The Constitutional Tribunal Disbands Thai Rak Thai - Election cheating

[nick2k]

you know, personally, I don't know if thaksin is so guilty of everything these other people are saying he is. for sure, some of the things they say he is guilty of - he is innocent. for example, the sale of shin to singapore.

then, you have got to realize that his treatment of all the protesters during the final days before the coup doesn't strike one of the actions of an evil person. the fact that he didn't hurt anyone. and allowed them to protest for such a long time. no, not an evil person like hitler.

so, now we have the upcoming protests by the new pro-thaksin parties who are anti-junta. what can one expect of this? they want the junta to resign and allow new elections. they are going to do the same thing PAD did before thaksin was taken out by the coup. what will this protest tell us?

as I see it....for sure, if someone is hurt, we will know who is truly evil.

[tettyan]

The Secretary General of the Office of the Constitutional Court Paiboon Walahapaitoon (ไพบูลย์ วราหะไพฑูรย์ ) admitted that analytical and constructive criticism directed against the Constitutional Court are permissible due to their beneficial nature. Mr. Paiboon cautioned, however, that if criticism were inflammatory, provocative, and caused damage to persons involved, then the Constitutional Court invoke article 198 of Criminal Law to sue parties responsible for these offenses.

This is highly disturbing. Where do you draw the line between "beneficial" and "inflammatory" criticism?

Imagine if the US Supreme Court sent...................................

How many years have these rules been applied to the courts in THAILAND?....9? 12? 20? 40? Longer?

If it's their judicial system, who gives a rat's ass what the the US Supreme Court would/could/should do?

Look buddy, I'm trying to be civil here (and promote intelligent dialogue at the same time), so please cut the swearing.

In case you didn't understand, I was asking a rhetorical question, one that I believe is very relevant. Preventing people from criticizing the government seriously goes against democracy. Democracy as we know it in functioning (mostly western, unfortunately) would be very different if criticism of courts were not allowed, given the very important role courts play in functional democracies.

Second, I could throw the same question back at you - why should care about anything happening in Thai politics these days - it's THEIR country after all. But I'm not going to resort to such cheap shots. Especially since you resorted to that with the wrong person.

From your point of view, it may be THEIR judicial system. But for me, as a dual citizen, it's also MY judicial system. And yes, I do care, because I believe that justice and the rule of law should be equally and fairly applied in Thailand. I'm sure you do too, even though you may not be a Thai citizen.

Does anyone know of any cases where anyone, still living, criticized a court decision and wasn't prosecuted or at least charged?

To my knowledge, courts rarely resort to this kind of extreme maneuver. They did threaten it in the aftermath of the ruling convicting the the former Election Commissioners of malfeasance - a verdict which I agreed with, BTW, but I think threatening to jail those who criticized their decision was WAY over the line, and yes, unprecedented.

In the end, though, I see this as a matter of principle. Here, the judges are threatening criminal defamation suits against their critics. Thaksin was fond of using criminal defamation suits to intimidate and silence his critics. When Thaksin tried that, most everyone on this board - myself included - was up in arms. But when these judges resort to the same dirty tricks that Thaksin used - many of the same people who criticized Thaksin cheer them on.

I smell some hypocrisy in this thread.

Edited June 7, 2007 by tettyan

[sriracha john]

as I see it....for sure, if someone is hurt, we will know who is truly evil.

You're right... if there is violence, we will know who is truly evil.

[tettyan]

One of Thaksin's lawyers recently pleaded guilty to defaming the court, I think it was Consitution Court, after jailing former EC members.

They must have rules for what is considered defamation and what is not, they've been dealing with this for years.

Look, I'm not arguing that the Court's threats to silence its critics arn't legal. Heck, Thaksin's shameless use of criminal defamation suits to intimidate and silence his critics wasn't illegal either. But that didn't make him right from an ethical/moral perspective.

It's high time for Thailand to repeal its laws allowing criminal defamation suits. It's a relic of the old (and apparently current as well) military dictatorships. No civilized democracy recognizes criminal defamation anymore. I argued the same thing when Thaksin used them, and I'm still arguing the exact same thing now.

[ThaiGoon]

as I see it....for sure, if someone is hurt, we will know who is truly evil.

You're right... if there is violence, we will know who is truly evil.

Exactly.

[nick2k]

yes. it will be very interesting to see what happens. this new TRT group is going to do the same thing that PAD did. protest until the junta leaves.

thaksin didn't do anything to hurt the protesters. ...let's see what the junta does?

for sure, if they hurt anyone, they will not look good.

..especially since there is a muslim connection involved.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

well if nothing else these demonstrations give a lot of poor people the opportunity to earn a little extra cash

[Plus]

Preventing people from criticizing the government seriously goes against democracy. Democracy as we know it in functioning (mostly western, unfortunately) would be very different if criticism of courts were not allowed, given the very important role courts play in functional democracies.

We were not talking about the government, we were talking about courts. There's difference. Critising courts is not the same as critising the government. Courts are not elected bodies and they don't have to pander or even respond to their electorate. They supposed to serve only the law, uncompromisingly.

Challenge to courts is a challenge to the law.

[ray23]

Well what we think matters little, but what does matter to me is how ithis effects the Thai people as in the end guess who we have to get annual visas from. I have been going to one office for four years now, sometimes confusing but always friendly. I got throught the annual ordel last month and thanked them for thier help. What I got back wasn't a smile it was a glare from people I have know to be friendly for five years.

They are stressed to the max, any of us can vote with a passport they can't.

This really efffects thier lives a lot more then ours. To them this is not a philosophical debate. It is thier lives and I feel for them.

I for one am working very hard at being patient with Thai's these days much more then I have ever tried before.

[younghusband]

Preventing people from criticizing the government seriously goes against democracy. Democracy as we know it in functioning (mostly western, unfortunately) would be very different if criticism of courts were not allowed, given the very important role courts play in functional democracies.

We were not talking about the government, we were talking about courts. There's difference. Critising courts is not the same as critising the government. Courts are not elected bodies and they don't have to pander or even respond to their electorate. They supposed to serve only the law, uncompromisingly.

Challenge to courts is a challenge to the law.

You are defending the indefensible.Courts' decisions are often crticised and this is grist for the mill in democracies, for example remember the outrage caused by the American Supreme Court' decision resulting in confirmation of Bush's first election victory.Let us also face reality:the record of Thailand justice is generally rather poor, marred by incompetence and corruption in some cases.You would have to be very naive for example not to see political considerations in the recent Constitutional Court judgement,

As one reads this and similar threads, ignoring the usual suspects with their comical pictures, one does wonder how much the pro-junta crowd, presumably decent people mostly, are prepared to put up with.

[sriracha john]

The Secretary General of the Office of the Constitutional Court Paiboon Walahapaitoon (ไพบูลย์ วราหะไพฑูรย์ ) admitted that analytical and constructive criticism directed against the Constitutional Court are permissible due to their beneficial nature. Mr. Paiboon cautioned, however, that if criticism were inflammatory, provocative, and caused damage to persons involved, then the Constitutional Court invoke article 198 of Criminal Law to sue parties responsible for these offenses.

This is highly disturbing. Where do you draw the line between "beneficial" and "inflammatory" criticism?

Imagine if the US Supreme Court sent...................................

How many years have these rules been applied to the courts in THAILAND?....9? 12? 20? 40? Longer?

If it's their judicial system, who gives a rat's ass what the the US Supreme Court would/could/should do?

Look buddy, I'm trying to be civil here (and promote intelligent dialogue at the same time), so please cut the swearing. It's unproductive and rude of you to address me in this manner, espicially since my post wasn't directed at you personally.

*I apologize if you were offended by "swearing." It wasn't personally directed at you... but nevertheless, if rat's ass is considered too strong a language for general usage, I'll endeavor to tone down a bit of the sailor talk. I sometimes forget that some people are sensitive to that.*

In case you didn't understand, I was asking a rhetorical question, one that I believe is very relevant. Preventing people from criticizing the government seriously goes against democracy. Democracy as we know it in functioning (mostly western, unfortunately) would be very different if criticism of courts were not allowed, given the very important role courts play in functional democracies.

My comments were directed at simply that this is the way that Thailand has chosen to administer its judicial system. There are many differences in the way judicial systems vary from country to country. Another example is the jury system in Thailand. There isn't one. Court cases are decided by a judge or judges. It's different... but it's Thailand chosen method. If Thailand wants to decide that people shouldn't criticize the decisions rendered by courts, then that's what they decide. Or actually decided... as it's been in existence for untold years. It's what they have chosen. Following it is expected by everyone:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/25...es_30035153.php

An example of it:

Lawyer pleads guilty

Thana Benchathikul, a lawyer for deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra, appeared in the Criminal Court yesterday to plead guilty to a charge of contempt of court. The case relates to his criticism of the judges who presided in the trial of the three former election commissioners last year.

The Criminal Court filed a complaint with police accusing lawyer Thana of contempt of court for giving a media interview criticising its verdict on the three commissioners. If convicted, he faces a jail term of between one and seven years and a fine of up to Bt14,000.

- The Nation / June 5, 2007

Second, I could throw the same question back at you - why should care about anything happening in Thai politics these days - it's THEIR country after all. But I'm not going to resort to such cheap shots. Especially since you resorted to that with the wrong person.

*Again, I apologize if you mistook my mildly saucy language as some sort of personal attack. Anyway, just to answer your question, I care about occurrences in Thai politics these days and past days because I live here. To me, that certainly is all that is required to justify caring.*

From your point of view, it may be THEIR judicial system. But for me, as a dual citizen, it's also MY judicial system. And yes, I do care, because I believe that justice and the rule of law should be equally and fairly applied in Thailand. I'm sure you do too, even though you may not be a Thai citizen.

As someone living here it's also my system as it is everyone else's who lives within its authority. I believe in equal justice as well. If criticizing the court is viewed differently than criticizing the political structure, than I can live with that. That is a distinction that several posts, like Post #791, prior to your initially quoted one that seemed to miss, eg. thinking this news was about criticizing the government. I apologize if I mistakenly grouped yours into the same category as clearly you are not of the same ilk.

Does anyone know of any cases where anyone, still living, criticized a court decision and wasn't prosecuted or at least charged?

To my knowledge, courts rarely resort to this kind of extreme maneuver. They did threaten it in the aftermath of the ruling convicting the the former Election Commissioners of malfeasance - a verdict which I agreed with, BTW, but I think threatening to jail those who criticized their decision was WAY over the line, and yes, unprecedented.

See? We can see eye-to-eye on things, such as agreeing on the EC Commissioners convictions.

The courts went easy and let that group of people off without jail, but admonished them rather harshly, particularly when they showed up again as rabble-rousers for the Shinawatra's court appearances. In another case involving Thaksin's lawyer, as shown above, he's plead guilty and will be sentenced.

If, indeed, this a law that is not normally enforced, then I have been mistaken, but its implementation seems to have stood out to me, probably because it is certainly different than the customary rules I've been exposed to in the West. I would be very interested in finding just when and where this law came into being, but have been unsuccessful in attempts to locate it. I can, however, only presume that by the referenced link, it's been quite some time.

In the end, though, I see this as a matter of principle. Here, the judges are threatening criminal defamation suits against their critics. Thaksin was fond of using criminal defamation suits to intimidate and silence his critics.

He certainly did... and I hailed Supinya's victory over him as one of the highlights of the Thai judicial system. The difference here is that he was doing so as a PM, which doesn't afford him the same protection the judicial and court system have. That seems to be one of many of Thaksin's faults. He mistakenly believes that rules that apply to others in this constitutional monarchy, also apply to him. It often got him into hot water.

When Thaksin tried that, most everyone on this board - myself included - was up in arms. But when these judges resort to the same dirty tricks that Thaksin used - many of the same people who criticized Thaksin cheer them on.

I think the difference is that the courts are covered by different laws than don't apply to the ex-PM.

I smell some hypocrisy in this thread.

If I am mistaken about these laws, then I could see your point.

Just to reiterate... I apologize if my language was offensive. The thaivisa text filters usually are a reliable clue if something is too strong, but nevertheless, I can adjust. I look forward to our continued dialogue. I tend to believe we would often be in agreement on issues.

[sriracha john]

One of Thaksin's lawyers recently pleaded guilty to defaming the court, I think it was Consitution Court, after jailing former EC members.

They must have rules for what is considered defamation and what is not, they've been dealing with this for years.

Look, I'm not arguing that the Court's threats to silence its critics arn't legal. Heck, Thaksin's shameless use of criminal defamation suits to intimidate and silence his critics wasn't illegal either. But that didn't make him right from an ethical/moral perspective.

It's high time for Thailand to repeal its laws allowing criminal defamation suits. It's a relic of the old (and apparently current as well) military dictatorships. No civilized democracy recognizes criminal defamation anymore. I argued the same thing when Thaksin used them, and I'm still arguing the exact same thing now.

I'm seeing now more of your point and can see how you can see the same in both, but aren't the rules protecting the courts written much stricter? It's certainly been invoked on far less occasions. Thaksin seemed to keep a battalion of lawyers just to sue everyone multiple times for defamation.

If I'm not mistaken, the judicial system disposed of everyone of them... and many others were dropped upon advice from above. I have never seen that involvement regarding the court's protection.

I think it's far easier for one person to sue another for defamation... than it is for the court to have to invoke their protection.

In the end, yes, I can see how you can push for the laws to be changed... and when they do, I'll

re-evaluate the situation. I tend to think I'd likely support the change, allowing for criticizing any branch of government.

[tettyan]

Preventing people from criticizing the government seriously goes against democracy. Democracy as we know it in functioning (mostly western, unfortunately) would be very different if criticism of courts were not allowed, given the very important role courts play in functional democracies.

We were not talking about the government, we were talking about courts. There's difference. Critising courts is not the same as critising the government. Courts are not elected bodies and they don't have to pander or even respond to their electorate. They supposed to serve only the law, uncompromisingly.

Challenge to courts is a challenge to the law.

Just because judges arn't elected doesn't mean that freedom of speech should be any more curtailed with respect to them.

If I may drag in your comments on the religion thread for just a minute - there, you criticize US Supreme Court decisions for reducing the role of religion in American life. How would you feel if it were illegal for you to criticize those

Courts are public institutions that are called upon all the time to make decisions with far-reaching implications for politics, economy and society. Judges usually try to get it right, but often they get it wrong. Take the 2001 Constitutional Court verdict that acquitted Thaksin for falsifying his assets declaration - a verdict with which I also vehemently disagreed. How would you feel if at the time, the judges threatened to jailed those who criticized them?

Again, I believe that unless there are specific threats directed against a judge, I would strongly err on the side of free speech.

[tettyan]

I'm seeing now more of your point and can see how you can see the same in both, but aren't the rules protecting the courts written much stricter? It's certainly been invoked on far less occasions.

As I understand it, the rules are different if the court is threatening to invoke contempt of court to shield itself from criticism, as the Criminal Court did in the Election Commissioners case. But here, as I read the report that was posted, it seems like they're threatening to resort to a criminal defamation suit to quash criticism. I'm not sure why they've chosen a slightly different route than the Criminal Court in the EC case, but I think probably has to do with the fact that it's easier to invoke contempt in the context of a criminal case (such as the EC case) than in a civil proceeding (as with the party dissolution issue).

[jdinasia]

Preventing people from criticizing the government seriously goes against democracy. Democracy as we know it in functioning (mostly western, unfortunately) would be very different if criticism of courts were not allowed, given the very important role courts play in functional democracies.

We were not talking about the government, we were talking about courts. There's difference. Critising courts is not the same as critising the government. Courts are not elected bodies and they don't have to pander or even respond to their electorate. They supposed to serve only the law, uncompromisingly.

Challenge to courts is a challenge to the law.

Just because judges arn't elected doesn't mean that freedom of speech should be any more curtailed with respect to them.

If I may drag in your comments on the religion thread for just a minute - there, you criticize US Supreme Court decisions for reducing the role of religion in American life. How would you feel if it were illegal for you to criticize those

Courts are public institutions that are called upon all the time to make decisions with far-reaching implications for politics, economy and society. Judges usually try to get it right, but often they get it wrong. Take the 2001 Constitutional Court verdict that acquitted Thaksin for falsifying his assets declaration - a verdict with which I also vehemently disagreed. How would you feel if at the time, the judges threatened to jailed those who criticized them?

Again, I believe that unless there are specific threats directed against a judge, I would strongly err on the side of free speech.

I know it has been pointed out before ... but Thailand is not the USA.

Now ... very simply ... saying the courts got something wrong .. missed a point of law etc is legal. To have said ' They were paid off by Thaksin, those cheating bastards! ' could get you sent to jail .... as has happened to people in the past.

now keep this thought in mind ...... Thailand .... NOT the USA

[lukamar]

Challenge to courts is a challenge to the law.

You may be right in most cases but in this one, the controversial part of the verdict was not a law but an authoritative proclamation by a junta that was made retroactive to the wrongdoing taking place by the Tribunal. 30% of the tribunal judges have come out in their individual summations and said that the use of Announcement 27 did not fit Thai or Internationally recognized law practices.

In HM speech just prior to the verdict he said to the Administrative Court Judges, "You have the responsibility to judge, but not with the hammer..........But there will be trouble and damage, whatever ruling is made. Any decision can be a mistake. Therefore, there has to be some criticism. If there can't be official criticism, there has to be personal one..".

[Plus]

Courts' decisions are often crticised and this is grist for the mill in democracies, for example remember the outrage caused by the American Supreme Court' decision resulting in confirmation of Bush's first election victory.Let us also face reality:the record of Thailand justice is generally rather poor, marred by incompetence and corruption in some cases.You would have to be very naive for example not to see political considerations in the recent Constitutional Court judgement,

Bush election case was examplary - what to do when the courts don't seem to uphold justice. People grumbled, people talked about how judges were appointed, and whether there should a change in the system.

Yet I think everyone agreed that putting courts under whims of electorate is not a good idea. That means that the noisiest group outside the court house would always win the cases. That means that the law will be firmly in the hands of power of the day.

The courts should be free from this kind of pressure, and protecting them from unruly critisism is one way of doing it.

Thaksni's opponents back in 2001 accepted the verdict they thought was unfair. They found the way to express their disagreement without openly discrediting the courts.

This time around the judges themselves made it clear that there will be no critisism beyond certain limit, that there's a boundary between critisism and defamation, and they won't let anyone to cross it.

In fact I admire their stand in this matter. It's unlikely to last but it feels good now.

Comparing to Thaksin's times the court was free from political intereference. I don't think they succumbed to junta's demands in the TRT case. One reason is that their verdict was not favourable to the generals, who had already bet on the wrong horses.

[hammered]

Retroactive laws have been used in Australia (tax avoidance), Finland (Political), USA (Recent child protection legislation), and of course Nuremburg is probably the most famous case of retroactive law.

[jdinasia]

Challenge to courts is a challenge to the law.

You may be right in most cases but in this one, the controversial part of the verdict was not a law but an authoritative proclamation by a junta that was made retroactive to the wrongdoing taking place by the Tribunal. 30% of the tribunal judges have come out in their individual summations and said that the use of Announcement 27 did not fit Thai or Internationally recognized law practices.

In HM speech just prior to the verdict he said to the Administrative Court Judges, "You have the responsibility to judge, but not with the hammer..........But there will be trouble and damage, whatever ruling is made. Any decision can be a mistake. Therefore, there has to be some criticism. If there can't be official criticism, there has to be personal one..".

right ... but not once will you hear anyone above condoning libel or slander

[hammered]

Courts' decisions are often crticised and this is grist for the mill in democracies, for example remember the outrage caused by the American Supreme Court' decision resulting in confirmation of Bush's first election victory.Let us also face reality:the record of Thailand justice is generally rather poor, marred by incompetence and corruption in some cases.You would have to be very naive for example not to see political considerations in the recent Constitutional Court judgement,

Bush election case was examplary - what to do when the courts don't seem to uphold justice. People grumbled, people talked about how judges were appointed, and whether there should a change in the system.

Yet I think everyone agreed that putting courts under whims of electorate is not a good idea. That means that the noisiest group outside the court house would always win the cases. That means that the law will be firmly in the hands of power of the day.

The courts should be free from this kind of pressure, and protecting them from unruly critisism is one way of doing it.

Thaksni's opponents back in 2001 accepted the verdict they thought was unfair. They found the way to express their disagreement without openly discrediting the courts.

This time around the judges themselves made it clear that there will be no critisism beyond certain limit, that there's a boundary between critisism and defamation, and they won't let anyone to cross it.

In fact I admire their stand in this matter. It's unlikely to last but it feels good now.

Comparing to Thaksin's times the court was free from political intereference. I don't think they succumbed to junta's demands in the TRT case. One reason is that their verdict was not favourable to the generals, who had already bet on the wrong horses.

Last night I had dinner with a number of academic politial analysts, and what you say here is according to them spot on. I thought you would like to know that you seem to be in agreement with what at least some independent Thai analysts think.

Edited June 7, 2007 by hammered

[lukamar]

As some were complaining earlier that it was a non issue outside Thailand...

EDITORIAL

A troubling decision in Thailand

Japan Times

Thailand's constitutional tribunal has disbanded the Thai Rak Thai party and banned its leader, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and 111 other members from contesting elections for five years. The move transforms Thailand's political map, and raises questions about the military government's commitment to democracy.

The Thai military took power in Bangkok last year in a bloodless coup. Mr. Thaksin was accused of attempts to undermine democracy and of financial irregularities. No charges have been verified, although family members have been investigated for tax evasion. The real concern was his populism and the disdain he showed for the military and the established political order.

The constitutional court, whose members were appointed by the new military government, ruled last week that Thai Rak Thai and its leadership broke the law during the April 2006 election. Thai law requires different margins of victory for elections, depending on whether a seat is contested; if a candidate runs unopposed, he or she must win a larger share of the vote. The opposition Democrats boycotted the ballot, making it harder for Thai Rak Thai candidates to get enough votes to win and, hence, get a quorum for the legislature. To get around that, Thai Rak Thai paid smaller parties to put up candidates, thus lowering the number of votes needed to win and ensuring that the government maintained its majority.

The court ruled those maneuvers illegal and banned the party, a decision that effectively eliminates opposition to the current government's agenda. Mr. Thaksin's policies may have alienated the political establishment in Thailand, but he enjoyed substantial support in the countryside and among the poor. Thai Rak Thai won two elections by landslides. The constitutional court decision disenfranchises those voters, undercuts Thai democracy and raises real doubts about the political system that will be left when, and if, the military hands over power. There are less harsh punishments that would be equally just: Friends of Thai democracy should press the government to moderate the ruling and restore real choice to that country's politics.

[Plus]

Challenge to courts is a challenge to the law.

You may be right in most cases but in this one, the controversial part of the verdict was not a law but an authoritative proclamation by a junta that was made retroactive to the wrongdoing taking place by the Tribunal. 30% of the tribunal judges have come out in their individual summations and said that the use of Announcement 27 did not fit Thai or Internationally recognized law practices.

In HM speech just prior to the verdict he said to the Administrative Court Judges, "You have the responsibility to judge, but not with the hammer..........But there will be trouble and damage, whatever ruling is made. Any decision can be a mistake. Therefore, there has to be some criticism. If there can't be official criticism, there has to be personal one..".

I agree that applying CNS law retraoactively is not kosher, but this is the challenge to the law, not to the judges who followed it. Majority judges explained why they applied that new law retroactively.

Discussing it is not defamatory. Saying that they've been paid by CNS is.

>>>

I'm talking about ciritisism vs defamation. In Thailand there are rules and precedents to separate one from another.

I don't have an opinion on whether contempt of court and defamation should be decriminalised. I think it's a bit harsh, but I don't really know the details.

[Mid]

As some were complaining earlier that it was a non issue outside Thailand...

they obviously don't watch the BBC or Australian TV .........................

[jdinasia]

As some were complaining earlier that it was a non issue outside Thailand...

EDITORIAL

A troubling decision in Thailand

Japan Times

Thailand's constitutional tribunal has disbanded the Thai Rak Thai party and banned its leader, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and 111 other members from contesting elections for five years. The move transforms Thailand's political map, and raises questions about the military government's commitment to democracy.

The Thai military took power in Bangkok last year in a bloodless coup. Mr. Thaksin was accused of attempts to undermine democracy and of financial irregularities. No charges have been verified, although family members have been investigated for tax evasion. The real concern was his populism and the disdain he showed for the military and the established political order.

The constitutional court, whose members were appointed by the new military government, ruled last week that Thai Rak Thai and its leadership broke the law during the April 2006 election. Thai law requires different margins of victory for elections, depending on whether a seat is contested; if a candidate runs unopposed, he or she must win a larger share of the vote. The opposition Democrats boycotted the ballot, making it harder for Thai Rak Thai candidates to get enough votes to win and, hence, get a quorum for the legislature. To get around that, Thai Rak Thai paid smaller parties to put up candidates, thus lowering the number of votes needed to win and ensuring that the government maintained its majority.

The court ruled those maneuvers illegal and banned the party, a decision that effectively eliminates opposition to the current government's agenda. Mr. Thaksin's policies may have alienated the political establishment in Thailand, but he enjoyed substantial support in the countryside and among the poor. Thai Rak Thai won two elections by landslides. The constitutional court decision disenfranchises those voters, undercuts Thai democracy and raises real doubts about the political system that will be left when, and if, the military hands over power. There are less harsh punishments that would be equally just: Friends of Thai democracy should press the government to moderate the ruling and restore real choice to that country's politics.

Nice Op Ed piece that is not attributed .....

[hammered]

As some were complaining earlier that it was a non issue outside Thailand...

EDITORIAL

A troubling decision in Thailand

Japan Times

Thailand's constitutional tribunal has disbanded the Thai Rak Thai party and banned its leader, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and 111 other members from contesting elections for five years. The move transforms Thailand's political map, and raises questions about the military government's commitment to democracy.

The Thai military took power in Bangkok last year in a bloodless coup. Mr. Thaksin was accused of attempts to undermine democracy and of financial irregularities. No charges have been verified, although family members have been investigated for tax evasion. The real concern was his populism and the disdain he showed for the military and the established political order.

The constitutional court, whose members were appointed by the new military government, ruled last week that Thai Rak Thai and its leadership broke the law during the April 2006 election. Thai law requires different margins of victory for elections, depending on whether a seat is contested; if a candidate runs unopposed, he or she must win a larger share of the vote. The opposition Democrats boycotted the ballot, making it harder for Thai Rak Thai candidates to get enough votes to win and, hence, get a quorum for the legislature. To get around that, Thai Rak Thai paid smaller parties to put up candidates, thus lowering the number of votes needed to win and ensuring that the government maintained its majority.

The court ruled those maneuvers illegal and banned the party, a decision that effectively eliminates opposition to the current government's agenda. Mr. Thaksin's policies may have alienated the political establishment in Thailand, but he enjoyed substantial support in the countryside and among the poor. Thai Rak Thai won two elections by landslides. The constitutional court decision disenfranchises those voters, undercuts Thai democracy and raises real doubts about the political system that will be left when, and if, the military hands over power. There are less harsh punishments that would be equally just: Friends of Thai democracy should press the government to moderate the ruling and restore real choice to that country's politics.

Personally I wouldnt disagree too much with the sentiments in this article, but I do find it amusing that it is written in a country that has for much of its recent history been led by a very corrupt ultra powerful political party in what for a long time was effectively a one party state even if they did have elections.

[wants2no]

Quite off the immediate subject, but I used to follow the Uttaradit District #2 member of Parliament. His name was Sarun Sarunyagate or Sarunket. It has been several years that have passed. Have you heard about this TRT member? If so, what has happened to this charismatic character? I cannot read Thai and cannot find any more news. He would sing to the prospective voters. He brought them to tears. He was also red-carded in his first election back in, what was it, 2000? Ring any bells? Later he attained office in a subsequent election.

[Jai Dee]

CNS Secretary-General denies his involvement with any political party

The Council for National Security (CNS) Secretary-General and Permanent Secretary for Defence, Gen. Winai Patthiyakul, says the CNS has never been involved in setting up a political party.CNS never involves with the forming of political party, saying that his name was incorrectly used.

Gen. Winai says he has no knowledge of Rak Chart Party of Mr. Mr. Kajit Habanananda after rumors claim that the party could be the nominee of CNS. Gen. Winai says people are wrongly referring to his name with the establishment of a new political party. He insists that he is unrelated to this issue.

Gen. Winai says he had a discussion with CNS Chairman Sonthi Boonyaratglin, and the army’s evaluation shows that there is nothing to be worried about the political demonstrations. Nevertheless, the CNS will keep monitoring the situation. He adds that the decision to lift the 15th announcement of the Council for Democratic Reform is appropriate.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 07 June 2007

[lukamar]

Nice Op Ed piece that is not attributed .....

Perhaps you missed it... Japan Times but just so you can't whine about me editing it..

Japan times

[jdinasia]

Nice Op Ed piece that is not attributed .....

Perhaps you missed it... Japan Times but just so you can't whine about me editing it..

Japan times

right .... saw that ... but it is an Op/Ed piece where we know nothing about the author ... or the motivations of the author or paper That's why it is an EDITORIAL .... not news .. not facts ... opinion

[farang prince]

As some were complaining earlier that it was a non issue outside Thailand...

EDITORIAL

A troubling decision in Thailand

Japan Times

Thailand's constitutional tribunal has disbanded the Thai Rak Thai party and banned its leader, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and 111 other members from contesting elections for five years. The move transforms Thailand's political map, and raises questions about the military government's commitment to democracy.

The Thai military took power in Bangkok last year in a bloodless coup. Mr. Thaksin was accused of attempts to undermine democracy and of financial irregularities. No charges have been verified, although family members have been investigated for tax evasion. The real concern was his populism and the disdain he showed for the military and the established political order.

The constitutional court, whose members were appointed by the new military government, ruled last week that Thai Rak Thai and its leadership broke the law during the April 2006 election. Thai law requires different margins of victory for elections, depending on whether a seat is contested; if a candidate runs unopposed, he or she must win a larger share of the vote. The opposition Democrats boycotted the ballot, making it harder for Thai Rak Thai candidates to get enough votes to win and, hence, get a quorum for the legislature. To get around that, Thai Rak Thai paid smaller parties to put up candidates, thus lowering the number of votes needed to win and ensuring that the government maintained its majority.

The court ruled those maneuvers illegal and banned the party, a decision that effectively eliminates opposition to the current government's agenda. Mr. Thaksin's policies may have alienated the political establishment in Thailand, but he enjoyed substantial support in the countryside and among the poor. Thai Rak Thai won two elections by landslides. The constitutional court decision disenfranchises those voters, undercuts Thai democracy and raises real doubts about the political system that will be left when, and if, the military hands over power. There are less harsh punishments that would be equally just: Friends of Thai democracy should press the government to moderate the ruling and restore real choice to that country's politics.

Nice Op Ed piece that is not attributed .....

Sorry JD, Op Ed pieces do not need attribution.