun, nobody has been convicted and nobody has been acquitted.

Reason: The Junta appointing the court is itself unlawfull, thus the court is unlawfull.

I hope you finally get this, wake up to the real world will you, the alleged wrongdoings by the previus administration, does not make what has happend now lawfull or right in any way shape or form. In fact the actions of the Junta and its puppet court is undoubtly the bigger crime.

Kind regards.

[Jai Dee]

BMA to meet rally organizers in Sanam Luang

The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) will invite different rally leaders to discuss places to stage their demonstrations in Sanam Luang. The BMA will also adjust the plan to renovate the surroundings of Sanam Luang.

Bangkok Governor Apirak Kosayodhin says campaigners who will organize their rallies in Sanam Luang until June 24th will attend the meeting to determine the framework and timeframe for staging demonstrations.

The BMA, the Metropolitan Police, and the Army Region 1 will join the meeting, and they will also discuss the plan to renovate the surroundings of Sanam Luang prior to the celebration of His Majesty the King’s 80th birthday on December 5th, 2007. The BMA will renovate Sanam Luang so public members can use the area to voice their opinions without affecting its surroundings.

Mr. Apirak says the plan will be carried out within this week so the renovation can start on time.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 04 June 2007

[jdinasia]

I get it you are 'not happy' with their choosing to do what they thought was right! But ... well ... too bad! Again they have a higher moral place to stand upon than the convicted opponents

"A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission

THAILAND: The judiciary is the real loser

On 30 May 2007 Thailand's senior judges participated in a farce that was not of their making but has, thanks to their acquiescence to the country's military regime, been made to appear one of their doing. By sanctioning a decision that was made well before 19 September 2006, they have caused immense damage to already diminished judicial institutions, with far-reaching consequences."

Jdinasia, There is no law in Thailand, only the law of the gun, nobody has been convicted and nobody has been acquitted.

Reason: The Junta appointing the court is itself unlawfull, thus the court is unlawfull.

I hope you finally get this, wake up to the real world will you, the alleged wrongdoings by the previus administration, does not make what has happend now lawfull or right in any way shape or form. In fact the actions of the Junta and its puppet court is undoubtly the bigger crime.

Kind regards.

YOUR wishfulness that this government is not legitimate does not seem to have much weight.

The international community has pretty well spoken ... and recognizes Thailand's government.

My government has normal relations with Thailand ... as do most others ... so the dream that the current government is illegal is silly! The fact is the current government may have come into power 'illegally' but then again so did the one before that ... and before that .....

[hammered]

EXTRACT

......Like Thaksin or not, and i don't, but people did vote for him. That is democracy....

To save space I have only pasted one sentence from your interesting and well debated message.

I wish to say that what you have said is well put and argued.

My only comments would be that just because Thailand politics has always been steeped in corruption that the concept to allow it to always continue (and probably get worse) is not possible IF the Thailand people truly wish to embrace the full extent of democracy.

With regard to your ONE sentence above,

I wish to mention that Yes people did vote for Thaksin and elect him, and would almost certainly have elected him again last time. As you rightly say "that is democracy" BUT unfortunately, rigging a General Election to get around the Thai 20% electoral rules laws in order to get re-elected and retain power has nothing to do with democracy. In fact it is quite the reverse, as it steals the Thai people's democratic rights to vote and and have their vote recognised in a "fair and legal" General Election.

Kind regards,

Dave

I don't see that TRT just rigged the election to get around the 20% rule. Because the opposition parties have not fielded any candidates and asked people to vote for the "No" option, the have found and used a legal loophole that did in fact amount to a boycott of the elections. This may have been a smart tactic in political power games, but it also was a major factor that brought up the present mess. After this it was predictable where we end up. The TRT buying up smaller parties was just a consequence, a desperate move to keep things within at least a resemblance of democracy. Of course it failed.

The political power game may have been won (so far), but what was existing of democracy was completely lost. The opposition and pressure groups such as the PAD have all along tried to force down a coup or other higher intervention to get rid of TRT, without having used any of the slower, but democratic means available to them. Means such as formulating policies to win elections. Can anyone here link me to policies the Democrats have formulated? There are none. The only policies they have had were a short one or two page statement of rather fluffy intentions.

What many people here in this discussion completely seem to miss here is, that what happens right now is only partially about supporting Thaksin or not. The junta has introduced certain institutions such as the ISOC, which make any future election irrelevant, because the power has been taken away from elected politicians. We have seen a huge setback to democratic development in Thailand, and every political party will be affected by this.

In November 2006 there would have been elections. There would have been ample time after the nullified elections to set up what can be considered as fair elections (can anyone please show me a impartial international report by a watchdog stating that TRT has won election through wide spread abuse. All i have seen stated that abuse happened but in general elections were fair). But then we had the coup, based on flimsy excuses, unproven allegations of widespread violence to be caused by TRT.

The latest downer has been the verdict. I am not qualified to comment on the legality of the verdict, only that the law has been used again against all common sense. Instead of healing the frictions so that the country can finally get ahead after nearly two years of crises, it has brought the situation to a new low.

Some here in this debate are not able to hide their triumph as the side they support has won another victory, blind though to the fact that this was a Pyrrhic victory right out of the text book. I don't see anything whatsoever to glee about - things are in a state of mess, the worst since the beginning of the present crises.

We have bigger frictions than ever, we have dictatorial institutions introduced with more far-reaching effects than anything that TRT has done. Some here ask to simply support the junta, and then things are going to be fine. That would be if the junta would not have re-introduced cold war remnants such as the ISOC, things that shoot way beyond the aim of getting rid of Thaksin. Be under no illusion - the coup was a convenient power grab by the traditional elites at an opportune time, in order to re-establish their power they have lost after '92, and to steer Thailand back to a course that is at most a "guided democracy".

This is all gonna end in tears.

We also shouldnt forget that there was no need at all for Mr. Thaksin to call the April election. TRT had a huge mandate and 3 years to run and had several potential alternative leaders. Nobody was calling for TRT to go. The calling of the election to avoid censure was what led to the mess and actually to the start of calls for TRT to suffer too as they as the party decided to stick totally with their leader rather than even ask questions. It was at this stage that the poor were abandoned too as both sides - yes TRT too - decided to politic rather than govern. Nobody has been innocent in playing their part in creating a mess. It was a high stakes game by all and some have come out better than others but at a cost to the country.

By the way I dont think any large scale netral investigation into Thailands elections and how they were won has ever been done. Actually there probably havent been many done world wide. All I can remember is that with the exception of the April 2 election all Thai elections are generally pronounced as being up to international standing, which April 2 withstanding is better than recent US election.

[Jai Dee]

BKK Governor asks people to respect other political views and understand political situation

Bangkok Governor Apirak Kosayodhin asks public members for cooperation by trying to understand the actual political situation and acknowledge different political views.

Mr. Apirak says the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) and the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) have launched the project to promote democracy and reconciliation. He says the project will also educate people about the constitutional drafting process and the constitutional referendum as not many people understand them correctly.

As for the PTV’s demonstrate in Sanam Luang, Mr. Apirak says he will discuss this issue with relevant agencies. He says the BMA also has a plan to renovate Sanam Luang for His Majesty the King’s celebration at the end of this year.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 04 June 2007

[Plus]

Asian Human Rights Commission has issued several paranoid letters, that's just another one.

>>>>>>>>

If TRT/PTV can bring busloads of protesters it doesn't mean they have so many supporters, it means they can afford paying them. I have absolutely no problems with junta not allowing this practice anymore.

[ColPyat]

We also shouldnt forget that there was no need at all for Mr. Thaksin to call the April election. TRT had a huge mandate and 3 years to run and had several potential alternative leaders. Nobody was calling for TRT to go. The calling of the election to avoid censure was what led to the mess and actually to the start of calls for TRT to suffer too as they as the party decided to stick totally with their leader rather than even ask questions. It was at this stage that the poor were abandoned too as both sides - yes TRT too - decided to politic rather than govern. Nobody has been innocent in playing their part in creating a mess. It was a high stakes game by all and some have come out better than others but at a cost to the country.

By the way I dont think any large scale netral investigation into Thailands elections and how they were won has ever been done. Actually there probably havent been many done world wide. All I can remember is that with the exception of the April 2 election all Thai elections are generally pronounced as being up to international standing, which April 2 withstanding is better than recent US election.

There have been studies done, i have none though right now i could post, sorry. What i have read was about abuses, but not that wide spread that they changed the election outcome. What is claimed by many here about TRT only having won because of large scale vote buying is self serving hyperbole.

Yes, the way how Thaksin called in the snap elections was not exactly fair, having circumvented the 90 day ruling. But instead of keeping the moral high ground, and the interest of the country at heart, the opposition parties have only retaliated with upping the dirty political power game. This gave an opening for a military take over, something along those lines pressure groups such as the PAD have worked all along to achieve.

The sad irony is, that if the opposition parties would have contested the election they would have had, counting from the massive amount of null votes, enough power to start a censor motion soon. And we would not have had to life with serious long reaching restrictions of parliamentary decision making power re-introduced by the military junta.

A bit of patience could have moved Thailand forward...

[ColPyat]

Asian Human Rights Commission has issued several paranoid letters, that's just another one.

>>>>>>>>

If TRT/PTV can bring busloads of protesters it doesn't mean they have so many supporters, it means they can afford paying them. I have absolutely no problems with junta not allowing this practice anymore.

Can you give me a link to this please. That does not sound as if it is an excerpt of an official report issued by the commission, but like a post from a public discussion board phrased by someone with not very good English language skills.

[Plus]

I've seen a couple in the Nation a few months ago.

haksin called in the snap elections was not exactly fair, having circumvented the 90 day ruling.

Actaully it's been called illegal and Democrats refused to participate in a dirty political game and kept country's best interest in their hearts.

[ColPyat]

I've seen a couple in the Nation a few months ago.

haksin called in the snap elections was not exactly fair, having circumvented the 90 day ruling.

Actaully it's been called illegal and Democrats refused to participate in a dirty political game and kept country's best interest in their hearts.

I don't remember that the decision for snap election have been called illegal. What i can remember is that the elections have been nullified because of technicalities such as the wrong direction of the election booths. Again, can you refresh my memory with a link that shows that the decision to call in snap elections themselves have been declared "illegal"?

What have you "seen" in the Nation? Letters to the editor? Links, please.

Edited June 4, 2007 by ColPyat

[Plus]

After September 19, the new military government in Thailand hurried to have an interim constitution written up that would create an illusion of its adherence to principles of law. The gaping hole left by the abrogated 1997 Constitution was filled not by the sham charter, but by martial law. Nor is there anything "interim" about this arrangement.The intention of the armed forces has from the beginning been to restore an earlier model of hierarchy and administration to the government, military, police and bureaucracy.

In Thailand, with its multitude of overlapping and competing departments, offices and commands, this can only give rise to even greater conflict for which there will be no easy solutions, which will in turn demand increasingly aggressive and uncompromising responses from the military for it to keep control.

http://nationmultimedia.com/search/page.ne...amp;id=30024023

Pure, unadulterated speculation, and it doesn't make any sense.

[ColPyat]

Plus, you continue to completely confuse me.

I have asked you to provide a link that supports your allegations, and not one that proves the points i have made. Providing this, and attacking the link by including your personal views does not exactly make a strong point.

So please, just try an find the link that supports your allegations. So far you continue to state your opinions without ever providing any link to an impartial organization or study that supports your opinions. That makes for a very tedious and unsatisfying debate. Well, that in addition to the fact that you still have not provided your list of books and studies, other than a widely discredited book.

[ando]

I thought 10,000 people demonstrated at Sanam Luang last weekend?

No one stopped them.

It seem that you have completely missed the constant and open reports about the military having set up check points along the roads to Bangkok, turning people who wan to join the demonstrations back.

Martial law in provinces where the people oppose the junta and road blocks with armed men preventing protesters reaching the capital. Sure nobody prevented the few thousand Bangkokians from protesting, but what about the majority of the countries voters out in the country?

[A_Traveller]

To hopefully add balance here,

from Nation May 9 2006

The sitting of the judges today on the issues came after HM the King suggested senior judges from the Supreme Court, Supreme Administrative Court and Constitution Court to launch deliberation on a series of cases to determine the legality of Thailand's April 2 snap election which has led to widespread political confusion.

In an audience with newly appointed judges to the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court, HM the King said it was the duty of the judiciary to find a way out of the country's looming constitutional crisis, caused by a highly peculiar snap election held earlier this month.

Nation May 9 2006

from Nation April 27 2006 [Extract form King's speech [unofficial translation]

"Now, I will talk about the election. The court itself has the right to discuss the election, especially the candidates who received less than 20 per cent of the vote.

Besides, some of them were the sole candidates in their constituencies, which is critical. The sole candidatures cannot lead to full membership in the House, because a sole candidate must have support from at least 20 per cent.

Is this issue relevant to you? In fact, it should be. The issue of the sole candidacy elections is important because they will never fulfill the quorum. If the House is not filled by elected candidates, the democracy cannot function. If this is the case, the oaths you have just sworn in would be invalid. You have sworn to work for democracy. If you cannot do it, then you may have to resign. You must find ways to solve the problem.

When referring the case to the Constitution Court, the court said it was not their jurisdiction. The Constitution Court said they're in charge of drafting the Constitution and their job was finished after completing the draft.

I ask you not to neglect democracy, because it's a system that enables the country to function.

Another point is whether it was right to dissolve the House and call for snap polls within 30 days. There was no debate about this. If it's not right, it must be corrected.

Should the election be nullified? You have the right to say what's appropriate or not. If it's not appropriate, it is not to say the government is not good. But as far as I'm concerned, a one party election is not normal. The one candidate situation is undemocratic.

When an election is not democratic, you should look carefully into the administrative issues. I ask you to do the best you can. If you cannot do it, then it should be you who resign, not the government, for failing to do your duty. Carefully review the vows you have made.

I heard on the radio this morning about the case in Noppitam subdistrict in Tha Sala district in Nakhon Si Thammarat province. It is not the only case. There are other places [where there were election problems] that can cause the collapse of the country. The nation cannot survive if the situation runs contrary to the law.

April 26 Speech by HM the King

from Nation April 25 2006

But their "no vote" - like those in other major cities - was more than just a resounding "no" to Thaksin. In a larger context, it was a reflection of the voters' anger with a political system presided over by Thaksin and fraught with corruption and cronyism. So when Thaksin dismissed the ripping up of election ballots as "absurd", he might have forgotten that he himself was largely responsible for this sudden upsurge of "absurdity". In the eyes of his critics, his decision to dissolve the House to escape scrutiny of his family's controversial Shin Corp-Temasek deal was certainly no less politically absurd.

Thepchai Yong

April 25 2006 Opinion piece

Ultimately the court criticised the snap election on a number of grounds, as did the new court last week. Since the result was deemed void, it may be semantics to describe it's calling as illegal. Since, after HM's steer the concentration was on the structure and compliance with the constitution {voting irregularities booths actions of the EC etc.} rather than the PM's right to call the election in such circumstances {time frame, causes etc.}

Regards

[ColPyat]

To hopefully add balance here,

Sorry, but that is a discussion killer. Given the large quote you mentioned, we cannot possibly debate this anymore here, unless we move into the dangerous territory of interpretation.

I really think we should, for the sake of the debate, try to leave this out here.

Still, i have not seen the snap election declared illegal. The election was nullified, because of technical irregularities (it had to be nullified after the opposition decided not to participate such an election was not representative and only gave an indicator of what could have been somewhat representative).

[larvidchr]

Asian Human Rights Commission has issued several paranoid letters, that's just another one.

>>>>>>>>

If TRT/PTV can bring busloads of protesters it doesn't mean they have so many supporters, it means they can afford paying them. I have absolutely no problems with junta not allowing this practice anymore.

Can you give me a link to this please. That does not sound as if it is an excerpt of an official report issued by the commission, but like a post from a public discussion board phrased by someone with not very good English language skills.

http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/

This should be the link to the statement by AHRC. that I pasted. What plus means I dont know.

Kind regards.

Edited June 4, 2007 by larvidchr

[Jai Dee]

Machima searches for leader

The Matchima Group reveals that the group has approached three people for to become its new leader. The group is also continuing its work with Dr. Somkid Jatusripitak.

Mr. Somsak Thepsuthin, the Matchima leader, says his group will push forward the Amnesty Law ฟะ the House of Representatives, and it is unrelated to the comment made by Council for National Security (CNS). He reaffirms that the group has no hidden political agenda.

Mr. Somsak says the Matchima Group will carry on the Sufficiency Economy philosophy, and it will stay neutral until the general election will be held. The group members will meet with the people to voice public issues and to determine the group’s policy. He says it is not against the Council for Democratic Reform’s 15th and 27th announcements.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 04 June 2007

[ColPyat]

http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/

This should be the link to the statement by AHRC.

Kind regards.

And, Plus, please, where are your links i asked you for? Come on, please - making all sorts of statements and then providing us with a Houdini does not do you, or your views, much service.

Edited June 4, 2007 by ColPyat

[jdinasia]

much like some stories we see on here all the time .... but specifically what are you asking for ?

[Jai Dee]

Rayong implements tight measures to maintain order and security following verdict

Rayong Governor Polwat Chayanuwat reiterates that intensive measures are still being enforced to prevent political activists from making political movements after the Constitutional Tribunal has ruled the political parties’ dissolution case on May 30th, 2007.

Mr. Polwat says administrative officials in Rayong, especially district-chief officers and village headmen, are closely monitoring the movements of certain groups in their areas. Rayong officials are also coordinating with the army in maintaining security and preparing for any unrest situation.

Mr. Polwat says the province has not encountered any disorder because no politicians from Rayong are members of the parties that are subjected for dissolution. Nevertheless, tight measures are still being imposed until the national situation eases.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 04 June 2007

[larvidchr]

YOUR wishfulness that this government is not legitimate does not seem to have much weight.

The international community has pretty well spoken ... and recognizes Thailand's government.

My government has normal relations with Thailand ... as do most others ... so the dream that the current government is illegal is silly! The fact is the current government may have come into power 'illegally' but then again so did the one before that ... and before that .....

That governments havent withdrawn their Ambassadors or gone to other drastic measures, does not mean they accept the Thai coup, a quick google showed the following international institutions and countrys to have issued protests over the coup, I am sure there is more if you investigate further.

European Union

United Nations

US

GB

Canada

Chile

Indonesia

Singapore

Other measures like the stop of millitary aid by the US have also been enforced.

In diplomatic terms this means that most governments in the world do not recognize the Thai Generals as legitimate rulers of Thailand.

Kind regards

Edited June 4, 2007 by larvidchr

[ColPyat]

much like some stories we see on here all the time .... but specifically what are you asking for ?

Why don't you just read the posts?

[A_Traveller]

http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/

This should be the link to the statement by AHRC. that I pasted.<snip>

Kind regards.

Hope people read the press release carefully, I find it interesting that they only use the dissenting US Supreme Court judgement in the 2000 election case to bolster their argument. In my view it would be better to use a 'winning' judgement as a legal precedent.

Regards & thanks for link

/edit typo//

Edited June 4, 2007 by A_Traveller

[ColPyat]

http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/

This should be the link to the statement by AHRC. that I pasted.<snip>

Kind regards.

Hope people read the press release carefully, I find it interesting that they only use the dissenting US Supreme Court judgement in the 2000 election case to bolster their argument. In my view it would be better to use a 'winning' judgement as a legal precedent.

Regards & thanks for link

/edit typo//

Personally, i do not exactly give too much credit to NGO's regarding complex legal questions, even though they sometimes get it right.

I would say they are an indicator that has to be further proven by cross reference.

Anyhow, the basic statement that derailed the thread was not what the AHRC has stated, but the allegation of Plus that the snap election was declared illegal. I still am not provided of proof of this allegation.

[ColPyat]

Personally, i do not exactly give too much credit to NGO's regarding complex legal questions, even though they sometimes get it right.

I would say they are an indicator that has to be further proven by cross reference.

Anyhow, the basic statement that derailed the thread was not what the AHRC has stated, but the allegation of Plus that the snap election was declared illegal. I still am not provided of proof of this allegation.

Sorry, i am wrong, the beginning of the derailment was in fact Plus's somewhat confusing statement about the AHRC. I still don't realy know what he tried to say there that is relevant to the thread topic other than that another NGO came out not supporting the verdict.

Anyhow, was the snap election declared illegal, or not?

Curious...

[hammered]

Personally, i do not exactly give too much credit to NGO's regarding complex legal questions, even though they sometimes get it right.

I would say they are an indicator that has to be further proven by cross reference.

Anyhow, the basic statement that derailed the thread was not what the AHRC has stated, but the allegation of Plus that the snap election was declared illegal. I still am not provided of proof of this allegation.

Sorry, i am wrong, the beginning of the derailment was in fact Plus's somewhat confusing statement about the AHRC. I still don't realy know what he tried to say there that is relevant to the thread topic other than that another NGO came out not supporting the verdict.

Anyhow, was the snap election declared illegal, or not?

Curious...

The April 2 election was annulled as it was unconstitutional according to this report:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006...court-voids.php

The election was called too soon after the parliament was dissolved. Is breaking the constitution illegal?

and from Xinhua: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-05/...ent_4521904.htm

A majority of nine judges opted to scrap the election as it was considered breaching the constitution. No date has been determined immediately for the new poll.

"The court found the April 2 election date was inappropriate and unfair, and arrangement of the polling stations also violated the requirement for voting to be done in secret," he said.

Edited June 4, 2007 by hammered

[hammered]

Looks like not all 111 are fighting it. Phinij who leads a faction of TRT MPs from the northern part of the Isaan is quopted as:

he said he wants to make a "standard for politics".

after he reisgned his NLA position.

From: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30035978

Phinijs group is close to the Matchima group.

[ColPyat]

Personally, i do not exactly give too much credit to NGO's regarding complex legal questions, even though they sometimes get it right.

I would say they are an indicator that has to be further proven by cross reference.

Anyhow, the basic statement that derailed the thread was not what the AHRC has stated, but the allegation of Plus that the snap election was declared illegal. I still am not provided of proof of this allegation.

Sorry, i am wrong, the beginning of the derailment was in fact Plus's somewhat confusing statement about the AHRC. I still don't realy know what he tried to say there that is relevant to the thread topic other than that another NGO came out not supporting the verdict.

Anyhow, was the snap election declared illegal, or not?

Curious...

The April 2 election was annulled as it was unconstitutional according to this report:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006...court-voids.php

The election was called too soon after the parliament was dissolved. Is breaking the constitution illegal?

and from Xinhua: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-05/...ent_4521904.htm

A majority of nine judges opted to scrap the election as it was considered breaching the constitution. No date has been determined immediately for the new poll.

"The court found the April 2 election date was inappropriate and unfair, and arrangement of the polling stations also violated the requirement for voting to be done in secret," he said.

Fair enough.

But, note here that it was far from a unified decision - 8 against 6 votes. The reason given though is rather strange:

"The court found the April 2 election date was inappropriate and unfair, and arrangement of the polling stations also violated the requirement for voting to be done in secret," he said.

Maybe somebody more qualified in legal affairs can point out if there was an actual article in the constitution prohibiting calling in snap elections with only a month notice? Not retroactive, but valid at the time of the incident?