Thai Law Voiding Verdicts To Be Tabled

[OzMick]

How is that the point?

What is the significance of Thaksin's status regarding a coup that tore up the constitution, canceled the elections and installed a military junta?

Fantasy world ??

The only major changes (AFAIK) to the constitution were to insert anti-corruption measures after removing a highly corrupt government, and to remove the elitist requirement that a degree must be held to be an MP. So what leads you to say " tore up the constitution" - please specify the changes that altered it in any major way?

The "installed military junta" was only in office long enough to make badly needed measures to reduce corruption before calling elections. This is not Myanmar or some S American banana republic, please don't try to make it sound like it is.

[phiphidon]

oops

Oops, Yes, but not in the manner that you mean. I'll leave you with the final words of the paper

Finally, some thought ought to be given to the question of what and who might come after Thaksin.

A coup, an incompetent junta "government" and 5/6 years of political strife.................

[phiphidon]

As suggested by that nice chap and esteemed member phiphidon, I have done some reading of Michael H. Nelson's work. Some indeed very omnious, like this from December 2005, only the begin copied, follow the link for the complete article.

"Thailand and Thaksin Shinawatra: From Election Triumph to Political Decline

by Michael H. Nelson

eastasia.at

Vol. 4, No. 2, December 2005

ISSN 1684-629X

Before the latest general election on 6 February 2005, critical political observers had perceived Thailand's incumbent prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, as a threat to the country's fledgling democracy.[ii] It seemed that (for reasons of centralizing personal power) he did not accept the democratic rules of the game, but rather tried to narrow down the public political space, infiltrate the constitutional checks-and-balances system, and control the public access to information regarding the government's performance. This was accompanied by the implementation of a multitude of 'populist' policies that accrued tangible benefits to the great majority of voters. They repaid Thaksin's performance at the helm of government with an overwhelming election triumph. Even the voters in Bangkok, who were considered politically sophisticated and thus perhaps inclined to counter any authoritarian tendencies, convincingly backed Thaksin. Only the South withheld support, largely because of the government's mishandling of the Muslim insurgency, such as the incidents at Krue Se mosque and the Tak Bai police station, which cost dozens of lives.

Corruption and cronyism

With a majority of 375 to 125 seats in the House of Representatives, one could thus have expected the continued smooth running of the country by following Thai Rak Thai's election slogan 'Four years of repairs – four years of construction.' It is all the more surprising that, at the end of 2005, Thaksin's rule seems to rest on shaky grounds."

http://www.eastasia....2/article01.htm

Note that tiny word in the beginning sentence, in front of political observers, "Critical" political observers. But it is good that you have read the papers of the man you disparaged earlier as just a "visiting scholar" and see fit to post some of his output. At the end of that text he wrote this;

"Finally, some thought ought to be given to the question of what and who might come after Thaksin".

In the Thai context, the problem of giving too much power to one group was seen as one the fundamental flaws of the 1997 Constitution. The argument was that the concentration of power in the executive, as existed under Thaksin, led to many abuses..............

..................So what was the drafters solution? Give more power to the judiciary and bureaucrats to control the elected politicians. Here is an English translation from the Highlights of the Draft Constitution B.E. 2550 from the CDA:

Members of the Senate will be free from the dominance of political parties since they will be

selected from provinces and, separately, from occupational groups

(Section 106),

not through election which is prone to political meddling

. With the proposed selection process, Thai politics will cease to be the exclusive preserve of elected politicians, but will belong to the people from diverse backgrounds, areas, occupations, and genders while opening up opportunities to the socially underprivileged as well (Section 108 paragraph two).

COMMENT: Yes, "political meddling" no need for pesky elections.

Here is Thitinan (cache):

A seven-member panel comprising the heads of two state agencies, anti-graft and election commissions along with three courts are to vet the senatorial appointments. The 160 appointed senators _ one for each of the country's 76 provinces and 84 others _ are supposed (but not guaranteed) to represent a diverse and balanced range of professions.

In turn, the Senate is tasked with endorsing the nomination and selection of the most senior members of these agencies.

Such an arrangement may lead to quid-pro-quo outcomes and collusion in high places

.

I have summarised the Senate provisions below:

From s106, there will be 160 Senators who will be appointed by HM the King from a recommendation/offer from the Selection Committee.

From s107, the Selection Committee shall comprise of the President of the Constitution Court, President of the Election Commission, President/Chairman of the National Counter Corruption Commission, Parliamentary Ombudsman, Auditor-General, one representative of the Supreme Court, and one representative of the Supreme Administrative Court.

From s108, the Selection Committee will select from the Senators as follows (1) select one appropriate person from each province from a pool of applicants, and (2) selection appropriate persons from names recommended/offered from various organisations (องค์กรต่าง ๆ) in the academic, private, government, professional, and other sectors.

In choosing the Senators, the Selection Committee shall take into account their knowledge and expertise or experience who will help carrying out the work of the Senate. When selecting those with knowledge, it should be knowledge from different fields. Also, equality of the sexes and giving opportunities from those lacked opportunities.

NOTE: Under s256, government officials can't be Senators so I assume what they mean by the "government sector" is retired government officials.

COMMENT: So will guard us from the guardians? As Thitinan states they choose each other and are accountable only to each other..........

............ Suriyasai Katasila, secretary-general of the Campaign for Popular Democracy:

...the charter had both strengths and weaknesses but the task ahead was to raise the level of the people's participation in politics. He attacked the increased authority and role of the judiciary as a weak point of the charter.

"

I don't believe the courts are the answer to a sustainable solution and don't believe the courts can be accountable under the charter

."

An academic on one of the most serious problems behind the new powers which will be held by the judiciary:

"They are giving power to the courts and in the end things will not be negotiable, because they will claim to be doing it in the name of the King and

those criticising the court may be held for contempt of court

," said Naruemon Tabchumpon, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University.

http://bangkokpundit...s-custodes.html

So, in effect Thailand has gone from one (perceived) extreme to another and nothing but 5/6 years of grief to show for it. Thaksin could arguably be said to be the catalyst (but as others have said he was "made" by the existing power brokers, the amart) but the Coup and the problems from then on was certainly the reaction..

[gand]

Why blame Thaksi and his red shirt mercenaries when you can hang a farang?

Briton facing death penalty over redshirt riot breaks down in Thailand court

Jeff Savage says he is being blamed for crimes of others and claims mother is distressed by his arrest

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/27/jeff-savage-thailand-redshirts

Savage appeared in court alongside an Australian man Conor Purcell, who berated the judge, saying that the court had no authority to try him.

"Nobody in this country has authority over me. I'm not under Thai law. I'm only obeying international law. I'm head of the red gang," he yelled at the court, brushing off efforts by embassy officials to calm him down.

Purcell, who also claimed to have been beaten in prison, is facing similar charges to Savage. He is accused of inciting violence through a series of incendiary speeches made on the redshirts' main protest stage.

[tlansford]

How is that the point?

What is the significance of Thaksin's status regarding a coup that tore up the constitution, canceled the elections and installed a military junta?

Fantasy world ??

The only major changes (AFAIK) to the constitution were to insert anti-corruption measures after removing a highly corrupt government, and to remove the elitist requirement that a degree must be held to be an MP. So what leads you to say " tore up the constitution" - please specify the changes that altered it in any major way?

The "installed military junta" was only in office long enough to make badly needed measures to reduce corruption before calling elections. This is not Myanmar or some S American banana republic, please don't try to make it sound like it is.

no, it is not Burma, it is Thailand, a country where the military has wielded its single vote in governing consistently over that of the people since the end of WWII.

People on TVF despise Thaksin - I understand that - but Thaksin wasn't in power in 92, or in the 80s or in 76, or before that...

Thaksin is just a player in the game. The military is the institution which needs to get out of politics.

[OzMick]

How is that the point?

What is the significance of Thaksin's status regarding a coup that tore up the constitution, canceled the elections and installed a military junta?

Fantasy world ??

The only major changes (AFAIK) to the constitution were to insert anti-corruption measures after removing a highly corrupt government, and to remove the elitist requirement that a degree must be held to be an MP. So what leads you to say " tore up the constitution" - please specify the changes that altered it in any major way?

The "installed military junta" was only in office long enough to make badly needed measures to reduce corruption before calling elections. This is not Myanmar or some S American banana republic, please don't try to make it sound like it is.

no, it is not Burma, it is Thailand, a country where the military has wielded its single vote in governing consistently over that of the people since the end of WWII.

People on TVF despise Thaksin - I understand that - but Thaksin wasn't in power in 92, or in the 80s or in 76, or before that...

Thaksin is just a player in the game. The military is the institution which needs to get out of politics.

I wasn't here in '92 but I found these for you. Same pigs in the trough, some things never change.

" .......he was cited by the coup-makers as one of the reasons for the 1991 military coup d'état. In the wake of the coup Chalerm was among the politicians accused of "unusual wealth", and had 32 million baht in assets seized.["

"....Thaksin had a very good relationship with Chalerm Yoobumrung the Minister of the Prime Minister Office who was in charge of Thai press and media. It is a question that remains unanswered whether Chalerm granted the right to Thaksin to establish IBC just to benefit his close friend, seeing that this project had been denied by the previous administration but instantly accepted a very short period after Chalerm came to office........."

source wiki.

BTW constitution changes ??????

Edited May 29, 2012 by OzMick

[tlansford]

How is that the point?

What is the significance of Thaksin's status regarding a coup that tore up the constitution, canceled the elections and installed a military junta?

Fantasy world ??

The only major changes (AFAIK) to the constitution were to insert anti-corruption measures after removing a highly corrupt government, and to remove the elitist requirement that a degree must be held to be an MP. So what leads you to say " tore up the constitution" - please specify the changes that altered it in any major way?

The "installed military junta" was only in office long enough to make badly needed measures to reduce corruption before calling elections. This is not Myanmar or some S American banana republic, please don't try to make it sound like it is.

no, it is not Burma, it is Thailand, a country where the military has wielded its single vote in governing consistently over that of the people since the end of WWII.

People on TVF despise Thaksin - I understand that - but Thaksin wasn't in power in 92, or in the 80s or in 76, or before that...

Thaksin is just a player in the game. The military is the institution which needs to get out of politics.

I wasn't here in '92 but I found these for you. Same pigs in the trough, some things never change.

" .......he was cited by the coup-makers as one of the reasons for the 1991 military coup d'état. In the wake of the coup Chalerm was among the politicians accused of "unusual wealth", and had 32 million baht in assets seized.["

"....Thaksin had a very good relationship with Chalerm Yoobumrung the Minister of the Prime Minister Office who was in charge of Thai press and media. It is a question that remains unanswered whether Chalerm granted the right to Thaksin to establish IBC just to benefit his close friend, seeing that this project had been denied by the previous administration but instantly accepted a very short period after Chalerm came to office........."

source wiki.

BTW constitution changes ??????

"BTW constitution changes ??????"

AFIAK, I am not your wiki.

Tip, there are changes other than those you mentioned.

The point in play is that it is a favorite theme on TVF to justify the coup due to the alleged non-legal status of Thaksin as PM - and my point, that it was not relevant to the military coup.

But test the logic. Assume as many here do, that Thaksin was not even a legal care-taker PM when the coup occurred. OK.

Now, pose the question, would the coup have not occurred if Thaksin had been legally PM?

IMO, there would have been a coup in either case. As justification for that opinion, it can be noted that the planning for the coup is generally believed to have begun 7 months earlier.

[waza]

As suggested by that nice chap and esteemed member phiphidon, I have done some reading of Michael H. Nelson's work. Some indeed very omnious, like this from December 2005, only the begin copied, follow the link for the complete article.

"Thailand and Thaksin Shinawatra: From Election Triumph to Political Decline

by Michael H. Nelson

eastasia.at

Vol. 4, No. 2, December 2005

ISSN 1684-629X

Before the latest general election on 6 February 2005, critical political observers had perceived Thailand's incumbent prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, as a threat to the country's fledgling democracy.[ii] It seemed that (for reasons of centralizing personal power) he did not accept the democratic rules of the game, but rather tried to narrow down the public political space, infiltrate the constitutional checks-and-balances system, and control the public access to information regarding the government's performance. This was accompanied by the implementation of a multitude of 'populist' policies that accrued tangible benefits to the great majority of voters. They repaid Thaksin's performance at the helm of government with an overwhelming election triumph. Even the voters in Bangkok, who were considered politically sophisticated and thus perhaps inclined to counter any authoritarian tendencies, convincingly backed Thaksin. Only the South withheld support, largely because of the government's mishandling of the Muslim insurgency, such as the incidents at Krue Se mosque and the Tak Bai police station, which cost dozens of lives.

Corruption and cronyism

With a majority of 375 to 125 seats in the House of Representatives, one could thus have expected the continued smooth running of the country by following Thai Rak Thai's election slogan 'Four years of repairs – four years of construction.' It is all the more surprising that, at the end of 2005, Thaksin's rule seems to rest on shaky grounds."

http://www.eastasia....2/article01.htm

Note that tiny word in the beginning sentence, in front of political observers, "Critical" political observers. But it is good that you have read the papers of the man you disparaged earlier as just a "visiting scholar" and see fit to post some of his output. At the end of that text he wrote this;

"Finally, some thought ought to be given to the question of what and who might come after Thaksin".

In the Thai context, the problem of giving too much power to one group was seen as one the fundamental flaws of the 1997 Constitution. The argument was that the concentration of power in the executive, as existed under Thaksin, led to many abuses..............

..................So what was the drafters solution? Give more power to the judiciary and bureaucrats to control the elected politicians. Here is an English translation from the Highlights of the Draft Constitution B.E. 2550 from the CDA:

Members of the Senate will be free from the dominance of political parties since they will be

selected from provinces and, separately, from occupational groups

(Section 106),

not through election which is prone to political meddling

. With the proposed selection process, Thai politics will cease to be the exclusive preserve of elected politicians, but will belong to the people from diverse backgrounds, areas, occupations, and genders while opening up opportunities to the socially underprivileged as well (Section 108 paragraph two).

COMMENT: Yes, "political meddling" no need for pesky elections.

Here is Thitinan (cache):

A seven-member panel comprising the heads of two state agencies, anti-graft and election commissions along with three courts are to vet the senatorial appointments. The 160 appointed senators _ one for each of the country's 76 provinces and 84 others _ are supposed (but not guaranteed) to represent a diverse and balanced range of professions.

In turn, the Senate is tasked with endorsing the nomination and selection of the most senior members of these agencies.

Such an arrangement may lead to quid-pro-quo outcomes and collusion in high places

.

I have summarised the Senate provisions below:

From s106, there will be 160 Senators who will be appointed by HM the King from a recommendation/offer from the Selection Committee.

From s107, the Selection Committee shall comprise of the President of the Constitution Court, President of the Election Commission, President/Chairman of the National Counter Corruption Commission, Parliamentary Ombudsman, Auditor-General, one representative of the Supreme Court, and one representative of the Supreme Administrative Court.

From s108, the Selection Committee will select from the Senators as follows (1) select one appropriate person from each province from a pool of applicants, and (2) selection appropriate persons from names recommended/offered from various organisations (องค์กรต่าง ๆ) in the academic, private, government, professional, and other sectors.

In choosing the Senators, the Selection Committee shall take into account their knowledge and expertise or experience who will help carrying out the work of the Senate. When selecting those with knowledge, it should be knowledge from different fields. Also, equality of the sexes and giving opportunities from those lacked opportunities.

NOTE: Under s256, government officials can't be Senators so I assume what they mean by the "government sector" is retired government officials.

COMMENT: So will guard us from the guardians? As Thitinan states they choose each other and are accountable only to each other..........

............ Suriyasai Katasila, secretary-general of the Campaign for Popular Democracy:

...the charter had both strengths and weaknesses but the task ahead was to raise the level of the people's participation in politics. He attacked the increased authority and role of the judiciary as a weak point of the charter.

"

I don't believe the courts are the answer to a sustainable solution and don't believe the courts can be accountable under the charter

."

An academic on one of the most serious problems behind the new powers which will be held by the judiciary:

"They are giving power to the courts and in the end things will not be negotiable, because they will claim to be doing it in the name of the King and

those criticising the court may be held for contempt of court

," said Naruemon Tabchumpon, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University.

http://bangkokpundit...s-custodes.html

So, in effect Thailand has gone from one (perceived) extreme to another and nothing but 5/6 years of grief to show for it. Thaksin could arguably be said to be the catalyst (but as others have said he was "made" by the existing power brokers, the amart) but the Coup and the problems from then on was certainly the reaction..

Although that opinion piece gives an interesting personal perspective on the the political life of Thaksin so far. However, its fair to say its not definative as it contains no verified facts or citations, as such you are right to back away from your assertation that Thaksin was the Prime Minister of Thailand in June 2006.