Chalerm Slams Abhisit Govt For Pardon Plea Delay

[KKK]

It doesn't..The King ratifies amnesties as head of state. Others make the decision who gets one. Just like the British Queen, she doesn't decide who gets knighthoods...she just doles them out....

So what you are saying is that a Royal Pardon is a political act and it is down to the government who gets one - the King only ratifies what is presented to him???

If so it would seem that the outcome here is virtually a given - provided the law is followed, which does appear to be a tad flexible in this case.

yes that's the way I understand it....the king, who is outside politics, takes and ratifies what his government puts before him. Isn't that what a democratic monarchy is all about...

You have it wrong. The head of state usually endorses the government's recommendations but is not obliged to do so. The HOS's powers exists as a final sanity check to the government. This power is rarely used, but it does happen from time to time (for example, there are several instances where legislation has not been accepted).

It's not hard to see what the government is up to here. And it's got *nothing* to do with getting a pardon for Thaksin.

I'm not so sure you have it right either. For a monarch as HOS to not accept legislation would be non-democratic. He or She may request some amendment but cannot outrightly deny the legislation to go ahead. To do so would be a return to an absolute monarchy where the government is a puppet one such as in the times of Henry VIII.

All kings and queens have what is known as the Royal Prerogative in reference to laws passed by Parliament. Among other things, this means that they can refuse to "sign off" on legislation they deem to be contrary to the countries interests or which are in direct contravention of their Coronation Oath. The Royal Prerogative is not unlimited.

The Royal Prerogative is the Throne's power to counter abusive or excessive Parliamentary power. It is the exercising of the monarch's ultimate power as Head of State. If the present monarch, for example, felt that a particular law presented to him by Parliament would be hurtful to his subjects, he could refuse to give Royal Assent to it. Of course, this would spark a constitutional crisis. Which is, presumably, the reason why reigning sovereigns do not exercise the Royal Prerogative in this way.

The above quote in blue is taken from a page about Britain. I think you'll find that Thailand follows very closly the British way....

I think you'd better quote some examples with references if you wish to continue.

Edited September 10, 2011 by KKK

[KKK]

"I believe Pol Lt-Col Thaksin, who graduated from the police academy and finished a Phd in criminology, knows all the procedures," Mr Purachai added.

But the Thai police academies Phd in criminology is in 'how to be one', not 'how to catch one'...just ask any policeman..

He got his Phd at Sam Houston State University in the states. If there is something below third tier school, then this would fall in that category. Along those same lines, I'm thinking of opening up Ken's Bank and offer long term CD's at very attractive rates.

From the OP I thought the Phd came from Thailand's police academy. I stand corrected.

[KKK]

Here's a page laying out the Royal pardon procedure....

http://www.phaseloop...ransfer-uk.html

take it as you find it I give no guarantees as to its accuracy......

While it is mainly for UK prisoners in Thailand a lot of the general procedures should be the same for a Thai national. Unless there is a double standard.

Edited September 10, 2011 by KKK

[Crushdepth]

yes that's the way I understand it....the king, who is outside politics, takes and ratifies what his government puts before him. Isn't that what a democratic monarchy is all about...

You have it wrong. The head of state usually endorses the government's recommendations but is not obliged to do so. The HOS's powers exists as a final sanity check to the government. This power is rarely used, but it does happen from time to time (for example, there are several instances where legislation has not been accepted).

It's not hard to see what the government is up to here. And it's got *nothing* to do with getting a pardon for Thaksin.

I'm not so sure you have it right either. For a monarch as HOS to not accept legislation would be non-democratic. He or She may request some amendment but cannot outrightly deny the legislation to go ahead. To do so would be a return to an absolute monarchy where the government is a puppet one such as in the times of Henry VIII.

All kings and queens have what is known as the Royal Prerogative in reference to laws passed by Parliament. Among other things, this means that they can refuse to "sign off" on legislation they deem to be contrary to the countries interests or which are in direct contravention of their Coronation Oath. The Royal Prerogative is not unlimited.

The Royal Prerogative is the Throne's power to counter abusive or excessive Parliamentary power. It is the exercising of the monarch's ultimate power as Head of State. If the present monarch, for example, felt that a particular law presented to him by Parliament would be hurtful to his subjects, he could refuse to give Royal Assent to it. Of course, this would spark a constitutional crisis. Which is, presumably, the reason why reigning sovereigns do not exercise the Royal Prerogative in this way.

The above quote in blue is taken from a page about Britain. I think you'll find that Thailand follows very closly the British way....

I think you'd better quote some examples with references if you wish to continue.

You're not living in England now, matey! One case was the Amendment of the Civil Code, which had the potential to stifle free speech. You can do the rest of the research yourself. But the main point is: The HOS is a deliberate check on government and does have the power of veto, amongst other things. Obviously such powers are not used lightly or often.

Regarding the pardon, this is a different and much less serious issue. The Justice Ministry just forwards a recommendation, they don't make the decision.

[KKK]

yes that's the way I understand it....the king, who is outside politics, takes and ratifies what his government puts before him. Isn't that what a democratic monarchy is all about...

You have it wrong. The head of state usually endorses the government's recommendations but is not obliged to do so. The HOS's powers exists as a final sanity check to the government. This power is rarely used, but it does happen from time to time (for example, there are several instances where legislation has not been accepted).

It's not hard to see what the government is up to here. And it's got *nothing* to do with getting a pardon for Thaksin.

I'm not so sure you have it right either. For a monarch as HOS to not accept legislation would be non-democratic. He or She may request some amendment but cannot outrightly deny the legislation to go ahead. To do so would be a return to an absolute monarchy where the government is a puppet one such as in the times of Henry VIII.

All kings and queens have what is known as the Royal Prerogative in reference to laws passed by Parliament. Among other things, this means that they can refuse to "sign off" on legislation they deem to be contrary to the countries interests or which are in direct contravention of their Coronation Oath. The Royal Prerogative is not unlimited.

The Royal Prerogative is the Throne's power to counter abusive or excessive Parliamentary power. It is the exercising of the monarch's ultimate power as Head of State. If the present monarch, for example, felt that a particular law presented to him by Parliament would be hurtful to his subjects, he could refuse to give Royal Assent to it. Of course, this would spark a constitutional crisis. Which is, presumably, the reason why reigning sovereigns do not exercise the Royal Prerogative in this way.

The above quote in blue is taken from a page about Britain. I think you'll find that Thailand follows very closly the British way....

I think you'd better quote some examples with references if you wish to continue.

You're not living in England now, matey! One case was the Amendment of the Civil Code, which had the potential to stifle free speech. You can do the rest of the research yourself. But the main point is: The HOS is a deliberate check on government and does have the power of veto, amongst other things. Obviously such powers are not used lightly or often.

Regarding the pardon, this is a different and much less serious issue. The Justice Ministry just forwards a recommendation, they don't make the decision.

I know very well, thank you, where I'm living. And if you're going to name cases you should do the research...consequently your reference regarding Amendment to Civil Code is ignored as unsubstantiated. What you fail to see is that a monarch does not have unlimited powers of veto. There are only certain things that a monarch, even a Thai one, can use his/her Royal Prerogative on. As to whether it can or can't be used on an amnesty/pardon issue I have no idea and would suspect you don't know either. As to the the Justice Ministry just forwarding a recommendation not a decision..even you would agree, I'm sure, that this recommendation would be rarely, if ever, varied from, which takes us back agin to the issue of Royal Prerogative and where and when it can be used. It most certainly can't be used on everything which is what you seem to maintain.

And if you don't like it that Thailand's constitutional monarchy is similar to the UKs then go argue it out with the TOT not me. See http://www.tourismth...iland/politics/

Edited September 10, 2011 by KKK

[Buchholz]

Has anyone slammed Chalerm yet? Just asking...

I think the closest anyone got was accidentally stepping on his son's foot in a nightclub.

[Buchholz]

I think the pardon plea is is a bad idea as it drags the monarchy into politics.

It doesn't..The King ratifies amnesties as head of state. Others make the decision who gets one. Just like the British Queen, she doesn't decide who gets knighthoods...she just doles them out....

Pardons and amnesties are two entirely different procedures.

What you say about amnesties is completely wrong in regard to pardons.

.

[KKK]

I think the pardon plea is is a bad idea as it drags the monarchy into politics.

It doesn't..The King ratifies amnesties as head of state. Others make the decision who gets one. Just like the British Queen, she doesn't decide who gets knighthoods...she just doles them out....

Pardons and amnesties are two entirely different procedures.

What you say about amnesties is completely wrong in regard to pardons.

.

I think you'll find that they are the same. My dictionary says:

Amnesty: a general pardon esp. for political offences.

Pardon: to release a person from punishment, to cancel penalty for an offence.

So an amnesty is a pardon. You'll also find both words used in the same context throughout this thread.

slams Abhisit govt for pardon plea delay

an appeal by the red shirts seeking a royal pardon

disagreeing with the amnesty

petition for Thaksin's amnesty.

Amnesty Violates Legal Equality

seek a royal pardon for

etc etc....

Edited September 11, 2011 by KKK

[Scott]

A post containing rude and offensive language has been deleted and a reply to it.

[Buchholz]

It doesn't..The King ratifies amnesties as head of state. Others make the decision who gets one. Just like the British Queen, she doesn't decide who gets knighthoods...she just doles them out....

Pardons and amnesties are two entirely different procedures.

What you say about amnesties is completely wrong in regard to pardons.

I think you'll find that they are the same. My dictionary says:

Amnesty: a general pardon esp. for political offences.

Pardon: to release a person from punishment, to cancel penalty for an offence.

So an amnesty is a pardon. You'll also find both words used in the same context throughout this thread.

slams Abhisit govt for pardon plea delay

an appeal by the red shirts seeking a royal pardon

disagreeing with the amnesty

petition for Thaksin's amnesty.

Amnesty Violates Legal Equality

seek a royal pardon for

etc etc....

Yes, I'm well aware that the media reports erroneously. Just ask tlansford. Every other post of his focuses solely on that.

A Royal Pardon is decided upon entirely by His Majesty the King.

Your statement below is completely false.

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

"the politicians are making decisions that he has to follow"

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

While Royal Pardons are procedurally processed in Parliament, only recommendations are submitted. The decision is entirely in His Majesty's hands.

Amnesty is a legislative procedure conducted entirely in Parliament which are then submitted for endorsement, not decision-making, although not endorsing the legislation is still an option.

There are specific laws to deal with the processing of each separately.

This is why it's inappropriate to request a Royal Pardon by the Red Shirts. It fails to follow the specific law requiring the Pardon to be requested by the convict, the convict's parents, the convict's spouse, or the convict's offspring.

To reiterate, Royal Pardons and legislated amnesties are not the same thing.

.

[KKK]

Pardons and amnesties are two entirely different procedures.

What you say about amnesties is completely wrong in regard to pardons.

I think you'll find that they are the same. My dictionary says:

Amnesty: a general pardon esp. for political offences.

Pardon: to release a person from punishment, to cancel penalty for an offence.

So an amnesty is a pardon. You'll also find both words used in the same context throughout this thread.

slams Abhisit govt for pardon plea delay

an appeal by the red shirts seeking a royal pardon

disagreeing with the amnesty

petition for Thaksin's amnesty.

Amnesty Violates Legal Equality

seek a royal pardon for

etc etc....

Yes, I'm well aware that the media reports erroneously. Just ask tlansford. Every other post of his focuses solely on that.

A Royal Pardon is decided upon entirely by His Majesty the King.

Your statement below is completely false.

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

"the politicians are making decisions that he has to follow"

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4686781

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

While Royal Pardons are procedurally processed in Parliament, only recommendations are submitted. The decision is entirely in His Majesty's hands.

Amnesty is a legislative procedure conducted entirely in Parliament which are then submitted for endorsement, not decision-making, although not endorsing the legislation is still an option.

There are specific laws to deal with the processing of each separately.

This is why it's inappropriate to request a Royal Pardon by the Red Shirts. It fails to follow the specific law requiring the Pardon to be requested by the convict, the convict's parents, the convict's spouse, or the convict's offspring.

To reiterate, Royal Pardons and legislated amnesties are not the same thing.

.

You are not quoting me you are quoting Orac....retraction awaited......see post http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4686798

While the way an amnesty or pardon starts, as explained by you, may be different the difference in the end, as explained by you, is small. And while I can find pardon procedures on the web I have so far failed to find amnesty procedures...perhaps you would be so kind as to substantiate your beliefs.

The difference all comes in the end to what His Majesty can or can't do. To agree or disagree with a recomendation (pardon) or endorse or not endorse legislation (amnesty). Both of those then come back to the issue of Royal Prerogative, which has limited powers, and whether or not the King would use it. I obviously can't speculate on that matter except to say that I, as a loyalist, would honor his decision without question.

Edited September 11, 2011 by KKK

[Buchholz]

Interesting to read about the disgruntled Pheu Thai Party members who are upset with Chalerm in the other paper.

Complaints that he's running rough shod over others by making too many comments on areas outside his responsibility.

The complaints made their way to Dubai?

.

[Buchholz]

Chalerm: offer no opinion over the petition for a royal pardon for Thaksin

BANGKOK, 11 September 2011 (NNT)-Deputy Prime Minister Police Captain Chalerm Yubamrung refused to comment on the petition for a royal pardon for an exiled leader, Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra, saying that he had already given his opinions regarding this matter.

Police Captain Chalerm further added that if the Opposition Party disagreed with the royal pardon for Mr. Thaksin, they could raise this issue during the no-confidence debate.

-- NNT 2011-09-11

[tlansford]

Yes, I'm well aware that the media reports erroneously. Just ask tlansford. Every other post of his focuses solely on that.

every other post is about being biased, not erroneous.

every third post is about being erroneous...

[kraplung]

So Chalerm blames the previous government for doing nothing to help a fugitive from justice and then cliams his own government has done nothing either.

Now we all know Chalerm isn't very bright, even PT know that as they use him as their sacrificial pit bull, but surely a few active brain cells are required to be a deputy PM in this goverment?

[Oberkommando]

So Chalerm blames the previous government for doing nothing to help a fugitive from justice and then cliams his own government has done nothing either.

Now we all know Chalerm isn't very bright, even PT know that as they use him as their sacrificial pit bull, but surely a few active brain cells are required to be a deputy PM in this goverment?

The only prerequisite is to be an arrogant bully I believe.

[Thaddeus]

So Chalerm blames the previous government for doing nothing to help a fugitive from justice and then cliams his own government has done nothing either.

Now we all know Chalerm isn't very bright, even PT know that as they use him as their sacrificial pit bull, but surely a few active brain cells are required to be a deputy PM in this goverment?

The only prerequisite is to be an arrogant bully I believe.

And connected I believe.

[otherstuff1957]

Voranai has an interesting take on this in the BP. Thaksin often makes outrageous moves or statements, either on his own or through proxies like Chalerm. I always thought that it was arrogance on his part that lead him to say this sort of thing, but Voranai thinks it's just strategy. Thaksin, either directly or through his proxies & puppets, likes to push things just to see how far he can go & what he can or cannot get away with.

Chalerm has probably been told to push this issue. If the reaction is too negative, he will be told to back down.

When I was in sales, an older, more experience friend told me that you don't get anything unless you ask for it.

[Buchholz]

Chalerm slams Abhisit govt for pardon plea delay

possible headline:

Chalerm slams Red Shirt Leader for pardon plea delay

Acting UDD Chairperson Thida Thawornset announced that the group will call on the Government to double-check the petition signed by three million UDD supporters for royal amnesty for ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra before its submission.

NNT - Sept. 15, 2011

http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255409140011

well then, by all means delay it further while 3 million signatures are re-verified.