Thai Govt Put On The Ropes As Court Deliberates On Decrees' Legality

[webfact]

WATCHDOG

Govt put on the ropes as court deliberates on decrees' legality

Nophakhun Limsamarnphun

BANGKOK: -- Korn Chatikavanij, the former finance minister and deputy leader of the opposition Democrat Party, is one of the 120-plus MPs who signed a petition for the Constitution Court to rule if the government's emergency decree on the transfer to the Bank of Thailand of Bt1.14-trillion in public debt is legal.

On his Facebook page, Korn opined that the decree is unconstitutional for several reasons.

First, the decree to transfer the huge debt, a legacy from the 1997 Asian financial crisis triggered by the baht devaluation, from the Finance Ministry to the central bank is against the Constitution because it is not an urgent issue.

Secondly, the emergency decree will hurt the country's economic and financial security.

On urgency, there are apparently other legal means to execute the debt transfer policy, such as proposing it as regular legislation for Parliament to consider and enact into law, so that the pros and cons can be debated by all members of the House of Representatives and Senate.

It is invalid for the government to argue that the debt transfer is urgent in connection with the country's need to invest in flood-prevention, mega-infrastructure projects following last year's massive inundation.

Earlier, Dr Virabongsa Ramangkura, chairman of the government's strategic committee on reconstruction and future development, told reporters that such a debt transfer would lower the country's public debt as a percentage of its GDP. However, this is wrong because the country's public debt is currently only 40 per cent of GDP - still far below the dangerous threshold of 60 per cent.

More importantly, the legacy debt is counted as part of the country's public debt, no matter if it's the Finance Ministry's responsibility or the central bank's.

In addition, the government said it needs to transfer the debt to the central bank so as to reduce the interest burden on the state budget. On an annual basis, the government has had to set aside Bt40-60 billion per year to service the legacy debt, thus it has less money for investment projects.

Deputy Premier Kittiratt Na Ranong also told the Cabinet that the government's debt service responsibility had risen to over 12 per cent of the total state budget - approaching the 15 per cent legal limit. But the figures were again wrong as Thirachai Phuvanart-Nalanuban, the ex-finance minister, disclosed that the official document in his hand one day before he lost his portfolio last month, shows that the government's debt service responsibility is currently only 9.33 per cent of the total state budget, not over 12 per cent as claimed.This shows that the government has misled the public in issuing the crucial debt transfer decree.

Former finance minister Korn also shared ex-finance minister Thirachai's opinion that the figures used by the government were wrong.

According to the Constitution, emergency decrees need to meet urgency and other criteria. Otherwise, they will have to be proposed as regular pieces of legislation for consideration by all government and opposition MPs.

Even Thirachai suggested that the government had doctored the figures to justify the decree's urgency.

Now, the debt transfer as well as the Bt350-billion bond issue emergency decree are being considered by the Constitution Court. If the court agrees to interpret their legality, Parliament will have to suspend its consideration of the two decrees and the government will have to take responsibility if any of the two, or both, turn out to be unconstitutional.

-- The Nation 2012-02-04

[CalgaryII]

And this is why the constition needs revamping.

In its current form, it is an existential threat to the Govt.

The chickenshit way the opposition tries to get at the Government via Judges, instead of electorally via the people shows their ......whatever.

Using Judges instead of parliamentary systems to debate the Govt. is seen for what it is.....just shows their weakness.

[whybother]

And this is why the constition needs revamping.

In its current form, it is an existential threat to the Govt.

The chickenshit way the opposition tries to get at the Government via Judges, instead of electorally via the people shows their ......whatever.

Using Judges instead of parliamentary systems to debate the Govt. is seen for what it is.....just shows their weakness.

So the law needs changing so the government doesn't break the law?

Why doesn't the government just do things within the confines of the law?

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

[CalgaryII]

And this is why the constition needs revamping.

In its current form, it is an existential threat to the Govt.

The chickenshit way the opposition tries to get at the Government via Judges, instead of electorally via the people shows their ......whatever.

Using Judges instead of parliamentary systems to debate the Govt. is seen for what it is.....just shows their weakness.

So the law needs changing so the government doesn't break the law?

Why doesn't the government just do things within the confines of the law?

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

This Opposition runs to the courts everytime they don't like something.

Trying to show their oppositional positions are unlawful on the Govts. side is hogwash.

But I suppose if I was saddled with their electoral weakness, i would resort to Judges also.

No point in going to the people. They lose everytime.

With respect to Govtl. actions, that is the beauty of this system, as opposed to the USA system. Here, armed with an electoral mandate, the Govt. can take actions to be judged at the next election.

With their electorally granted Oppositional weakness, the only way of combatting this electoral majority is via the courts.

The voters are taking notice however, and will render their verdict next time around.

[virtualtraveller]

This is what the whole difference is between the Shinawatra style of govt and the Democrats style. The Shinawatra parties favour a big win at the polls give you a blank cheque to spend (and win votes) without full transparency or ability of the opposition to ask 'why', or 'where's your budget', rather like the Army getting masses of money but not having to divulge what it's for. That is why they want to change the constitution, to eliminate agencies that keep an eye on them. We all know where this leads.

[whybother]

This Opposition runs to the courts everytime they don't like something.

Trying to show their oppositional positions are unlawful on the Govts. side is hogwash.

But I suppose if I was saddled with their electoral weakness, i would resort to Judges also.

No point in going to the people. They lose everytime.

With respect to Govtl. actions, that is the beauty of this system, as opposed to the USA system. Here, armed with an electoral mandate, the Govt. can take actions to be judged at the next election.

With their electorally granted Oppositional weakness, the only way of combatting this electoral majority is via the courts.

The voters are taking notice however, and will render their verdict next time around.

This opposition runs to the courts every time this government does something that could be illegal.

This government (and some of it's supporters) seem to think that having a majority in parliament means that it can ignore the law.

[moe666]

At least the Democrats do not gather there supporters and riot and burn down the city to get there way. PTP supporters, blind being led by the blind.

[Bakseedaa]

And this is why the constition needs revamping.

In its current form, it is an existential threat to the Govt.

The chickenshit way the opposition tries to get at the Government via Judges, instead of electorally via the people shows their ......whatever.

Using Judges instead of parliamentary systems to debate the Govt. is seen for what it is.....just shows their weakness.

You are Very wrong with your statement... The opposition are there to form a buffer between the sitting government , and if what they try to push through without proper parlimentry debate.. is good for the people .. Let the judges decide...

[Bakseedaa]

And this is why the constition needs revamping.

In its current form, it is an existential threat to the Govt.

The chickenshit way the opposition tries to get at the Government via Judges, instead of electorally via the people shows their ......whatever.

Using Judges instead of parliamentary systems to debate the Govt. is seen for what it is.....just shows their weakness.

So the law needs changing so the government doesn't break the law?

Why doesn't the government just do things within the confines of the law?

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

This Opposition runs to the courts everytime they don't like something.

Trying to show their oppositional positions are unlawful on the Govts. side is hogwash.

But I suppose if I was saddled with their electoral weakness, i would resort to Judges also.

No point in going to the people. They lose everytime.

With respect to Govtl. actions, that is the beauty of this system, as opposed to the USA system. Here, armed with an electoral mandate, the Govt. can take actions to be judged at the next election.

With their electorally granted Oppositional weakness, the only way of combatting this electoral majority is via the courts.

The voters are taking notice however, and will render their verdict next time around.

Malaka comes to mind...!

[MikeOboe57]

This opposition runs to the courts every time this government does something that could be illegal.

This government (and some of it's supporters) seem to think that having a majority in parliament means that it can ignore the law.

With Thaksin as de facto PM, checking the legality of every action of this government is paramount.

[scorecard]

And this is why the constition needs revamping.

In its current form, it is an existential threat to the Govt.

The chickenshit way the opposition tries to get at the Government via Judges, instead of electorally via the people shows their ......whatever.

Using Judges instead of parliamentary systems to debate the Govt. is seen for what it is.....just shows their weakness.

So the law needs changing so the government doesn't break the law?

Why doesn't the government just do things within the confines of the law?

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

Why doesn't the government just do things within the confines of the law? And the laws are there for very good reasons, just one of the reasons being proper controls.

Why does this remind me of the paymaster totally ignoring another law which is there for good reasons: good governance and to stop any possibility of people who find themselves in positions of power from using that power for their own personsl benefit. In fact it ultimately landed hima 2 year jail sentence and so it should have.

The laws involvde with this matter at hand are there for very very sound reasons. And please Calgary, you might like to remeber that the paymasters minions tried every possible angle of various laws to try to hit the dems when they were the opposition, and the bottom line is that that's what the opposition should be doing.

Edited February 4, 2012 by scorecard

[ianf]

This Opposition runs to the courts everytime they don't like something. Trying to show their oppositional positions are unlawful on the Govts. side is hogwash. But I suppose if I was saddled with their electoral weakness, i would resort to Judges also. No point in going to the people. They lose everytime. With respect to Govtl. actions, that is the beauty of this system, as opposed to the USA system. Here, armed with an electoral mandate, the Govt. can take actions to be judged at the next election. With their electorally granted Oppositional weakness, the only way of combatting this electoral majority is via the courts. The voters are taking notice however, and will render their verdict next time around.

This opposition runs to the courts every time this government does something that could be illegal. This government (and some of it's supporters) seem to think that having a majority in parliament means that it can ignore the law.

Indeed, it is pretty standard behaviour for the opposition in Thailand to use the law. The opposition has done this in all Governments of whatever colour. In this case, the ruling party has obviously overstepped the mark again and the law needs to be used by the opposition because it has identified a clear breach. It has nothing to do with electoral success or failure, the opposition is clearly behaving in the way any opposition would work in any democracy. Calgaryll's post follows a pattern of his previous posts in that he does not appear to understand Thai politics.

[animatic]

And this is why the constition needs revamping.

In its current form, it is an existential threat to the Govt.

The chickenshit way the opposition tries to get at the Government via Judges, instead of electorally via the people shows their ......whatever.

Using Judges instead of parliamentary systems to debate the Govt. is seen for what it is.....just shows their weakness.

That was the point, to prevent ANY government from running rough shod over the checks and balances.

To do so again is the reason to change the constitution, all the other reasons are simply window dressing.

Edited February 4, 2012 by animatic

[animatic]

And the main reason for not doing this action.

More importantly, the legacy debt is counted as part of the country's public debt, no matter if it's the Finance Ministry's responsibility or the central bank's.

It doesn't actually cure the problem the Gov. see it has,

but will cause the BOT to charge banks more to finance the old debt in a different way,

and ALL the banks will in turn charge each person with a bank account bigger fees to cover their bigger fees.

And as far as debt rating companies will see it, as noted above,

there will be no change in the global public debt.

So, as the Gov. gets to borrow more, the debt ratio remains the same

prior to the new loans and bank customers pay for it.

But interest payments on new loans balloon beside the old debt.

Total global debt INCREASES because of the new debt taken on,

regardless of account shuffling slight of hand, Moodys and S&P

will not ignore the debt, regardless of account name.

So much for public servants working for the common good.

Thaksin refinanced the IMF debt to get IMF eyes off his accounting practiced while in office,

and the political windfall of saying he ran of the IMF, bad farangs, except he sold it

longer term to Singapore, causing Thailand much more for much longer.

Never mind that Thailand is a founding member and continuous member of the IMF.

And never mind thatThailand sill pays membership dues as % of GDP every year,

even during Thaksins term.

Now those debt shuffled chickens have come home to roost,

and he can't refinance it again to get more loans for 'mega projects',

so the last choice is this ineffective, dodgy moving about in accounts.

But in the global picture that DEBT is still there and affects the rating...

So, the Constitution court will rule on this blatant banana republic accounting scheme.

Edited February 4, 2012 by animatic

[BigJohnnyBKK]

But in the global picture that DEBT is still there and affects the rating...

So, the Constitution court will rule on this blatant banana republic accounting scheme.

Be careful with that "banana republic" label - Thailand's actual debt/spending profile has been *much* more responsible than the US and many EU members, so they aren't so close to the wall on that issue, have lots more wiggle room than many of our home countries.

If the government were to increase its levels of debt for money to actually be spent effectively on (for example) flood-prevention measures and improving the public education system, I'd be all for it. However since we know that public spending here is much less effective in actually solving such problems. . .

At least increased bank charges will be paid for a big more progressively than regular taxes - but not by much I imagine.

[Derifo]

And this is why the constition needs revamping.

In its current form, it is an existential threat to the Govt.

The chickenshit way the opposition tries to get at the Government via Judges, instead of electorally via the people shows their ......whatever.

Using Judges instead of parliamentary systems to debate the Govt. is seen for what it is.....just shows their weakness.

So the law needs changing so the government doesn't break the law?

Why doesn't the government just do things within the confines of the law?

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

I wonder.

[ozzieman05]

And this is why the constition needs revamping. In its current form, it is an existential threat to the Govt. The chickenshit way the opposition tries to get at the Government via Judges, instead of electorally via the people shows their ......whatever. Using Judges instead of parliamentary systems to debate the Govt. is seen for what it is.....just shows their weakness.

That makes me wrong, I always though getting the advice from Learned judges was always better than farmers in the North who understand very little about law, who just sell their votes

[Moruya]

And this is why the constition needs revamping.

In its current form, it is an existential threat to the Govt.

The chickenshit way the opposition tries to get at the Government via Judges, instead of electorally via the people shows their ......whatever.

Using Judges instead of parliamentary systems to debate the Govt. is seen for what it is.....just shows their weakness.

You prefer an outright dictatorship where the government can do just what it likes without question?

[473geo]

Panic time for the Dems, desperate tactics........the government is moving on financing solutions the Dems did not provide......the Dems are looking at a following 4 year term in the wilderness

No alternative for the Dems but to try and put the brakes on the financing, to slow, if not halt the delivery of solutions by PTP

Not in the interest Thailand or "checks and balances", more a check attempt on funding, in order to avoid the Dems suffering yet another mauling at the next election

[rubl]

Panic time for the Dems, desperate tactics........the government is moving on financing solutions the Dems did not provide......the Dems are looking at a following 4 year term in the wilderness

No alternative for the Dems but to try and put the brakes on the financing, to slow, if not halt the delivery of solutions by PTP

Not in the interest Thailand or "checks and balances", more a check attempt on funding, in order to avoid the Dems suffering yet another mauling at the next election

The new government is moving to innovative and daring new financing solutions. they have learned from the 2008 global financial crisis that the sky is the limit.

With emergency degrees pushed through without proper, completed debates in parliament, the opposition has no choice but to ask the judiciary to rule on the legality of these decrees.

no alternative for the opposition but to question all actions of this government otherwise there may be no demoracy left to have another election in.

Two views on the same subject. Legally so

[473geo]

Panic time for the Dems, desperate tactics........the government is moving on financing solutions the Dems did not provide......the Dems are looking at a following 4 year term in the wilderness

No alternative for the Dems but to try and put the brakes on the financing, to slow, if not halt the delivery of solutions by PTP

Not in the interest Thailand or "checks and balances", more a check attempt on funding, in order to avoid the Dems suffering yet another mauling at the next election

The new government is moving to innovative and daring new financing solutions. they have learned from the 2008 global financial crisis that the sky is the limit.

With emergency degrees pushed through without proper, completed debates in parliament, the opposition has no choice but to ask the judiciary to rule on the legality of these decrees.

no alternative for the opposition but to question all actions of this government otherwise there may be no demoracy left to have another election in.

Two views on the same subject. Legally so

If there has always been enough in the budgets to resolve the flooding, why was this solution not posted and completed under the Dems tenure. This action would have saved all the extraordinary spending curently required to compensate, and now also provide a solution. Costs rise year on year as a norm.

The Dems ignored the people of Bangkok......sad but true......now they are trying to stop PTP providing a solution, by attempts to delay funding, and applying financial constraint......I hope this action is remembered by the Thai voters for the negative results it could faciitate, in terms of future flood control, education, infastructure and the general furtherment, development, and improvement of Thailand

Legally is 'emergency' funding required......well it would appear the Dems got their sums wrong as they obviously did not spend enough to prevent the subdistricts of Bangkok disappearing under a meter of water............

Checks and balances........don't make me laugh......driven by fear of disappearing up their own voicebox

[jonnyscot]

.......I hope this action is remembered by the Thai voters for the negative results it could faciitate, in terms of future flood control, education, infastructure and the general furtherment, development, and improvement of Thailand

Classic,,,,, now we have the reason why the Govt can't deliver their planned election promises,,, tablets to all students,,, sorry students but the Dems always complain when we try to do something illegally or "unconstitutional" therefore we cant deliver your tablets to all as promised,, so blame them, it's not our fault,,

[473geo]

.......I hope this action is remembered by the Thai voters for the negative results it could faciitate, in terms of future flood control, education, infastructure and the general furtherment, development, and improvement of Thailand

Classic,,,,, now we have the reason why the Govt can't deliver their planned election promises,,, tablets to all students,,, sorry students but the Dems always complain when we try to do something illegally or "unconstitutional" therefore we cant deliver your tablets to all as promised,, so blame them, it's not our fault,,

Predictable.....oh so predictable.......are you implying that to refuse, suspend or delay funding carries no consequence.......

Thought not......

[JAG]

This is what the whole difference is between the Shinawatra style of govt and the Democrats style. The Shinawatra parties favour a big win at the polls give you a blank cheque to spend (and win votes) without full transparency or ability of the opposition to ask 'why', or 'where's your budget', rather like the Army getting masses of money but not having to divulge what it's for. That is why they want to change the constitution, to eliminate agencies that keep an eye on them. We all know where this leads.

Whereas the Democrats aren't really too bothered at winning at the polls, because they expect sooner or later to assume power assisted by the Army.

Just thought i would finish the comparison

[CalgaryII]

This Opposition runs to the courts everytime they don't like something.

Trying to show their oppositional positions are unlawful on the Govts. side is hogwash.

But I suppose if I was saddled with their electoral weakness, i would resort to Judges also.

No point in going to the people. They lose everytime.

With respect to Govtl. actions, that is the beauty of this system, as opposed to the USA system. Here, armed with an electoral mandate, the Govt. can take actions to be judged at the next election.

With their electorally granted Oppositional weakness, the only way of combatting this electoral majority is via the courts.

The voters are taking notice however, and will render their verdict next time around.

This opposition runs to the courts every time this government does something that could be illegal.

This government (and some of it's supporters) seem to think that having a majority in parliament means that it can ignore the law.

Majority in Parliament means they can enact electoral promises.

No different than electoral majorities in Canada, England, Australia, etc.

That is what majorities are sought after in elections.

The opposition characterizing Govtl. initiatives as against the law is ludicrous.

Win an election and debate in Parliament.

Running to the Judges everytime is chickenshit.

[CalgaryII]

At least the Democrats do not gather there supporters and riot and burn down the city to get there way. PTP supporters, blind being led by the blind.

No, they merely give mafia offers (an offer one can't refuse), and then send in the military to protect the coup that put them in place.

Demonstrating against a coup (albeit belatedly) and then being assualted by the military, begets some fightback.

The nature of that fightback is in dispute, but fightback, however feeble, is not unusual in the face of coup's.

It happens everywhere.

[CalgaryII]

And this is why the constition needs revamping.

In its current form, it is an existential threat to the Govt.

The chickenshit way the opposition tries to get at the Government via Judges, instead of electorally via the people shows their ......whatever.

Using Judges instead of parliamentary systems to debate the Govt. is seen for what it is.....just shows their weakness.

You are Very wrong with your statement... The opposition are there to form a buffer between the sitting government , and if what they try to push through without proper parlimentry debate.. is good for the people .. Let the judges decide...

Parliamentary debate is the norm.......not running to Judges when they cannot get their way.

[CalgaryII]

And this is why the constition needs revamping.

In its current form, it is an existential threat to the Govt.

The chickenshit way the opposition tries to get at the Government via Judges, instead of electorally via the people shows their ......whatever.

Using Judges instead of parliamentary systems to debate the Govt. is seen for what it is.....just shows their weakness.

So the law needs changing so the government doesn't break the law?

Why doesn't the government just do things within the confines of the law?

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

Why doesn't the government just do things within the confines of the law? And the laws are there for very good reasons, just one of the reasons being proper controls.

Why does this remind me of the paymaster totally ignoring another law which is there for good reasons: good governance and to stop any possibility of people who find themselves in positions of power from using that power for their own personsl benefit. In fact it ultimately landed hima 2 year jail sentence and so it should have.

The laws involvde with this matter at hand are there for very very sound reasons. And please Calgary, you might like to remeber that the paymasters minions tried every possible angle of various laws to try to hit the dems when they were the opposition, and the bottom line is that that's what the opposition should be doing.

Why doesn't the government just do things within the confines of the law?

It does.

Only the opposition tries to suggest otherwise, instead of engaging in Parliamentary debate.

"Cowardly" is the word that describes it.

[Moruya]

And this is why the constition needs revamping.

In its current form, it is an existential threat to the Govt.

The chickenshit way the opposition tries to get at the Government via Judges, instead of electorally via the people shows their ......whatever.

Using Judges instead of parliamentary systems to debate the Govt. is seen for what it is.....just shows their weakness.

So the law needs changing so the government doesn't break the law?

Why doesn't the government just do things within the confines of the law?

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

Why doesn't the government just do things within the confines of the law? And the laws are there for very good reasons, just one of the reasons being proper controls.

Why does this remind me of the paymaster totally ignoring another law which is there for good reasons: good governance and to stop any possibility of people who find themselves in positions of power from using that power for their own personsl benefit. In fact it ultimately landed hima 2 year jail sentence and so it should have.

The laws involvde with this matter at hand are there for very very sound reasons. And please Calgary, you might like to remeber that the paymasters minions tried every possible angle of various laws to try to hit the dems when they were the opposition, and the bottom line is that that's what the opposition should be doing.

Why doesn't the government just do things within the confines of the law?

It does.

Only the opposition tries to suggest otherwise, instead of engaging in Parliamentary debate.

"Cowardly" is the word that describes it.

The opposition has tried on several times to engage in debate with the PTP. Unfortunately the PTP can't find anyone in its ranks with the required skills and undemocratically hijacks the debate instead.

[CalgaryII]

This Opposition runs to the courts everytime they don't like something. Trying to show their oppositional positions are unlawful on the Govts. side is hogwash. But I suppose if I was saddled with their electoral weakness, i would resort to Judges also. No point in going to the people. They lose everytime. With respect to Govtl. actions, that is the beauty of this system, as opposed to the USA system. Here, armed with an electoral mandate, the Govt. can take actions to be judged at the next election. With their electorally granted Oppositional weakness, the only way of combatting this electoral majority is via the courts. The voters are taking notice however, and will render their verdict next time around.

This opposition runs to the courts every time this government does something that could be illegal. This government (and some of it's supporters) seem to think that having a majority in parliament means that it can ignore the law.

Indeed, it is pretty standard behaviour for the opposition in Thailand to use the law. The opposition has done this in all Governments of whatever colour. In this case, the ruling party has obviously overstepped the mark again and the law needs to be used by the opposition because it has identified a clear breach. It has nothing to do with electoral success or failure, the opposition is clearly behaving in the way any opposition would work in any democracy. Calgaryll's post follows a pattern of his previous posts in that he does not appear to understand Thai politics.

"..... the law needs to be used by the opposition because it has identified a clear breach."

No it hasn't.

It has become their norm, substituting it for Parliamentary Debate.

The frequency with which they do it alone attests to that.

They must feel they will get a better shake with judges then in Parliament.

That begs some questions.