Thai Court Defers Key Ruling On PM Party

[Yunla]

One gets to sleep in $10000 room on soft mattress and eat oysters, while the other one gets to sleep on the floor and eat bugs.

You call that fair?

Absolutely not fair. Oysters are disgusting.

[Mosha]

If PT were dissolved, I don't think the red shirts massing like last time would be allowed within 50 miles of Bangkok.

[Reasonableman]

One gets to sleep in $10000 room on soft mattress and eat oysters, while the other one gets to sleep on the floor and eat bugs.

You call that fair?

Absolutely not fair. Oysters are disgusting.

And those deep-fried bugs are yummy and nutritious.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

yes they shouldn't have done the election fraud.

neither should the democrats, but funny how they were not dissolved.

To summarize:

A post of 'takatukaland' which I found somewhat unorganised and which I remarked on got a reply by him which didn't confront me, but only remarked on TRT against the 'draft' constitution (probably referring to the proposed constitution which was put to a referendum) and got disbanded. The end 'party terminated' got a reply " shouldn't have done election fraud" to which you reply "well, the Dems shouldn't either and still didn't get disbanded"

The interesting parts are 'terminated' which refers to disbanded, but suggests an emotional link to UDD leaders talking about 'eradication'. The follow-on of banning is simply a consequence of the constitution (whether or not you like that one). The TRT election fraud was too clearly documented to be ignored, sorry.

When you suggest the Democrats also committed election fraud in such an blatant manner, you commit character assassination, and of course don't (aka can't) offer proof. Actually I think you refer to the two cases against the Dem's which were only forwarded because of 'presssure', but were without merit. I will not dig up the details again, we had this conversation too many times already.

It's like this: any decision for me is OK, any against me NOK

when I state that the democrats also committed election fraud in 2006 but were not dissolved, it is not character assassination but reading comprehension.

Prosecutors, acting on a unanimous recommendation [JURIST report] by an investigative committee, are expected to ask Thailand's Constitutional Court [official website] on Thursday to dissolve Thai Rak Thai, the opposition Democrats [party website] and three smaller political parties because of irregularities in the April vote

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/07/thailand-prime-minister-denies-party.php

[Thai at Heart]

it is a normal functioning society.

It's the politics and the power-brokers who are dysfunctional.

The judicial system is currently part of the problem, in that it is a player in the politics and power-brokering, not part of the answer.

You really call Thailand normal functioning society?

The place is a chaos where no one knows or cares about anything. Yes it does work from the first glance, but take a second and see again.

Apparently there is also no problem with alcoholism, only every evening the streets are filled with people getting drunk and some going to work drunk

There are so many things wrong, that it would take pages to list it all.

Government is just in much chaos as its people, because those in power could not care less about country or people, because the main and only reason to get to power is to make money.

I do not think any government official even understands the term "public servant"

The judicial system is part of the problem??? no i think people with your perception are the problem, because even suggesting to allow government to do whatever they wish within or outside the law is just mad

I beg to differ. The normal people in society get along just fine. Drunks? Sure. Have you never seen drunks in your home country? I don't know where you are from or where you spend your time in Thailand, but I don't see that there is an extreme difference WRT social ills.

Yes, IMO, it is clear that the courts are current players in the dysfunctional political / power games.

I never stated that the government, or anyone else for that matter, should be allowed to do whatever they wish outside the limits of the law. Although it is interesting that you want to exclude doing things within the limits of the law. Could this just be an indication of your bias?

But maybe not, after all, within the limits of the law, a government can take actions which are relatively good or relatively bad for the society and the citizens. Perhaps you meant something similar?

Ok, so let me ask you this. Who do you believe has more "rights" i guess thats the term to use, the judicial system or the government? What term is served by the judge and what term is served by the government?

What benefit does the court have by interfering if everything is perfectly legal?

You do not think basing governments entire policy on benefiting one man is somewhat not legal?

Courts interpret and enforce the law. Parliaments write them.

Courts shouldn't accept frivolous attempts to interpret laws. The guise of the complaint was an attempt to change the role of the monarchy. There I'd no such apparent attempt, so the court shouldn't just be able to intervene on any other issue.

Broadening the score of the complaint from the original makes one wonder if there is justa sight agenda?

Edited July 8, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[Thai at Heart]

Don't think so.....Maybe some minor problems like reds make problems like before. But no civil war. Who should make war against who?

Do you know what the definition of a 'civil war' is?

I think we saw the trial run (preview, if you wish) in 2010. Now imagine that situitation only 100 or even 1000 or 10000 times worse.

The final outcome will not be pretty. Bangkok, and Thailand, will be destroyed. And why? All because of one megalomaniac.

Unless Thaksin gives up, the outcome will not resolve itself. Perhaps the ultimate solution will be needed to rid Thailand of Thaksin forever.

The destruction will occur because for 80 years the institutions built in Thailand were so corrupted that they couldn't withstand thaksin.

That is definitely not thaksins fault. It is the lack of ambition and love of the status quo in Thailand by the privileged that has caused the perfect environment for thaksin. All thaksin did differently was they couldn't keep him in his box.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[rubl]

when I state that the democrats also committed election fraud in 2006 but were not dissolved, it is not character assassination but reading comprehension.

http://jurist.law.pi...enies-party.php

The difference being in 'alleged', 'accused' and 'convicted'

Now please, don't reply with 'yes, but the courts ...'. Let's just wait till Friday the 13th :-)

[mca]

The destruction will occur because for 80 years the institutions built in Thailand were so corrupted that they couldn't withstand thaksin.

I've always said that Thaksin and all the various excrement posing as PMs that have gone before him are products of an ingrained patronage system going back centuries.that actively encourages dog eat dog and f- the rest just what's in it for me Jack? Every time Thailand pays the price for this. Is it going to change? I don't think so. Might as well tell Tom to stop chasing Jerry.

[kerryk]

The destruction will occur because for 80 years the institutions built in Thailand were so corrupted that they couldn't withstand thaksin.

I've always said that Thaksin and all the various excrement posing as PMs that have gone before him are products of an ingrained patronage system going back centuries.that actively encourages dog eat dog and f- the rest just what's in it for me Jack? Every time Thailand pays the price for this. Is it going to change? I don't think so. Might as well tell Tom to stop chasing Jerry.

But but

1) The army didn't change the constitution, there was a drafting and the people voted for the new constitution. And I can't see anything in their favor.

2) Thaksin can't come back because he was found guilty of corruption from an independent court. And other cases, including human right issues are waiting.

3) The coup wasn't illegal. Only unsuccessful coups are illegal (it is that the winner decides what is illegal.....)

4) On the last election a lot people thought: 500 Baht vote buying is fine and my kids get a tablet and we get 300 Baht Minimum salary.....Of course Abhisit was a pretty weak show....

[takatukaland]

The destruction will occur because for 80 years the institutions built in Thailand were so corrupted that they couldn't withstand thaksin.

I've always said that Thaksin and all the various excrement posing as PMs that have gone before him are products of an ingrained patronage system going back centuries.that actively encourages dog eat dog and f- the rest just what's in it for me Jack? Every time Thailand pays the price for this. Is it going to change? I don't think so. Might as well tell Tom to stop chasing Jerry.

But but

1) The army didn't change the constitution, there was a drafting and the people voted for the new constitution. And I can't see anything in their favor.

2) Thaksin can't come back because he was found guilty of corruption from an independent court. And other cases, including human right issues are waiting.

3) The coup wasn't illegal. Only unsuccessful coups are illegal (it is that the winner decides what is illegal.....)

4) On the last election a lot people thought: 500 Baht vote buying is fine and my kids get a tablet and we get 300 Baht Minimum salary.....Of course Abhisit was a pretty weak show....

Well since army and democrats got kicked out by the voters,I would say it was an illegal coup

[carra]

Not everything is about thaksin,the army changed the constitution in their favor,has nothing to do with thaksin only,but with democracy,sure they want thaksin back,why they should not want that,after all it's her brother and on top he got sacked by a illegal coup,first Pm who got re elected for 2nd term,Sure he is an selfish a..,,but with him Thailand had a plan,and Thailand was moving,since the coup Thailand is in still stand.If u go back in time lets say till 1932 and follow from there then u will see who had the most interest in sacking thaksin,and who is scared to death if he can come back.This all is only about power and face,both sides are sh..,but maybe the current government is a tick better then the others,if u watch at the last election results, a lot of people think like that

You are a bit confused:

1) The army didn't change the constitution, there was a drafting and the people voted for the new constitution. And I can't see anything in their favor.

2) Thaksin can't come back because he was found guilty of corruption from an independent court. And other cases, including human right issues are waiting.

3) The coup wasn't illegal. Only unsuccessful coups are illegal (it is that the winner decides what is illegal.....)

4) On the last election a lot people thought: 500 Baht vote buying is fine and my kids get a tablet and we get 300 Baht Minimum salary.....Of course Abhisit was a pretty weak show....

you are confused

http://en.wikipedia....ion_of_Thailand

the public were given the option of accepring the new constitution or power would not be handed back to the people

also coups are illegal. whether successful or not, hence the military changing the constitution to ensure they were not prosecuted

Edited July 8, 2012 by carra

[Thai at Heart]

Maybe one of the proposed changes should be whether the immunity for the army for the previous coup should be removed?

[takatukaland]

Rubl,if there is a law what says"don't cross the red line"and ptp crosses the line 5cm and democrats crosses the line 1 cm,then both acted illegal,it has nothing to do how far both crossed the line,so its clear double standard,if they dissolved 1 party then they should have also dissolved the other party,I'm not confused at all,I might stay long time in Thailand but i still know what is right or what is wrong

[tlansford]

when I state that the democrats also committed election fraud in 2006 but were not dissolved, it is not character assassination but reading comprehension.

http://jurist.law.pi...enies-party.php

The difference being in 'alleged', 'accused' and 'convicted'

Now please, don't reply with 'yes, but the courts ...'. Let's just wait till Friday the 13th :-)

I knew you would ignore the point being made.

The constitution allowing the dissolution of entire parties and the courts which wield that tool are both fabrications of the coup / military junta.

It was never to be expected that the courts would dissolve the democrats. That is exactly the point.

The courts are a player, not an arbitrator - and that will remain the case under the current constitution because it has been designed that way. The courts have become a non-democratic lever for the power-brokers to pull.

[Thaddeus]

Rubl,if there is a law what says"don't cross the red line"and ptp crosses the line 5cm and democrats crosses the line 1 cm,then both acted illegal,it has nothing to do how far both crossed the line

Yes, that's fine, but some cross the line, try to rub out the one behind them and re-draw it in front of them.

[Moruya]

The destruction will occur because for 80 years the institutions built in Thailand were so corrupted that they couldn't withstand thaksin.

I've always said that Thaksin and all the various excrement posing as PMs that have gone before him are products of an ingrained patronage system going back centuries.that actively encourages dog eat dog and f- the rest just what's in it for me Jack? Every time Thailand pays the price for this. Is it going to change? I don't think so. Might as well tell Tom to stop chasing Jerry.

But but

1) The army didn't change the constitution, there was a drafting and the people voted for the new constitution. And I can't see anything in their favor.

2) Thaksin can't come back because he was found guilty of corruption from an independent court. And other cases, including human right issues are waiting.

3) The coup wasn't illegal. Only unsuccessful coups are illegal (it is that the winner decides what is illegal.....)

4) On the last election a lot people thought: 500 Baht vote buying is fine and my kids get a tablet and we get 300 Baht Minimum salary.....Of course Abhisit was a pretty weak show....

Well since army and democrats got kicked out by the voters,I would say it was an illegal coup

Which one's Little and which is Large?

[phiphidon]

@phiphidon........ I know your love of red but not the fonts, there's a good chap.

forget it, it's pointless on this forum.............

Edited July 8, 2012 by phiphidon

[Moruya]

@phiphidon........ I know your love of red but not the fonts, there's a good chap.

forget it, it's pointless on this forum.............

What's pointless?

[Buchholz]

when I state that the democrats also committed election fraud in 2006 but were not dissolved, it is not character assassination but reading comprehension.

http://jurist.law.pi...enies-party.php

The difference being in 'alleged', 'accused' and 'convicted'

Now please, don't reply with 'yes, but the courts ...'. Let's just wait till Friday the 13th :-)

I knew you would ignore the point being made.

The constitution allowing the dissolution of entire parties and the courts which wield that tool are both fabrications of the coup / military junta.

Sorry, but you got the wrong Constitution... again.

The pre-coup / pre-military junta Constitution of 1997 introduced Party dissolution.

.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Buchholz

[phiphidon]

when I state that the democrats also committed election fraud in 2006 but were not dissolved, it is not character assassination but reading comprehension.

http://jurist.law.pi...enies-party.php

The difference being in 'alleged', 'accused' and 'convicted'

Now please, don't reply with 'yes, but the courts ...'. Let's just wait till Friday the 13th :-)

I knew you would ignore the point being made.

The constitution allowing the dissolution of entire parties and the courts which wield that tool are both fabrications of the coup / military junta.

Sorry, but you got the wrong Constitution... again.

The pre-coup / pre-military junta Constitution of 1997 introduced Party dissolution.

.

But you can understand the confusion when a political party is dissolved using a constitution that didn't exist at the time of the court case as the 2007 Constitution was in place at that time, am I correct?

[whybother]

But you can understand the confusion when a political party is dissolved using a constitution that didn't exist at the time of the court case as the 2007 Constitution was in place at that time, am I correct?

If the law existed when they committed the offence, it's irrelevant which constitution was in effect at the time of the conviction.

Edited July 8, 2012 by whybother

[tlansford]

- deleted due to quote limits -

The difference being in 'alleged', 'accused' and 'convicted'

Now please, don't reply with 'yes, but the courts ...'. Let's just wait till Friday the 13th :-)

I knew you would ignore the point being made.

The constitution allowing the dissolution of entire parties and the courts which wield that tool are both fabrications of the coup / military junta.

Sorry, but you got the wrong Constitution... again.

The pre-coup / pre-military junta Constitution of 1997 introduced Party dissolution.

.

But you can understand the confusion when a political party is dissolved using a constitution that didn't exist at the time of the court case as the 2007 Constitution was in place at that time, am I correct?

Sorry, the dissolution existed before - either in the 97 charter or in an amendment in 98, and it was the 5 year banning of party execs instituted by decree by the junta, and enforced with the junta-selected courts. A penalty which did not exist at the time of the act but was enforced retro-actively in order to decapitate the TRT and reduce the party's ability to function under a new banner.

None of which changes the original point that the courts are a non-democratic lever to be pulled as needed and a system was created by the junta to do just that - but since the quote was edited without any comment, one could misunderstand the original point of the post.

[Buchholz]

BANGKOK, July 7, 2012 (AFP)

Thailand's Constitutional Court on Friday deferred ruling for a week on an incendiary charter amendment case that could lead to the dissolution of the ruling party.

The court heard evidence in a case centering on claims that plans by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's party to amend the constitution are a threat to the deeply-revered monarchy.

Yingluck will be out of the country Friday when the ruling is handed down...

BANGKOK, 9 July 2012 (NNT)

Prime Minister Yingluck will be leaving for Cambodia this Friday, which is the same day the constitutional court is scheduled to render its verdict on the controversial constitution amendment.

.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Buchholz

[h90]

Sorry, the dissolution existed before - either in the 97 charter or in an amendment in 98, and it was the 5 year banning of party execs instituted by decree by the junta, and enforced with the junta-selected courts. A penalty which did not exist at the time of the act but was enforced retro-actively in order to decapitate the TRT and reduce the party's ability to function under a new banner.

None of which changes the original point that the courts are a non-democratic lever to be pulled as needed and a system was created by the junta to do just that - but since the quote was edited without any comment, one could misunderstand the original point of the post.

The junta didn't select the courts.

And yes it is a shame that party execs that were involved in election-fraud are allowed to do the same again after 5 years. In every common sense someone who want to abolish democracy shouldn't be allowed to vote or get elected ever again.

To make with vote buying and fraud you destroy democracy.

TRT would never have been banned if they wouldn't have done MANY fraudulent things.

[h90]

BANGKOK, July 7, 2012 (AFP)

Thailand's Constitutional Court on Friday deferred ruling for a week on an incendiary charter amendment case that could lead to the dissolution of the ruling party.

The court heard evidence in a case centering on claims that plans by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's party to amend the constitution are a threat to the deeply-revered monarchy.

Yingluck will be out of the country Friday when the ruling is handed down...

BANGKOK, 9 July 2012 (NNT)

Prime Minister Yingluck will be leaving for Cambodia this Friday, which is the same day the constitutional court is scheduled to render its verdict on the controversial constitution amendment.

.

Currently it seems PTP could secure enough votes of the judges. And PTP is afraid that might trigger something (uprising, coup, etc etc) and want to bring her out of the country.

Also Thaksin is expects a win. (Red shirts won't demonstrate, he tells to accept the ruling).

But he was wrong many times in the past.....so I wouldn't count on it.

[thunder30101]

Just like my home country I dont like either political party, here its red or yellow both corrupt from top to bottom. The problem I have with this whole issue is a court no matter at what level in the system is to be used to judge the legality of a law that has been passed, not the debate or proposal of a law in a democratic society before it has even been passed, To not allow the debate of changes to the constitution just shows the fear of some people (on both sides) in this country of losing their many years of abuse of power. Thats really the main problem thailand faces, not even being able to talk about the problems that have caused many years of turmoil.How can anything or anyone change without an open honest debate of its problems ??? Whichever way the court rules (of which I dont really care anymore)these powerful spoiled children from both sides will be fighting again.

[Buchholz]

BANGKOK, July 7, 2012 (AFP)

Thailand's Constitutional Court on Friday deferred ruling for a week on an incendiary charter amendment case that could lead to the dissolution of the ruling party.

The court heard evidence in a case centering on claims that plans by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's party to amend the constitution are a threat to the deeply-revered monarchy.

Yingluck will be out of the country Friday when the ruling is handed down...

BANGKOK, 9 July 2012 (NNT)

Prime Minister Yingluck will be leaving for Cambodia this Friday, which is the same day the constitutional court is scheduled to render its verdict on the controversial constitution amendment.

.

Currently it seems PTP could secure enough votes of the judges. And PTP is afraid that might trigger something (uprising, coup, etc etc) and want to bring her out of the country.

Also Thaksin is expects a win. (Red shirts won't demonstrate, he tells to accept the ruling).

But he was wrong many times in the past.....so I wouldn't count on it.

and as per usual, if there's any uncertainty, it's best that Yingluck not be around when something important is occurring.

.

[Moruya]

BANGKOK, July 7, 2012 (AFP)

Thailand's Constitutional Court on Friday deferred ruling for a week on an incendiary charter amendment case that could lead to the dissolution of the ruling party.

The court heard evidence in a case centering on claims that plans by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's party to amend the constitution are a threat to the deeply-revered monarchy.

Yingluck will be out of the country Friday when the ruling is handed down...

BANGKOK, 9 July 2012 (NNT)

Prime Minister Yingluck will be leaving for Cambodia this Friday, which is the same day the constitutional court is scheduled to render its verdict on the controversial constitution amendment.

.

Currently it seems PTP could secure enough votes of the judges. And PTP is afraid that might trigger something (uprising, coup, etc etc) and want to bring her out of the country.

Also Thaksin is expects a win. (Red shirts won't demonstrate, he tells to accept the ruling).

But he was wrong many times in the past.....so I wouldn't count on it.

and as per usual, if there's any uncertainty, it's best that Yingluck not be around when something important is occurring.

.

Ignorance is bliss and she's a very happy person

[h90]

BANGKOK, July 7, 2012 (AFP)

Thailand's Constitutional Court on Friday deferred ruling for a week on an incendiary charter amendment case that could lead to the dissolution of the ruling party.

The court heard evidence in a case centering on claims that plans by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's party to amend the constitution are a threat to the deeply-revered monarchy.

Yingluck will be out of the country Friday when the ruling is handed down...

BANGKOK, 9 July 2012 (NNT)

Prime Minister Yingluck will be leaving for Cambodia this Friday, which is the same day the constitutional court is scheduled to render its verdict on the controversial constitution amendment.

.

Currently it seems PTP could secure enough votes of the judges. And PTP is afraid that might trigger something (uprising, coup, etc etc) and want to bring her out of the country.

Also Thaksin is expects a win. (Red shirts won't demonstrate, he tells to accept the ruling).

But he was wrong many times in the past.....so I wouldn't count on it.

and as per usual, if there's any uncertainty, it's best that Yingluck not be around when something important is occurring.

.

of course....anyone know where Thaksins wife and children are?

I guess they are already outside.

[binjalin]

Sorry, the dissolution existed before - either in the 97 charter or in an amendment in 98, and it was the 5 year banning of party execs instituted by decree by the junta, and enforced with the junta-selected courts. A penalty which did not exist at the time of the act but was enforced retro-actively in order to decapitate the TRT and reduce the party's ability to function under a new banner.

None of which changes the original point that the courts are a non-democratic lever to be pulled as needed and a system was created by the junta to do

it's so obvious it's painful that some cannot see it.

Can you imagine the Dems being dissolved because of Clinton's 'thing', or the Conservatives in the UK because of the 'expenses' thing? it's just so, so obvious