Constitution Court Acted Outside Its Powers, Says Nitirat

[Moruya]

Red shirts burn mock coffin of Constitution Court judges

BANGKOK: -- Some 90 red-shirt people from Pathum Thani filed a compliant with police against nine Constitution Court judges and burned a mock coffin to protest in front of the court Monday.

The protesters were led by Wutthipong Kachathamkhun, a DJ of a red-shirt community radio station in Pathum Thani.

They gathered in front of the Constitution Court at the Government Complex at 11:30 am.

They carried banners condemning the judges and displaying a mock coffin with the names of the nine judges around it.

They also distributed copies of their complaint filed with the Kukot police station in Phathum Thani against the nine judges.

Wutthipong said his group alleged that the nine judges had committed sedition and falsifying documents to pretend to have authorities to make a ruling on constitution amendments.

The court has ruled that charter amendments could be done on article-by-article basis and an entirely new charter could not be drafted unless a public referendum was held first.

The group burned the mock coffin at noon and moved to the Government House to hand over a copy of compliant against the judges to Deputy Prime Minster Chalem Yoobamrung.

-- The Nation 2012-07-16

What a nice bunch of fascists

don't think they are facist just uneducated and silly - both sides have fools so let's not start jumping up and down too much! fools on either side do not negate the fundamental arguments (and disagreements)

Burning coffins and effigies. Nice

Are you going to answer my earlier question?

[binjalin]

Constitution did not allow the court to suspend or delay the charter amendment?

What is he talking about?

The court have all rights to do anything they want. They represent all 64 million Thai people.

no dude - the Thai government 'represent' the people - they are elected

Dude, the Reds bogarted the election. They scored it through payments and manipulation of the peeps. Tres uncool and now look at the gnarley results.

+1 for a new word 'bogarted' I confess to having had to look that up (although I understood the context) anyway... I don't think you are aware that there have been independent verification of the results so you have got this wrong - an earlier poster gave the link

[binjalin]

Red shirts burn mock coffin of Constitution Court judges

BANGKOK: -- Some 90 red-shirt people from Pathum Thani filed a compliant with police against nine Constitution Court judges and burned a mock coffin to protest in front of the court Monday.

The protesters were led by Wutthipong Kachathamkhun, a DJ of a red-shirt community radio station in Pathum Thani.

They gathered in front of the Constitution Court at the Government Complex at 11:30 am.

They carried banners condemning the judges and displaying a mock coffin with the names of the nine judges around it.

They also distributed copies of their complaint filed with the Kukot police station in Phathum Thani against the nine judges.

Wutthipong said his group alleged that the nine judges had committed sedition and falsifying documents to pretend to have authorities to make a ruling on constitution amendments.

The court has ruled that charter amendments could be done on article-by-article basis and an entirely new charter could not be drafted unless a public referendum was held first.

The group burned the mock coffin at noon and moved to the Government House to hand over a copy of compliant against the judges to Deputy Prime Minster Chalem Yoobamrung.

-- The Nation 2012-07-16

What a nice bunch of fascists

don't think they are facist just uneducated and silly - both sides have fools so let's not start jumping up and down too much! fools on either side do not negate the fundamental arguments (and disagreements)

Burning coffins and effigies. Nice

Are you going to answer my earlier question?

what earlier question? I'm so sorry I have not been glued to TVF all day and just come back from Central and can't find any 'burning question' you have proffered - apologies if I missed something important

'

edit: PS I have already indicated this is uneducated and silly and wrong on either side so no need mention 'fascists' or 'burning coffins again'

Edited July 16, 2012 by binjalin

[Moruya]

what earlier question? I'm so sorry I have not been glued to TVF all day and just come back from Central and can't find any 'burning question' you have proffered - apologies if I missed something important

'

edit: PS I have already indicated this is uneducated and silly and wrong on either side so no need mention 'fascists' or 'burning coffins again'

A question concerning the "amart"

[tlansford]

For every group declaring the CC to be unconstitutional, another group can be found to say the opposite.

IMHO that simply means it's difficult to have a CC elected democratically as most people have no idea of what the law is or is supposed to mean even if it slapped them in the face. This means the CC needs to be appointed out of a group of independent lawyers / judges who have shown an independent, clear of influence attitude while keeping an eye on evolutionary improvements. Remaining question is who to allow to do the election. Obviously most if not all TV posters have disqualified themselves already, if only by not being Thai

Why not just use a democratic system for selection and confirmation like other countries which I believe would include your own?

[SuneeTH]

For every group declaring the CC to be unconstitutional, another group can be found to say the opposite.

IMHO that simply means it's difficult to have a CC elected democratically as most people have no idea of what the law is or is supposed to mean even if it slapped them in the face. This means the CC needs to be appointed out of a group of independent lawyers / judges who have shown an independent, clear of influence attitude while keeping an eye on evolutionary improvements. Remaining question is who to allow to do the election. Obviously most if not all TV posters have disqualified themselves already, if only by not being Thai

Why not just use a democratic system for selection and confirmation like other countries which I believe would include your own?

For every group declaring Thaksin a devil, another group can be found to say the opposite.

[Insight]

For every group declaring the CC to be unconstitutional, another group can be found to say the opposite.

IMHO that simply means it's difficult to have a CC elected democratically as most people have no idea of what the law is or is supposed to mean even if it slapped them in the face. This means the CC needs to be appointed out of a group of independent lawyers / judges who have shown an independent, clear of influence attitude while keeping an eye on evolutionary improvements. Remaining question is who to allow to do the election. Obviously most if not all TV posters have disqualified themselves already, if only by not being Thai

Why not just use a democratic system for selection and confirmation like other countries which I believe would include your own?

For every group declaring Thaksin a devil, another group can be found to say the opposite.

And very well funded they are too.

[OzMick]

Constitution did not allow the court to suspend or delay the charter amendment?

What is he talking about?

The court have all rights to do anything they want. They represent all 64 million Thai people.

no dude - the Thai government 'represent' the people - they are elected

Dude, the Reds bogarted the election. They scored it through payments and manipulation of the peeps. Tres uncool and now look at the gnarley results.

+1 for a new word 'bogarted' I confess to having had to look that up (although I understood the context) anyway... I don't think you are aware that there have been independent verification of the results so you have got this wrong - an earlier poster gave the link

New word? You don't get out much, do you? Easy Rider and Country Joe reached rural oz 40 years ago............

[FOODLOVER]

Constitution did not allow the court to suspend or delay the charter amendment?

What is he talking about?

The court have all rights to do anything they want. They represent all 64 million Thai people.

no dude - the Thai government 'represent' the people - they are elected

Dude, the Reds bogarted the election. They scored it through payments and manipulation of the peeps. Tres uncool and now look at the gnarley results.

+1 for a new word 'bogarted' I confess to having had to look that up (although I understood the context) anyway... I don't think you are aware that there have been independent verification of the results so you have got this wrong - an earlier poster gave the link

I would not be so stoked about "Independent" verification. Could be bogus as i have seen video of the payments and then the usual "But every bodies doing it" defense.

[Tanaka]

Are there really no asylums in Thailand for those people?

[rubl]

From Tlansford "Why not just use a democratic system for selection and confirmation like other countries which I believe would include your own?"

The Netherlands "Counsel of State", founded in 1531, has the Queen as President and a vice-president appointed. It was only in 2011 that a public vacancy was declared for the vice-president position. Before it was always decided / filled in in 'inner circles'.

The CoS has a double function: "The Council of State must be consulted by the cabinet on proposed legislation before a law is submitted to the parliament. The Council of State Administrative Law section also serves as a court of appeal for citizens against executive branch decisions."

http://en.wikipedia....the_Netherlands

So tell me, would this work in an immature democracy as Thailand? With government Dept. PM's saying 'we won, we can do', with MP's handing out Court judges phone numbers, with the militant protest arm of the major government party ... ...

And pig can fly indeed

[GentlemanJim]

A court is only ever unbiased when it makes a decision totally in your favour. If the decision is anything other than this, the judges are clearly biased and unprofessional, and have hidden agenda's. At least thats how the definition should be in Thailand.

Nitirat's opinion is as valid as many of the opinions spouted forth by the TV armchair warrior experts on thai politics, frankly, worthless. I hope he also goes to jail for breaking bail.

[binjalin]

If it were put to the people this week, would the Republicans or Democrats be the ruling party?

depends on timing

[lannarebirth]

The Nitirat Group doesn't seem to understand the province of judges. They judge, show judgement, render and decipher meaning, construe. That's their job and no one elses.

[phiphidon]

A court is only ever unbiased when it makes a decision totally in your favour. If the decision is anything other than this, the judges are clearly biased and unprofessional, and have hidden agenda's. At least thats how the definition should be in Thailand.

Nitirat's opinion is as valid as many of the opinions spouted forth by the TV armchair warrior experts on thai politics, frankly, worthless. I hope he also goes to jail for breaking bail.

Ahem, cough, Nitirat is not "a person". Maybe a little learning required before going too much further in the brave new world of posting on TV?

[metisdead]

Posts of a baiting nature to discuss that which cannot be discussed have been removed.

[Moruya]

A court is only ever unbiased when it makes a decision totally in your favour. If the decision is anything other than this, the judges are clearly biased and unprofessional, and have hidden agenda's. At least thats how the definition should be in Thailand.

Nitirat's opinion is as valid as many of the opinions spouted forth by the TV armchair warrior experts on thai politics, frankly, worthless. I hope he also goes to jail for breaking bail.

Ahem, cough, Nitirat is not "a person". Maybe a little learning required before going too much further in the brave new world of posting on TV?

No. Nitirat is a bunch of loons that suggested his majesty took an oath of allegiance to parliament.

[Noistar]

A court is only ever unbiased when it makes a decision totally in your favour. If the decision is anything other than this, the judges are clearly biased and unprofessional, and have hidden agenda's. At least thats how the definition should be in Thailand.

Nitirat's opinion is as valid as many of the opinions spouted forth by the TV armchair warrior experts on thai politics, frankly, worthless. I hope he also goes to jail for breaking bail.

Ahem, cough, Nitirat is not "a person". Maybe a little learning required before going too much further in the brave new world of posting on TV?

Surely somebody must try to intervene before Thailand presses the self-destruct button. TV posters sitting back and hiding behind 'it's the people's wish' are not representing Thailand as a whole. Thailand is not perfect, but positive change is required, not blind obedience to a charter re-write and the potential for conflict that may occur.

[Thai at Heart]

A court is only ever unbiased when it makes a decision totally in your favour. If the decision is anything other than this, the judges are clearly biased and unprofessional, and have hidden agenda's. At least thats how the definition should be in Thailand.

Nitirat's opinion is as valid as many of the opinions spouted forth by the TV armchair warrior experts on thai politics, frankly, worthless. I hope he also goes to jail for breaking bail.

Ahem, cough, Nitirat is not "a person". Maybe a little learning required before going too much further in the brave new world of posting on TV?

Surely somebody must try to intervene before Thailand presses the self-destruct button. TV posters sitting back and hiding behind 'it's the people's wish' are not representing Thailand as a whole. Thailand is not perfect, but positive change is required, not blind obedience to a charter re-write and the potential for conflict that may occur.

Well one should respect that they intervened early, but on the end tended s very clever and practical judgment. None of this off with their heads activism, but a polite nudge to quietly limit the power of the government.

I applaud the subtlety of their decision. It is actually judgments like this that prevent coups, which by now must have been proven to be useless.

It is obvious that there its an intention behind thus constitution and all those before it. What the cc did was enforce the intention if the law. That said, at least now a massive grey area has been cleared up, and spuriously dragging the monarchy into the discussion has largely been removed as an accusation.

This in itself is massive progress, but merely one of the baby steps Thailand needs to take to make a robust system.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[rubl]

Just as a comparison of how other democracies do their chartr amendment, let's have a look at how it's done in the Netherlands:

"Amending the constitution

To amend the constitution, the proposed changes must first be approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the States-General with a simple majority (more than 50%). This law is called a voorstelwet or 'law to propose changes to the constitution' (lit. proposal law) and does not alter the constitution, but declares there are sufficient grounds for a certain proposal to change the constitution to be considered. The House of Representatives must then be dissolved and general elections held. The proposed changes to the constitution are then discussed a second time, this time needing a two-thirds majority in both houses of the States-General to approve them. This is intended to give voters a say in the matter, by allowing them the opportunity to elect a parliament to vote down the changes if desired. In practice, however, instead of disbanding the House of Representatives and having early elections, the proposal law is simply considered after the next regularly scheduled elections have been held."

http://en.wikipedia....the_Netherlands

[Thai at Heart]

Just as a comparison of how other democracies do their chartr amendment, let's have a look at how it's done in the Netherlands:

"Amending the constitution

To amend the constitution, the proposed changes must first be approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the States-General with a simple majority (more than 50%). This law is called a voorstelwet or 'law to propose changes to the constitution' (lit. proposal law) and does not alter the constitution, but declares there are sufficient grounds for a certain proposal to change the constitution to be considered. The House of Representatives must then be dissolved and general elections held. The proposed changes to the constitution are then discussed a second time, this time needing a two-thirds majority in both houses of the States-General to approve them. This is intended to give voters a say in the matter, by allowing them the opportunity to elect a parliament to vote down the changes if desired. In practice, however, instead of disbanding the House of Representatives and having early elections, the proposal law is simply considered after the next regularly scheduled elections have been held."

http://en.wikipedia....the_Netherlands

Copy it word for word, and by the time it is finished, the meaning will be so thaified it will need a judgement from the cc to be understood.

[bigbamboo]

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.

I once thought it would be fun to have a satirical publication along the lines of Private Eye in the UK where writers specialise in making pompous senior figures, particularly politicians, look ridiculous.

But now there's no need. They already do that far better than anyone else could.

Edited July 16, 2012 by bigbamboo

[Thai at Heart]

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.

I once thought it would be fun to have a satirical publication along the lines of Private Eye in the UK where writers specialise in making pompous senior figures, particularly politicians, look ridiculous. Let's face

But why bother. They already do that themselves far better than anyone else could.

Notthenation is hilarious. But sometimes far to possible

http://notthenation.com/2012/07/police-launch-new-ez-bribe-card-for-motorists/

Edited July 16, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[khaowong1]

New constitution?

We the People ( see addendum A.) of the Kingdom of Thailand, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Kingdom of Thailand.

(Addendum A:)

All people named Shinawatra, related to Shinawatra, in complete obedience to Shinawatra, etc,

Maybe this could get the ball rolling..

　

[Yunla]

What a nice bunch of fascists

"We the people, we represent all people, but we don't want to have a public referendum."

Everytime the redmob pull one of these Bronze Age stunts, it tarnishes Thailand's image in the eyes of the modern world. Dressing like bandits from a Sergio Leone film doesn't help to drag them into the 21st Century either. Nobody in modern democracies burns pictures of judges when a ruling goes slightly against them. I think if these people want to live in the Bronze Age they should go and do it on their own time and stop dragging everybody else in Thai society down the evolutionary ladder with them.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Yunla

[binjalin]

What a nice bunch of fascists

"We the people, we represent all people, but we don't want to have a public referendum."

Everytime the redmob pull one of these Bronze Age stunts, it tarnishes Thailand's image in the eyes of the modern world. Dressing like bandits from a Sergio Leone film doesn't help to drag them into the 21st Century either. Nobody in modern democracies burns pictures of judges when a ruling goes slightly against them. I think if these people want to live in the Bronze Age they should go and do it on their own time and stop dragging everybody else in Thai society down the evolutionary ladder with them.

I don't think this is very clever as the CC's verdict was evenhanded but there have been many, many images in the US, UK and all other countries of protesters burning images. Lot's of this type of thing begun in the Vietnam gig where tons of US protesters burnt images of Nixon etc. and it happens everywhere - recently, in London, there were much, much worse scenes of violence on the streets and in the US on Wall Street too. The fact that they are allowed to do it is a victory for some form of free speech here which shows improvement - but they have to be selective who's picture they burn. I don't think TVF posters are known for their levels of perspective and fairness

[Yunla]

I don't think this is very clever as the CC's verdict was evenhanded but there have been many, many images in the US, UK and all other countries of protesters burning images. Lot's of this type of thing begun in the Vietnam gig where tons of US protesters burnt images of Nixon etc. and it happens everywhere - recently, in London, there were much, much worse scenes of violence on the streets and in the US on Wall Street too. The fact that they are allowed to do it is a victory for some form of free speech here which shows improvement - but they have to be selective who's picture they burn. I don't think TVF posters are known for their levels of perspective and fairness

I was talking about burning the images of judges when a fair judgement is given, that redmob slightly disagree with along partisan lines.

That is not the same as burning photos of Nixon who was a monster.

It is also not a fair comparison with the anti-globalisation movement demos in London etc. which is about the crippling of entire sovereign nations by a private hostile global takeover. There are many valid reasons to oppose the offshore banking oligarchs.

That has nothing to do with redmob's childish medievalism in burning photos of judges who did their jobs impartially and with great decorum under the outrageous redmob threats. You cheapen the cause of the anti-globalists when you compare them to a bunch of yaba-heads in cowboy hats who burst into tears when they don't get things exactly their own way.

You might be able to fool a lot of people with your random and bizarre comparisons and faux-reasoning, but unfortunately you are not able to fool me.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Yunla

[carra]

I don't think this is very clever as the CC's verdict was evenhanded but there have been many, many images in the US, UK and all other countries of protesters burning images. Lot's of this type of thing begun in the Vietnam gig where tons of US protesters burnt images of Nixon etc. and it happens everywhere - recently, in London, there were much, much worse scenes of violence on the streets and in the US on Wall Street too. The fact that they are allowed to do it is a victory for some form of free speech here which shows improvement - but they have to be selective who's picture they burn. I don't think TVF posters are known for their levels of perspective and fairness

I was talking about burning the images of judges when a fair judgement is given, that redmob slightly disagree with along partisan lines.

That is not the same as burning photos of Nixon who was a monster.

It is also not a fair comparison with the anti-globalisation movement demos in London etc. which is about the crippling of entire sovereign nations by a private hostile global takeover. There are many valid reasons to oppose the offshore banking oligarchs.

That has nothing to do with redmob's childish medievalism in burning photos of judges who did their jobs impartially and with great decorum under the outrageous redmob threats. You cheapen the cause of the anti-globalists when you compare them to a bunch of yaba-heads in cowboy hats who burst into tears when they don't get things exactly their own way.

You might be able to fool a lot of people with your random and bizarre comparisons and faux-reasoning, but unfortunately you are not able to fool me.

In your head it is a fair judgment, in their heads they should not have even been judging on the matter.

Put yourself in the other perspective for a moment.

[Yunla]

In your head it is a fair judgment, in their heads they should not have even been judging on the matter.

Put yourself in the other perspective for a moment.

It is not in my head. I was talking about the nonsense of these cowboyhat-wearing clowns, holding up their funny little signs saying "We speak for the people" etc.

Its ridiculous. Redmob say "we are the people" then when a court tells them to hold a public referendum (literally a "people poll"), to show that their policy proposals actually represent the will of "the people", they start burning photos of judges and crying like a spoilt child.

If PTP really represented "the people" as they claim non-stop like a broken record, they would be conducting public referendums without any complaint or hesitation.

It is infact the fact that PTP do not speak for "the people", only a minority percentage of people, that makes them avoid referendum.

"Referendum is too expensive". "We prefer an elected assembly". These PTP words today are the words of a party who is actually afraid of "the people", and what "the people" would say if they were asked their opinions in a public referendum.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Yunla

[GentlemanJim]

A court is only ever unbiased when it makes a decision totally in your favour. If the decision is anything other than this, the judges are clearly biased and unprofessional, and have hidden agenda's. At least thats how the definition should be in Thailand.

Nitirat's opinion is as valid as many of the opinions spouted forth by the TV armchair warrior experts on thai politics, frankly, worthless. I hope he also goes to jail for breaking bail.

Ahem, cough, Nitirat is not "a person". Maybe a little learning required before going too much further in the brave new world of posting on TV?

Ahem cough, a simple error exacerbated by sleepy head syndrome on the hotel bed after a hard days work and you launch in yet again like a rabid rat. Thank you for your advice concerning me venturing much further in to the brave new world of posting on TV. Perhaps you could vet my posts in future before they are published, you being so much more experienced and that. I thought your moniker was something to do with your location but perhaps I was mistaken yet again and maybe its something to do with watersports. It's so tricky this 'brave new world of posting on TV'.

Getting back to the point, we are now in a situation where an extremist minority are arguing that the judiciary are handing down unfair and illegal judgements because the same judgements go against what the extremists want. It is all the more staggering that on TV allegedly educated people (well at least to the standard of CSE grade 1 in woodwork) from western systems of democracy are arguing in favour of the extremists. There are only a couple of reasons why this could be so. If every time a Government were elected in the UK and they changed all members of the Judiciary to ensure the legal system were compliant to the needs of the Government of the day there would be more than a bit of trouble.

If things go the way they potentially could, I look forward to reading on TV in several years time the laudatory comments from the current red supporters on here of how wonderful life is under Thaksin and his family and the one party republic. Hearing how people craft their words in to describing how the situation is a true reflection of democracy, as they appear to do now, will make compelling reading. But maybe by then such things as TV will have been long banned as being against the interests of the Democratic Republic of Thailand.