Red Shirts Slam Govt Delay In Review Of Royal Pardon Petition

[webfact]

ROYAL PARDON FOR THAKSIN

Red shirts slam govt delay in review of royal pardon petition

By WATTANA KHAMCHOO,

HASSAYA CHARTMONTREE

THE NATION

Published on January 21, 2010

Red-shirt leaders yesterday visited the Office of His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary to check on their August 17 petition seeking a royal pardon for fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

"Several months have elapsed and it is obvious the government is trying to delay the review process for the royal pardon," Veera Musigapong said.

The government had resorted to a series of measures designed to block the petition's verification, he said. The authorities were taking their sweet time to check the 3.5 million names of signers and said they managed to confirm just 1.2 million names so far, he said.

The government also tried to draw out the process by seeking the advice of the Council of State, an unprecedented move, he said.

Because of the stalling tactics, five months have passed but the pardon petition has yet to reach His Majesty's attention, he said.

Jatuporn Promphan said he already filed a police complaint against the prime minister and justice minister for obstructing justice by their attempts to derail the pardon movement.

Thakorn Thamprateep, a court official, said the red shirts' concern would be forwarded to the government for prompt attention.

Natthawut Saikua, the organiser of the red-shirt rally planned for Suvarnabhumi Airport, said the gesture was meant to expose double standards in law enforcement and not to shut down the airport or disrupt aviation operations.

The yellow shirts had laid siege to the airport back in 2008 but since then there has been no progress in punishing the offenders, so the red shirts wanted to call attention to the lopsided law enforcement, Natthawut said.

The red shirts should not be blamed for setting off stock-market jitters over the planned rally. Investor confidence in the stock market would remain volatile so long as the country condones double standards, he said.

Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thuagsuban reminded the red shirts that security forces would not allow any obstruction of traffic at the airport.

"I just want to say it is unjustified to rally anywhere near the airport," he said.

The red shirts should heed the costly lesson learned when the yellow shirts stormed the airport terminal and dealt a devastating blow to the country's reputation, he said.

When the red shirts know full well about the mistakes of the yellow shirts, then why would they want to repeat them, he asked.

The government is not practising duplicity by treating the red shirts and yellow shirts differently. When the airports were closed, the Democrats were not in power, he said.

Authorities would try to ensure peace through normal crowd-control measures although they had a contingency plan for any exigencies, he added.

-- The Nation 2010-01-21

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[givenall]

Can someone please tell them that the petition is denied

[PeaceBlondie]

And that the petition was illegal.

[hammered]

Another thing in the rising red crescendo aimed at the time on or around Feb 26 when the asset case decision will be made. The demo and censure are also timed for this central event.

[virtualtraveller]

Of course they're taking their time, the whole petition was a pointless waste of time in the first place since no one, not even the King, has the power to grant a pardon until certain conditions are met (ie serving jail time and admitting remorse). The Reds went ahead anyway to show just how popular Thaksin is, so the govt are responding with the equally pointless symbolic act of checking every single signature.

It really gets my goat that this lot believe the King can somehow overrule the rules to suit one person because he has the support of 3 million. They know the rules, so I'm not quite sure what they are expecting from a speedy verification process, other than to force the King to disappoint a lot of people - which is a really dirty tactic.

[hammered]

Of course they're taking their time, the whole petition was a pointless waste of time in the first place since no one, not even the King, has the power to grant a pardon until certain conditions are met (ie serving jail time and admitting remorse). The Reds went ahead anyway to show just how popular Thaksin is, so the govt are responding with the equally pointless symbolic act of checking every single signature.

It really gets my goat that this lot believe the King can somehow overrule the rules to suit one person because he has the support of 3 million. They know the rules, so I'm not quite sure what they are expecting from a speedy verification process, other than to force the King to disappoint a lot of people - which is a really dirty tactic.

It is all just poltical play between powerful people running the country who happen to be divided and who will resort to anything so they can have their cake and eat it

[Bottlerocket]

And that the petition was illegal.

How is a petition illegal?

[scorecard]

And that the petition was illegal.

How is a petition illegal?

Nobody is saying that the basic concept of a petition is illegal in Thailand.

They are saying that given the specific circumstances (grounds) and the specific laws and precedents involved in this case, the red shirts petition for a pardon has no chance of being accepted or being approved.

[scorecard]

Thailand needs desperately to discard the current picture of personality power overriding the law and fair application of the law.

Unfortunately whilst Thai people continue to vote for the current batch of thugs and thieves who we call 'policians', then nothing much will change.

--------------------

Out of all of this fiasco there are many important / critcial lessons we should learn, but I'm not holding my breath.

Just one of those lessons is to enact various laws which can totally prevent one person from gaining too much power and control. In this regard, a return to the 2007 constitution would be the worst possible thing that could happen.

Pardon the 200 or so thugs and thieves and Thailand will sink to banana republic status in a very short time.

[geriatrickid]

And that the petition was illegal.

How is a petition illegal?

Nobody is saying that the basic concept of a petition is illegal in Thailand.

They are saying that given the specific circumstances (grounds) and the specific laws and precedents involved in this case, the red shirts petition for a pardon has no chance of being accepted or being approved.

Uhh when someone writes its illegal, it reads as that. You can't scamble away from the statement. It happens, big deal.

Anyone can submit a petition. It has to be sustainable and that decision is the responsibility of the designated review body.

Until the legal body that rules on such requests rejects it, then the petition is pending. And unless the body authorized to review these requests makes the statement that it is illegal, no statement other than a personal opinion can be offered. I don't think anyone in TV has the experience of presenting requests for Royal Pardons, nor is legally qualified to opine as to its legality.

Under the current circumstances, I don't think one has to be a rocket scientist to appreciate that the pardon will be rejected. There is no way the current government would allow the pardon to be officially presented. However, the government should not have let this drag on this long and should have acted to ensure the rejection long ago. A very stupid move politically.

[PeaceBlondie]

In my personal opinion as a foreigner with no fluency in Thai, ignorant, etc., the petition seemed pointless to legally accomplish a pardon. Now if a poster with a doctorate in Thai law has a better opinion, speak up.

[slimdog]

Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand BE 2550

Section 6

The Constitution is the supreme law of the State. The provisions of any law, rule or regulation, which are contrary to or inconsistent with this Constitution, shall be unenforceable.

Section 59

A person shall have the right to present a petition and to be informed of the result of its consideration without delay.

Section 191

The King has the prerogative to grant a pardon.

[jontom]

In my personal opinion as a foreigner with no fluency in Thai, ignorant, etc., the petition seemed pointless to legally accomplish a pardon. Now if a poster with a doctorate in Thai law has a better opinion, speak up.

Like it or not what most posters fail to realise is that Thailand is a military dictatorship. If you doubt that check how many coups there have been in recent Thai history when the military didnt like the government. The situation at the moment is you have Abhisit in power backed by the military and elite but probably not by most voters. This is why there is no attempt being made to hold elections. The petition was never going to work when the Military are in control.

[hammered]

The legality of the petition in the way the UDD leadership enacted it has been debated to death elsewhere but it came down to something like they said it was a request for a pardon and not raising a grievance and and how a request for a pardon is carried out is covered in organic laws explaininng how to do basically carry out the right as laid down in the pardon whereas a petiton of grievance isnt and so falls directly under the vague consitutional right to petition. The UDD leadership after some criticism from within over this basic mistake spuin it into a petition for grievance on their statements but the actual wording was pardon. Intially iirc this point on the legal stuff was actually made by a UDD supporter.

As with all laws these thigns are complicated but as this is about poltics it is about perception and belief

[Siripon]

In a request for a pardon the petitioner is in jail, he or she feels remorse and the petition is filed by family members.

Thaksin satisfied none of these criteria and indeed a request for a pardon implies guilt is accepted by the petitioner.

So it became a grievance, where according to the petition, millions of Thais were suffering due to being deprived of Thaksin, who if pardoned for his crime, could come back and all would live happily ever after.

[yoshiwara]

Another thing in the rising red crescendo aimed at the time on or around Feb 26 when the asset case decision will be made. The demo and censure are also timed for this central event.

That's right.

It should also be remembered that the request for a pardon of includes a pardon for the money ie pardon me, pardon my scams

[khunjamespittman]

And that the petition was illegal.

Please enlighten me. How can a petition that was accepted by the government be illegal. Saying something is illegal does not make it illegal. Please tell me what law makes submitting a petition making a request is illegal.

Get real! Come out of your fantasy world.

[SomTumTiger]

Thailand is not a military dictatorship, nor is it a democracy. Its a confused, adolescent country, going through fits and starts, as it tries to recocile long held beliefs with the realities of life in the 21st century. The military no doubt play a more prominent role than people want, but they have backed off substantially in the wake of the international bitch slap that resulted in 2006. However, the military itself is divided, so the idea that they do things of one mind and direction, is flawed as well. Frankly, with all the different shades of gray involved, Abhisit's government seems to be the best for the time, and indeed, might be the best for a longer period as well.

[neotica]

The legality of the petition in the way the UDD leadership enacted it has been debated to death elsewhere but it came down to something like they said it was a request for a pardon and not raising a grievance and and how a request for a pardon is carried out is covered in organic laws explaining how to do basically carry out the right as laid down in the pardon whereas a petition of grievance isn't and so falls directly under the vague constitutional right to petition. The UDD leadership after some criticism from within over this basic mistake spuin it into a petition for grievance on their statements but the actual wording was pardon. Initially iirc this point on the legal stuff was actually made by a UDD supporter.

As with all laws these things are complicated but as this is about politics it is about perception and belief

Thank you for highlighting the huge difference between petitioning and Royal Pardons. That's why they are covered by separate articles in the Constitution and further delineated by organic laws, such as:

Royal Pardons are requested by members of the involved member, not by petition of paid signers.

Still, they are verifying the signatures at the very reasonable pace of 30,000 persons PER day. If they hadn't submitted so many signatures, it would have been completed by now. The submitter's mistake, not the reviewer's.

[slimdog]

Still, they are verifying the signatures at the very reasonable pace of 30,000 persons PER day. If they hadn't submitted so many signatures, it would have been completed by now. The submitter's mistake, not the reviewer's.

Actually, not one signiture has been verified yet...

The Department of Justice, decided that they would enter all the names, id numbers, addresses, phone numbers etc into a computer database. Only after this has been completed, which will take approx 3 further months, will the information be given to the Interior Ministry for verification.

All petitions, regardless of their subject will be controvesial, when it involves peoples political views, then more so. Some will totally support the petition, others not.

For me, the question isn't about whether the petition has merit (In this instance, I don't believe it does), but whether the Government of the day has the right to stop a petition from reaching the person to whom it was addressed, because they disagree with what the petitioners want ?

[neotica]

Still, they are verifying the signatures at the very reasonable pace of 30,000 persons PER day. If they hadn't submitted so many signatures, it would have been completed by now. The submitter's mistake, not the reviewer's.

Actually, not one signiture has been verified yet...

The Department of Justice, decided that they would enter all the names, id numbers, addresses, phone numbers etc into a computer database. Only after this has been completed, which will take approx 3 further months, will the information be given to the Interior Ministry for verification.

All petitions, regardless of their subject will be controvesial, when it involves peoples political views, then more so. Some will totally support the petition, others not.

For me, the question isn't about whether the petition has merit (In this instance, I don't believe it does), but whether the Government of the day has the right to stop a petition from reaching the person to whom it was addressed, because they disagree with what the petitioners want ?

The 30,000 figure was from news reports, but if they are deciding to incorporate this into a database, that sounds reasonable as well in order to ensure the accuracy of such a huge number.

The government isn't stopping anything, or at least there's no evidence of that. They seem to be doing as well as can be done given the vast amount of necessary work required. It's important to be accurate given the recipient of the petition.

If the pardonee wanted a Royal Pardon, he should do so via the proper channels required by the specific laws, not by some publicity stunt.

[rixalex]

For me, the question isn't about whether the petition has merit (In this instance, I don't believe it does), but whether the Government of the day has the right to stop a petition from reaching the person to whom it was addressed, because they disagree with what the petitioners want ?

...because they disagree with what the petitioners want?

Well yes, i'm sure they do disagree, but isn't a far more important reason for trying to prevent (or at least slow down) it reaching its intended destination is that it will be putting someone right slap bang in the middle of the most divisive and contentious issue this country has seen in a very long time - this was obviously not a concern for the petitioners, but for other Thais i rather think it is.

[slimdog]

Well yes, i'm sure they do disagree, but isn't a far more important reason for trying to prevent (or at least slow down) it reaching its intended destination is that it will be putting someone right slap bang in the middle of the most divisive and contentious issue this country has seen in a very long time - this was obviously not a concern for the petitioners, but for other Thais i rather think it is.

Do you think that these people had similar feelings in 2006 when the petition to invoke section 7 of the Constitution was presented? Should Thaksin have used all his powers to ensure that the petition was prevented or slowed down?

I am 100% certain, that like the 2006 petition, this current one will be turned down if it is ever presented, and probably for exactly the same reason.

I have no problem with that, and actually fully agree that the petition should be rejected, but like all petitions, it should be seen.....

[Fishbucket]

Exactly, its a foregone conclusion that the petition is rejected.

I dont think anyone is expecting any other outcome.

However the point is that a petition has been submitted, so why dont they just properly process it and officially reject it , instead of acting the proverbial pr*ck.

Then we can all review the reasons for rejection.

After all it is a "democracy" isnt it?

[animatic]

The legality of the petition in the way the UDD leadership enacted it has been debated to death elsewhere but it came down to something like they said it was a request for a pardon and not raising a grievance and and how a request for a pardon is carried out is covered in organic laws explaining how to do basically carry out the right as laid down in the pardon whereas a petition of grievance isn't and so falls directly under the vague constitutional right to petition. The UDD leadership after some criticism from within over this basic mistake spuin it into a petition for grievance on their statements but the actual wording was pardon. Initially iirc this point on the legal stuff was actually made by a UDD supporter.

As with all laws these things are complicated but as this is about politics it is about perception and belief

Thank you for highlighting the huge difference between petitioning and Royal Pardons. That's why they are covered by separate articles in the Constitution and further delineated by organic laws, such as:

Royal Pardons are requested by members of the involved member, not by petition of paid signers.

Still, they are verifying the signatures at the very reasonable pace of 30,000 persons PER day. If they hadn't submitted so many signatures, it would have been completed by now. The submitter's mistake, not the reviewer's.

The submiters mistake certainly.

Like the countries assets in this time should be wasted counting and validating signatures?

Yes they had the right to petition, but not for Thaksin to get a pardon, as that is clearly a family matter, done for someone serving their sentence and by close family members.

Not a marching parade of non relatives in the street trying to intimidate.

In any case the Reds said nothing much on this for months,

UNTIL Thaksin needs things ratcheted up, one other issue for the big fight.

[MAJIC]

Can someone please tell them that the petition is denied

I may have false memory here,but I thought a Royal Pardon has either been refused twice or ignored twice already.