Thai Democracy Tested As Judges Battle Thaksin

[webfact]

Thai Democracy Tested As Judges Battle Thaksin: Southeast Asia

By Daniel Ten Kate

BANGKOK: -- Thailand’s ruling party warned democracy is under threat as its highest court moves to stop lawmakers from changing the constitution in a country that has suffered 18 coup attempts in the past eight decades.

The Constitutional Court has no right to prevent Parliament from voting on an amendment that would create a new body to rewrite the charter, Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung told reporters yesterday.

A judicial challenge to the legislators’ efforts could lead to the disbanding of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s party, the third time courts have disqualified elected allies of her brother Thaksin Shinawatra since he was ousted by the military six years ago.

“Did they fall asleep and didn’t know we got our power from the election?” Chalerm said, referring to judges on the nine-member Constitutional Court. “Don’t go too far. This is too much and no one can accept this.”

Full story: http://www.bloomberg...heast-asia.html

-- Bloomberg 2012-06-06

[OzMick]

"Mr Democracy" Chalerm forgets that PTP may well be disbanded for their actions during the election. Why is it taking so long?

[animatic]

Oh the political machine is running short of oil to grease it's gears.

So they send in Chalerm the font of legal probity to tell us how it is.

Yeah here come the flying pigs.

Remove Thaksins money from it's influence, and Thailand might find equalibrium for it's future. Keep him and his sychophants stirring the pot and it all goes down the rabbit hole to topsey turvydom, or civil war.

Edited June 6, 2012 by animatic

[thaicbr]

Thai Democracy Tested As Judges Battle Thaksin: Southeast Asia

By Daniel Ten Kate

BANGKOK: -- Thailand’s ruling party warned democracy is under threat as its highest court moves to stop lawmakers from changing the constitution in a country that has suffered 18 coup attempts in the past eight decades.

The Constitutional Court has no right to prevent Parliament from voting on an amendment that would create a new body to rewrite the charter, Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung told reporters yesterday.

A judicial challenge to the legislators’ efforts could lead to the disbanding of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s party, the third time courts have disqualified elected allies of her brother Thaksin Shinawatra since he was ousted by the military six years ago.

“Did they fall asleep and didn’t know we got our power from the election?” Chalerm said, referring to judges on the nine-member Constitutional Court. “Don’t go too far. This is too much and no one can accept this.”

Full story: http://www.bloomberg...heast-asia.html

-- Bloomberg 2012-06-06

Mr 'I have a son who is a murderer' Chalerm seems to forget that a mandate from the people is a responsibility not just power.

And the courts also have that responsibility of checks and balance.

Why are they in such a rush to slam this bill through????

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

[nurofiend]

Mr 'I have a son who is a murderer' Chalerm

while it has a nice ring to it, i don't think it will catch on as a nickname.

[KKvampire]

If PTP would do its job of trying to improve the lives of Thai people rather than playing around with matters that only involve trying to pardon and see a return of their defacto leader then maybe there will be no internal strife, but then again basically thats all this government is in existence for hence the PMs name.

[pakorn7]

They are "The Constitutional Court". If they cannot rule on constitutional charter rewrite, what are they suppose to do?

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung, WAKE UP.

[geriatrickid]

Ahh yes, all sorts of comments, but not one on the actual subject matter: Are the actions of the judges an attempt to legislate from the bench, an interference in the legal duties of the House, or are the judges acting in accordance with the applicable laws?

I don't suppose anyone wants to take a stab at considering the legal basis for the judicial activities? Maybe there is a legitimate legal argument to make in respect to the activity?

Unfortunately, one won't see a discussion of that here in this thread as the usual internet thugs rush to toss whatever crap they think will stick. It would be a nice change, to read the comments of someone offering up an explanation based upon the actual facts of the matter and not tangental comments about the alleged wrongdoings of a DPM etc.

[Unkomoncents]

So the choice, according to the PTP, is between law enforcement (however inequitably distributed) and mob rule. This country really could trip into some of the same post-revolutionary pitfalls as France during Robespierre's Reign of Terror. If Thaksin returns, it will be fascinating to observe how he cleanses house of his opponents. It's interesting to note the level of division in Thai society. Even in the United States, which is incredibly polarized politically, both of the country's main political parties are conscious of the desires of the other party and independents. Both democrats and republicans make real efforts to sway those of all stripes. With the PTP, democracy fails unless one segment of society (admittedly marginalized though it may be) receives the totality of government policy benefits. There is absolute no effort to persuade and engage the other side/s; it's utterly shocking. Thailand's laid back approach to everything (except catty political infighting) masks the unsettling reality that Thai society is not merely polarized but completely dislocated.

[Ricardo]

Did DPM-Chalerm fall asleep, and not realise that despite his party winning an election, his government still has to operate within-the-law ?

[givenall]

"Mr Democracy" Chalerm forgets that PTP may well be disbanded for their actions during the election. Why is it taking so long?

Democracy means if the party says so the criminal people can do whatever they want and get away with it. No way in the real democracy says that the parliament can change the law to help the criminals, In US the supreme court can very well challenge that So sorry Thaksin tough luck

[OzMick]

Ahh yes, all sorts of comments, but not one on the actual subject matter: Are the actions of the judges an attempt to legislate from the bench, an interference in the legal duties of the House, or are the judges acting in accordance with the applicable laws?

I don't suppose anyone wants to take a stab at considering the legal basis for the judicial activities? Maybe there is a legitimate legal argument to make in respect to the activity?

Unfortunately, one won't see a discussion of that here in this thread as the usual internet thugs rush to toss whatever crap they think will stick. It would be a nice change, to read the comments of someone offering up an explanation based upon the actual facts of the matter and not tangental comments about the alleged wrongdoings of a DPM etc.

Not being a lawyer, why would I have a stab at the legal niceties when it is obvious that PTP's lawyers have already done so, and told the turtle's to pull their head in.

As usual, Chalerm thinks that the law shouldn't apply to him and continues on his merry way, intentionally priming the red herd for the violence to come.

[smutcakes]

Ahh yes, all sorts of comments, but not one on the actual subject matter: Are the actions of the judges an attempt to legislate from the bench, an interference in the legal duties of the House, or are the judges acting in accordance with the applicable laws?

I don't suppose anyone wants to take a stab at considering the legal basis for the judicial activities? Maybe there is a legitimate legal argument to make in respect to the activity?

Unfortunately, one won't see a discussion of that here in this thread as the usual internet thugs rush to toss whatever crap they think will stick. It would be a nice change, to read the comments of someone offering up an explanation based upon the actual facts of the matter and not tangental comments about the alleged wrongdoings of a DPM etc.

Not being a lawyer, why would I have a stab at the legal niceties when it is obvious that PTP's lawyers have already done so, and told the turtle's to pull their head in.

As usual, Chalerm thinks that the law shouldn't apply to him and continues on his merry way, intentionally priming the red herd for the violence to come.

You may not be a lawyer, but by all accounts you seem to be a psychic

[smedly]

Well Charlerm thankyou for identifying what this is really about -

The simplistic view that because you were elected you can do as you see fit tossing the law aside, that may happen in China - N Korea and the like but if you wish Thailand to remain as a democracy then the law must be protected and respected - this concept is fundamentally lacking in the Thai political arena, if these bills are stopped by the courts then I see that as a huge victory for Thai democracy and a huge step forward - perhaps it will put an end to this debacle once and for all

[smutcakes]

Well Charlerm thankyou for identifying what this is really about -

The simplistic view that because you were elected you can do as you see fit tossing the law aside, that may happen in China - N Korea and the like but if you wish Thailand to remain as a democracy then the law must be protected and respected - this concept is fundamentally lacking in the Thai political arena, if these bills are stopped by the courts then I see that as a huge victory for Thai democracy and a huge step forward - perhaps it will put an end to this debacle once and for all

Perhaps before we all speculate to much, we should wait for the CC to come out and clairfy their decision. As far as I am aware there are no lawyers on here specialising in Thai political law, so it seems a bit pointless speculating to much, and we should trust the CC to make the correct decisions. Having dealt with numerous lawyers in Thailand over the years it seems that lawyers can make decisions on legal issues, fairly comfortably taking one view one day, and the directly opposite view the next depending on who is paying the bills. I hope the laws surrounding these issues are far less open to interpretation than the laws i have dealt with.

Smedley, in this particular case i agree with you, that hopefully the CC are acting within their scope and this bill can be effectively blocked. Although given this is Thailand, and its history and present state of corruption through all levels of society, I am concerned that this blocking by the CC could set a dangerous precendent in the future, should parties have the ability to have 'friendly' judges on the CC, effectively they could block any bills that they did not like.

[Crushdepth]

Ahh yes, all sorts of comments, but not one on the actual subject matter: Are the actions of the judges an attempt to legislate from the bench, an interference in the legal duties of the House, or are the judges acting in accordance with the applicable laws?

I don't suppose anyone wants to take a stab at considering the legal basis for the judicial activities? Maybe there is a legitimate legal argument to make in respect to the activity?

Unfortunately, one won't see a discussion of that here in this thread as the usual internet thugs rush to toss whatever crap they think will stick. It would be a nice change, to read the comments of someone offering up an explanation based upon the actual facts of the matter and not tangental comments about the alleged wrongdoings of a DPM etc.

You being one of the worst offenders, why don't you have a go at it? Your reality distortion field in for service?

[dru2]

Ahh yes, all sorts of comments, but not one on the actual subject matter: Are the actions of the judges an attempt to legislate from the bench, an interference in the legal duties of the House, or are the judges acting in accordance with the applicable laws?

I don't suppose anyone wants to take a stab at considering the legal basis for the judicial activities? Maybe there is a legitimate legal argument to make in respect to the activity?

Unfortunately, one won't see a discussion of that here in this thread as the usual internet thugs rush to toss whatever crap they think will stick. It would be a nice change, to read the comments of someone offering up an explanation based upon the actual facts of the matter and not tangental comments about the alleged wrongdoings of a DPM etc.

Yawn... I see someone fetched your slippers at last.

[Felt 35]

democracy is under threat

How can something not existing be under threat?

[Reasonableman]

Ahh yes, all sorts of comments, but not one on the actual subject matter: Are the actions of the judges an attempt to legislate from the bench, an interference in the legal duties of the House, or are the judges acting in accordance with the applicable laws?

I don't suppose anyone wants to take a stab at considering the legal basis for the judicial activities? Maybe there is a legitimate legal argument to make in respect to the activity?

Unfortunately, one won't see a discussion of that here in this thread as the usual internet thugs rush to toss whatever crap they think will stick. It would be a nice change, to read the comments of someone offering up an explanation based upon the actual facts of the matter and not tangental comments about the alleged wrongdoings of a DPM etc.

[WhizBang]

Did DPM-Chalerm fall asleep, and not realise that despite his party winning an election, his government still has to operate within-the-law ?

Neither Chalerm, Thaksin, PTP nor the red shirts understand this. They believe (and think) that they won the election so they can do whatever they want and how dare anyone question us.

[kimamey]

Ahh yes, all sorts of comments, but not one on the actual subject matter: Are the actions of the judges an attempt to legislate from the bench, an interference in the legal duties of the House, or are the judges acting in accordance with the applicable laws?

I don't suppose anyone wants to take a stab at considering the legal basis for the judicial activities? Maybe there is a legitimate legal argument to make in respect to the activity?

Unfortunately, one won't see a discussion of that here in this thread as the usual internet thugs rush to toss whatever crap they think will stick. It would be a nice change, to read the comments of someone offering up an explanation based upon the actual facts of the matter and not tangental comments about the alleged wrongdoings of a DPM etc.

The DPM brought this up so he is part of the topic as he said The Constitutional Court has no right to prevent Parliament from voting on an amendment that would create a new body to rewrite the charter. If that's so then there's no reason to start complaining about them as it's not them who are stopping the vote.

I don't know about the legal side of this argument but as it stands it would appear that they are doing the job they are there for otherwise the DPM wouldn't mention it. If they started saying that a particular show on television should be stopped because they didn't like the presenter they would rightly be ignored.

[smedly]

perhaps it's time for everyone here to do a little research on the structures of democratic governments and the safeguards that are put in place to stop them turning into a dictatorship, like I keep saying seemingly to largly deaf ears - this government is trying to thwart the law and in my opinion has today shown it's true colors to everyone - they are trying to bludgeon everything in their path icluding courts set in place to stop such a thing

dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law

[smutcakes]

Just out of interest, are the judges on thr Constitutional Court elected positions, and if so, who elects them? If they are not elected, how do they come to sit on the Court?

[smedly]

democracy is under threat

How can something not existing be under threat?

the path to democracy is under threat - that path takes a long time and requires solid laws and rigid structures in place that cannot be meddled with by sitting governments - that is why the CC is now involved - that is why the CC is acting - that is why the CC exists - to protect the constitution, you can add to a constitution to improve it - BUT YOU CANNOT REMOVE THE FUNDAMENTAL PARTS THAT PROTECT SOCIETY FROM ROGUE GOVERNMENTS - LIKE THIS ONE, The sooner the thai people realise this the better and this thing can all be put behind

Edited June 6, 2012 by smedly

[hellodolly]

Well Charlerm thankyou for identifying what this is really about -

The simplistic view that because you were elected you can do as you see fit tossing the law aside, that may happen in China - N Korea and the like but if you wish Thailand to remain as a democracy then the law must be protected and respected - this concept is fundamentally lacking in the Thai political arena, if these bills are stopped by the courts then I see that as a huge victory for Thai democracy and a huge step forward - perhaps it will put an end to this debacle once and for all

Perhaps before we all speculate to much, we should wait for the CC to come out and clairfy their decision. As far as I am aware there are no lawyers on here specialising in Thai political law, so it seems a bit pointless speculating to much, and we should trust the CC to make the correct decisions. Having dealt with numerous lawyers in Thailand over the years it seems that lawyers can make decisions on legal issues, fairly comfortably taking one view one day, and the directly opposite view the next depending on who is paying the bills. I hope the laws surrounding these issues are far less open to interpretation than the laws i have dealt with.

Smedley, in this particular case i agree with you, that hopefully the CC are acting within their scope and this bill can be effectively blocked. Although given this is Thailand, and its history and present state of corruption through all levels of society, I am concerned that this blocking by the CC could set a dangerous precendent in the future, should parties have the ability to have 'friendly' judges on the CC, effectively they could block any bills that they did not like.

With out Thaksins money and influence it would be hard to find a future government willing to change the law so one person could benefit from it. Their will always be spin off benefits to others but no party would attempt iot if it wasn't for the ill gotten power of Thaksin and his power base of the least educated in the land.

[Reasonableman]

http://thailand.prd.go.th/ebook/inbrief/page.php?cid=6

The Thai judiciary constitutes the judicial power in the democratic regime of Thailand. The power of the judiciary is clearly separated from the legislature, and hence the administration and the legislature may not interfere with court authorities. All high-ranking judges are appointed by His Majesty the King’s royal command and perform their duties in the name of the sovereign. The trying and adjudication of cases in accordance with provisions in the law is the power of the judiciary, i.e., the courts, which comprise three main types, namely the Constitutional Court, the Courts of Justice, and the Administrative Courts. The judicial power is vested in courts and judges to hear and decide disputes, whether those between state agencies, state agencies and the private sector, or between private agencies themselves. The power of the judiciary is as follows:

1. To interpret the Constitution and legal provisions issued by the legislature;
   
   
2. To consider and adjudicate various cases, based on laws enacted by the legislature and the administration;
   
   
3. To check the use of power by both the legislature and the administration, to ensure that they comply with the law.
   
   

The Constitution provides that the courts would be an institution independent from the National Assembly and the government, with a Judicial Commission controlling the appointment of judicial officials, so that the courts’ sanctity and impartiality are truly upheld. The selection and election process of judicial personnel as judges is a democratic selection process under a very strict judicial system. The trying and adjudication of cases is within the power of the courts, which are obligated to mete out justice in accordance with the Constitution and the law and in the name of the King. They are appointed by His Majesty the King’s royal command. The Constitution also prescribes that judges make a solemn declaration before the King before taking office.

Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court is a high court with jurisdiction over legal issues pertaining to the Constitution, the supreme law of the state. The consideration of cases by the Constitutional Court follows an inquisitional system, with the court empowered to seek facts and additional evidence. The court has jurisdiction over the following cases:

1. Ruling on the constitutionality of draft acts, or draft organic laws and draft regulations of the House of Representatives, the Senate, or the National Assembly which have been approved but not yet published in the Royal Gazette;
   
   
2. Ruling on the constitutionality of the provision of any law on any case, both found out by the Court itself and raised in objection by a party to a case;
   
   
3. Ruling on the authorities of constitutional agencies. The decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers, and other state organs.
   
   

[smedly]

thanks for that, makes it all pretty plain to me, if the sitting government had done their homework none of this would be happening right now as it's a dead end street - perhaps why Thaksin is now trying to take it to the streets

[MEL1]

Yes, thank you indeed Rman.

What I do like about it is that I could attempt to infer that all of these judges are highly likely to be yellow shirts. Well I can wish, can't I?

-mel.

[angmo]

The democrats are trying to block them from changing the constitution back to what it was before they (the yellow shirts) changed it in 2007. What's good for the goose....

[Chads]

democracy is under threat

How can something not existing be under threat?

the path to democracy is under threat - that path takes a long time and requires solid laws and rigid structures in place that cannot be meddled with by sitting governments

Well said.