Thai Court Verdict 'May Spark More Violence'

[ThaiOats]

Thaioats, I think it could have been the picture of an elected Prime Minister, some have been popularly elected, I believe...............

Any other misconceptions I can help with ?

Thats what i meant, shame on you for linking it to Chuan Leekpai, he was very popular.

[Buchholz]

Good stuff and spot on.

Thailand is in transition, or at least the process has started and I doubt can be stopped.

There will be a few "interesting" years ahead but that genie called "awareness" cannot be put back into the bottle.

The stage is being set as we speak and why not ??

The Thai people have a voice and they have the right to use it.

Equally, the C.C. have the power to make a very big mistake in the next few days and I hope they do not.

Let's see what happens.

And in your eyes, what would be a very big mistake? I suppose it's the answer you don't want, whatever that may be,

Banning 280 MPs or whatever the number is would surely be a huge mistake..

The huge mistake is in your numbers.

Not all PTP MP's would be banned.

Only those MP's on the PTP Executive Committee would be banned if they are found guilty.

.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Buchholz

[Emptyset]

Banning 280 MPs or whatever the number is would surely be a huge mistake. It could lead to much greater violent unrest, because there are no grounds for it. Question is, when will the court make the decision? If it's in August, there's also a no confidence debate, so maybe PT will dissolve the house before that to pre-empt the decision. Because if they lose MPs during the no confidence debate then they'll lose and the Dems can select AV again (assuming the parliament still have the necessary MPs for a quorum?). But maybe they'll dissolve the house, in which case the deciding factor will be the 111.

If PT lose their MPs and YL, a lot of people will probably desert them anyway because they'll figure if we stick with Thaksin we're just going to keep getting banned. Thaksin will probably choose Chaturon as leader of the new party - but how many of the 111 will go with him I'm not sure. Rumour has it that Somkid is trying to start a new party and get people from the 111 and perhaps PT defectors involved. So potentially it could be Somkid as PM with the Democrats in a coalition? That would work out pretty nicely for the amaat... because it's all legal and fair if they're properly elected in a nationwide vote.

However, the red shirt reaction to this will no doubt be furious.

I don't think Yingluck would be banned, because she's not a party executive. So there will be no need to elect a new PM and therefore no new government.

Also, the PTP has a better majority than PPP had, and they're unlikely to have a faction defect. After by-elections, PTP may not have a clear majority, but their coalition will probably still be intact and that will give them a majority.

I'm actually not sure if YL could be banned or not. It's not party executives. It's anyone that raised their hand supporting the constitutional amendment afaik. I'm not sure exactly how many MPs this will affect. But I think it was the vast majority of the PT party... the scenario where there could be a new PM (Abhisit) without an election is if PT MPs are banned whilst the motion of no confidence is taking place. Then house can't be dissolved and Yingluck could lose the vote.

But if so many MPs are banned, would the house have a quorum? I think it's 228 MPs but I'm not sure. If anyone knows exactly what the constiitution says about this, I'd be very grateful.

[Emptyset]

Banning 280 MPs or whatever the number is would surely be a huge mistake..

The huge mistake is in your numbers.

Not all PTP MP's would be banned.

Only those MP's on the PTP Executive Committee would be banned if they are found guilty.

You may be right. I thought it was the executives that would be banned until I spoke to someone yesterday about the case. He said they could ban anyone who supported the bill. I assumed he'd know better than most people, but he could be wrong. How many PT executives are there?

[whybother]

I'm actually not sure if YL could be banned or not. It's not party executives. It's anyone that raised their hand supporting the constitutional amendment afaik. I'm not sure exactly how many MPs this will affect. But I think it was the vast majority of the PT party... the scenario where there could be a new PM (Abhisit) without an election is if PT MPs are banned whilst the motion of no confidence is taking place. Then house can't be dissolved and Yingluck could lose the vote.

But if so many MPs are banned, would the house have a quorum? I think it's 228 MPs but I'm not sure. If anyone knows exactly what the constiitution says about this, I'd be very grateful.

"It's anyone that raised their hand supporting the constitutional amendment"

In that case Yingluck has no chance of being banned. Has she been there to put up her hand for anything? Specifically, I think she avoided any of the votes on the constitution or amnesty laws.

As to the quorum, if they don't have one, they have to wait for by-elections. I would expect that in most (not all) electorates, the same party would be elected.

Half the MPs are needed for a quorum. Whether that is half the current MPs or half the maximum MPs ... not sure.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Not being glib, but where was there a proposal to change the fundamental structure in any of the proposals?

A. Pardoning convicted criminals is a slippery slope, agreed. But the coup if it hadn't been successful would have ended up being illegal.

B.senators appointing judges and judges appointing senators is nonsense.

C. Where had there been any proposal for a referendum on the head of state?

The 2007 constitution was drafted and voted on under a military junta. We all know the limitations on public that was put in place during the run up to this referendum.

I an not saying that ptp should be allowed to arbitrarily pardon thaksin, but the constitution referendum was not carried out in a free and fair manner any more than w say a general election in Thailand us completely free if corruption. It was carried out in a climate of duress.

So draft all the proposals that are needed, let the media throw them out for and rewrite .

I do have to as the caveat that if army generals can generate their own get out of jail free cats, why can't a civilian?

Edited July 6, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[Emptyset]

I'm actually not sure if YL could be banned or not. It's not party executives. It's anyone that raised their hand supporting the constitutional amendment afaik. I'm not sure exactly how many MPs this will affect. But I think it was the vast majority of the PT party... the scenario where there could be a new PM (Abhisit) without an election is if PT MPs are banned whilst the motion of no confidence is taking place. Then house can't be dissolved and Yingluck could lose the vote.

But if so many MPs are banned, would the house have a quorum? I think it's 228 MPs but I'm not sure. If anyone knows exactly what the constiitution says about this, I'd be very grateful.

"It's anyone that raised their hand supporting the constitutional amendment"

In that case Yingluck has no chance of being banned. Has she been there to put up her hand for anything? Specifically, I think she avoided any of the votes on the constitution or amnesty laws.

As to the quorum, if they don't have one, they have to wait for by-elections. I would expect that in most (not all) electorates, the same party would be elected.

Half the MPs are needed for a quorum. Whether that is half the current MPs or half the maximum MPs ... not sure.

Yes, she definitely didn't vote. Anyway, I guess it'd be more like 350 MPs that could be banned. Which means there definitely wouldn't be a quorum. Now if it's just the executives that get banned, perhaps house could meet quorum in the case of a no confidence vote but I don't know if the coalition have enough executives to swing the vote that much in favour of the Dems. Perhaps whether it's individual MPs that get banned or party dissolution depends on whether the court views the vote as a party decision or a decision made by the MPs as individuals? In any case, I guess party dissolution would be preferable as far as PT are concerned.

[Buchholz]

B.senators appointing judges and judges appointing senators is nonsense.

Not sure how the misstatement about Senators appointing judges got started, but it's false.

Under both the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions, the King appoints judges.

.

[whybother]

I'm actually not sure if YL could be banned or not. It's not party executives. It's anyone that raised their hand supporting the constitutional amendment afaik. I'm not sure exactly how many MPs this will affect. But I think it was the vast majority of the PT party... the scenario where there could be a new PM (Abhisit) without an election is if PT MPs are banned whilst the motion of no confidence is taking place. Then house can't be dissolved and Yingluck could lose the vote.

But if so many MPs are banned, would the house have a quorum? I think it's 228 MPs but I'm not sure. If anyone knows exactly what the constiitution says about this, I'd be very grateful.

"It's anyone that raised their hand supporting the constitutional amendment"

In that case Yingluck has no chance of being banned. Has she been there to put up her hand for anything? Specifically, I think she avoided any of the votes on the constitution or amnesty laws.

As to the quorum, if they don't have one, they have to wait for by-elections. I would expect that in most (not all) electorates, the same party would be elected.

Half the MPs are needed for a quorum. Whether that is half the current MPs or half the maximum MPs ... not sure.

Yes, she definitely didn't vote. Anyway, I guess it'd be more like 350 MPs that could be banned. Which means there definitely wouldn't be a quorum. Now if it's just the executives that get banned, perhaps house could meet quorum in the case of a no confidence vote but I don't know if the coalition have enough executives to swing the vote that much in favour of the Dems. Perhaps whether it's individual MPs that get banned or party dissolution depends on whether the court views the vote as a party decision or a decision made by the MPs as individuals? In any case, I guess party dissolution would be preferable as far as PT are concerned.

There are only 300 MPs in the coalition and I don't think all of them voted. But, obviously, that would still lead to a lack of a quorum.

The PTP (as a party) didn't put any of the drafts forward. They left it to the smaller parties and individuals to propose.

But, it's all speculation. I don't think we have enough information to even have a relevant debate. Wait until mid next week.

[Thai at Heart]

B.senators appointing judges and judges appointing senators is nonsense.

Not sure how the misstatement about Senators appointing judges got started, but it's false.

Under both the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions, the King appoints judges.

.

Then i stand corrected. No problem. Always assuming that is actually the case. :-) tit politics after all.

[Buchholz]

.

I see that Red Shirt Leader Thida is threatening a massive Red Shirt rally if the judges don't resign, no matter what their decision is.

She announced today that 300,000 to 400,000 Red Shirts would march on Bangkok if they don't quit their positions.

.

[KhaoNiaw]

Where do you get the idea that Hitler and Stalin are the PTP's " great heroes " ???

I am genuinely bemused by this assertion.

How Thaksin can be likened by some on here to, in no particular order, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, The loonie in Korea, Marcos, Mugabe or even Tony Blair is utterly beyond me, even after a few beers..........

Agree that all this 'fascist', 'commie', Hitler stuff just trivializes arguments. Thaksin was Thaksin.

One incident during his reign that sticks out was the very small band of elderly yellows who held a protest at a shopping centre, making a bit of noise and waving placards, and were set upon by a gang of thugs who were then filmed chatting amiably with senior police officers. They were eventually paraded on TV as 'well-intentioned-but-misguided-bad sorts who had absolutely no connection with the police'.

[GentlemanJim]

.

I see that Red Shirt Leader Thida is threatening a massive Red Shirt rally if the judges don't resign, no matter what their decision is.

She announced today that 300,000 to 400,000 Red Shirts would march on Bangkok if they don't quit their positions.

.

I imagine Thida is simply desperate to join all the little protestors in BKK now wearing their little commie uniforms waving their little commie red books. She must be losing sleep at the thought of it. As for 400 000 in BKK, didn't she promise a million or two in Cambodia, subsequently rounded down to 200 000 and then realistically it was 5-10 000.

[MaiChai]

So PT wants politicians to be above the law then. Isn't that why we had a coup in the first place?

Wrong!We had a coup because the people above the law worried to loose their status

This is incorrect. A coup occurred because one powerful man was abusing his power. The press coulld not say anything against Taksin because they would get sued or have advertising pulled. Taksin was not the PM; he appointed himself as a temporary stand in. He was in full flow doin exactly as he pleased. I remember it well.

[Phatcharanan]

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

You can go outside now and play with the other children.

[MaiChai]

Reconciliation bills: I fail to see how rewriting the constitution will bring about reconciliation. Its just an excuse to give access to rewriting the constitution, which thus must be abuse of power? The Democrats support the existing constitution while PT (aka TRT) obviously wouldn't. But the existing constitution is far from perfect, but its probably good enough in that politicians are accountable to the law.

I would go with the original reply that changes to the constitution must be clear and go to a public referendum. Its just not safe to let a Taksin sponsored political party go ahead and rewrite it.

[lounger]

The court last month ordered Parliament to halt the consideration of a Bill to set up an elected assembly to amend the Constitution......................

Puea Thai says it ........... amending the Constitution to return power from the establishment elites - appointed judges and bureaucrats - back to politicians ...........

Bit of a predictable stalemate. The appointed judges (court) are hardly going to promote a situation allowing the politicians to remove power from the appointed judges!

[smedly]

what is needed in Thailand is a good open honest debate between all parties concerned laying out their agenda in an unbiased forum for all to see on public TV - good frank honest debate that will educate everyone as to what is going on in this country - is that possible - don't know but it would be a huge step in the right direction - why this open forum is not available speaks very loud to me - lets get it out there

[Curt1591]

Historically, changing the charter seems to have been part of the spoils of being the party in power. I don't remember all this hoopla when the democrats wrote their own constitution.

[Yunla]

Historically, changing the charter seems to have been part of the spoils of being the party in power. I don't remember all this hoopla when the democrats wrote their own constitution.

The post-coup constitution of 2007 was the only one that was endorsed by the public in a nationwide referendum.

This one in 2012 is hitherto only endorsed by Thaksin, his sister, his brother, his out-on-bail friends and his pet dog Wuffles.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Yunla

[Emptyset]

Historically, changing the charter seems to have been part of the spoils of being the party in power. I don't remember all this hoopla when the democrats wrote their own constitution.

The post-coup constitution of 2007 was the only one that was endorsed by the public in a nationwide referendum.

This one in 2012 is hitherto only endorsed by Thaksin, his sister, his brother, his out-on-bail friends and his pet dog Wuffles.

And everyone that voted PT since charter change was one of the main points of their election campaign...

[Mosha]

Mosha, which rules, with regard to the current administration??

Phil I was responding more to a feeling I got, that no matter how they were elected, once in, they are in.

[whybother]

Historically, changing the charter seems to have been part of the spoils of being the party in power. I don't remember all this hoopla when the democrats wrote their own constitution.

When did the Democrats write their own constitution?

Sent from my shoe phone

[Moruya]

Historically, changing the charter seems to have been part of the spoils of being the party in power. I don't remember all this hoopla when the democrats wrote their own constitution.

The post-coup constitution of 2007 was the only one that was endorsed by the public in a nationwide referendum.

This one in 2012 is hitherto only endorsed by Thaksin, his sister, his brother, his out-on-bail friends and his pet dog Wuffles.

And everyone that voted PT since charter change was one of the main points of their election campaign...

What did they endorse?

There are no details.

Don't you think the other promises are in some dire need of attention?

[Yunla]

And everyone that voted PT since charter change was one of the main points of their election campaign...

Another main point of their election campaign was the handing out of cash sums in exchange for votes, and exerting undue influence on voters. I suppose we should accept that as part of the democratic process too shouldn't we.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Yunla

[Crushdepth]

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.

I see our efforts to educate you on governance have not been entirely wasted.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Crushdepth

[Emptyset]

And everyone that voted PT since charter change was one of the main points of their election campaign...

What did they endorse?

There are no details.

Don't you think the other promises are in some dire need of attention?

Irrelevant, they campaigned on scrapping or amending the 'junta constiitution' and surely that's the most important thing - it was an election promise... you do want to see them keep their promises to the electorate, right? The obvious possible changes would be getting rid of unelected senators, changing the selection proceedure of the judiciary and perhaps article 309.

Article 309 - which granted amnesty to the coup makers - is an interesting one. My friend actually thinks there's a route back for Thaksin through the amendment of this article. He says it could in effect annul the results of the coup, including the court cases etc. I haven't really looked into this so I don't know. Of course if the reconcilliation bills are passed this is irrelevant anyway.

Also, why do you have the impression PT aren't working on other things? They can do more than one thing at a time, you know. It's not like the cabinet and all PT MPs are spending 24 hours a day working on the constitutional changes. It's more like the opposition are spending most of their time focusing on this - especially as they now see it as a route back to power through possible PT dissolution.

[Yunla]

Irrelevant, they campaigned on scrapping or amending the 'junta constiitution' and surely that's the most important thing - it was an election promise...

You assume wrongly that the nationally minority of people who voted for PTP, is enough to immediately grant Yingluck the superhuman powers of a one-party dictator who can force judges to resign if they disagree with her, commit human-rights abuses with impunity, violate privacy laws and do all this as part of her project to refashion the constitution however she sees fit, and to neuter the Supreme Court's legal authority. She was not elected with the power to enact whatever bills she wishes.

I'm sure a lot of people would vote for PTP on the electoral promise of a bar of free gold bullion for anybody wearing a cheap red Tshirt. That doesn't mean that Yingluck can go into BB main bank and walk out with gold bars and hand them out. It is the difference between grandoise election promises made by professional criminals, believed by idiots, and then the third factor which is the laws of the land and of parliamentary democracy. They are three seperate factors and you are confusing the three.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Yunla

[nurofiend]

And everyone that voted PT since charter change was one of the main points of their election campaign...

Another main point of their election campaign was the handing out of cash sums in exchange for votes. I suppose we should accept that as part of the democratic process too shouldn't we.

and you think ptp are the only ones who've bought votes?

Historically, changing the charter seems to have been part of the spoils of being the party in power. I don't remember all this hoopla when the democrats wrote their own constitution.

The post-coup constitution of 2007 was the only one that was endorsed by the public in a nationwide referendum.

This one in 2012 is hitherto only endorsed by Thaksin, his sister, his brother, his out-on-bail friends and his pet dog Wuffles.

and this one will need to be endorsed by a nationwide referendum too, so what's your problem again?

Edited July 7, 2012 by nurofiend

[Emptyset]

And everyone that voted PT since charter change was one of the main points of their election campaign...

Another main point of their election campaign was the handing out of cash sums in exchange for votes, and exerting undue influence on voters. I suppose we should accept that as part of the democratic process too shouldn't we.

Something practiced by all parties. I was speaking to a friend that works for an NGO in the deep south, where the Democrats won 9 seats. According to him they flooded the place with money whereas PT didn't seem to be bothered at all. They basically only had Wan Noor's brother as their only serious candidate. The result according to him shouldn't be interpretred as a dislike of PT's proposed policies for the deep south.

Vote buying is far less of an influential factor in the results that it used to be. Which is why the election results generally reflect opinion polls. Even Korn once noted that Puea Pandin outspent PPP 3-1 in the 2007 election and still lost. You should read about the history of electoral politics in the UK and US. It was incredibly corrupt for a long time, yet gradually this changed for the better. Imagine if they'd had a coup every time someone corrupt had won by buying votes? The system would've never improved, because in the end, you don't learn democracy in school. You learn by practicing it.

'So why the current panic about vote-buying? The upcountry electorate is richer, better educated, and more experienced at elections than ever before. In truth, the problem is not that upcountry voters don't know how to use their vote, and that the result is distorted by patronage and vote-buying. The problem is that they have learnt to use the vote only too well. Over four national polls, they have chosen very consistently and very rationally.

And, of course, that may be the real problem. Back when many upcountry electors sold their votes, and as a result their weight in national politics was zero, nobody cared so much about vote-buying. But now the electors have got smart, they have to be stopped. The bleating about vote-buying and patronage politics is simply an attempt to undermine electoral democracy because it seems to be working.'

http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/09/01/opinion/opinion_30082102.php