Constitution Court Acted Outside Its Powers, Says Nitirat

[smedly]

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.

I don't think anyone here is questioning the right of the sitting government to make changes - what is in question here are their methods and intent under the guise of so called reconcilliation - the whole thing stinks to the high heavens.

What they need to do is lay it out there for all to see but then they can't because they'd probably end up in jail - that is basically were this is at

and it's an insult to all to have a convicted criminal who is on the run being able to run this country from a foreign country - that is basically were this is at

I can't think of any other civilised country on this planet were it would be allowed to continue - that is were this is at

[Thaddeus]

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.

Nobody voted for The Reds, there is no political party called The Reds, not one single voting slip had a box to tick with "The Reds" written next to it. Got it now?

[Moruya]

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.

Who is the "amart"? Are you able to name them?

Nobody voted for the reds - that's a fact.

Nobody voted for the coallition government because it didn't exist at the time. That's a fact.

[tlansford]

Who voted for Nitirat? Nobody.

Who voted for Red Shirts? Nobody

who voted for the court?

[binjalin]

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.

Who is the "amart"? Are you able to name them?

Nobody voted for the reds - that's a fact.

Nobody voted for the coallition government because it didn't exist at the time. That's a fact.

Who is the "amart"? Are you able to name them?

naturally most can be named but we cannot as well you know

Nobody voted for the reds - that's a fact.

funny

Nobody voted for the coallition government because it didn't exist at the time. That's a fact.

so no one voted for the UK government too? foolish perspective

Edited July 16, 2012 by binjalin

[Yunla]

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?

No. I previously stated that it is an ongoing process and Thailand has not had a truly democratic era, and that includes the previous regimes, all of them. They are adding regulatory bits and pieces as they go along, emulating aspects of UK and even US systems, but have not got the accountability-systems to support true democracy. My point was that removing constitution-courts or any high level judiciary, is an act of democratic suicide when it takes place in a very corrupt and undeveloped system that lacks internal structural integrity.

My own personal belief that PTP are more dangerous and anti-democracy than DP are, does not actually change my broader belief that there has not been a single regime with the kind of law-abiding progressive parliamentary democracy governance that would move Thailand forwards in the 21st Century. In my opinion Abhisit was making some progress, but neither would I say his regime was the kind of modern reformist engine that Thailand needs. My point was actually non-partisan until you pounced on it. I was saying that this country needs all the judicial overseeing it can get, regulating every single political party.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Yunla

[Greer]

Interesting academic discussion...as we are foreigners of course it is completely irrelevant, as we cant change or influence anything...sad but true.

[binjalin]

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?

No. I previously stated that it is an ongoing process and Thailand has not had a truly democratic era, and that includes the previous regimes, all of them. They are adding regulatory bits and pieces as they go along, emulating aspects of UK and even US systems, but have not got the accountability-systems to support true democracy. My point was that removing constitution-courts or any high level judiciary, is an act of democratic suicide when it takes place in a very corrupt and undeveloped system that lacks internal structural integrity.

My own personal belief that PTP are more dangerous and anti-democracy than DP are, does not actually change my broader belief that there has not been a single regime with the kind of law-abiding progressive parliamentary democracy that would move Thailand forwards in the 21st Century. In my opinion Abhisit was making some progress, but neither would I say his regime was the kind of modern reformist engine that Thailand needs. My point was actually non-partisan until you pounced on it. I was saying that this country needs all the judicial overseeing it can get, including every single political party.

I don't think anyone is saying the current government is perfect in any way or that they agree with violence or mob rule by ANY faction be it yellow, red or pink. But there IS a 'two-camp' situation occurring and I believe it is because of this:

On the one side we have the yellows and the 'amart' who are struggling to keep Thailand way back in the feudal past and THIS is causing a reaction on the 'other' side where Thai people feel they have no choice (because there is NO choice) to follow Thaksin and his cronies to fight this reactionary stance. If there was an alternative I'm very sure the vast majority would take it and this is why I, and others, say this is not 'all about Thaksin' it is about CHANGE and, unfortunately, and I have to admit this, there are those who are exploiting that feeling on both sides.

[Moruya]

Who voted for Nitirat? Nobody.

Who voted for Red Shirts? Nobody

who voted for the court?

The highest house

[tlansford]

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.

Some academics consider taking a stand for judicial restraint rather than judicial activism to be the right path.

There is no reason for that to tarnish the reputation of the university - unless you have a preordained political bias, that is...

[SiamWallaby]

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.

Making sense like this is not looked on very positively. Be very very careful.

[tlansford]

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

But first, the government some how still has 300 of 500 seats in Parliament... Amazing, I guess maybe the government did get a majority of votes. Think about that, please.

And, second, so you call them republicans ? whatever. Names hardly matter. This court just jumped with both feet into a parliamentary debate and the first part of their decision was to defend why they did that and to restate that they had every right to do so... but it is only the word of this court which claims that. They have given themselves an unprecedented power to stop parliament. 9 justice, never elected and not democratically selected have given themselves the power to stop parliament.

That's democracy ?

We can discuss the realities of corruption, etc, etc, but the structure of the government has to be somewhat correct. The courts just knocked down part of the wall separating the branches of government and the "fans of real democracy" on TVF don't even grasp the problem with that.

Miracle TVF.

[Joeb]

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

But, the Nitirat group, which is what this thread was about, have said their solution is to wipe out the existing court and make a new one with 8 judges, 6 of whom would come from PTP or any future government (3 by Parliament and 3 by the cabinet) The other two would be selected by the Senate which would probably select judges who were on the oppositions side. Since is seems that all votes in Parliament are decided by simple majority then this would be the only possibe outcome of their plan.

For some things I think the sitting government certainly has the right to select the people they want to implement their programs but for an organization whose main purpose is to be an independent body to provide impartial judgements as part of a system checks and balances, the Nitirat plan is very undemocratic. Part of any democrtic government has to be checks and balances to prevent a government gone wild.

The problem, of course,is where in this polarized society would you ever find impartial judges.

[Yunla]

I don't think anyone is saying the current government is perfect in any way or that they agree with violence or mob rule by ANY faction be it yellow, red or pink. But there IS a 'two-camp' situation occurring and I believe it is because of this:

On the one side we have the yellows and the 'amart' who are struggling to keep Thailand way back in the feudal past and THIS is causing a reaction on the 'other' side where Thai people feel they have no choice (because there is NO choice) to follow Thaksin and his cronies to fight this reactionary stance. If there was an alternative I'm very sure the vast majority would take it and this is why I, and others, say this is not 'all about Thaksin' it is about CHANGE and, unfortunately, and I have to admit this, there are those who are exploiting that feeling on both sides.

I am pro-constitutional monarchy and have a deep reverence for the truly ancient and noble institutions it protects, in addition to my deep respect for the principles and practice of true parliamentary democracy. I am a pro-monarchy democrat and that is entirely compatible with my beliefs in justice and equality for the weakest and the poorest in society.

Your earlier comments about opposing the amart which you then explained meaning those we shall not be talking about, is actually contra what PTP and UDD are officially claiming, in a sense your earlier post is actually sinking their central claim that they do not wish to change the structures of constitutional monarchy.

I would see a peaceful and modern Thailand, and in my opinion the name or leader of the ruling party is irrelevent so long as they show deep respect for three things; the principles and practices of open parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, and reverence for what is truly ancient and noble.

My problem with the current regime is that they are breaching all three of those sacred trusts.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Yunla

[binjalin]

Who voted for Nitirat? Nobody.

Who voted for Red Shirts? Nobody

who voted for the court?

The highest house

who voted for them?

[tlansford]

Who voted for Nitirat? Nobody.

Who voted for Red Shirts? Nobody

who voted for the court?

The highest house

if you mean that the king appoints the court justices, then we should note that the king also approves the parliament, the PM, etc, so I think that is a bit of a dead-end debate for you.

The point is very clear about how the justices are selected - phiphidon was kind enough to repeat that here.

[h90]

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.

Who is the "amart"? Are you able to name them?

Nobody voted for the reds - that's a fact.

Nobody voted for the coallition government because it didn't exist at the time. That's a fact.

Thaksin voted for the reds. One man One vote

[Moruya]

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

But first, the government some how still has 300 of 500 seats in Parliament... Amazing, I guess maybe the government did get a majority of votes. Think about that, please.

And, second, so you call them republicans ? whatever. Names hardly matter. This court just jumped with both feet into a parliamentary debate and the first part of their decision was to defend why they did that and to restate that they had every right to do so... but it is only the word of this court which claims that. They have given themselves an unprecedented power to stop parliament. 9 justice, never elected and not democratically selected have given themselves the power to stop parliament.

That's democracy ?

We can discuss the realities of corruption, etc, etc, but the structure of the government has to be somewhat correct. The courts just knocked down part of the wall separating the branches of government and the "fans of real democracy" on TVF don't even grasp the problem with that.

Miracle TVF.

Do you think the the Judiciary should be independent of the government or be under its control?

Personally I think the 2 bodies should be completely independent.

[binjalin]

I don't think anyone is saying the current government is perfect in any way or that they agree with violence or mob rule by ANY faction be it yellow, red or pink. But there IS a 'two-camp' situation occurring and I believe it is because of this:

On the one side we have the yellows and the 'amart' who are struggling to keep Thailand way back in the feudal past and THIS is causing a reaction on the 'other' side where Thai people feel they have no choice (because there is NO choice) to follow Thaksin and his cronies to fight this reactionary stance. If there was an alternative I'm very sure the vast majority would take it and this is why I, and others, say this is not 'all about Thaksin' it is about CHANGE and, unfortunately, and I have to admit this, there are those who are exploiting that feeling on both sides.

I am pro-constitutional monarchy and have a deep reverence for the truly ancient and noble insitutions it protects, in addition to my deep respect for the principles and practice of true parliamentary democracy. I am a pro-monarchy democrat and that is entirely compatible with my beliefs in justice and equality for the weakest and the poorest in society.

Your earlier comments about opposing the amart which you then explained meaning those we shall not be talking about, is actually contra what PTP and UDD are officially claiming, in a sense your earlier post is actually sinking their central claim that they do not wish to change the structures of constitutional monarchy.

I would see a peaceful and modern Thailand, and in my opinion the name or leader of the ruling party is irrelevent so long as they show deep respect for three things; the principles and practices of open parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, and reverence for what is truly ancient and noble.

My problem with the current regime is that they are breaching all three of those sacred trusts.

fine but that is only your opinion - many disagree - we agree on your first statement 'see a peaceful and modern Thailand' but disagree on how to achieve it but, let's face it, we are guests here and our views are irrelevant

[smedly]

The only person that makes any sense and has any understanding of this current debacle is Yunla

The rest of you wannabies clearly have no clue what you're on about and would be better wasting your time elseware like go educate yourselves and bring something tangable to the table- seriously

[Yunla]

fine but that is only your opinion - many disagree - we agree on your first statement 'see a peaceful and modern Thailand' but disagree on how to achieve it but, let's face it, we are guests here and our views are irrelevant

My views are very important to me, regardless of not having a vote here, I occupy the position of an external observer, which is just as important as an internal actor in many cases. To view and comment is never irrelevant, it is a global awareness. When I see a country that I own property in, and have a great deal of affection for, being led astray I have the right and even the responsibility to express my doubts and concerns, things which are never irrelevant in democracy.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Yunla

[binjalin]

fine but that is only your opinion - many disagree - we agree on your first statement 'see a peaceful and modern Thailand' but disagree on how to achieve it but, let's face it, we are guests here and our views are irrelevant

My views are very important to me, regardless of not having a vote here, I occupy the position of an external observer, which is just as important as an internal actor. To view and comment is never irrelevant, it is my right as a citizen of this planet. When I see a country that I own property in, and have a great deal of affection for, being led astray I have the right and even the responsibility to express my doubts and concerns, things which are never irrelevant in democracy.

agreed but you're wrong (and by the way you can't own property here - unless it's a condo of course). I defend your right 'as a citizen of this planet' (bit pompous though) what a shame others cannot exercise that right here in Thailand due to the amart's censorship laws

Edited July 16, 2012 by binjalin

[phiphidon]

The only person that makes any sense and has any understanding of this current debacle is Yunla

The rest of you wannabies clearly have no clue what you're on about and would be better wasting your time elseware like go educate yourselves and bring something tangable to the table- seriously

In your humble opinion of course.................

[binjalin]

The only person that makes any sense and has any understanding of this current debacle is Yunla

The rest of you wannabies clearly have no clue what you're on about and would be better wasting your time elseware like go educate yourselves and bring something tangable to the table- seriously

In your humble opinion of course.................

I liked 'go educate yourselves' and 'tangAble' we obviously have a 'wordsmith' amongst us - and as for 'elsewAre'

Edited July 16, 2012 by binjalin

[Moruya]

The only person that makes any sense and has any understanding of this current debacle is Yunla

The rest of you wannabies clearly have no clue what you're on about and would be better wasting your time elseware like go educate yourselves and bring something tangable to the table- seriously

In your humble opinion of course.................

I liked 'go educate yourselves' and 'tangAble' we obviously have a 'wordsmith' amongst us - and as for 'elsewAre'

If you really want to start correcting people on here, you could do yourself a favour and discover the punctuation marks on your keyboard!

[smedly]

The only person that makes any sense and has any understanding of this current debacle is Yunla

The rest of you wannabies clearly have no clue what you're on about and would be better wasting your time elseware like go educate yourselves and bring something tangable to the table- seriously

In your humble opinion of course.................

I liked 'go educate yourselves' and 'tangAble' we obviously have a 'wordsmith' amongst us - and as for 'elsewAre'

cheap shot and not unexpected from you

I don't spend too much time on checking spelling here, I'm pretty sure everyone that read it understands what is meant which is more than I can say ...........................

lets keep it on topic and not get into a personal level - no place for it here, he he

Edited July 16, 2012 by smedly

[Moruya]

The only person that makes any sense and has any understanding of this current debacle is Yunla

The rest of you wannabies clearly have no clue what you're on about and would be better wasting your time elseware like go educate yourselves and bring something tangable to the table- seriously

In your humble opinion of course.................

with tongue in cheek too, no doubt!

[Thaddeus]

The only person that makes any sense and has any understanding of this current debacle is Yunla

The rest of you wannabies clearly have no clue what you're on about and would be better wasting your time elseware like go educate yourselves and bring something tangable to the table- seriously

In your humble opinion of course.................

I liked 'go educate yourselves' and 'tangAble' we obviously have a 'wordsmith' amongst us - and as for 'elsewAre'

When the day comes that you can lose in a discussion by making spelling mistakes, the losing side would be very large, some would call it an overwhelming majority.

[binjalin]

The only person that makes any sense and has any understanding of this current debacle is Yunla

The rest of you wannabies clearly have no clue what you're on about and would be better wasting your time elseware like go educate yourselves and bring something tangable to the table- seriously

In your humble opinion of course.................

I liked 'go educate yourselves' and 'tangAble' we obviously have a 'wordsmith' amongst us - and as for 'elsewAre'

If you really want to start correcting people on here, you could do yourself a favour and discover the punctuation marks on your keyboard!

come on... a post about people having to 'educate themselves' (which is the ONLY reason I picked up on it) then write like a ten year old? gimme a break

anyway I hate all this 'personalization' when debating and, before you say it, this dude started it with his 'go educate yourselves' attack on some fairly good posts (from both sides).

Edited July 16, 2012 by binjalin

[animatic]

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.

It seems you are confused by his desire for

'No sudden change into greater unbridled corruption',

contrasted with his well know desire for

'Gradually accelerated and modulated change for all Thais',

Not simply swapping one amart for another amart run by a greed ridden sociopath.

Sudden grand changes pushed by megalomaniacs historically had created MUCH greater hardships for the poor afterwards, than those that slowly morphed into better lives for all.

Edited July 16, 2012 by animatic