Thai Democracy Tested As Judges Battle Thaksin

[whybother]

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....

Besides the fact that it was the army that changed the constitution, not the Democrats or the yellow shirts, and it was approved by "the people", of course the Democrats are trying to block changes, because the changes were put in to reduce the power one person (not that person) can have over the country. Thaksin's cronies don't like that.

[animatic]

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....

If that were only the case, it might be fair play.

But Thaksin has several charges from the 1997 constitution and other laws, and PTP is clearly trying to circumvent them. This is not about his single simple conviction, but the handful of other charges, that he would die an old man in jail if convicted of at his age.

And also this PTP government is trying to remove the courts as constitutional checks and balance to the legislative and administrative branches going forward.

And niether is fair play, but more stacking the deck.

Edited June 6, 2012 by animatic

[rubl]

Further to a reasonable man's quoting of the law, another topic has a few insinuations from legal expert Deputy Minister of Agriculture and red-shirt co-leader Nattawut Saikua plus this:

"Veteran legal expert Meechai Ruechuphan, has written on his website (www.meechaithailand.com) a defence of the court's ruling, saying it is binding on Parliament.

Meechai said the matter can be interpreted in two ways. One is to have the court directly make the ruling without having to wait for the Office of the Attorney General to forward the petition.

He added that paragraph five of Article 216 of the charter stated clearly that rulings by the Constitution Court are to be considered as finite and binding on the Parliament, Cabinet, other courts and other government bodies."

http://www.thaivisa....n-thai-charter/

[JohnAllan]

I imagine the Constitutional Court has every right to impose a moratorium - which is what it has actually done - on the government's unseemly rush to change the constitution, particularly when - and notwithstanding the ever widening gap between reconciliation and reality - such haste is at the expense of issues of much greater importance to the voters.

But then, as Chalerm was at great pains to point out, the election [sic] - albeit with a majority based on the confidence expressed by some 15 million voters, against a registered electorate of 40 million plus - gave the government its [oft abused] power. And he knows better than most how power merely corrupts, while absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Skywalker69]

http://thailand.prd..../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.
   

Thanks.

[pakorn7]

http://thailand.prd..../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.
   

Thanks.

Thaksin and Red shirt loose face big time.

Mark win.

[Moruya]

Chalerm - drunk again boy?

[Baerboxer]

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

Why would any of them change now? Operate within the law........ no, just change the laws to suit. Makes it much easier! You'll be expecting a respect of democracy and judicial independence next.

[billd766]

http://thailand.prd..../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.
   

Thanks.

Thaksin and Red shirt loose face big time.

Mark win.

I don't think it is a case of the Democrats winning at all.

What it seems to me to be is to cool down the situation and to slow the PTP down in ramming through a law which IMPO will cause greater division, bloodshed and heartache than Thailand has seen in many years.

I say bloodshed because both the Red Shirts and the yellowshirts are so diametrically opposed that heither side can see the other, let alone hear, listen and talk to each other and if there are street demonstrations there WILL be bloodshed.

The government boosted these 4 bills and combined them into one and made it the top priority over every other piece of legislation that has been going through Parliament lately.

Why are the PTP and government so worried that it will not be passed in this session?

What are they so afraid of that may be discovered in the bills which the Constitutional Court will have to clear and clear publically?

Sadly, as usual the majority of people in Thailand, rich,middle and poor alike who want to get on with their lives will have those lives disrupted again and the country as a whole will suffer.

[drdoom6996]

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

Now we know the answer to your las question!

[drdoom6996]

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

Why would any of them change now? Operate within the law........ no, just change the laws to suit. Makes it much easier! You'll be expecting a respect of democracy and judicial independence next.

I agree with both of you. But they had a great teacher of changing the law to suit themselves and now he is the money man too.

[animatic]

I imagine the Constitutional Court has every right to impose a moratorium - which is what it has actually done - on the government's unseemly rush to change the constitution, particularly when - and notwithstanding the ever widening gap between reconciliation and reality - such haste is at the expense of issues of much greater importance to the voters.

But then, as Chalerm was at great pains to point out, the election [sic] - albeit with a majority based on the confidence expressed by some 15 million voters, against a registered electorate of 40 million plus - gave the government its [oft abused] power. And he knows better than most how power merely corrupts, while absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And the sense, real or not, of absolute power,

corrupts the already corrupt at record speed,

and to newer, danker and darker depths.

Edited June 6, 2012 by animatic

[KKvampire]

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.

wrong again. where to start with your comments but the fact is that a government who tries to use its current strength in a parliament to push forward with constitutional changes against the constitutional courts decision and with measures that are so divisive then it deserves the wrath be it in the nation newspaper or on the streets from the nation itself

Edited June 6, 2012 by KKvampire

[philw]

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.

wrong again. where to start with your comments but the fact is that a government who tries to use its current strength in a parliament to push forward with constitutional changes against the constitutional courts decision and with measures that are so divisive then it deserves the wrath be it in the nation newspaper or on the streets from the nation itself

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.

wrong again. where to start with your comments but the fact is that a government who tries to use its current strength in a parliament to push forward with constitutional changes against the constitutional courts decision and with measures that are so divisive then it deserves the wrath be it in the nation newspaper or on the streets from the nation itself

Sorry to be blunt, KK but your post is nonsense.

You are saying a parliament cannot debate or propose a change in law, without approval from an external court.

That is a severe and pretty unhealthy restriction of parliamentary powers.

You are also factually incorrect when you say that the government is going against a CC decision, yet to be made.

PTP have good reason to be outraged.

[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.

wrong again. where to start with your comments but the fact is that a government who tries to use its current strength in a parliament to push forward with constitutional changes against the constitutional courts decision and with measures that are so divisive then it deserves the wrath be it in the nation newspaper or on the streets from the nation itself

The judges on the constitutional court are neither vetted, nor appointed by the duly elected members of a legislature yet the judges have the power to overturn legitimate legislation, for reasons related to procedure, rather than to whether or not it violates fundamental laws, such as human rights. As such, it is incorrect to refer to the constitutional court as part of a democratic system. This is one of the defining characteristics of Thailand.

In a democracy, the activities of the judiciary must be independent of political activity. The constitutional judges of Thailand are described by some as independent, Unfortunately, as long as the judges are appointed with no input from the electorate, they cannot be argued to be "democratic". This doesn't mean the judges are incompetent, or bad people. It just means that Thailand is a quasi democracy at best.

For example, the judges of the SCOTUS must be vetted by the elected members of the US Senate. The head of state nominates and the elected representatives of the people decide. An example, closer to Thailand's situation is Canada, where the elected government in practice appoints its supreme court judges. However, this is done after consultation with the law societies, and provinces. The Sovereign of Canada, does however, legally appoint the judges. In Thailand, the appointments just happen. That's what it is. If some believe this is fair, fine. That is the Thai way and how Thailand operates. However, it is not accurate to describe the process as "democratic".

For some people, this issue will reignite a long standing argument as to whether or not unelected officials should be able to change legislation that does not impact civil rights, and that is passed by an elected legislature. If one is a proponent of representative government, one cannot support a position where unelected third parties legislate from the bench. There is no argument, that the judiciary must stand guard over the legal rights and freedoms of Thailand, and such responsibilities include oversight of the constitution. However, in order to have the moral authority to do so, the judiciary must at some point have been subject to a democratic selection process.

Edited June 6, 2012 by geriatrickid

[geriatrickid]

I don't think it is a case of the Democrats winning at all.

What it seems to me to be is to cool down the situation and to slow the PTP down in ramming through a law which IMPO will cause greater division, bloodshed and heartache than Thailand has seen in many years.

I say bloodshed because both the Red Shirts and the yellowshirts are so diametrically opposed that heither side can see the other, let alone hear, listen and talk to each other and if there are street demonstrations there WILL be bloodshed.

The government boosted these 4 bills and combined them into one and made it the top priority over every other piece of legislation that has been going through Parliament lately.

Why are the PTP and government so worried that it will not be passed in this session?

What are they so afraid of that may be discovered in the bills which the Constitutional Court will have to clear and clear publically?

Sadly, as usual the majority of people in Thailand, rich,middle and poor alike who want to get on with their lives will have those lives disrupted again and the country as a whole will suffer.

I believe that you have a valid point in respect to a "cooling off". Unfortunately, the manner in which the constitutional court has intervened has not been particularly smooth nor well organized. There should have been more emphasis upon the legal basis for its actions. Instead, the decision was leaked first and then the basis for the judgement has slowly trickled out. The appropriate way to do it would have been to release the full decision, to allow time for the decision to be read.

It is incredibly inappropriate for there to have been a media event.. This has transformed, what could have been an opportunity for sober 2nd thought, into a political event. The court has interjected itself into political activity, when it should have stayed above the fray. I believe that these are strategic errors that will send the message that the court is interfering in legitimate legislative activities. Whether the basis for the court activity is correct or not, does not matter as the perception created is one of political interference.

The government was in a rush to pass the legislation, because the billl dies if not passed within the required time frame. I expect that the government will press ahead and make its point that the elected representatives of the people were thwarted by unelected officials. On the other hand, a new bill could be introduced and the fun can start again.

[scorecard]

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

1. Is amsterdam still in town?

2. Several surveys within the last 48 hours indicate that a very large percentage of the population have no understanding of all of this. So much for the promised public debate and involvement.

Edited June 6, 2012 by scorecard

[scorecard]

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....

The yellow shirts changed it? Come now, as geriatrickid often says please state facts.

[dickyknee]

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.

wrong again. where to start with your comments but the fact is that a government who tries to use its current strength in a parliament to push forward with constitutional changes against the constitutional courts decision and with measures that are so divisive then it deserves the wrath be it in the nation newspaper or on the streets from the nation itself

The judges on the constitutional court are neither vetted, nor appointed by the duly elected members of a legislature yet the judges have the power to overturn legitimate legislation, for reasons related to procedure, rather than to whether or not it violates fundamental laws, such as human rights. As such, it is incorrect to refer to the constitutional court as part of a democratic system. This is one of the defining characteristics of Thailand.

In a democracy, the activities of the judiciary must be independent of political activity. The constitutional judges of Thailand are described by some as independent, Unfortunately, as long as the judges are appointed with no input from the electorate, they cannot be argued to be "democratic". This doesn't mean the judges are incompetent, or bad people. It just means that Thailand is a quasi democracy at best.

For example, the judges of the SCOTUS must be vetted by the elected members of the US Senate. The head of state nominates and the elected representatives of the people decide. An example, closer to Thailand's situation is Canada, where the elected government in practice appoints its supreme court judges. However, this is done after consultation with the law societies, and provinces. The Sovereign of Canada, does however, legally appoint the judges. In Thailand, the appointments just happen. That's what it is. If some believe this is fair, fine. That is the Thai way and how Thailand operates. However, it is not accurate to describe the process as "democratic".

For some people, this issue will reignite a long standing argument as to whether or not unelected officials should be able to change legislation that does not impact civil rights, and that is passed by an elected legislature. If one is a proponent of representative government, one cannot support a position where unelected third parties legislate from the bench. There is no argument, that the judiciary must stand guard over the legal rights and freedoms of Thailand, and such responsibilities include oversight of the constitution. However, in order to have the moral authority to do so, the judiciary must at some point have been subject to a democratic selection process.

um, you are correct in that Canada like all commonwealth countries has a more similar democratic system to Thailand than the US. Maybe because of the head of state? Maybe?

Ill stop there. Inference that appointed positions should be democratic is something I'd rather not discuss.

[Babcock]

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.

wrong again. where to start with your comments but the fact is that a government who tries to use its current strength in a parliament to push forward with constitutional changes against the constitutional courts decision and with measures that are so divisive then it deserves the wrath be it in the nation newspaper or on the streets from the nation itself

They're not pushing forward with constitutional changes to the constitution courts decision.

They want to set up a committee with members drawn from each state and limit the number of "experts" to 22 and then to go to a referendum.

This has got the yellows spoiling for a fight and ignoring the attorney general whose job it is to investigate if there is any substance and not a frivolous case the court suggests that there is a hidden agenda here to remove the sovereign and the constitution to benefit foreign players. According to article 68 I think proof has first to be provided to the attorney general ie funding and it's sources for an investigation to take place whereupon the findings should then be passed to the constitution court.

We all know the constitution court is corrupt after we saw the video of the democrats lobbying the court and the court judges referring to pheu Thai as "it," as if they were animals and the scandal over the bragging about cheating to get relatives key jobs.

All on video and of course they were all appointed by the generals.

Say no more!

[phl]

So Government has the authority to over rule court ruling, but courts do not have the authority to judge government, ruling party?

For some reason this does not sound very democratic to me, but rather more in line with dictatorship and absolute power

May be Chalerm was "misunderstood", well i hope so, because otherwise then i have no doubt there would be 19th coup.

[Moruya]

Sorry to be blunt, KK but your post is nonsense.

You are saying a parliament cannot debate or propose a change in law, without approval from an external court.

That is a severe and pretty unhealthy restriction of parliamentary powers.

You are also factually incorrect when you say that the government is going against a CC decision, yet to be made.

PTP have good reason to be outraged.

It's not Parliament it's PTP. They are neither proposing nor debating they are steamrolling.

And that is patently an abuse

Edited June 7, 2012 by Scott
End line edited out

[thaicbr]

GK. Aren't the Thai constitutional court judges appointed by the head of state (The King)

He does have the final say as it is a constitutional monarchy.

It is not YET a President for life democracy. (Think Mugabe)

sent from my Wellcom A90+

[Moruya]

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.

wrong again. where to start with your comments but the fact is that a government who tries to use its current strength in a parliament to push forward with constitutional changes against the constitutional courts decision and with measures that are so divisive then it deserves the wrath be it in the nation newspaper or on the streets from the nation itself

The judges on the constitutional court are neither vetted, nor appointed by the duly elected members of a legislature yet the judges have the power to overturn legitimate legislation, for reasons related to procedure, rather than to whether or not it violates fundamental laws, such as human rights. As such, it is incorrect to refer to the constitutional court as part of a democratic system. This is one of the defining characteristics of Thailand.

In a democracy, the activities of the judiciary must be independent of political activity. The constitutional judges of Thailand are described by some as independent, Unfortunately, as long as the judges are appointed with no input from the electorate, they cannot be argued to be "democratic". This doesn't mean the judges are incompetent, or bad people. It just means that Thailand is a quasi democracy at best.

For example, the judges of the SCOTUS must be vetted by the elected members of the US Senate. The head of state nominates and the elected representatives of the people decide. An example, closer to Thailand's situation is Canada, where the elected government in practice appoints its supreme court judges. However, this is done after consultation with the law societies, and provinces. The Sovereign of Canada, does however, legally appoint the judges. In Thailand, the appointments just happen. That's what it is. If some believe this is fair, fine. That is the Thai way and how Thailand operates. However, it is not accurate to describe the process as "democratic".

For some people, this issue will reignite a long standing argument as to whether or not unelected officials should be able to change legislation that does not impact civil rights, and that is passed by an elected legislature. If one is a proponent of representative government, one cannot support a position where unelected third parties legislate from the bench. There is no argument, that the judiciary must stand guard over the legal rights and freedoms of Thailand, and such responsibilities include oversight of the constitution. However, in order to have the moral authority to do so, the judiciary must at some point have been subject to a democratic selection process.

If you want to exist under another form of constitution then you have the right to do so.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Scott
End line edited out

[smedly]

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.

wrong again. where to start with your comments but the fact is that a government who tries to use its current strength in a parliament to push forward with constitutional changes against the constitutional courts decision and with measures that are so divisive then it deserves the wrath be it in the nation newspaper or on the streets from the nation itself

The judges on the constitutional court are neither vetted, nor appointed by the duly elected members of a legislature yet the judges have the power to overturn legitimate legislation, for reasons related to procedure, rather than to whether or not it violates fundamental laws, such as human rights. As such, it is incorrect to refer to the constitutional court as part of a democratic system. This is one of the defining characteristics of Thailand.

In a democracy, the activities of the judiciary must be independent of political activity. The constitutional judges of Thailand are described by some as independent, Unfortunately, as long as the judges are appointed with no input from the electorate, they cannot be argued to be "democratic". This doesn't mean the judges are incompetent, or bad people. It just means that Thailand is a quasi democracy at best.

For example, the judges of the SCOTUS must be vetted by the elected members of the US Senate. The head of state nominates and the elected representatives of the people decide. An example, closer to Thailand's situation is Canada, where the elected government in practice appoints its supreme court judges. However, this is done after consultation with the law societies, and provinces. The Sovereign of Canada, does however, legally appoint the judges. In Thailand, the appointments just happen. That's what it is. If some believe this is fair, fine. That is the Thai way and how Thailand operates. However, it is not accurate to describe the process as "democratic".

For some people, this issue will reignite a long standing argument as to whether or not unelected officials should be able to change legislation that does not impact civil rights, and that is passed by an elected legislature. If one is a proponent of representative government, one cannot support a position where unelected third parties legislate from the bench. There is no argument, that the judiciary must stand guard over the legal rights and freedoms of Thailand, and such responsibilities include oversight of the constitution. However, in order to have the moral authority to do so, the judiciary must at some point have been subject to a democratic selection process.

the point is that the CC are not trying to change anything - they are in place to make sure the elected government keeps within the law, like has been mentioned already here several times - the government must act within certain constitutional directives that are there to protect society - this govenment are attemting to change the constitution to allow them the thwart the law as they see fit, the only alternative to this if the CC was not able to carry out it's duties would be for the military to step in and prevent the government from flaunting the constitution for it's own aims, the CC are there to police the government if you like - absolutly nothing wrong with that and if you look at all democracies throughout the world they all have a similar system to prevent civil elected representatives from operating outside the law - if you want to debate the CC then start another thread - as it stand this is how it is here and it seems to be working.

[Gerryasia]

I don't think it is a case of the Democrats winning at all.

What it seems to me to be is to cool down the situation and to slow the PTP down in ramming through a law which IMPO will cause greater division, bloodshed and heartache than Thailand has seen in many years.

I say bloodshed because both the Red Shirts and the yellowshirts are so diametrically opposed that heither side can see the other, let alone hear, listen and talk to each other and if there are street demonstrations there WILL be bloodshed.

The government boosted these 4 bills and combined them into one and made it the top priority over every other piece of legislation that has been going through Parliament lately.

Why are the PTP and government so worried that it will not be passed in this session?

What are they so afraid of that may be discovered in the bills which the Constitutional Court will have to clear and clear publically?

Sadly, as usual the majority of people in Thailand, rich,middle and poor alike who want to get on with their lives will have those lives disrupted again and the country as a whole will suffer.

I believe that you have a valid point in respect to a "cooling off". Unfortunately, the manner in which the constitutional court has intervened has not been particularly smooth nor well organized. There should have been more emphasis upon the legal basis for its actions. Instead, the decision was leaked first and then the basis for the judgement has slowly trickled out. The appropriate way to do it would have been to release the full decision, to allow time for the decision to be read.

It is incredibly inappropriate for there to have been a media event.. This has transformed, what could have been an opportunity for sober 2nd thought, into a political event. The court has interjected itself into political activity, when it should have stayed above the fray. I believe that these are strategic errors that will send the message that the court is interfering in legitimate legislative activities. Whether the basis for the court activity is correct or not, does not matter as the perception created is one of political interference.

The government was in a rush to pass the legislation, because the billl dies if not passed within the required time frame. I expect that the government will press ahead and make its point that the elected representatives of the people were thwarted by unelected officials. On the other hand, a new bill could be introduced and the fun can start again.

A Constitutional Monarchy is a hybrid of "Democracy", just like your Canadian "Commonwealth" is, considering WHO is your "Head of State". '_'

Most principles of true "Democracy" have been bastardized dating all the way back to the ancient Greeks.

Rule of Law is not safe from eternal power struggles in fledgling "Democracys"...just as it is not safe in, so called, "Democracys" that are hundreds of years old. The Thai people will deal with this issue as best they can...just as most countries are, worldwide.

IT IS " The Kingdom of Thailand".......deal with it.

[Unkomoncents]

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.

wrong again. where to start with your comments but the fact is that a government who tries to use its current strength in a parliament to push forward with constitutional changes against the constitutional courts decision and with measures that are so divisive then it deserves the wrath be it in the nation newspaper or on the streets from the nation itself

The judges on the constitutional court are neither vetted, nor appointed by the duly elected members of a legislature yet the judges have the power to overturn legitimate legislation, for reasons related to procedure, rather than to whether or not it violates fundamental laws, such as human rights. As such, it is incorrect to refer to the constitutional court as part of a democratic system. This is one of the defining characteristics of Thailand.

In a democracy, the activities of the judiciary must be independent of political activity. The constitutional judges of Thailand are described by some as independent, Unfortunately, as long as the judges are appointed with no input from the electorate, they cannot be argued to be "democratic". This doesn't mean the judges are incompetent, or bad people. It just means that Thailand is a quasi democracy at best.

For example, the judges of the SCOTUS must be vetted by the elected members of the US Senate. The head of state nominates and the elected representatives of the people decide. An example, closer to Thailand's situation is Canada, where the elected government in practice appoints its supreme court judges. However, this is done after consultation with the law societies, and provinces. The Sovereign of Canada, does however, legally appoint the judges. In Thailand, the appointments just happen. That's what it is. If some believe this is fair, fine. That is the Thai way and how Thailand operates. However, it is not accurate to describe the process as "democratic".

For some people, this issue will reignite a long standing argument as to whether or not unelected officials should be able to change legislation that does not impact civil rights, and that is passed by an elected legislature. If one is a proponent of representative government, one cannot support a position where unelected third parties legislate from the bench. There is no argument, that the judiciary must stand guard over the legal rights and freedoms of Thailand, and such responsibilities include oversight of the constitution. However, in order to have the moral authority to do so, the judiciary must at some point have been subject to a democratic selection process.

If you want to exist under another form of constitution then you have the right to do so.

Sent from my dog.

It seems, though, is that there is real concern over whether or not Thailand's constitution does, in fact, have a "form". This entire amendment debacle has everyone up in arms (both reds and yellows) partly because the attempts at changing the constitution (and preventing changes, in the case of the Constitution Court) have been so very knee-jerk, sly, and lacking in any form of due process and oversight. Your comment sounds suspiciously like the intellectually childish, sassy cliche one often hears repeated here in response to any form of criticism of Thailand: "If you don't like it, then leave." When you're a paying customer at a restaurant, if you're served the wrong dish, do you just get up and walk out immediately? Do you sit acquiescently, eat the food you didn't want, pay, and smile on the way out?

[Skywalker69]

Chalerm - drunk again boy?

Or he is out off ear-medicine, again.

[billd766]

I don't think it is a case of the Democrats winning at all.

What it seems to me to be is to cool down the situation and to slow the PTP down in ramming through a law which IMPO will cause greater division, bloodshed and heartache than Thailand has seen in many years.

I say bloodshed because both the Red Shirts and the yellowshirts are so diametrically opposed that heither side can see the other, let alone hear, listen and talk to each other and if there are street demonstrations there WILL be bloodshed.

The government boosted these 4 bills and combined them into one and made it the top priority over every other piece of legislation that has been going through Parliament lately.

Why are the PTP and government so worried that it will not be passed in this session?

What are they so afraid of that may be discovered in the bills which the Constitutional Court will have to clear and clear publically?

Sadly, as usual the majority of people in Thailand, rich,middle and poor alike who want to get on with their lives will have those lives disrupted again and the country as a whole will suffer.

I believe that you have a valid point in respect to a "cooling off". Unfortunately, the manner in which the constitutional court has intervened has not been particularly smooth nor well organized. There should have been more emphasis upon the legal basis for its actions. Instead, the decision was leaked first and then the basis for the judgement has slowly trickled out. The appropriate way to do it would have been to release the full decision, to allow time for the decision to be read.

It is incredibly inappropriate for there to have been a media event.. This has transformed, what could have been an opportunity for sober 2nd thought, into a political event. The court has interjected itself into political activity, when it should have stayed above the fray. I believe that these are strategic errors that will send the message that the court is interfering in legitimate legislative activities. Whether the basis for the court activity is correct or not, does not matter as the perception created is one of political interference.

The government was in a rush to pass the legislation, because the billl dies if not passed within the required time frame. I expect that the government will press ahead and make its point that the elected representatives of the people were thwarted by unelected officials. On the other hand, a new bill could be introduced and the fun can start again.

I agree with most of your comment especially if the legislation is not passed in the timeframe then the bill dies.

What I cannot understand from the government however is why they combined the 4 bills and THEN pushed the combined bill to the No 1 priority over EVERY other bill.

If there is nothing to hide (I have no idea as I only have the English information on TV, BKK Post and the Nation) why the bills could not wait until the next Parliamentary session when there would be more time for a frank and free discussion and tempers would have cooled somewhat.

It seems as though the government will heed the courts decision but my fear is that tomorrow somebody in the PTP party will push the button and demand that the bill be debated NOW.

If they have the arrogance to do that then there will be big problems in Thailand very very soon and that would be so sad for 99% of the people of Thailand.

Edited June 7, 2012 by billd766

[waza]

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.

Well GK like a good lemming you follow suit.