Thai Court Verdict 'May Spark More Violence'

[webfact]

Thai court verdict 'may spark more violence'

Nirmal Ghosh

The Straits Times

BANGKOK: -- Thailand's Constitutional Court has begun hearings in a case that threatens to plunge the country into a deeper political crisis and another round of violence in the coming months, analysts say.

The court last month ordered Parliament to halt the consideration of a Bill to set up an elected assembly to amend the Constitution, drawn up by a committee handpicked by the military in 2007.

Yesterday, it began a two-day hearing into a petition that alleged that the Bill would result in an amended Constitution that would remove the monarch as head of state.

The order, which pitted the judiciary against the legislature - raising the fundamental question of who runs Thailand - enraged many in the ruling Puea Thai party and the 'red-shirt' movement that helped vote it into power just over a year ago.

Puea Thai says it has no intention of removing the monarchy from the apex of power. But amending the Constitution to return power from the establishment elites - appointed judges and bureaucrats - back to politicians was one of its election promises.

The opposition Democrat Party - traditionally supportive of the royalist military-bureaucratic elites - supported the court, saying a popular vote did not mean political parties were above the courts.

The Democrats and an assortment of royalist groups also see the proposal as part of a strategy to enable former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, kicked out by the military in 2006, to return four years after fleeing the country to dodge a two-year jail sentence on an abuse of power conviction.

Analysts say that whatever the court's verdict - which could come as early as tonight or as late as well into next week - there could be severe ructions in Thailand's fragile detente between Thaksin's sister, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, and the elites.

A backtrack by the court, allowing the proposal to go ahead, could see royalist Democrat supporters take to the streets against the ruling party. In such a scenario, many analysts see clashes in the streets as almost inevitable.

Stopping the Bill could lead to disqualification of the Cabinet and even dissolution of the ruling party. While Puea Thai is prepared for such an eventuality, this would inflame the more extreme factions of the red shirts, again raising the spectre of street violence. Much depends on the wording of the final verdict, a party insider said, asking not to be identified.

"We won't rush this," he said. "If the argument is procedural, we will just follow the procedure step by step and amend the Constitution.

"The Prime Minister sees it as the first step in a long process. But the debate has to start somewhere. There is room for compromise. We want it all thrashed out in Parliament, not in the streets."

Some feel that is too optimistic. Said political science lecturer Mano Laohavanich of Thammasat University: "When you talk to people on both sides, the rhetoric is very strong. One group feels they have still to receive justice, while the other will not change".

-- ANN 2012-07-06

[whybother]

Stop the bill. Don't ban the parties.

If someone wants the constitution changed, define which part they want changed, define what they want to change it to, have a referendum for that change.

If they can't define which part is wrong, then there is nothing to change.

[Skywalker69]

Stop the bill. Don't ban the parties.

If someone wants the constitution changed, define which part they want changed, define what they want to change it to, have a referendum for that change.

If they can't define which part is wrong, then there is nothing to change.

Agreed.

[Moruya]

Stop the bill. Don't ban the parties.

If someone wants the constitution changed, define which part they want changed, define what they want to change it to, have a referendum for that change.

If they can't define which part is wrong, then there is nothing to change.

Exactly

[Robby nz]

Saw the intimidating red mob outside the constitution court on TV last evening, was amused to see in the background the lot in their commy uniforms complete with Mao caps, red arm bands and red shirt cards. Shows what their politics really are.

There is no way anyone should be above the courts for indeed that puts them above the law of the country.

Even the elites like Thaksin, his family and his selected MP's must answer to the law.

[saltandpepper]

Saw the intimidating red mob outside the constitution court on TV last evening, was amused to see in the background the lot in their commy uniforms complete with Mao caps, red arm bands and red shirt cards. Shows what their politics really are.

Some call them "democracy guardian" ... Way to go!

[tlansford]

and the people who write the laws, are called ?? .... Lawmakers.

The elected representatives to parliament.

Courts do not write laws... normally.

Governance is typically formed in 3 parts - the judiciary is one part, but not a superior part. One of my issues with the current charter is that the junta built in a control mechanism to make the judiciary more useful and controllable in running the country outside of the power of an elected government.

The current judiciary has been appointed by the junta, and changes to it go through the senate. The senate in the 2007 charter went from elected to 50% appointed. The senate is charged with the appointment of judges and the judges are charged with the appointment of senators.

Very nice tight circle of control.

Give this situation, it is (1) to be expected that the courts will continue to be "activist courts" and (2) the judges have a self-interest in doing so in order to maintain this leverage over the elected governments.

[nong38]

Without the law you have nothing and there is an old saying "if it aint broke dont fix it.! Some people think it could be more favourable them and it would be a jolly good idea to tweek it a bit, personally I think they should have more important things on their mind, the country rather than the individuals for example.

Edited July 6, 2012 by nong38

[carra]

I seem to recall the army changing the constitution after the Coup to make sure they were not punished for their illegal act, I don't recall the dems complaining then or the courts getting involved.

in answer to the post that even the elites must answer to the law, well sorry but that is total <deleted>, some have to, some don't.

This is simple, and not taking any side, if the court has acted legally and within their boundaries then no problem, if the court has acted outside of its boundaries then someone needs to start asking questions, when you have the AG saying it should have gone through them and the court saying it shouldn't, then someone does now know their job or they do but don't care about regulations.

My opinion however is that the court has overstepped the mark, the AG has pointed this out and in true Thai style it is now all about face and the court refusing to admit it got it wrong.

[tlansford]

I seem to recall the army changing the constitution after the Coup to make sure they were not punished for their illegal act, I don't recall the dems complaining then or the courts getting involved.

in answer to the post that even the elites must answer to the law, well sorry but that is total <deleted>, some have to, some don't.

This is simple, and not taking any side, if the court has acted legally and within their boundaries then no problem, if the court has acted outside of its boundaries then someone needs to start asking questions, when you have the AG saying it should have gone through them and the court saying it shouldn't, then someone does now know their job or they do but don't care about regulations.

My opinion however is that the court has overstepped the mark, the AG has pointed this out and in true Thai style it is now all about face and the court refusing to admit it got it wrong.

you make a good point. One of the issues is where does the court get involved?

That has nothing to do with the case they are looking at, and everything to do with the fact that they are looking at the case.

Let's see what happens. It's going to be interesting no matter what.

[whybother]

and the people who write the laws, are called ?? .... Lawmakers.

The elected representatives to parliament.

Courts do not write laws... normally.

Governance is typically formed in 3 parts - the judiciary is one part, but not a superior part. One of my issues with the current charter is that the junta built in a control mechanism to make the judiciary more useful and controllable in running the country outside of the power of an elected government.

The current judiciary has been appointed by the junta, and changes to it go through the senate. The senate in the 2007 charter went from elected to 50% appointed. The senate is charged with the appointment of judges and the judges are charged with the appointment of senators.

Very nice tight circle of control.

Give this situation, it is (1) to be expected that the courts will continue to be "activist courts" and (2) the judges have a self-interest in doing so in order to maintain this leverage over the elected governments.

The courts are not writing laws. There are laws specifying what "lawmakers" can do. They are judging based on existing laws.

Since when did the judges appoint senators?

[Buchholz]

One of my issues with the current charter is that the junta built in a control mechanism to make the judiciary more useful and controllable in running the country outside of the power of an elected government.

In regards to the very logical first reply to the OP:

If someone wants the constitution changed, define which part they want changed, define what they want to change it to

Which article(s) of the Constitution are you referring to and what would you, or the PTP, propose it be changed to?

.

[givenall]

In a democracy there is no place for violence, people who make this threat then do not like democracy. They only pretend they like democracy. If violence is done due to a court or any law decision then the violators need to be punished. But I have seen many times that this is not true in Thailand. So as they say talk is cheap and there is no democracy in Thailand

Edited July 6, 2012 by givenall

[Nickymaster]

Stop the bill. Don't ban the parties.

If someone wants the constitution changed, define which part they want changed, define what they want to change it to, have a referendum for that change.

If they can't define which part is wrong, then there is nothing to change.

Yes simple as that.

[carra]

In a democracy there is no place for violence, people who make this threat then do not like democracy. They only pretend they like democracy. If violence is done due to a court or any law decision then the violators need to be punished. But I have seen many times that this is not true in Thailand. So as they say talk is cheap and there is no democracy in Thailand

Some reporter has written 'may spark violence', on the other hand it might not.

You are right though about there being no democracy in Thailand, the army see to that and are forever lurking ready to take over at the drop of a hat.

[lungmi]

and the people who write the laws, are called ?? .... Lawmakers.

The elected representatives to parliament.

Courts do not write laws... normally.

Governance is typically formed in 3 parts - the judiciary is one part, but not a superior part. One of my issues with the current charter is that the junta built in a control mechanism to make the judiciary more useful and controllable in running the country outside of the power of an elected government.

The current judiciary has been appointed by the junta, and changes to it go through the senate. The senate in the 2007 charter went from elected to 50% appointed. The senate is charged with the appointment of judges and the judges are charged with the appointment of senators.

Very nice tight circle of control.

Give this situation, it is (1) to be expected that the courts will continue to be "activist courts" and (2) the judges have a self-interest in doing so in order to maintain this leverage over the elected governments.

Wonderful how you use the facts to say the opposite. High IQ, but no ethics.

[h90]

and the people who write the laws, are called ?? .... Lawmakers.

The elected representatives to parliament.

Courts do not write laws... normally.

Governance is typically formed in 3 parts - the judiciary is one part, but not a superior part. One of my issues with the current charter is that the junta built in a control mechanism to make the judiciary more useful and controllable in running the country outside of the power of an elected government.

The current judiciary has been appointed by the junta, and changes to it go through the senate. The senate in the 2007 charter went from elected to 50% appointed. The senate is charged with the appointment of judges and the judges are charged with the appointment of senators.

Very nice tight circle of control.

Give this situation, it is (1) to be expected that the courts will continue to be "activist courts" and (2) the judges have a self-interest in doing so in order to maintain this leverage over the elected governments.

that is called checks and balance....Even government is under the constitution that the people voted for in a public referendum.

That has a good reason. Else for example a democratic elected government could make a law that says that the next democratic election is in 99 years.

Or that only parties come in parliament that get more than 30 % of the votes (to exclude the smaller opposition).

The constitution and the constitutional court is as safety that such things can't happen.

If these institutions can't work anymore only extra constitutional means can remove the government (military coup as example).

So it is in everyones interest that the court is doing its job.

[h90]

In a democracy there is no place for violence, people who make this threat then do not like democracy. They only pretend they like democracy. If violence is done due to a court or any law decision then the violators need to be punished. But I have seen many times that this is not true in Thailand. So as they say talk is cheap and there is no democracy in Thailand

You mean intimidation?

I see no reason why violence is undemocratic. If it would be, we would have to disband Army, Police and prisons and a couple of sport events.

[Buchholz]

In a democracy there is no place for violence, people who make this threat then do not like democracy. They only pretend they like democracy. If violence is done due to a court or any law decision then the violators need to be punished. But I have seen many times that this is not true in Thailand. So as they say talk is cheap and there is no democracy in Thailand

Some reporter has written 'may spark violence', on the other hand it might not.

You are right though about there being no democracy in Thailand, the army see to that and are forever lurking ready to take over at the drop of a hat.

Lots of hats have been dropped over the past 2,118 days without a takeover.

[tlansford]

and the people who write the laws, are called ?? .... Lawmakers.

The elected representatives to parliament.

Courts do not write laws... normally.

Governance is typically formed in 3 parts - the judiciary is one part, but not a superior part. One of my issues with the current charter is that the junta built in a control mechanism to make the judiciary more useful and controllable in running the country outside of the power of an elected government.

The current judiciary has been appointed by the junta, and changes to it go through the senate. The senate in the 2007 charter went from elected to 50% appointed. The senate is charged with the appointment of judges and the judges are charged with the appointment of senators.

Very nice tight circle of control.

Give this situation, it is (1) to be expected that the courts will continue to be "activist courts" and (2) the judges have a self-interest in doing so in order to maintain this leverage over the elected governments.

The courts are not writing laws. There are laws specifying what "lawmakers" can do. They are judging based on existing laws.

Since when did the judges appoint senators?

2007.

Selection The remaining 74 members are to be selected by a Senators Selection Committee. The Committee is established in Section 113, Part 3 and Chapter 6 of the Constitution. The Committee is composed of:

• President of the Constitutional Court
  
• Chairman of the Election Commission
  
• Chairman of the State Audit Commission
  
• A Judge in the Supreme Court of Justice holding office not lower in rank than Judge of the Supreme Court of Justice as entrusted by the general assembly of the Supreme Court of Justice.
  
• A Judge of the Supreme Administrative Court as entrusted by the general assembly of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court.
  

[carra]

In a democracy there is no place for violence, people who make this threat then do not like democracy. They only pretend they like democracy. If violence is done due to a court or any law decision then the violators need to be punished. But I have seen many times that this is not true in Thailand. So as they say talk is cheap and there is no democracy in Thailand

Some reporter has written 'may spark violence', on the other hand it might not.

You are right though about there being no democracy in Thailand, the army see to that and are forever lurking ready to take over at the drop of a hat.

Lots of hats have been dropped over the past 2,118 days without a takeover.

One coup is one too many in a democratic system.

We both know the army will do it when there is something in it for them, public opinion and overseas opinion is against it right now, but the army will ignore that when there is something in it for them.

good attempt though at pettiness and counting days well done you, you even manged to post without a link to a newspaper article, a link to another thai visa thread, or a complaint to the mods

[Yunla]

This is simple, and not taking any side, if the court has acted legally and within their boundaries then no problem, if the court has acted outside of its boundaries then someone needs to start asking questions, when you have the AG saying it should have gone through them and the court saying it shouldn't, then someone does now know their job or they do but don't care about regulations.

It is not only the court who should "act legally and within boundaries" and needs "questions asking" about them. PTP do not have the right to pardon serious criminals along nepotistic and favouritism lines, or to unbalance this nation over LM, or along any other lines for that matter. PTP are elected representatives of their voters, elected to discuss matters in parliament relating to the improvement of Thailand, not to pardon guilty criminals, and not to force through their own agenda at high-speed without consulting other parties impartially. PTP are not Judge Dredd determining guilt or innocence and handing out justice on the spot.

For people to criticise the constitution court instead of PTP on this 'reconciliation bill' , is to criticise a brick-wall that a drunken driver has just crashed into. Blame the wall for being in that particular place and for not moving out of the way or yielding to the drunk driver's vehicle. Why not instead try blaming the out-of-control drunk driver and not the wall he crashed into.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Yunla

[GentlemanJim]

and the people who write the laws, are called ?? .... Lawmakers.

The elected representatives to parliament.

Courts do not write laws... normally.

Governance is typically formed in 3 parts - the judiciary is one part, but not a superior part. One of my issues with the current charter is that the junta built in a control mechanism to make the judiciary more useful and controllable in running the country outside of the power of an elected government.

The current judiciary has been appointed by the junta, and changes to it go through the senate. The senate in the 2007 charter went from elected to 50% appointed. The senate is charged with the appointment of judges and the judges are charged with the appointment of senators.

Very nice tight circle of control.

Give this situation, it is (1) to be expected that the courts will continue to be "activist courts" and (2) the judges have a self-interest in doing so in order to maintain this leverage over the elected governments.

The current constitution was voted on by referendum in 2007. It was appointed by the people. Amendments may be made to clauses but not to the spirit of the constitution. If PTP want to effectively re-write the constitution then they have to hold a referendum, as the current constitution is owned by the people.

The judiciary was NOT appointed by the junta. Members of the judiciary are appointed by the King. The King hires them and fires them, no one else.

[thaicbr]

I think it's fairly simple. The 1997 constitution was deemed fair the 2007 constitution deemed unfair. Go back to the 1997 constitution until Thailand settles down and actually work for the good of ALL the country. Then and only then consider IF any amendments need to be made.

Thaksin in the mean time is welcome to come back and negotiate his way out of prison same as all the rich people do (wether they are red,yellow, blue or pink with white spots.)

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

[h90]

In a democracy there is no place for violence, people who make this threat then do not like democracy. They only pretend they like democracy. If violence is done due to a court or any law decision then the violators need to be punished. But I have seen many times that this is not true in Thailand. So as they say talk is cheap and there is no democracy in Thailand

Some reporter has written 'may spark violence', on the other hand it might not.

You are right though about there being no democracy in Thailand, the army see to that and are forever lurking ready to take over at the drop of a hat.

Lots of hats have been dropped over the past 2,118 days without a takeover.

One coup is one too many in a democratic system.

We both know the army will do it when there is something in it for them, public opinion and overseas opinion is against it right now, but the army will ignore that when there is something in it for them.

good attempt though at pettiness and counting days well done you, you even manged to post without a link to a newspaper article, a link to another thai visa thread, or a complaint to the mods

Without coups and similar actions we would all live in absolute Monarchies, all over Europe and Asia.

[Buchholz]

In a democracy there is no place for violence, people who make this threat then do not like democracy. They only pretend they like democracy. If violence is done due to a court or any law decision then the violators need to be punished. But I have seen many times that this is not true in Thailand. So as they say talk is cheap and there is no democracy in Thailand

Some reporter has written 'may spark violence', on the other hand it might not.

You are right though about there being no democracy in Thailand, the army see to that and are forever lurking ready to take over at the drop of a hat.

Lots of hats have been dropped over the past 2,118 days without a takeover.

One coup is one too many in a democratic system.

We both know the army will do it when there is something in it for them, public opinion and overseas opinion is against it right now, but the army will ignore that when there is something in it for them.

good attempt though at pettiness and counting days well done you, you even manged to post without a link to a newspaper article, a link to another thai visa thread, or a complaint to the mods

So then, it's at least somewhat reassuring that over the past 2,118 days, there's been "nothing in it" for the Army.

It's too bad if you think posted supporting information or background information or updated news clippings to the news clipping forum is something you find objectionable.

But with as much history revisionism that is attempted here, I can understand your disdain.

How would you know if I made a complaint to the mods? Besides, aren't they entirely capable of making their own decisions? If you have a problem with the rules or moderation, rather than discuss it here, PM them.... as they've directed forum members to do so countless times.

The numbered days was not petty, it was just a reflection to put the tone of your comments in proper perspective. It's akin to the shrill of Jatuporn's voice chanting coup coup "at the drop of a hat" and which has failed to materialize despite it always being right around the proverbial corner.

.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Buchholz

[tlansford]

and the people who write the laws, are called ?? .... Lawmakers.

The elected representatives to parliament.

Courts do not write laws... normally.

Governance is typically formed in 3 parts - the judiciary is one part, but not a superior part. One of my issues with the current charter is that the junta built in a control mechanism to make the judiciary more useful and controllable in running the country outside of the power of an elected government.

The current judiciary has been appointed by the junta, and changes to it go through the senate. The senate in the 2007 charter went from elected to 50% appointed. The senate is charged with the appointment of judges and the judges are charged with the appointment of senators.

Very nice tight circle of control.

Give this situation, it is (1) to be expected that the courts will continue to be "activist courts" and (2) the judges have a self-interest in doing so in order to maintain this leverage over the elected governments.

The current constitution was voted on by referendum in 2007. It was appointed by the people. Amendments may be made to clauses but not to the spirit of the constitution. If PTP want to effectively re-write the constitution then they have to hold a referendum, as the current constitution is owned by the people.

The judiciary was NOT appointed by the junta. Members of the judiciary are appointed by the King. The King hires them and fires them, no one else.

you are pointing out the obvious and the irrelevant point in a constitutional monarchy.

So to be more accurate, the judges and the senators select each other for royal appointment.

The situation doesn't change, just the semantics.

[GentlemanJim]

and the people who write the laws, are called ?? .... Lawmakers.

The elected representatives to parliament.

Courts do not write laws... normally.

Governance is typically formed in 3 parts - the judiciary is one part, but not a superior part. One of my issues with the current charter is that the junta built in a control mechanism to make the judiciary more useful and controllable in running the country outside of the power of an elected government.

The current judiciary has been appointed by the junta, and changes to it go through the senate. The senate in the 2007 charter went from elected to 50% appointed. The senate is charged with the appointment of judges and the judges are charged with the appointment of senators.

Very nice tight circle of control.

Give this situation, it is (1) to be expected that the courts will continue to be "activist courts" and (2) the judges have a self-interest in doing so in order to maintain this leverage over the elected governments.

The current constitution was voted on by referendum in 2007. It was appointed by the people. Amendments may be made to clauses but not to the spirit of the constitution. If PTP want to effectively re-write the constitution then they have to hold a referendum, as the current constitution is owned by the people.

The judiciary was NOT appointed by the junta. Members of the judiciary are appointed by the King. The King hires them and fires them, no one else.

you are pointing out the obvious and the irrelevant point in a constitutional monarchy.

So to be more accurate, the judges and the senators select each other for royal appointment.

The situation doesn't change, just the semantics.

Correct. But Thailand has a Constitutional Monarchy and it is not up for negotiation to change that. If 1997 worked then adopt the pre coup constitution again, but there is no need for another re-write, especially when one of the aims of the re-write is to pardon parliamentary criminals from their wrongdoings. Hardly in the interests of the 'people' is it? The only hope this country has is that someone has the balls to stand up to this and make sure that those charged and found guilty of serious crimes are locked up the same as any other Thai citizen would be.

[lovetotravel]

In a democracy there is no place for violence, people who make this threat then do not like democracy. They only pretend they like democracy. If violence is done due to a court or any law decision then the violators need to be punished. But I have seen many times that this is not true in Thailand. So as they say talk is cheap and there is no democracy in Thailand

Some reporter has written 'may spark violence', on the other hand it might not.

You are right though about there being no democracy in Thailand, the army see to that and are forever lurking ready to take over at the drop of a hat.

PTP has proven there's no democracy. Polls say the public doesn't really want a charter change. Seems PTP, oops, Thaksin, doesn't care. No democracy for sure.

[ramrod711]

I seem to recall the army changing the constitution after the Coup to make sure they were not punished for their illegal act, I don't recall the dems complaining then or the courts getting involved.

in answer to the post that even the elites must answer to the law, well sorry but that is total <deleted>, some have to, some don't.

This is simple, and not taking any side, if the court has acted legally and within their boundaries then no problem, if the court has acted outside of its boundaries then someone needs to start asking questions, when you have the AG saying it should have gone through them and the court saying it shouldn't, then someone does now know their job or they do but don't care about regulations.

My opinion however is that the court has overstepped the mark, the AG has pointed this out and in true Thai style it is now all about face and the court refusing to admit it got it wrong.

I don't disagree that many "elites" do not answer to the law. I will say however that many of the red shirt leaders have yet to answer to the law as well.