Constitution Court Acted Outside Its Powers, Says Nitirat

[Noistar]

OK enough of the misinformation yunla. The quote about the referendum being too expensive arose due to the fact that now the CC have decreed that a referendum needs to be called first to see whether the populace want a new constitution

Actually PTP put forward four options, one of them was public referendum which PTP said was the least desireable because it was too expensive, the other three options were discussion-based variations on the assembly theme, one of which was veto the whole process and simply allow an assembly to rubber stamp the PTP proposals.

Its really simple, they should call a public referendum. No need for anything else.

They do not have the support of the Thai people, that is a fact. They got 38% vote at the election and many people who voted for them have since woken up to the fact that they bought a gold-plated LIE. I think PTP will look back on that feeble 38% vote as their Golden Age, those halcyon early days before the chickens came home to roost armed with beak-mounted sleaze-seeking missiles.

All your dancing around the issue, skillfully avoids the basic central fact that PTP are a 38% votes elected party, whose cuddly House Speaker is currently being impeached for corrupting the office of house speaker and arguably for treason, PTP have broken multiple Thai privacy laws in office 2012 and also UDHR declarations against government oppression.

This makes PTP an extremely corrupt and lawless political party, and in NO genuinely democratic country ON EARTH would a such a sleazy crime-syndicate be allowed to change the national constitution without a public referendum first. The very fact that PTP want to slime their way out of this basic democratic process, and that you encourage them, says all I need to know about the type of undemocratic vertical-control system being offered here.

'hey I'm visiting Thailand so I know what's best for them - and while I'm about it I think the government are extremely corrupt and lawless'

don't ya just love 'tourist experts'? conveniently forgetting the coups, ripping up constitutions etc. etc.

They do not have the support of the Thai people, that is a fact

says our visiting 'expert' Errrrrr....................they just WON the election - but not that a FACT like that should get in the way of your biased 'story-telling'

umm - my opinions only, so no rants please

I agree 100%. PTP WON the (an) election and it is a FACT. Then what........................................? They have the support of the Thai people - yep.

What exactly are the Thai people supporting? To my uneducated eye (IMHO), PTP are not giving much back to their supporters at the moment.

They appear to be going round and round with a single pre-occupation, which (IMHO) is not focussed on improving the 'lot' of their supporters, let alone Thailand.

WHEN did this electoral win take place? How long will PTP carry on with this diversion before remembering their supporters?

[binjalin]

OK enough of the misinformation yunla. The quote about the referendum being too expensive arose due to the fact that now the CC have decreed that a referendum needs to be called first to see whether the populace want a new constitution

Actually PTP put forward four options, one of them was public referendum which PTP said was the least desireable because it was too expensive, the other three options were discussion-based variations on the assembly theme, one of which was veto the whole process and simply allow an assembly to rubber stamp the PTP proposals.

Its really simple, they should call a public referendum. No need for anything else.

They do not have the support of the Thai people, that is a fact. They got 38% vote at the election and many people who voted for them have since woken up to the fact that they bought a gold-plated LIE. I think PTP will look back on that feeble 38% vote as their Golden Age, those halcyon early days before the chickens came home to roost armed with beak-mounted sleaze-seeking missiles.

All your dancing around the issue, skillfully avoids the basic central fact that PTP are a 38% votes elected party, whose cuddly House Speaker is currently being impeached for corrupting the office of house speaker and arguably for treason, PTP have broken multiple Thai privacy laws in office 2012 and also UDHR declarations against government oppression.

This makes PTP an extremely corrupt and lawless political party, and in NO genuinely democratic country ON EARTH would a such a sleazy crime-syndicate be allowed to change the national constitution without a public referendum first. The very fact that PTP want to slime their way out of this basic democratic process, and that you encourage them, says all I need to know about the type of undemocratic vertical-control system being offered here.

'hey I'm visiting Thailand so I know what's best for them - and while I'm about it I think the government are extremely corrupt and lawless'

don't ya just love 'tourist experts'? conveniently forgetting the coups, ripping up constitutions etc. etc.

They do not have the support of the Thai people, that is a fact

says our visiting 'expert' Errrrrr....................they just WON the election - but not that a FACT like that should get in the way of your biased 'story-telling'

umm - my opinions only, so no rants please

I agree 100%. PTP WON the (an) election and it is a FACT. Then what........................................? They have the support of the Thai people - yep.

What exactly are the Thai people supporting? To my uneducated eye (IMHO), PTP are not giving much back to their supporters at the moment.

They appear to be going round and round with a single pre-occupation, which (IMHO) is not focussed on improving the 'lot' of their supporters, let alone Thailand.

WHEN did this electoral win take place? How long will PTP carry on with this diversion before remembering their supporters?

Well much of this may be true and I do believe that Dem/Yellow supporters would do far better to take the tak you have taken.

Yes the PTP won but they are cr*p (in your opinion) rather than the whining of some posters:

'they did not win' or 'there was no landslide' or 'they are corrupt' or 'why is Yingluck meeting with Merkel when she should be in the chamber everyday like Mark' bla bla bla

Then we can debate the REAL issues - are they doing a good or bad job? not endless bleating and 'sour grapes' over whether they won and whether the Thai people support them - they WON - get over it and move on (not aimed at you particularly).

[Reasonableman]

Debating the REAL issues are we? Or is it incipient Alzheimer's...

binjalin made the last post

ahhh Suthep - that paragon of virtue, the right-hand man of Abhisit, a role model for aspiring DPM's not a jot on his character

Sounds more like a smear campaign. So that is what you consider a REAL issue. Most revealing. Thanks a lot.

[animatic]

Wow!

Give them some official name and pretend they are not biased to their backers desires.

Higher Education at it's finest.

[Noistar]

Phiphidon.

The big problem with the Nitarat group's proposal is mainly in Section 9 and Section 13.

And especially when you apply honesty about the current state of Thailand being morally and politically corrupt and that includes the police who should be the people's 1st defender of their rights and those rights applied equally to all citizens.

Sections 9 and 13 propose that the senior judges and Army personnel are appointed by the cabinet. Now apply that in the two situations I know.

First Thailand. A country that is not and has never been democratic, where corruption is accepted all all levels of governance and in the majority of society, where the police are brought and corrupt, where the law is manipulated and not enforced, where

inequality via class is normal every day life, where morals and values are non existent from most, where votes are block brought from an uneducated lower social economic group etc etc. and where politicans are the worst offenders and where the current lot have openly come out and stated that politicians are rightfully above the law. Nobody in their right mind who understands the basic principles of what a democracy is would allow this current lot in government that lassez faire right to appoint the judges and Army. If you did then Thaksin would have his people in those roles and Thailand wrapped up as another dictator state in no time.

Second my home country New Zealand. The exact opposite of the mess that is Thailand and one of the best examples of democracy. Here the law is applied and enforced, corruption is rooted out and punished, morals and values exist, the police are not brought and are the people's rightful defender, equality exists, nobody is above the law, votes are won not brought and most importantly the governement of the day do not appoint the senior judges and army. They are found not by family connection but by ability and merit and are selected and nominated by consultation between the Governor General and the Attorney General - ie

- the Queens and peoples representative.

In Thailands case with a ruling Monarchy, they or their representative should be the one who is giving the final appointment for those positions not the latest corrupt band of thievies in disguise of politicans.

I may be wrong but that is where I see the charges being laid against Pheu Thai of attempting to over throw the Monarchy coming from. And that is why the NItarat group stink of Thaksin and Pheu Thai involvement with those two sections being aimed

at putting complete and absolute control with the government of the day.

The joke is that the document is signed by the "people" when the people are prepared to stupidly hand over complete power to this lot of criminals, some of who are convicted and on the run and others who are using another absolute joke of thai politices in imunity of their MP status to stay above the law.

A couple of quick notes - firstly my point about nitirat being involved in the discussions about section 112 colouring peoples perceptions are amply demonstrated here. Secondly, I'm not against promotion based on merit but think you have a very rosy coloured viewpoint about how your country relies on the Queen of Englands representative and the Attorney General having the

knowledge and ability to do so without any outside interference or manipulation. In Thailand there are advisors to the King, Privy Counsellors, and there I shall leave this discussion for you to absorb.

Perhaps this is an opportunity to get some info from my experienced fellow posters. Being a new by I want to make sure I don't tread on too many mines on TVF

Who appointed the current Speaker and Attorney General?

I may be (probably am) wrong, but does the answer to this give some clues as to why the CC was approached using a non-standard route?

[binjalin]

Debating the REAL issues are we? Or is it incipient Alzheimer's...

binjalin made the last post

ahhh Suthep - that paragon of virtue, the right-hand man of Abhisit, a role model for aspiring DPM's not a jot on his character

Sounds more like a smear campaign. So that is what you consider a REAL issue. Most revealing. Thanks a lot.

not on this thread dude... not on this thread... getting confused? little Sunday drink gone to the head? keep it together man, keep it together - this is not the 'Abhisit forged papers thread'

Edited July 22, 2012 by binjalin

[Thaddeus]

Perhaps this is an opportunity to get some info from my experienced fellow posters. Being a new by I want to make sure I don't tread on too many mines on TVF

Who appointed the current Speaker and Attorney General?

I may be (probably am) wrong, but does the answer to this give some clues as to why the CC was approached using a non-standard route?

You are not wrong.

[phiphidon]

Perhaps this is an opportunity to get some info from my experienced fellow posters. Being a new by I want to make sure I don't tread on too many mines on TVF

Who appointed the current Speaker and Attorney General?

I may be (probably am) wrong, but does the answer to this give some clues as to why the CC was approached using a non-standard route?

The speaker has nothing to do with an approach to the CC. The non standard route you refer to was not even a route until the CC applied it's "interesting" interpretation of the word "and".........

http://asiancorrespondent.com/83908/thai-constitution-court-defends-its-position-look-at-the-english-translation-of-the-constitution/

The Attorney General? Thought you might have been told this by the party faithful earlier - seems like they're staying silent on the matter. I wonder why? If they're not going to tell you, I wiil.

Mr Junlasing Wasantasing, the Attorney General was appointed by the Senate during the Abhisit government period, in 2009.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/83916/thai-attorney-general-constitutional-amendments-are-legal/

[phiphidon]

Perhaps this is an opportunity to get some info from my experienced fellow posters. Being a new by I want to make sure I don't tread on too many mines on TVF

Who appointed the current Speaker and Attorney General?

I may be (probably am) wrong, but does the answer to this give some clues as to why the CC was approached using a non-standard route?

You are not wrong.

How do you know he is not wrong as he has not posted any answers?

[tlansford]

Perhaps this is an opportunity to get some info from my experienced fellow posters. Being a new by I want to make sure I don't tread on too many mines on TVF

Who appointed the current Speaker and Attorney General?

I may be (probably am) wrong, but does the answer to this give some clues as to why the CC was approached using a non-standard route?

The speaker has nothing to do with an approach to the CC. The non standard route you refer to was not even a route until the CC applied it's "interesting" interpretation of the word "and".........

http://asiancorrespo...e-constitution/

The Attorney General? Thought you might have been told this by the party faithful earlier - seems like they're staying silent on the matter. I wonder why? If they're not going to tell you, I wiil.

Mr Junlasing Wasantasing, the Attorney General was appointed by the Senate during the Abhisit government period, in 2009.

http://asiancorrespo...ents-are-legal/

It strikes me as though posters are willfully ignoring the facts which point to the courts playing as active and as political a role in this struggle just as the elected representatives and certainly the unelected, let's say, influencers are doing.

We can disagree with that, or agree with that, but to ignore it and pretend that the courts are unbiased arbitrators is sticking the fingers in the ears and yelling lalalalalalala

[rubl]

Perhaps this is an opportunity to get some info from my experienced fellow posters. Being a new by I want to make sure I don't tread on too many mines on TVF

Who appointed the current Speaker and Attorney General?

I may be (probably am) wrong, but does the answer to this give some clues as to why the CC was approached using a non-standard route?

The speaker has nothing to do with an approach to the CC. The non standard route you refer to was not even a route until the CC applied it's "interesting" interpretation of the word "and".........

http://asiancorrespo...e-constitution/

The Attorney General? Thought you might have been told this by the party faithful earlier - seems like they're staying silent on the matter. I wonder why? If they're not going to tell you, I wiil.

Mr Junlasing Wasantasing, the Attorney General was appointed by the Senate during the Abhisit government period, in 2009.

http://asiancorrespo...ents-are-legal/

It strikes me as though posters are willfully ignoring the facts which point to the courts playing as active and as political a role in this struggle just as the elected representatives and certainly the unelected, let's say, influencers are doing.

We can disagree with that, or agree with that, but to ignore it and pretend that the courts are unbiased arbitrators is sticking the fingers in the ears and yelling lalalalalalala

Thai style is holding your hands before your ears and say "I can't hear you" just after turning off a microphone.

As for the CC and it's decision to accept some complaints, judge and throw them out, sure an affront

Over the last few weeks we have seen reasoning for and against the CC even accepting the case. The links posted by PPD seem to be returning at least twice a day. A bit more frequent and we might even start to believe it. Other links reasoning why the CC could judge the case brought before them has been snowed under. Just like k. Thaksin and Pheu Thai saying to respect the decision of the CC and back peddling a wee bit.

[tlansford]

Perhaps this is an opportunity to get some info from my experienced fellow posters. Being a new by I want to make sure I don't tread on too many mines on TVF

Who appointed the current Speaker and Attorney General?

I may be (probably am) wrong, but does the answer to this give some clues as to why the CC was approached using a non-standard route?

The speaker has nothing to do with an approach to the CC. The non standard route you refer to was not even a route until the CC applied it's "interesting" interpretation of the word "and".........

http://asiancorrespo...e-constitution/

The Attorney General? Thought you might have been told this by the party faithful earlier - seems like they're staying silent on the matter. I wonder why? If they're not going to tell you, I wiil.

Mr Junlasing Wasantasing, the Attorney General was appointed by the Senate during the Abhisit government period, in 2009.

http://asiancorrespo...ents-are-legal/

It strikes me as though posters are willfully ignoring the facts which point to the courts playing as active and as political a role in this struggle just as the elected representatives and certainly the unelected, let's say, influencers are doing.

We can disagree with that, or agree with that, but to ignore it and pretend that the courts are unbiased arbitrators is sticking the fingers in the ears and yelling lalalalalalala

Thai style is holding your hands before your ears and say "I can't hear you" just after turning off a microphone.

As for the CC and it's decision to accept some complaints, judge and throw them out, sure an affront

Over the last few weeks we have seen reasoning for and against the CC even accepting the case. The links posted by PPD seem to be returning at least twice a day. A bit more frequent and we might even start to believe it. Other links reasoning why the CC could judge the case brought before them has been snowed under. Just like k. Thaksin and Pheu Thai saying to respect the decision of the CC and back peddling a wee bit.

is that like getting dressed before leaving the house or putting your clothes over your body??

As for the rest, if it were so innocent as you paint it, or ... I guess you missed the news??

They did throw out the complaint against the PTP and did not even dissolve them... win-win!

But they started by giving themselves more power with a confirmation that they could legally do what they already had done. If any legal scholars take that as a legal precedent, then they will have confirmed the existence of the first judicial time-machine.

Then they dictated that since the previous (junta-created) charter had been approved (after it was written) by a public referendum, that any re-writing would require pre-approval of a public referendum. I am guessing that another military coup would be able to by-pass that new legal requirement for charter changes, right?

Oh, and it seems they forgot to throw out the court's own requirement that the MPs justify their activities in Parliament to the justices...

Oh, yeah, Rubl, they just casually took up "some complaints" (not important who that came from, right, just regular ol' citizens doing their civic duty), and the "threw" them out (well, not really, but who's paying attention?), and good lord, that is surely not an affront... (I match your " " and raise you 2 )

(PS: regarding Phiphidon's information and "believing", as this is a buddhist country - consider that "belief" is not asked of you, just reading, comprehension, thoughtful consideration, and understanding... direct experience... )

[rubl]

Thai style is holding your hands before your ears and say "I can't hear you" just after turning off a microphone.

As for the CC and it's decision to accept some complaints, judge and throw them out, sure an affront

Over the last few weeks we have seen reasoning for and against the CC even accepting the case. The links posted by PPD seem to be returning at least twice a day. A bit more frequent and we might even start to believe it. Other links reasoning why the CC could judge the case brought before them has been snowed under. Just like k. Thaksin and Pheu Thai saying to respect the decision of the CC and back peddling a wee bit.

is that like getting dressed before leaving the house or putting your clothes over your body??

As for the rest, if it were so innocent as you paint it, or ... I guess you missed the news??

They did throw out the complaint against the PTP and did not even dissolve them... win-win!

But they started by giving themselves more power with a confirmation that they could legally do what they already had done. If any legal scholars take that as a legal precedent, then they will have confirmed the existence of the first judicial time-machine.

Then they dictated that since the previous (junta-created) charter had been approved (after it was written) by a public referendum, that any re-writing would require pre-approval of a public referendum. I am guessing that another military coup would be able to by-pass that new legal requirement for charter changes, right?

Oh, and it seems they forgot to throw out the court's own requirement that the MPs justify their activities in Parliament to the justices...

Oh, yeah, Rubl, they just casually took up "some complaints" (not important who that came from, right, just regular ol' citizens doing their civic duty), and the "threw" them out (well, not really, but who's paying attention?), and good lord, that is surely not an affront... (I match your " " and raise you 2 )

(PS: regarding Phiphidon's information and "believing", as this is a buddhist country - consider that "belief" is not asked of you, just reading, comprehension, thoughtful consideration, and understanding... direct experience... )

Reading, considering, understanding. Well your "I guess you missed the news?? They did throw out the complaint against the PTP and did not even dissolve them" somehow suggests you had a problem with my "it's decision to accept some complaints, judge and throw them out"

English is a difficult language, isn't it

[phiphidon]

The speaker has nothing to do with an approach to the CC. The non standard route you refer to was not even a route until the CC applied it's "interesting" interpretation of the word "and".........

http://asiancorrespo...e-constitution/

The Attorney General? Thought you might have been told this by the party faithful earlier - seems like they're staying silent on the matter. I wonder why? If they're not going to tell you, I wiil.

Mr Junlasing Wasantasing, the Attorney General was appointed by the Senate during the Abhisit government period, in 2009.

http://asiancorrespo...ents-are-legal/

It strikes me as though posters are willfully ignoring the facts which point to the courts playing as active and as political a role in this struggle just as the elected representatives and certainly the unelected, let's say, influencers are doing.

We can disagree with that, or agree with that, but to ignore it and pretend that the courts are unbiased arbitrators is sticking the fingers in the ears and yelling lalalalalalala

Thai style is holding your hands before your ears and say "I can't hear you" just after turning off a microphone.

As for the CC and it's decision to accept some complaints, judge and throw them out, sure an affront

Over the last few weeks we have seen reasoning for and against the CC even accepting the case. The links posted by PPD seem to be returning at least twice a day. A bit more frequent and we might even start to believe it. Other links reasoning why the CC could judge the case brought before them has been snowed under. Just like k. Thaksin and Pheu Thai saying to respect the decision of the CC and back peddling a wee bit.

is that like getting dressed before leaving the house or putting your clothes over your body??

As for the rest, if it were so innocent as you paint it, or ... I guess you missed the news??

They did throw out the complaint against the PTP and did not even dissolve them... win-win!

But they started by giving themselves more power with a confirmation that they could legally do what they already had done. If any legal scholars take that as a legal precedent, then they will have confirmed the existence of the first judicial time-machine.

Then they dictated that since the previous (junta-created) charter had been approved (after it was written) by a public referendum, that any re-writing would require pre-approval of a public referendum. I am guessing that another military coup would be able to by-pass that new legal requirement for charter changes, right?

Oh, and it seems they forgot to throw out the court's own requirement that the MPs justify their activities in Parliament to the justices...

Oh, yeah, Rubl, they just casually took up "some complaints" (not important who that came from, right, just regular ol' citizens doing their civic duty), and the "threw" them out (well, not really, but who's paying attention?), and good lord, that is surely not an affront... (I match your " " and raise you 2 )

(PS: regarding Phiphidon's information and "believing", as this is a buddhist country - consider that "belief" is not asked of you, just reading, comprehension, thoughtful consideration, and understanding... direct experience... )

Wat he said, innit. not that difficult,English

Edited July 23, 2012 by phiphidon

[tlansford]

Thai style is holding your hands before your ears and say "I can't hear you" just after turning off a microphone.

As for the CC and it's decision to accept some complaints, judge and throw them out, sure an affront

Over the last few weeks we have seen reasoning for and against the CC even accepting the case. The links posted by PPD seem to be returning at least twice a day. A bit more frequent and we might even start to believe it. Other links reasoning why the CC could judge the case brought before them has been snowed under. Just like k. Thaksin and Pheu Thai saying to respect the decision of the CC and back peddling a wee bit.

is that like getting dressed before leaving the house or putting your clothes over your body??

As for the rest, if it were so innocent as you paint it, or ... I guess you missed the news??

They did throw out the complaint against the PTP and did not even dissolve them... win-win!

But they started by giving themselves more power with a confirmation that they could legally do what they already had done. If any legal scholars take that as a legal precedent, then they will have confirmed the existence of the first judicial time-machine.

Then they dictated that since the previous (junta-created) charter had been approved (after it was written) by a public referendum, that any re-writing would require pre-approval of a public referendum. I am guessing that another military coup would be able to by-pass that new legal requirement for charter changes, right?

Oh, and it seems they forgot to throw out the court's own requirement that the MPs justify their activities in Parliament to the justices...

Oh, yeah, Rubl, they just casually took up "some complaints" (not important who that came from, right, just regular ol' citizens doing their civic duty), and the "threw" them out (well, not really, but who's paying attention?), and good lord, that is surely not an affront... (I match your " " and raise you 2 )

(PS: regarding Phiphidon's information and "believing", as this is a buddhist country - consider that "belief" is not asked of you, just reading, comprehension, thoughtful consideration, and understanding... direct experience... )

Reading, considering, understanding. Well your "I guess you missed the news?? They did throw out the complaint against the PTP and did not even dissolve them" somehow suggests you had a problem with my "it's decision to accept some complaints, judge and throw them out"

English is a difficult language, isn't it

do I sense you hiding behind an English-is-not-my-mother-tongue argument?

I hope not, since I have neither the time nor the desire to explain the grammar of your statement to you.

Cheers

[Reasonableman]

[Noistar]

Perhaps this is an opportunity to get some info from my experienced fellow posters. Being a new by I want to make sure I don't tread on too many mines on TVF

Who appointed the current Speaker and Attorney General?

I may be (probably am) wrong, but does the answer to this give some clues as to why the CC was approached using a non-standard route?

The speaker has nothing to do with an approach to the CC. The non standard route you refer to was not even a route until the CC applied it's "interesting" interpretation of the word "and".........

constitution/'>http://asiancorrespondent.com/83908/thai-constitution-court-defends-its-position-look-at-the-english-translation-of-the-constitution/

The Attorney General? Thought you might have been told this by the party faithful earlier - seems like they're staying silent on the matter. I wonder why? If they're not going to tell you, I wiil.

Mr Junlasing Wasantasing, the Attorney General was appointed by the Senate during the Abhisit government period, in 2009.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/83916/thai-attorney-general-constitutional-amendments-are-legal/

Many thanks. I stand informed!!

[Noistar]

Thai style is holding your hands before your ears and say "I can't hear you" just after turning off a microphone.

As for the CC and it's decision to accept some complaints, judge and throw them out, sure an affront

Over the last few weeks we have seen reasoning for and against the CC even accepting the case. The

links posted by PPD seem to be returning at least twice a day. A bit more frequent and we might even start to believe it. Other links reasoning why the

CC could judge the case brought before them has been snowed under. Just like k. Thaksin and Pheu Thai saying to respect the decision of the CC and back peddling a wee bit.

is that like getting dressed before leaving the house or putting your clothes over your body??

As for the rest, if it were so innocent as you paint it, or ... I guess you missed the news??

They did throw out the complaint against the PTP and did not even dissolve them... win-win!

But they started by giving themselves more power with a confirmation that they could legally do what they already had done. If any legal scholars take that as a legal precedent, then they will have confirmed the existence of the first judicial time-machine.

Then they dictated that since the previous (junta-created) charter had been approved (after it was written) by a public referendum, that any re-writing would require pre-approval of a public referendum. I am guessing that another military coup would be able to by-pass that new legal requirement for charter changes, right?

Oh, and it seems they forgot to throw out the court's own requirement that the MPs justify their activities in Parliament to the justices...

Oh, yeah, Rubl, they just casually took up "some complaints" (not important who that came from, right, just regular ol' citizens doing their civic duty), and the "threw" them out (well, not really, but who's paying attention?), and good lord, that is surely not an affront... (I match your " " and raise you 2 )

(PS: regarding Phiphidon's information and "believing", as this is a buddhist country - consider that "belief" is not asked of you, just reading, comprehension, thoughtful consideration, and understanding... direct experience... )

Reading, considering, understanding. Well your "I guess you missed the news?? They did throw out the complaint against the PTP and did not even dissolve them" somehow suggests you had a problem with my "it's decision to accept some complaints, judge and throw them out"

English is a difficult language, isn't it

Call it the folly of youth (or at least inexperience on TVF) by joining in with the 'heavyweights'

Any criticism of the CCs involvement must surely (IMHO) take into account that a government of whatever colour, needs a check mechanism.

Anybody who has had time to waste and has read my other posts before, will know my opinion is: "a ruling party is not given a blank cheque". Some things are fundamental to Democracy and need another perspective before being given the green-light.

Whether the CC is the right mechanisms or not, IMHO there needs to be something which isn't ruling party mk2

[phiphidon]

Thai style is holding your hands before your ears and say "I can't hear you" just after turning off a microphone.

As for the CC and it's decision to accept some complaints, judge and throw them out, sure an affront

Over the last few weeks we have seen reasoning for and against the CC even accepting the case. The

links posted by PPD seem to be returning at least twice a day. A bit more frequent and we might even start to believe it. Other links reasoning why the

CC could judge the case brought before them has been snowed under. Just like k. Thaksin and Pheu Thai saying to respect the decision of the CC and back peddling a wee bit.

is that like getting dressed before leaving the house or putting your clothes over your body??

As for the rest, if it were so innocent as you paint it, or ... I guess you missed the news??

They did throw out the complaint against the PTP and did not even dissolve them... win-win!

But they started by giving themselves more power with a confirmation that they could legally do what they already had done. If any legal scholars take that as a legal precedent, then they will have confirmed the existence of the first judicial time-machine.

Then they dictated that since the previous (junta-created) charter had been approved (after it was written) by a public referendum, that any re-writing would require pre-approval of a public referendum. I am guessing that another military coup would be able to by-pass that new legal requirement for charter changes, right?

Oh, and it seems they forgot to throw out the court's own requirement that the MPs justify their activities in Parliament to the justices...

Oh, yeah, Rubl, they just casually took up "some complaints" (not important who that came from, right, just regular ol' citizens doing their civic duty), and the "threw" them out (well, not really, but who's paying attention?), and good lord, that is surely not an affront... (I match your " " and raise you 2 )

(PS: regarding Phiphidon's information and "believing", as this is a buddhist country - consider that "belief" is not asked of you, just reading, comprehension, thoughtful consideration, and understanding... direct experience... )

Reading, considering, understanding. Well your "I guess you missed the news?? They did throw out the complaint against the PTP and did not even dissolve them" somehow suggests you had a problem with my "it's decision to accept some complaints, judge and throw them out"

English is a difficult language, isn't it

Call it the folly of youth (or at least inexperience on TVF) by joining in with the 'heavyweights'

Any criticism of the CCs involvement must surely (IMHO) take into account that a government of whatever colour, needs a check mechanism.

Anybody who has had time to waste and has read my other posts before, will know my opinion is: "a ruling party is not given a blank cheque". Some things are fundamental to Democracy and need another perspective before being given the green-light.

Whether the CC is the right mechanisms or not, IMHO there needs to be something which isn't ruling party mk2

The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say. They are there to stop abuse of power by state organs.

Edited July 23, 2012 by phiphidon

[Reasonableman]

http://www.thailawfo...urts-act-2.html

Section 9. Administrative Courts have the competence to try and adjudicate or give orders over the following matters:

(1) the case involving a dispute in relation to an unlawful act by an administrative agency or State official, whether in connection with the issuance of a by-law or order or in connection with other act, by reason of acting without or beyond the scope of the powers and duties or inconsistently with the law or the form, process or procedure which is the material requirement for such act or in bad faith or in a manner indicating unfair discrimination or causing unnecessary process or excessive burden to the public or amounting to undue exercise of discretion;

(2) the case involving a dispute in relation to an administrative agency or State official neglecting official duties required by the law to be performed or performing such duties with unreasonable delay;

(3) the case involving a dispute in relation to a wrongful act or other liability of an administrative agency or State official arising from the exercise of power under the law or from a by-law, administrative order or other order, or from the neglect of official duties required by the law to be performed or the performance of such duties with unreasonable delay;

(4) the case involving a dispute in relation to an administrative contract;

(5) the case prescribed by law to be submitted to the Court by an administrative agency or State official for mandating a person to do a particular act or refraining therefrom;

(6) the case involving a dispute in relation to the matters prescribed by the law to be under the jurisdiction of Administrative Courts

“administrative agency” means a Ministry, Sub-Ministry, Department, Government agency called by other name and ascribed the status as a Department, provincial administration, local administration, State enterprise established by an Act or Royal Degree or other State agency and shall include an agency entrusted to exercise the administrative power or carry out administrative acts

“State official” means

(1) Government official, official, employee, group of persons or person performing duties in an administrative agency;

(2) quasi-judicial council or committee or person empowered by law to issue any by-law, order or resolution affecting persons; and

(3) person who is under the supervision or superintendence of administrative agencies or State officials under (1) or (2“quasi-judicial council” means the committee established under the law which provides for the organisation

and procedure for the adjudication of disputes in respect of rights and duties under the law;

Edited July 24, 2012 by Reasonableman

[Reasonableman]

The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say.

Oops, wrong again. An honest mistake, no doubt.

[chotthee]

snip

The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say. They are there to stop abuse of power by state organs.

And who stop theirs?

[Reasonableman]

The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say.

Oops, wrong again. An honest mistake, no doubt.

Really? What do you think this means?

Section 9. Administrative Courts have the competence to try and adjudicate or give orders over the following matters:

(1) the case involving a dispute in relation to an unlawful act by an administrative agency or State official, whether in connection with the issuance of a by-law or order or in connection with other act, by reason of acting without or beyond the scope of the powers and duties or inconsistently with the law or the form, process or procedure which is the material requirement for such act or in bad faith or in a manner indicating unfair discrimination or causing unnecessary process or excessive burden to the public or amounting to undue exercise of discretion;

Go on, have a guess............

Administrative courts. You had your guess, and you were wrong.

“State official” means

(1) Government official, official, employee, group of persons or person performing duties in an administrative agency.

[phiphidon]

The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say.

Oops, wrong again. An honest mistake, no doubt.

Really

BANGKOK, Jan 11 – Thai nationalist activists on Wednesday sought court approval to suspend the Thai government order that the army withdraw troops from the disputed Preah Vihear temple border area as earlier demanded by the World Court.

A group of nationalist activists led by Chaiwat Sinsuwong petitioned the Administrative Court, asking it to stop Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra from interfering with the Thai military after her government ordered the military to withdraw its troops from the area around the ancient Preah Vihear temple.............

.................He said the group had no choice but to seek a court order to stop the premier's action to protect the country's interest and sovereignty. (MCOT online news)

http://www.chiangmai-mail.com/Update2012-News/news_January2.shtml

Now if that is not the Administrative Court acting as a check and Balance I don't know what is - you want more examples?

[Reasonableman]

The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say.

Oops, wrong again. An honest mistake, no doubt.

Really

BANGKOK, Jan 11 – Thai nationalist activists on Wednesday sought court approval to suspend the Thai government order that the army withdraw troops from the disputed Preah Vihear temple border area as earlier demanded by the World Court.

A group of nationalist activists led by Chaiwat Sinsuwong petitioned the Administrative Court, asking it to stop Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra from interfering with the Thai military after her government ordered the military to withdraw its troops from the area around the ancient Preah Vihear temple.............

.................He said the group had no choice but to seek a court order to stop the premier's action to protect the country's interest and sovereignty. (MCOT online news)

http://www.chiangmai..._January2.shtml

Now if that is not the Administrative Court acting as a check and Balance I don't know what is - you want more examples?

Would you now care to redefine what you meant by "The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament"?

[rubl]

The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say.

Oops, wrong again. An honest mistake, no doubt.

Really

BANGKOK, Jan 11 – Thai nationalist activists on Wednesday sought court approval to suspend the Thai government order that the army withdraw troops from the disputed Preah Vihear temple border area as earlier demanded by the World Court.

A group of nationalist activists led by Chaiwat Sinsuwong petitioned the Administrative Court, asking it to stop Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra from interfering with the Thai military after her government ordered the military to withdraw its troops from the area around the ancient Preah Vihear temple.............

.................He said the group had no choice but to seek a court order to stop the premier's action to protect the country's interest and sovereignty. (MCOT online news)

http://www.chiangmai..._January2.shtml

Now if that is not the Administrative Court acting as a check and Balance I don't know what is - you want more examples?

I assume you do not suggest we do away with the Constitutional Court because we have enough checks and balance possiiblities ?

BTW did the Adm. Court do anything?

Edited July 24, 2012 by rubl

[phiphidon]

Really

BANGKOK, Jan 11 – Thai nationalist activists on Wednesday sought court approval to suspend the Thai government order that the army withdraw troops from the disputed Preah Vihear temple border area as earlier demanded by the World Court.

A group of nationalist activists led by Chaiwat Sinsuwong petitioned the Administrative Court, asking it to stop Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra from interfering with the Thai military after her government ordered the military to withdraw its troops from the area around the ancient Preah Vihear temple.............

.................He said the group had no choice but to seek a court order to stop the premier's action to protect the country's interest and sovereignty. (MCOT online news)

http://www.chiangmai..._January2.shtml

Now if that is not the Administrative Court acting as a check and Balance I don't know what is - you want more examples?

Would you now care to redefine what you meant by "The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament"?

I'm sorry, but thought I had already done that, but for some reason you seemed to have only C & P'd only half of my reply - I reproduce it in full here:

"The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say. They are there to stop abuse of power by state organs".

Now that seems clear enough to me.

Lets say, just for example, that a government wanted to get investment flowing into a Heavy Industrial Plant regardless of the effects it might have on the local inhabitants. You've bypassed the checks and balance provided by Enviroment Impact Assessments by not doing them.

You then get caught out when the locals are organised by a Protest Group who question the lack of such EIA's and file a complaint and the Supreme Administrative Court gets involved, Ooops!

BANGKOK, Dec 2 (Reuters) - A Thai court halted the bulk of new projects at the world's eighth-biggest petrochemicals hub on Wednesday over environmental concerns, rattling investors in Thailand and posing a new challenge for the government.

Thailand's Supreme Administrative Court gave the green light to just 11 of 76 new plants at Map Ta Phut, the country's largest industrial estate in eastern Rayong province.

The remaining 65 projects worth an estimated $8 billion will be halted.

The ruling stoked concerns about legal certainty and government effectiveness in a country once seen as a safe haven for big business. Analysts say the credibility of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's pro-business government is at stake if it fails to resolve the dispute.

http://www.reuters.c...2/idUSBKK396240

So, seems like a check and balance once again on the murky workings of parliamentary business. Clear enough?

[phiphidon]

The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say.

Oops, wrong again. An honest mistake, no doubt.

Really

BANGKOK, Jan 11 – Thai nationalist activists on Wednesday sought court approval to suspend the Thai government order that the army withdraw troops from the disputed Preah Vihear temple border area as earlier demanded by the World Court.

A group of nationalist activists led by Chaiwat Sinsuwong petitioned the Administrative Court, asking it to stop Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra from interfering with the Thai military after her government ordered the military to withdraw its troops from the area around the ancient Preah Vihear temple.............

.................He said the group had no choice but to seek a court order to stop the premier's action to protect the country's interest and sovereignty. (MCOT online news)

http://www.chiangmai..._January2.shtml

Now if that is not the Administrative Court acting as a check and Balance I don't know what is - you want more examples?

I assume you do not suggest we do away with the Constitutional Court because we have enough checks and balance possiiblities ?

BTW did the Adm. Court do anything?

I suggest the CC do it's job and keep within it's remit. However now that it has shown that its judges are a political body and not independant, something needs to be done about it/them - A new influx of judges may not be remiss.

The troops were replaced by Border Police so in a way, the government complied with the order to remove the troops whilst keeping both the Cambodians and Dr Tul and his Nationalist Nutters happy. A far better solution than firing cluster bombs across the border or throwing your toys out of the pram and threatening to take Thailand out of UNESCO, I feel, but that's just my opinion.

[Reasonableman]

"The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say."

So your statement was far too broad. If you would like to change it, feel free.

BTW, you seem to have forgotten the role of the CC somehow in your cogitations (if we could call them that).

Edited July 24, 2012 by metisdead
:: Stop using large fonts, no need to shout.

[rubl]

I assume you do not suggest we do away with the Constitutional Court because we have enough checks and balance possiiblities ?

BTW did the Adm. Court do anything?

I suggest the CC do it's job and keep within it's remit. However now that it has shown that its judges are a political body and not independant, something needs to be done about it/them - A new influx of judges may not be remiss.

The troops were replaced by Border Police so in a way, the government complied with the order to remove the troops whilst keeping both the Cambodians and Dr Tul and his Nationalist Nutters happy. A far better solution than firing cluster bombs across the border or throwing your toys out of the pram and threatening to take Thailand out of UNESCO, I feel, but that's just my opinion.

I would like to suggest the constitutional Court did it's job. Opposite opinions I guess

As for the troops having been replaced by Border Police, fine. Mind you the request to the Adm. Court might still be 'under consideration' rather than the court having acted to 'check and balance'. TiT.

BTW 'nationalist nutters'? Better stay somewhat more polite, this only provokes other people to come up with similar interesting names for red-shirts