Thai Court Verdict 'May Spark More Violence'

[Yunla]

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?

Several problems. One of which is PTP committing Privacy Law and human rights crimes against judges, during PTP's attempt to have their charter changes forced through.

So we can start with that problem, as being my problem number one with the PTP charter change plans and work up from there. Higher up the list of problems we might need oxygen masks especially when we reach the lofty heights of 'changing the nations laws to make your own brother legally invincible'.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Yunla

[Scott]

References to the royal family have been deleted. Please leave discussion of the Monarchy out of the discussion.

[nurofiend]

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?

Several problems. One of which is PTP committing Privacy Law and human rights crimes against judges, during their attempt to have the charter changes forced through.

We can start with the "problem" as being my problem number one with the PTP charter change plans and work up from there.

they can't force them through though, it will still be down to the public.

you saying that ptp committed privacy law and human rights crimes against the judges, has as much validation as me saying the democrats allegedly shot a man to death in a toilet.

i don't think either are considered as the parties official instruction.

you don't even know what the charter change plans are.

[Yunla]

they can't force them through though, it will still be down to the public.

you saying that ptp committed privacy law and human rights crimes against the judges, has as much validation as me saying the democrats allegedly shot a man to death in a toilet.

i don't think either are considered as the parties official instruction.

you don't even know what the charter change plans are.

Actually I think you will find there are Privacy Laws in Thailand which protect all citizens from having their identity, good name, and security compromised. PTP's parliamentary secretary committed this privacy-law crime in public and in the media, so it is not in dispute. PTP then failed to take action against him, which is also a crime, and did so because they were involved all the way up to the top, and he might start blubbing in prison and naming names. Amnesty International and other human-rights organisations also have serious issues with governments distributing the addresses of dissenters to street mobs.

Nice try though.

[Emptyset]

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, 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.

They judges shouldn't resign because they disagreed with her. They should resign because proper legal procedures were bypassed. It's irrelevant whether judges agree or disagree. They're supposed to be the ones who uphold the laws of the land, yet they seem happy to ignore the law themselves by accepting a completely groundless, nonsensical case. This is clear enough. But whether parliament should select judges is a different question. An impartial commitee would be preferable. Yet setting up a truly impartial commitee will be a difficult task.

Yingluck won't be refashioning the constitution as she 'sees fit'. It will be drafted by an elected CDA and then put to a national referendum. Surely a step forward from the way the junta threatened to impose any constitution they felt like if the voters rejected their 2007 draft?

[nurofiend]

they can't force them through though, it will still be down to the public.

you saying that ptp committed privacy law and human rights crimes against the judges, has as much validation as me saying the democrats allegedly shot a man to death in a toilet.

i don't think either are considered as the parties official instruction.

you don't even know what the charter change plans are.

Actually I think you will find there are Privacy Laws in Thailand which protect all citizens from having their identity, good name, and security compromised. PTP's parliamentary secretary committed this privacy-law crime in public and in the media, so it is not in dispute. PTP then failed to take action against him, which is also a crime, and did so because they were involved all the way up to the top, and he might start blubbing in prison and naming names. Amnesty International and other human-rights organisations also have serious issues with governments distributing the addresses of dissenters to street mobs.

Nice try though.

"Actually I think you will find there are Privacy Laws in Thailand"

really? where did i say there wasn't... my argument is not that he did nothing wrong, it's that you're not saying yotwarit committed privacy law and human rights crimes against judges, you are saying ptp committed privacy law and human rights crimes against judges.

"PTP then failed to take action against him, which is also a crime"

is it? i don't know about that but perhaps you can show me how this is an accurate statement.

"and did so because they were involved all the way up to the top."

haha, i like how you put 2 & 2 together and got a million.

[Yunla]

Yingluck won't be refashioning the constitution as she 'sees fit'. It will be drafted by an elected CDA and then put to a national referendum. Surely a step forward from the way the junta threatened to impose any constitution they felt like if the voters rejected their 2007 draft?

So you don't see anything unfit about distributing the home-addresses of dissenting judges to a street-mob, you don't see anything unfit about abusing your parliamentary office and squandering all your working-energies to overturn a supreme court conviction against your own brother. You don't see conflict of interest, or abuse of office, anywhere in this entirely humanrights-abusing and illegal process.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Yunla

[GentlemanJim]

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...

And so was a minimum wage of 300 baht a day.............Not done

And so was a minimum wage for graduates of 15000 per month.......Not done.

And so was a computer tablet for every child by the start of the school year this year........Not Done!

Now, given all of these election promises, if you asked the Thai electorate which issues they wanted sorting in priority order, where on the list would they place an ill considered constitution amendment designed for nothing other than to bring one man back home and put him above the law? I don't think it is at the top of the list of priorities for the people is it?

[Yunla]

"PTP then failed to take action against him, which is also a crime"

is it? i don't know about that but perhaps you can show me how this is an accurate statement.

It is obstructing, harboring, complicity, and when conducted by a PM it is also a departure from parliamentary democracy rules which do not allow the government to shield criminals or condone criminal acts.

The day he committed his crime, over a month ago, he should have been ; publicly reprimanded by Yingluck, investigated by PTP and by a seperate group appointed at their immediate public request, he should have been arrested and charged.

But that doesn't happen because of the fear generated by this regime, the influence they have bought with their Dubai-deposits, or coerced by threat of harming the families of officials, at the highest levels. He is being protected by the PTP dictatorship regime which is holding parliamentary democracy in Thailand in a terminal strangle-hold.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Yunla

[nurofiend]

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...

And so was a minimum wage of 300 baht a day.............Not done

And so was a minimum wage for graduates of 15000 per month.......Not done.

And so was a computer tablet for every child by the start of the school year this year........Not Done!

Now, given all of these election promises, if you asked the Thai electorate which issues they wanted sorting in priority order, where on the list would they place an ill considered constitution amendment designed for nothing other than to bring one man back home and put him above the law? I don't think it is at the top of the list of priorities for the people is it?

minimum wage of 300 baht a day.............Not done but started

minimum wage for graduates of 15000 per month.......Not done but started.

computer tablet for every child by the start of the school year this year........Not Done but started

charter change........Not Done but started

but i do agree that it's obviously not at the top of the list of priorities for the people.

[GentlemanJim]

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, 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.

They judges shouldn't resign because they disagreed with her. They should resign because proper legal procedures were bypassed. It's irrelevant whether judges agree or disagree. They're supposed to be the ones who uphold the laws of the land, yet they seem happy to ignore the law themselves by accepting a completely groundless, nonsensical case. This is clear enough. But whether parliament should select judges is a different question. An impartial commitee would be preferable. Yet setting up a truly impartial commitee will be a difficult task.

Yingluck won't be refashioning the constitution as she 'sees fit'. It will be drafted by an elected CDA and then put to a national referendum. Surely a step forward from the way the junta threatened to impose any constitution they felt like if the voters rejected their 2007 draft?

Proper legal procedures were not bypassed. This has been covered many times. There was a legal procedure in place that allows complainants to go direct to the court in cases whee time is of the essence.

The CDA is not elected. it is stated by PTP that of the 99 on the CDA 77 will be elected and 22 will be appointed, and you are of the opinion that all these 'appointed positions' are a bad thing, well PTP will carry that policy on.....and on.....and on......

[nurofiend]

"PTP then failed to take action against him, which is also a crime"

is it? i don't know about that but perhaps you can show me how this is an accurate statement.

It is obstructing, harboring, complicity, and when conducted by a PM it is also a departure from parliamentary democracy rules which do not allow the government to shield criminals or condone criminal acts.

The day he committed his crime, he should have been ; publicly reprimanded by Yingluck, investigated by PTP and by a seperate group appointed at their immediate public request, he should have been arrested and charged.

But that doesn't happen because of the fear generated by this regime, the influence they have bought with their Dubai-deposits, or coerced by threat of harming the families of officials, at the highest levels. He is being protected by the PTP dictatorship regime which is holding parliamentary democracy in Thailand in a terminal strangle-hold.

The day he committed his crime, he should have been....

arrested first and foremost don't you think?

what is the precise crime under thai law btw?

there's no argument from me that it wasn't a nasty thing to do but i'm just interested if you know this since you keep calling it a crime.

what you say still doesn't make it 'an act by the ptp'.

for you to keep saying that 'ptp' are handing out judges addresses and phone numbers as if it's something they set out to do as a party, just cheapens your statements on other issues IMHO... because it just seems a tad deceitful...again IMHO

Edited July 7, 2012 by nurofiend

[Buchholz]

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.

What was their promise exactly? Without any sort of announcement as to exactly what they were going to change... simply to say we're going to "change it" is no sort of honest promise.

If it was "obvious", I'm surprised they didn't come out and campaign for that sort of specificity.

In terms of selecting the judiciary, there was no change in the 2007 Constitution compared to the 1997 Constitution. Section 200 of the 2007 Constitution clearly states who appoints judges.

Regarding the change of the Senate selection procedure, there needs to be some mechanism to maintain the non-partisan status of the Senate. Under Thaksin's regime that non-partisanship vanished and the Senate was just a rubber stamp to whatever edict he conjured up.... which led to the half-elected, half-selected system currently in place.

I've not seen any of their proposals as how to rectify that, but then again, I've not seen much of anything in terms of what their actual proposals are going to be, which returns us to the first point.

.

.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Buchholz

[Skywalker69]

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...

And so was a minimum wage of 300 baht a day.............Not done

And so was a minimum wage for graduates of 15000 per month.......Not done.

And so was a computer tablet for every child by the start of the school year this year........Not Done!

Now, given all of these election promises, if you asked the Thai electorate which issues they wanted sorting in priority order, where on the list would they place an ill considered constitution amendment designed for nothing other than to bring one man back home and put him above the law? I don't think it is at the top of the list of priorities for the people is it?

And so was lowering company tax........Done.

[GentlemanJim]

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...

And so was a minimum wage of 300 baht a day.............Not done

And so was a minimum wage for graduates of 15000 per month.......Not done.

And so was a computer tablet for every child by the start of the school year this year........Not Done!

Now, given all of these election promises, if you asked the Thai electorate which issues they wanted sorting in priority order, where on the list would they place an ill considered constitution amendment designed for nothing other than to bring one man back home and put him above the law? I don't think it is at the top of the list of priorities for the people is it?

minimum wage of 300 baht a day.............Not done but started

minimum wage for graduates of 15000 per month.......Not done but started.

computer tablet for every child by the start of the school year this year........Not Done but started

charter change........Not Done but started

but i do agree that it's obviously not at the top of the list of priorities for the people.

You are arguing for arguings sake. You know absolutely well that the policies promised to enhance the minimum wage are a sham and are unlikely to see the light of day before the Government finishes its term. How easy to say that the policies are 'started' and then sit back on your laurels, the fact is that hardly anyone is in receipt of the new minimum wage and no graduates have yet received the 15K per month minimum salary.

Wait for the next blinder in October when the first people qualify for the Governments promised scheme of 100 000 baht refund for the first time purchaser of every new car costing less than 1M baht. Any idea just how many cars have been bought under this scheme? My 2 sister in laws both work in car show rooms, the numbers are colossal. Now where is the Government going to find all that money...because it is a LOT. I think all the people expecting a 100 000 baht payout are going to be a little disappointed and in the meantime, tens of thousands of people have saddled themselves with huge debt on the promise of a Government refund of 100 000 baht. A pity some of these politicians did not do some basic maths refresher courses prior to concocting their list of election promises.

[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.

.

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.

Indeed, all these Red Shirt figures are so overly exaggerated, they become laughable. Kwanchai's promise last Songkran of 10,000,000 Red Shirts escorting and protecting Thaksin as he re-enters Thailand from Laos takes the prize for the most exaggerated.

Her demand on the judges to resign regardless of whatever their decision is reflects her level-headed approach.

.

[nurofiend]

You are arguing for arguings sake. You know absolutely well that the policies promised to enhance the minimum wage are a sham and are unlikely to see the light of day before the Government finishes its term. How easy to say that the policies are 'started' and then sit back on your laurels, the fact is that hardly anyone is in receipt of the new minimum wage and no graduates have yet received the 15K per month minimum salary.

Wait for the next blinder in October when the first people qualify for the Governments promised scheme of 100 000 baht refund for the first time purchaser of every new car costing less than 1M baht. Any idea just how many cars have been bought under this scheme? My 2 sister in laws both work in car show rooms, the numbers are colossal. Now where is the Government going to find all that money...because it is a LOT. I think all the people expecting a 100 000 baht payout are going to be a little disappointed and in the meantime, tens of thousands of people have saddled themselves with huge debt on the promise of a Government refund of 100 000 baht. A pity some of these politicians did not do some basic maths refresher courses prior to concocting their list of election promises.

jim, anytime i try and reply to you i'm arguing for arguments sake, even when part of my post is agreeing with you.

nvm.

[GentlemanJim]

You are arguing for arguings sake. You know absolutely well that the policies promised to enhance the minimum wage are a sham and are unlikely to see the light of day before the Government finishes its term. How easy to say that the policies are 'started' and then sit back on your laurels, the fact is that hardly anyone is in receipt of the new minimum wage and no graduates have yet received the 15K per month minimum salary.

Wait for the next blinder in October when the first people qualify for the Governments promised scheme of 100 000 baht refund for the first time purchaser of every new car costing less than 1M baht. Any idea just how many cars have been bought under this scheme? My 2 sister in laws both work in car show rooms, the numbers are colossal. Now where is the Government going to find all that money...because it is a LOT. I think all the people expecting a 100 000 baht payout are going to be a little disappointed and in the meantime, tens of thousands of people have saddled themselves with huge debt on the promise of a Government refund of 100 000 baht. A pity some of these politicians did not do some basic maths refresher courses prior to concocting their list of election promises.

jim, anytime i try and reply to you i'm arguing for arguments sake, even when part of my post is agreeing with you.

nvm.

So we do agree on something then

[Emptyset]

Yingluck won't be refashioning the constitution as she 'sees fit'. It will be drafted by an elected CDA and then put to a national referendum. Surely a step forward from the way the junta threatened to impose any constitution they felt like if the voters rejected their 2007 draft?

So you don't see anything unfit about distributing the home-addresses of dissenting judges to a street-mob, you don't see anything unfit about abusing your parliamentary office and all your working energies to overturn a supreme court conviction against your own brother. You don't see conflict of interest, or abuse of office, anywhere in this entirely humanitarian and legal process.

I do see a problem with giving out home addresses* but how is that relevant to the constitutional change and the court case in itself which is supposedly the object of our discussion? Non-sequitur and hyperbolic polemic seem to be your standard posting mode here, I'm afraid. I don't know why you've inferred that I have no problem with these things you mention (although I'm not convinced YL deotes much working energy to this at all - plenty of others to do that). However, my position is that the work of the junta should be entirely extirpated, as a warning to future coup makers that their efforts will be in vain.

This doesn't mean that I want to see Thaksin walk away a free man. I'd like to see him re-tried by an ubiased judiciary. Obviously this is unlikely to happen given the realities of Thailand. Thaksin is far from the only politician (from all sides of the spectrum) that should be standing trial. Which is why I have some sympathy for the red shirt position that he's been singled out.

It's fine to oppose any charter change. And I do share some of your more reasonable concerns. What I'm against is this entirely spurious and illegal case against the charter change which the court should never have accepted. The fact is the government has a right to amend the charter, and that's that.

*Although you had absolutely nothing to say when I pointed out that PAD supporters and Sonthi Lim's newspaper had done the same to an entirely defenseless young girl.

[Yunla]

arrested first and foremost don't you think?

what is the precise crime under thai law btw?

there's no argument from me that it wasn't a nasty thing to do but i'm just interested if you know this since you keep calling it a crime.

Re; "arrest first I think" ;

I meant that all those acts should have occured or been implemented as soon as the crime was committed.

RE: laws, a lot of them. Relevent is any law such as ;

"A persons family right, dignity, reputation or the right of privacy shall be protected. The assertion or circulation of a statement or picture in any manner whatsoever to the public, which violates or affects a person’s family rights, dignity, reputation or the right of privacy, shall not be made except for the case which is beneficial to the public."

List of laws :

http://www.oic.go.th...eng/digital.htmI

Edited July 7, 2012 by Yunla

[nurofiend]

arrested first and foremost don't you think?

what is the precise crime under thai law btw?

there's no argument from me that it wasn't a nasty thing to do but i'm just interested if you know this since you keep calling it a crime.

Re; "arrest first I think" etc. this is you hiding behind cheap pedantry yet again. I meant that all those acts should have occured or been implemented as soon as the crime was committed, if I'd known we had stopped discussing issues and started playing pedantic sillybuggers I would have explained it earlier.

RE: laws, a lot of them. Relevent is any law such as ;

"A persons family right, dignity, reputation or the right of privacy shall be protected. The assertion or circulation of a statement or picture in any manner whatsoever to the public, which violates or affects a person’s family rights, dignity, reputation or the right of privacy, shall not be made except for the case which is beneficial to the public."

List of laws :

http://www.oic.go.th...eng/digital.htmI

I've posted them on here before when another red was unable to type privacy law thailand into google. If you need any help with the long words don't hesitate to ask.

and you've called me a troll...i give up with you

Edited July 7, 2012 by nurofiend

[Yunla]

I do see a problem with giving out home addresses* but how is that relevant to the constitutional change and the court case in itself which is supposedly the object of our discussion?

These privacy law and human rights violations were committed as part of the PTP reconciliation bill process, and since PTP has not addressed the subject at all, this casts doubt on the very legality of the whole process. You either work within the law, and procedure and protocol, or you do not.

When you do not go about things within the law, then that affects your integrity, your job, and the entire wider process you are trying to force through by criminal means.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Yunla

[Skywalker69]

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.

Exactilly. read the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/04/thailand1

[Emptyset]

Proper legal procedures were not bypassed. This has been covered many times. There was a legal procedure in place that allows complainants to go direct to the court in cases whee time is of the essence.

Really? Even Kaewsun notes: 'If we consider the case in a purely legal light, it is correct _ as Worachet Pakeerut mentioned _ that the court does not have authority to suspend parliament’s readings of the constitution amendment bills.' http://asiancorrespondent.com/83816/kaewsans-defence-of-the-constitution-court/

The CDA is not elected. it is stated by PTP that of the 99 on the CDA 77 will be elected and 22 will be appointed, and you are of the opinion that all these 'appointed positions' are a bad thing, well PTP will carry that policy on.....and on.....and on......

True - I should have said 'mostly elected'. And I think they should all be elected.

[phiphidon]

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.

.

Yes you are right about the fact that the King appoints Judges, and Senators for that matter, but that is not the point.

It is how they are selected in the first place that matters. Senators select Judges, Judges select Senators (well 74 of them) it doesn't make the cronyism any more acceptable

Senate selecting Judges

Section 206

(1) there shall be a Selective Committee for Judges of the Constitutional Court consisting of the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, the President of the Supreme Administrative Court, the President of the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives and the President of the Constitutional independent organisations whom elected among themselves to be one in number, as members. The Selective Committee must complete the selection under section 204 (3) and (4) within thirty days as from the date a ground for the selection occurs and then nominates the selected persons, with their consents, to the President of the Senate. The selection resolution shall be by open votes and passed by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of the existing members of the Selective Committee. In the case where there is no member in any position or a member is unable to perform his duty and the number of the remaining members is not less than one-half thereof, the Selective Committee shall consist of the remaining members; provided that the provisions of section 113 paragraph two shall apply mutatis mutandis;

(2) the President of the Senate shall convoke a sitting of the Senate for the passing of approval resolution to the selected persons under (1) within thirty days as from the date of receipt of the nomination. A resolution shall be made by secret ballot. In case of approval resolution, the President of the Senate shall tender the nominated persons to the King for His appointment. In the case where the Senate disapproves the nomination, whether wholly or partly, it shall be returned to the Selective Committee for reselection. In such case, if the Selective Committee disagrees with the Senate and reaffirms its resolution unanimously, the names of the selected person shall be nominated to the President of the Senate to present to the King for His appointment, but if the reaffirmation is not passed by unanimous resolution, the reselection shall be commenced and it shall complete within thirty days as from the date a ground for the selection occurs.

If it is unable to complete the selection under (1) within the specified period by any cause, the Supreme Court of Justice shall, at its general meeting, appoint three judges of the Supreme Court of Justice holding a position of not lower than a judge of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Supreme Administrative Court shall, at its general meeting, appoint two judges of the Supreme Administrative Court to be members of the Selective Committee for the carrying out the duty under (1)

http://www.asianlii....nst/2007/1.html

Judges selecting Senators

.........the new Senate consists of 150 members, 74 of whom are selected by an independent seven-member committee, and 76 elected. The Constitution also states that one senator is elected from each province. Since there are 76 provinces in Thailand, each senator represents one province. Although Bangkok has the largest number of residents in Thailand, it has one elected senator, like other provinces.

The Senator Selection Committee consisted of seven members, namely the President of the Constitutional Court, the Chairman of the Election Commission, the Chairman of the Ombudsman, the Chairman of the National Counter Corruption Commission, the Chairman of the State Audit Commission, a judge in the Supreme Court of Justice, and a judge in the Supreme Administrative Court.

http://thailand.prd....hp?chapterID=65

It should be noted that the Senators also select, for example, the members of the Election Commission, The Ombudsmans Office, The NACC (formerly the NCCC) but not the State Audit committee.............

[Buchholz]

Red Shirt Leader Dokjik did more than provide the addresses and phone numbers of the judges.

He incited the assembled Red Shirts to call and intimidate the judges and their families. Unsurprisingly, that subsequently happened. He violated the law to higher degree than breaking privacy laws.

As an appointee of Yingluck's Cabinet appointee, his actions reflect on those of the government.

That, to date, no repercussions have occurred to him reflects the Yingluck government condoning his actions.

His simply apologizing for his criminal act does not exclude culpability and prosecution and hardly reflects any sort of repercussion..

.

.

[GentlemanJim]

Proper legal procedures were not bypassed. This has been covered many times. There was a legal procedure in place that allows complainants to go direct to the court in cases whee time is of the essence.

Really? Even Kaewsun notes: 'If we consider the case in a purely legal light, it is correct _ as Worachet Pakeerut mentioned _ that the court does not have authority to suspend parliament’s readings of the constitution amendment bills.' http://asiancorrespo...titution-court/

The CDA is not elected. it is stated by PTP that of the 99 on the CDA 77 will be elected and 22 will be appointed, and you are of the opinion that all these 'appointed positions' are a bad thing, well PTP will carry that policy on.....and on.....and on......

True - I should have said 'mostly elected'. And I think they should all be elected.

But this is the whole point many people seem to be missing. The court did NOT suspend the parliamentary readings of the bill. The courts made a clear statement that they needed time to consider the content and in the meantime the Parliment could still continue the readings of the bill if it wished as the court had no power to suspend the readings. Subsequently it was the house speaker and PTP who decided not to continue reading the bills.

[phiphidon]

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, 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.

They judges shouldn't resign because they disagreed with her. They should resign because proper legal procedures were bypassed. It's irrelevant whether judges agree or disagree. They're supposed to be the ones who uphold the laws of the land, yet they seem happy to ignore the law themselves by accepting a completely groundless, nonsensical case. This is clear enough. But whether parliament should select judges is a different question. An impartial commitee would be preferable. Yet setting up a truly impartial commitee will be a difficult task.

Yingluck won't be refashioning the constitution as she 'sees fit'. It will be drafted by an elected CDA and then put to a national referendum. Surely a step forward from the way the junta threatened to impose any constitution they felt like if the voters rejected their 2007 draft?

Proper legal procedures were not bypassed. This has been covered many times. There was a legal procedure in place that allows complainants to go direct to the court in cases whee time is of the essence.

The CDA is not elected. it is stated by PTP that of the 99 on the CDA 77 will be elected and 22 will be appointed, and you are of the opinion that all these 'appointed positions' are a bad thing, well PTP will carry that policy on.....and on.....and on......

Do you know how they got to that stage of discussing and agreeing the make up of the CDA? It was through the 2nd reading of the Constitution Amendment Bill that was voted on in parliament - you know, the democratic process.

Of course the 3rd reading was not allowed to go ahead because of an illegitimate claim by the dems (Article 68) that the amendment would topple the head of state when the process of amending the constitution already stops you from doing that under Article 219. And the CC have colluded in this farce.

[phiphidon]

Red Shirt Leader Dokjik did more than provide the addresses and phone numbers of the judges.

He incited the assembled Red Shirts to call and intimidate the judges and their families. Unsurprisingly, that subsequently happened. He violated the law to higher degree than breaking privacy laws.

As an appointee of Yingluck's Cabinet appointee, his actions reflect on those of the government.

That, to date, no repercussions have occurred to him reflects the Yingluck government condoning his actions.

His simply apologizing for his criminal act does not exclude culpability and prosecution and hardly reflects any sort of repercussion..

.

.

"Unsurprisingly, that subsequently happened. He violated the law to higher degree than breaking privacy laws".

Regarding your statement above - I take it you are referring to the alleged phone call to the CC Presidents' driver from an "elderly man" saying that if they didn't stop blocking the constitution amendment bill "they" would send 20 Million Red Shirts over?

Oh well, nothing further to say...................

Well maybe just one thing, how's that dem mp's premeditated murder trial going, what's that, it's all gone quiet on that front, surely not, what did abhisit say, Nothing?

Edited July 7, 2012 by phiphidon

[Skywalker69]

.

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.

Indeed, all these Red Shirt figures are so overly exaggerated, they become laughable. Kwanchai's promise last Songkran of 10,000,000 Red Shirts escorting and protecting Thaksin as he re-enters Thailand from Laos takes the prize for the most exaggerated.

Her demand on the judges to resign regardless of whatever their decision is reflects her level-headed approach.

.

It´s not just Yingluck having problems with the zeros