Court acted outside its powers, says Nitirat

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Nitirat group yesterday called for the dissolution of the Constitution Court, reasoning it committed a constitutional offence by empowering itself to hear the case while bypassing the Office of the Attorney General.

The group insisted the current Constitution did not allow the court to suspend or delay the charter amendment - and it also disapproved of the court's decision that it had jurisdiction to hear the case without submitting it to the Attorney General.

The Nitirat group believed the court's ruling was unconstitutional because it extended the court's jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution stipulates.

The group also believed the court had come about undemocratically and did not link up with the power of the people. The group proposed that a campaign to collect 50,000 signatures be started to appoint a new Constitution Court.

"The Constitution Court has empowered itself to control charter amendment and this is not right,'' said Worajet Pakirat, a lecturer at Thammasat University's Faculty of Law and a member of Nitirat.

He believed Parliament could vote on the third reading to amend the Constitution after the House reconvenes on August 1.

He disagreed with comments made by the opposition that the House cannot vote on the third reading, taking recourse to the court's decision on Friday.

Worajet argued that the court only made suggestions.

Worajet supported the court's statement that a public referendum should be held over charter amendment but insisted the charter writers do not have the right to draft a new Constitution without a public hearing. He said there are five options regarding the charter amendment: 1. When the House reconvenes on August 1, call a vote on charter amendment on the third reading; 2. Allow the charter amendment to be voted against; 3. Hold a public referendum; 4. Amend Article 68 over independent agencies, and 5. Go back to square one.

He said he supported the first option, which is to vote on the third reading. He denied he has received benefits from fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, saying he has never met or known Thaksin.

-- The Nation 2012-07-16

Constitutional court alleged to have broken the constitution. Government entities impeaching one another. Nobody knows what the law is. Plenty of heat but no light. Individuals making up their own rules. Partisan politics more important than national progress.

And go round again, until the bell signals the end of playtime.

And the fat lady sings

Academic + press release = fishing for new grant.

LoL Thailand is freaking hilarious, that's about all I can say anymore. Don't like one decision - take it to the court. Don't like the court's answer - say the court needs to be dissolved. It's just beyond comprehension...

Who voted for Nitirat? Nobody.

Who voted for Red Shirts? Nobody

It appears 81% of people surveyed were satisfied with the decision, while a core of 15% were not happy with anything much. A case of the tail trying to wag the dog?

Who voted for Nitirat? Nobody.

Who voted for Red Shirts? Nobody

Are you saying that the government, who received the majority of the votes, should decide????

Who voted for Nitirat? Nobody.

Who voted for Red Shirts? Nobody

Are you saying that the government, who received the majority of the votes, should decide????

Firstly, the government didn't receive the majority of the votes.

Secondly the country has far too many groups of people voicing opinions just to upset the apple cart. This bunch are Republicans

Who voted for Nitirat? Nobody.

Who voted for Red Shirts? Nobody

Are you saying that the government, who received the majority of the votes, should decide????

Firstly, the government didn't receive the majority of the votes.

Secondly the country has far too many groups of people voicing opinions just to upset the apple cart. This bunch are Republicans

I beg to differ - the current coalition government received the majority of the votes (53%) as well as the majority of seats (60%).

I can't see any reason why this group as opposed to any other shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions, however distasteful it may be.

One amazing thing about "groups" in Thailand is they always make grand statements of what is legal or illegal, but for some reason never quote section of the law or constitution to support their statement.

No doubt reference to the exact section of the law breached would hold much more weight than " he thinks" or "he says"

One amazing thing about "groups" in Thailand is they always make grand statements of what is legal or illegal, but for some reason never quote section of the law or constitution to support their statement.

No doubt reference to the exact section of the law breached would hold much more weight than " he thinks" or "he says"

The other newspaper goes in to more detail though still not entirely specific. It needs to be remembered that this is a group of law lecturers so it would be hoped that their reasoning has more substance to it than the random ravings of the likes of Korkaew and Jutaporn.

Maybe they should rewrite the current constitution to clarify these areas which are causing so many problems???

How stable might one expect the next iteration to be, given the chaotic circumstances of its conception and birth?

From the OP.

The group also believed the court had come about undemocratically

This is blinkered pig-ignorance. In an undeveloped democracy, that is to say a developing country with a short democratic history during which the actual structure of parliamentary democracy has been repeatedly subverted by force, it is safe to say that "everything has come about undemocratically". That is to say, there was no democracy before, and people are trying construct and enforce a working democracy that is able to deal with the specific problems of a highly corrupt undemocratic nation.

To say the 'court has come about undemocratically' are the words of a true idiot. All of Thai politics has come about undemocratically and is being hammered-on and rebuilt constantly to cope and survive in a corrupt, lawless and in many cases regressive society.

The fact is that Thailand in this next decade needs more courts across the board, and not less courts. The fact is that all those courts will 'come about undemocratically' as there is no actual functioning parliamentary democracy today.

Thailand needs independant 'watchdog' agencies, accountability structures, greater parliamentary regulation, new courts, protection for older courts, and it needs all those things along with a determined PM who will invest and relentlessly pursue a root and branch anti-corruption agenda. Until all those things happen, Thailand will not be a functioning democracy, rather a feudal lawless one-party state with an increasingly marginalised and oppressed democracy movement.

The words of the lecturer and the group in this OP, are extremely hazardous and reckless when applied to this precariously-balanced developing nation with a history of undemocratic violence and upheavals. The fact is that removing any courts or any independant watchdogs from Thailand, would only benefit those seeking one-party dictatorship. Constitution Courts, other Courts, and watchdog agencies, apply the same standards and rulings to all parties, and if the DP proposed something they would face the same legal rulings as the PTP.

Courts are agents of accountability, to defend democracy in a politically corrupted parliament like Thailand has. Only those in favour of dictatorship and rule-of-might, would want to see any kind of legal controls removed from the top offices in this nation.

The argument made here "the court has come about undemocratically" is sociological nonsense and can only be the words of people who have been paid to say that or who have no understanding of emergent democracy at all. In the starting phase of all democracies, of which Thailand is most certainly at step one, all regulatory units are added by acts of emergency and necessity, hammered together by any means possible, to protect the young democracy from subversion by dictatorial crime interests or descent into feudal anarchy.

How stable might one expect the next iteration to be, given the chaotic circumstances of its conception and birth?

Probably as stable as all those that went before it and the ones that will follow since, certainly in Thailand, constitution change seems to be born out of conflict.

Maybe the should write a shelf life on the next one so that a change can be planned outside of political conflict??

And the fat lady sings

In a false tone.

Who voted for Nitirat? Nobody.

Who voted for Red Shirts? Nobody

Are you saying that the government, who received the majority of the votes, should decide????

Firstly, the government didn't receive the majority of the votes.

Secondly the country has far too many groups of people voicing opinions just to upset the apple cart. This bunch are Republicans

I beg to differ - the current coalition government received the majority of the votes (53%) as well as the majority of seats (60%).

I can't see any reason why this group as opposed to any other shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions, however distasteful it may be.

As the coalition came after the vote, the public couldn't possibly have voted for it.

The other newspaper goes in to more detail though still not entirely specific. It needs to be remembered that this is a group of law lecturers so it would be hoped that their reasoning has more substance to it than the random ravings of the likes of Korkaew and Jutaporn.

Maybe they should rewrite the current constitution to clarify these areas which are causing so many problems???

Maybe they should change the relevant parts of the constitution rather than a complete rewrite.

In other articles on this subjuct they go into the details of what this group proposed for scrapping the constitutional court and replacing it with a court made up of 8 judges, 6 of whom would be directly appointed by the PTP, 3 by vote of the parliament and 3 by vote of the cabinet. This is what they have been after for years. A complete removal of all checks and balances so they are free to do as they please.

This "Nitirat Group" is so obviously a paid propaganda arm of the Shinawatra marketing division, it's a farce.

Think an entire team of Nopadon's running around.

'times are a changing' and this is good news for Thailand

Who voted for Nitirat? Nobody.

Who voted for Red Shirts? Nobody

Are you saying that the government, who received the majority of the votes, should decide????

Firstly, the government didn't receive the majority of the votes.

Secondly the country has far too many groups of people voicing opinions just to upset the apple cart. This bunch are Republicans

I beg to differ - the current coalition government received the majority of the votes (53%) as well as the majority of seats (60%).

I can't see any reason why this group as opposed to any other shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions, however distasteful it may be.

absolutely 'the government didn't receive the majority of votes' is laughable followed by 'who voted for red shirts? nobody' it's embarrassing

One amazing thing about "groups" in Thailand is they always make grand statements of what is legal or illegal, but for some reason never quote section of the law or constitution to support their statement.

No doubt reference to the exact section of the law breached would hold much more weight than " he thinks" or "he says"

The other newspaper goes in to more detail though still not entirely specific. It needs to be remembered that this is a group of law lecturers so it would be hoped that their reasoning has more substance to it than the random ravings of the likes of Korkaew and Jutaporn.

Maybe they should rewrite the current constitution to clarify these areas which are causing so many problems???

check their bank statments

The other newspaper goes in to more detail though still not entirely specific. It needs to be remembered that this is a group of law lecturers so it would be hoped that their reasoning has more substance to it than the random ravings of the likes of Korkaew and Jutaporn.

Maybe they should rewrite the current constitution to clarify these areas which are causing so many problems???

Maybe they should change the relevant parts of the constitution rather than a complete rewrite.

then they would have to declare the changes to the public (show their cards so to speak) and the CC would still have to decide if the proposed changes were (legal (which is unlikely) so as much as Mr T wants to push this through I honestly don't see how it is possible - which means to me the constitution is doing what it's supposed to do - protect democracy and the people from rogue governments

Academics have their own biases, and this guy is biased against this court anyway.

So there is no surprise this group calls for what it wants, and tarnishes the name of it's Uni

to make it's preordained political statement.

From the OP.

The group also believed the court had come about undemocratically

snip

The argument made here "the court has come about undemocratically" is sociological nonsense and can only be the words of people who have been paid to say that or who have no understanding of emergent democracy at all. In the starting phase of all democracies, of which Thailand is most certainly at step one, all regulatory units are added by acts of emergency and necessity, hammered together by any means possible, to protect the young democracy from subversion by dictatorial crime interests or descent into feudal anarchy.

Having boiled all of your paragraph to basically the one point 'the court has come about undemocratically" that you disagree with, I'll think you'll find that the Judges of the CC have not been elected in a democratic process.

Under the Junta Constitution the CC constitutes 9 Judges (15 previously)

Three justices are elected by a general assembly of Supreme Court judges by secret ballot from their own ranks

Two justices are elected by a general assembly of Administrative Court judges by secret ballot from their own ranks.

Four justices are nominated by a selection committee and all 9 are confirmed by the Senate

Under the Junta Constitution the Judges pick the Senate (half of them) and the Senate picks the Judges (see above). A slight conflict of interests?

As you can see at the time there were some sane judges about who could see the problems of getting involved with the political side of things

Having to select senators, other posts would make judiciary more political 'and damage our integrity and independence'

The judiciary has rejected the idea proposed in the draft constitution that it become more involved in national politics, saying such a move would lead to an erosion of judicial independence and fairness.

The draft constitution plans to give the courts an unprecedented role in politics by having judges select senators and appoint leaders of so-called independent organisations.

But concerns and unease about the plan emerged yesterday after Supreme Court Judge Wattanachai Chotechootrakul, chairman of the courts' committee reviewing the constitution draft, convened a meeting of concerned judges.

The meeting concluded it was not the duty of judges to make political appointments, as stipulated under Article 107 of the draft charter.

"It is inappropriate to make judges become involved [in politics] because it will lead to loss of independence and fairness of the courts," said Srawuth Benjakul, deputy secretary of the Office of the Courts of Justice and the courts' spokesperson.

He said in assigning the courts to select leading members of so-called independent organisations, the courts would lose their "impartiality".

The meeting concluded the idea of involving the courts in an ad-hoc crisis committee under article 68 of the charter was not sound.

http://www.nationmul...cs_30033161.php

They had a point, even / especially back in 2007..................

'times are a changing' and this is good news for Thailand

And don't speak too soon

For the wheel's still in spin

<snip>

They had a point, even / especially back in 2007..................

You didn't just <snip> the quote, you apparently snipped reading everything that I was talking about, or you didn't understand it. I was pointing out that as your quote says 'ad-hoc' is the basis of the kind of emergent democracy when it is emerging in a deeply corrupted system.

Thailand has a performance show-democracy, it is vote-based but that is where Thai democracy ends, post-election it is entirely undemocratic by any modern standards. And that is why judges are essential to regulate the corrupt free-for-all that is embedded in Thai politics post-election. You can not compare the advanced modern parliamentary democracies like for example the UK, in terms of judicial intervention, because those democracies are infact largely self-regulating by their parliamentary-debate based nature, and also have a largely uncorrupt police force and independent social watchdogs to monitor political parties before any kind of legal intervention would occur. In Thailand there is mass-corruption and unaccounted lawbreaking by the ruling party PTP, so infact we need more judges involved in overseeing Thai politics and not less judges.

My analogy for your easier understanding. You have to build the car before you can drive it, and before you can start making 'driving peformance tests' to see how well the car fares on the road. Thailand's democratic car has never left the garage, and never will if the mechanics/judges are all fired.

absolutely 'the government didn't receive the majority of votes' is laughable followed by 'who voted for red shirts? nobody' it's embarrassing

Only to those without the vision to see and the the intelligence to comprehend.

Look - I don't know you and I defend your right to argue your case but It appears we are on opposite sides of the spectrum as I see the changes happening are for the longer term positive good and against the 'amart' and you argue for the defense of them and against all change.

That is your right. But.. you can't argue with 'who voted for the reds - nobody' or the 'government did not get a majority' because is blatantly not true and looks silly. Argue WHY things should not change, WHY the peasants should be kept in their places etc. not 'nobody voted for them' because, as has been shown zillions of times, Thai people VOTED for them at the last election. Thank you.

<snip>

They had a point, even / especially back in 2007..................

You didn't just <snip> the quote, you apparently snipped reading everything that I was talking about, or you didn't understand it. I was pointing out that as your quote says 'ad-hoc' is the basis of the kind of emergent democracy when it is emerging in a deeply corrupted system.

Thailand has a performance show-democracy, it is vote based but that is where democracy ends. And that is why judges are essential to regulate the corrupt free-for-all that is embedded in Thai politics post-election. You can not compare the advanced modern parliamentary democracies like for example the UK, in terms of judicial intervention, because those democracies are infact largely self-regulating by their parliamentary-debate based nature, and also have a largely uncorrupt police force and independent social watchdogs to monitor them before any kind of legal intervention would occur. In Thailand there is mass-corruption and unaccounted lawbreaking by the ruling party PTP, so infact we need more judges involved in overseeing Thai politics and not less judges.

My analogy for your easier understanding. You have to build the car before you can driive it, and before you can start making 'driving peformance tests' to see how well the car fares on the road. Thailand's democratic car has never left the garage, and never will if the judges (mechanics) are all fired.

I'll ignore your insults about my intelligence.

Perhaps your "point" would be more clear if you didn't surround it with repetitious rant.

For an "emergent democracy when it is emerging in a deeply corrupted system" it seemed the Judges knew of problems of independance when being called upon to do political work even back in 2007. The mere fact that they had reversed their thinking wrt the previous Democrat Party dissolution case seems to have passed right over your head - or was that too hard to answer?

It seems that the emergent democracy was doing OK back when the dems were in power and only seems to be a problem now - why is that do you think? Do you not see that the dems and others have been spending their time getting worked up over a non event which has resulted in the CC making a terrible precedent for the future, not a check and balance but an fanatics tool for disrupting the business of parliament?

You would have known all that if you had read my post. I won't bother again with you, it's pointless.