Constitution Court Acted Outside Its Powers, Says Nitirat

[Noistar]

Phiphidon's reply to my earlier post was that the Administrative Court was the control mechanism for the Government.

However, my investigations have shown that the Administrative Court deals with (shall we say) day to day issues and adjudicates accordingly.

The Constitutional Court limits itself to matters concerning the Constitution.

My reading matter, including the Wikipedia article on the Constitutional Court of Thailand, agrees that the CC has assumed that status, although there is much debate as to whether they should.

So like it or not, the CC is exercising the scope of its powers correctly.

So the outstanding argument is "should they have got involved?".

IMHO there's no point arguing that they made a judgement that was in their remit.

IMHO, the common- sense balance of their adjudication shows their value. I hope any replacement control mechanism can show the same impartiality

Well the "common- sense balance of their adjudication", in your opinion that is, has led to a situation where anyone in the country can now make a spurious claim of Article 68 on any action the government takes that "may" threaten the overthrow of the constitution with the King as it's Head of State etc.

This means that the CC can be called in to affect/slow down/halt the parliamentary process at the drop of a hat - or more

precisely somebody "assuming" that the goverment is doing "something" or "may be doing something in the future" or "thinking about doing" or "thinking about doing something in the future" that "may" involve the overthrow of the State can maliciously involve the CC in a sphere they should have no influence over. They are now officially political (as if they weren't before).

The Balance of Power has been tipped - it was alreadly listing heavily after the Junta written constitution - but now it's time to man the lifeboats - Rule by Law has arrived and it's not the government that is doing it.

But you're fine with that? - time to move beyond Wiki................

You seem to share some attributes of the ruling party - an obsession with going round in circles rather than actually achieve anything.

My points were factual

The current state of the Thai Constitution is that the CC controls changes to the Constitution. Correct me.

My comment that the CC assumed their powers by means which has not been fully accepted. By the Supreme Administrative Court, not TVF posters. Correct me.

My comment that the CC made a judgement that was in their remit. Correct me.

My comment that their is an outstanding query as to whether it should have been passed to the CC. Agreed or not.

Now I would love to go to my grave wearing my "Phiphidon thinks I'm worthy of posting on TVF", but perhaps I've better things to do.

You apparently know everything. Your inability to think outside your box is obvious.

I hope you are happy when the ruling party has thrown away it's chance take Thailand forward by using its majority to do good for Thailand.

Changing a Constitution for reasons which don't benefit Thailand doesn't seem a high priority

My points are each -In My Humble Opinion.

If you want to get stressed feel free. I'm thinking of Thailand, and its future.

If my not having perfect knowledge doesn't meet your standards or match your opinions - tough. Give the badge to someone else.

[Noistar]

Good try Thaddeus.

Join the rest of us in the naughty boy's corner

[Noistar]

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?

The question will never be answered. All the time people are involved there can be no 100% reliable system

Administration is things pertaining to just that the Cabinet and Ministries work.

The Administration court deals with subjects pertaining to Adminstrative bodies.

Not to the non-administrative bodies.

The Constitution Court deals with anything of a Constitutional question.

There is nothing in the statue that says at what point it's remit commences,

so they have to make that determination, some may not like that,

but then the laws should have been writen better, to not need interpretations.

But since laws and Constitutions are often done by compromises that have

little rational thought and great partisan leanings, the idea of a Body needed

to interpret badly written statute is obvious.

Perfectly satisfactory for those that are not getting the short end of those interpretations.

As Karl Popper noted;

" Nothing can be said that is not open to misinterpretation."

Laws especially fit this axiom.

Dare I say 'good post'?

Pending confirmation I will

While I put my life on hold I browsed through the:

National Report of Thailand

"Review of Administrative Decisions of Government by the Administrative Court of Thailand"

Report to the 10th Congress of IASAJ Sydney Australia March 2010

I thought I'd better refer to something other than wiki.

In the document are various references to the 2007 Constitution tightening up legal definitions which were originally part of the 1997 Constitution. Obviously there is more to this 'bedtime reading', but I thought some support of your points may be necessary

[Noistar]

feel free to add your name to the list. Rubl, UYunla, Rman...

excellent post!!! reading the DPM has come out with some great potential amendments to the Constitution today and let's hope he can get this through - what a wonderful day for Thailand it would be REAL progress at last and, if successful, a lasting legacy for the PTP.

Still on topic for my question:

What is preventing the ruling party from governing and actually helping Thailand with the current Constitution?

Edited July 25, 2012 by Noistar

[tlansford]

feel free to add your name to the list. Rubl, UYunla, Rman...

excellent post!!! reading the DPM has come out with some great potential amendments to the Constitution today and let's hope he can get this through - what a wonderful day for Thailand it would be REAL progress at last and, if successful, a lasting legacy for the PTP.

Still on topic for my question:

What is preventing the ruling party from governing and actually helping Thailand with the current Constitution?

Changing the constitution is part of the promises made by the ruling party as part of their platform to govern. Surely improvements to the constitution could be considered part of governing and also beneficial to Thailand, could it not?

Some proponents of the 2007 charter argued that people should support the charter at the time, precisely because it could be changed (ie: improved) later.

And although it might seem like it sometimes on TV, this is not the only thing happening in government at the moment, so an accurate reply to your question,

"What is preventing the ruling party from governing and actually helping Thailand with the current Constitution?"

would be "nothing" as that is what is currently happening day to day.

[Moruya]

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/

So a "nobody can talk to us apart from the OAG" stance is more natural?

[7by7]

Some posts have been deleted, and I'm sure had I the time to trawl through all of this topic i would find more just as bad.

If you can't post and behave like adults, don't post at all!

People have different opinions, live with it. Argue your corner by all means, but resorting to childish insults and the language of the playground will not be tolerated.

[binjalin]

feel free to add your name to the list. Rubl, UYunla, Rman...

excellent post!!! reading the DPM has come out with some great potential amendments to the Constitution today and let's hope he can get this through - what a wonderful day for Thailand it would be REAL progress at last and, if successful, a lasting legacy for the PTP.

Still on topic for my question:

What is preventing the ruling party from governing and actually helping Thailand with the current Constitution?

Changing the constitution is part of the promises made by the ruling party as part of their platform to govern. Surely improvements to the constitution could be considered part of governing and also beneficial to Thailand, could it not?

Some proponents of the 2007 charter argued that people should support the charter at the time, precisely because it could be changed (ie: improved) later.

And although it might seem like it sometimes on TV, this is not the only thing happening in government at the moment, so an accurate reply to your question,

"What is preventing the ruling party from governing and actually helping Thailand with the current Constitution?"

would be "nothing" as that is what is currently happening day to day.

yes and progress is happening and I think they are making HUGE progress and I think the Thai people think so too - reform the constitution and Thailand will be heading to a bold future away from the repressed past

[Reasonableman]

You have the right to your opinion. Others apparently disagree, as is their right. Have a great day.

[phiphidon]

Phiphidon's reply to my earlier post was that the Administrative Court was the control mechanism for the Government.

However, my investigations have shown that the Administrative Court deals with (shall we say) day to day issues and adjudicates accordingly.

The Constitutional Court limits itself to matters concerning the Constitution.

My reading matter, including the Wikipedia article on the Constitutional Court of Thailand, agrees that the CC has assumed that status, although there is much debate as to whether they should.

So like it or not, the CC is exercising the scope of its powers correctly.

So the outstanding argument is "should they have got involved?".

IMHO there's no point arguing that they made a judgement that was in their remit.

IMHO, the common- sense balance of their adjudication shows their value. I hope any replacement control mechanism can show the same impartiality

Well the "common- sense balance of their adjudication", in your opinion that is, has led to a situation where anyone in the country can now make a spurious claim of Article 68 on any action the government takes that "may" threaten the overthrow of the constitution with the King as it's Head of State etc.

This means that the CC can be called in to affect/slow down/halt the parliamentary process at the drop of a hat - or more

precisely somebody "assuming" that the goverment is doing "something" or "may be doing something in the future" or "thinking about doing" or "thinking about doing something in the future" that "may" involve the overthrow of the State can maliciously involve the CC in a sphere they should have no influence over. They are now officially political (as if they weren't before).

The Balance of Power has been tipped - it was alreadly listing heavily after the Junta written constitution - but now it's time to man the lifeboats - Rule by Law has arrived and it's not the government that is doing it.

But you're fine with that? - time to move beyond Wiki................

You seem to share some attributes of the ruling party - an obsession with going round in circles rather than actually achieve anything.

My points were factual

The current state of the Thai Constitution is that the CC controls changes to the Constitution. Correct me.

My comment that the CC assumed their powers by means which has not been fully accepted. By the Supreme Administrative Court, not TVF posters. Correct me.

My comment that the CC made a judgement that was in their remit. Correct me.

My comment that their is an outstanding query as to whether it should have been passed to the CC. Agreed or not.

Now I would love to go to my grave wearing my "Phiphidon thinks I'm worthy of posting on TVF", but perhaps I've better things to do.

You apparently know everything. Your inability to think outside your box is obvious.

I hope you are happy when the ruling party has thrown away it's chance take Thailand forward by using its majority to do good for Thailand.

Changing a Constitution for reasons which don't benefit Thailand doesn't seem a high priority

My points are each -In My Humble Opinion.

If you want to get stressed feel free. I'm thinking of Thailand, and its future.

If my not having perfect knowledge doesn't meet your standards or match your opinions - tough. Give the badge to someone else.

Well apparently someone seems to be having a bad day and my post has been removed. I'm not going to waste my time answering you again.

[Thaddeus]

Good try Thaddeus.

Join the rest of us in the naughty boy's corner

Being ignored or blanked is fine by me, do I sweat or fret when a poster who proclaims himself to be fluent in Thai, completely ignores or avoids giving his opinion on a vid clip in Thai, no, am I fazed by posters who try to compare their version of events gleaned only from news reports which differ just a little bit from people who were actually there, no.

Am I peeved in the slightest by some who resort to he said she said tactics by those who are clutching on to a failed supposition.

Am I even slightly narked by those who failing to gain ground on a rational discussion resort in name calling, inferred insults, or heaven forbid, spelling mistakes.

If I were to divide the posters who lean towards the red side here, they would fall in to these groups.

The Champaign Socialists..... zero experience of living on the bread line, zero knowledge of living on the bread line, never set foot in the real world, but try to make themselves feel more human by showing false sympathy for the poor, who they really don't want to meet in real life, just park the car dear chap, and blow your whistle if it makes you happy, toot toot.

I said groups didn't I, got that wrong, not a plural.

[nurofiend]

Good try Thaddeus.

Join the rest of us in the naughty boy's corner

Being ignored or blanked is fine by me, do I sweat or fret when a poster who proclaims himself to be fluent in Thai, completely ignores or avoids giving his opinion on a vid clip in Thai, no, am I fazed by posters who try to compare their version of events gleaned only from news reports which differ just a little bit from people who were actually there, no.

Am I peeved in the slightest by some who resort to he said she said tactics by those who are clutching on to a failed supposition.

Am I even slightly narked by those who failing to gain ground on a rational discussion resort in name calling, inferred insults, or heaven forbid, spelling mistakes.

If I were to divide the posters who lean towards the red side here, they would fall in to these groups.

The Champaign Socialists..... zero experience of living on the bread line, zero knowledge of living on the bread line, never set foot in the real world, but try to make themselves feel more human by showing false sympathy for the poor, who they really don't want to meet in real life, just park the car dear chap, and blow your whistle if it makes you happy, toot toot.

I said groups didn't I, got that wrong, not a plural.

The Champaign Socialists..... zero experience of living on the bread line, zero knowledge of living on the bread line, never set foot in the real world, but try to make themselves feel more human by showing false sympathy for the poor, who they really don't want to meet in real life, just park the car dear chap, and blow your whistle if it makes you happy, toot toot.

what a troll post if ever i saw one

[Reasonableman]

Added to which they don't even live in Thailand, have no commitment, no stake, no home here, no family here, no job here, no life here at all, safely ensconced in another country drinking coffee over their keyboards and amusing themselves lobbing cheap propagandist potshots at the residents... and these people are in it for....... What? Do tell.......

[nurofiend]

lolololol, who are ye talking about?

how in the hell do you know posters own personal business?

god guy's ye're really taking the pathetic level up a notch tonight.

[Reasonableman]

lolololol, who are ye talking about?

how in the hell do you know posters own personal business?

god guy's ye're really taking the pathetic level up a notch tonight.

Do tell...

[nurofiend]

lolololol, who are ye talking about?

how in the hell do you know posters own personal business?

god guy's ye're really taking the pathetic level up a notch tonight.

Do tell...

do tell what?

[nurofiend]

yeah, that's what i thought...

[Thaddeus]

Good try Thaddeus.

Join the rest of us in the naughty boy's corner

Being ignored or blanked is fine by me, do I sweat or fret when a poster who proclaims himself to be fluent in Thai, completely ignores or avoids giving his opinion on a vid clip in Thai, no, am I fazed by posters who try to compare their version of events gleaned only from news reports which differ just a little bit from people who were actually there, no.

Am I peeved in the slightest by some who resort to he said she said tactics by those who are clutching on to a failed supposition.

Am I even slightly narked by those who failing to gain ground on a rational discussion resort in name calling, inferred insults, or heaven forbid, spelling mistakes.

If I were to divide the posters who lean towards the red side here, they would fall in to these groups.

The Champaign Socialists..... zero experience of living on the bread line, zero knowledge of living on the bread line, never set foot in the real world, but try to make themselves feel more human by showing false sympathy for the poor, who they really don't want to meet in real life, just park the car dear chap, and blow your whistle if it makes you happy, toot toot.

I said groups didn't I, got that wrong, not a plural.

The Champaign Socialists..... zero experience of living on the bread line, zero knowledge of living on the bread line, never set foot in the real world, but try to make themselves feel more human by showing false sympathy for the poor, who they really don't want to meet in real life, just park the car dear chap, and blow your whistle if it makes you happy, toot toot.

what a troll post if ever i saw one

Pathetic, 0/10..... do not see me...... under any circumstances.

[nurofiend]

LOL

[Thaddeus]

I preferred it when we had abs like ROTFLMAO or LSHIPM.

That required more effort than LOL

If you can't even put some effort in to a proper retort, don't bother.

[tlansford]

feel free to add your name to the list. Rubl, UYunla, Rman...

excellent post!!! reading the DPM has come out with some great potential amendments to the Constitution today and let's hope he can get this through - what a wonderful day for Thailand it would be REAL progress at last and, if successful, a lasting legacy for the PTP.

Still on topic for my question:

What is preventing the ruling party from governing and actually helping Thailand with the current Constitution?

Changing the constitution is part of the promises made by the ruling party as part of their platform to govern. Surely improvements to the constitution could be considered part of governing and also beneficial to Thailand, could it not?

Some proponents of the 2007 charter argued that people should support the charter at the time, precisely because it could be changed (ie: improved) later.

And although it might seem like it sometimes on TV, this is not the only thing happening in government at the moment, so an accurate reply to your question,

"What is preventing the ruling party from governing and actually helping Thailand with the current Constitution?"

would be "nothing" as that is what is currently happening day to day.

yes and progress is happening and I think they are making HUGE progress and I think the Thai people think so too - reform the constitution and Thailand will be heading to a bold future away from the repressed past

Apparently Thai people think so - at least a recent poll showed that the PM has 66% support...

[Thaddeus]

yes and progress is happening and I think they are making HUGE progress and I think the Thai people think so too - reform the constitution and Thailand will be heading to a bold future away from the repressed past

Apparently Thai people think so - at least a recent poll showed that the PM has 66% support...

I love polls, I think they are great and they can be a good reflection on how people feel, especially if the questions asked are not intended to direct to a particular answer that the questioner wants.

There will only be one poll in the future that will count, with only one question.

Do you want the constitution to be rewritten?

Yes or No.

Let's have that one and see what the percentage is.

[rubl]

yes and progress is happening and I think they are making HUGE progress and I think the Thai people think so too - reform the constitution and Thailand will be heading to a bold future away from the repressed past

Apparently Thai people think so - at least a recent poll showed that the PM has 66% support...

It's funny to have this continuous nonsense on the Constitutional Court not functioning as some would like it to roll over and this morning in another thread w can read that Dept. PM Pol. Captain Chalerm sees nothing wrong with the national police chief Pol Gen Priewpan Damapong visiting his ex-brother-in-law Thaksin to congratulate him with his birthday; and k. Chalerm even intends to ask what they talked about.

Oh yes, this government is making huge progress

[animatic]

quote name='phiphidon' timestamp='1343063045' post='5512395'

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?

The question will never be answered. All the time people are involved there can be no 100% reliable system

Administration is things pertaining to just that the Cabinet and Ministries work.

The Administration court deals with subjects pertaining to Adminstrative bodies.

Not to the non-administrative bodies.

The Constitution Court deals with anything of a Constitutional question.

There is nothing in the statue that says at what point it's remit commences,

so they have to make that determination, some may not like that,

but then the laws should have been writen better, to not need interpretations.

But since laws and Constitutions are often done by compromises that have

little rational thought and great partisan leanings, the idea of a Body needed

to interpret badly written statute is obvious.

Perfectly satisfactory for those that are not getting the short end of those interpretations.

As Karl Popper noted;

" Nothing can be said that is not open to misinterpretation."

Laws especially fit this axiom.

Dare I say 'good post'?

Pending confirmation I will

While I put my life on hold I browsed through the:

National Report of Thailand

"Review of Administrative Decisions of Government by the Administrative Court of Thailand"

Report to the 10th Congress of IASAJ Sydney Australia March 2010

I thought I'd better refer to something other than wiki.

In the document are various references to the 2007 Constitution tightening up legal definitions which were originally part of the 1997 Constitution. Obviously there is more to this 'bedtime reading', but I thought some support of your points may be necessary

Thak you for the support of the points.

Another excellent Karl Popper quote, which seems so poignent in Thai politics.

"

No rational argument will have a rational effect

on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude."

[binjalin]

Added to which they don't even live in Thailand, have no commitment, no stake, no home here, no family here, no job here, no life here at all, safely ensconced in another country drinking coffee over their keyboards and amusing themselves lobbing cheap propagandist potshots at the residents... and these people are in it for....... What? Do tell.......

'they'? I have lived here for years and traveled extensively in Thailand and have many friends here. If you are referring tp some posters then I would have to agree (for once) that living here and having a 'stake' here does give a better perspective AND I respect the commentary more but (and you won't like this bit) most of 'those' are in the yellow/traditionalist/don't like change to 'their' Thailand camp yes, as you say, don't live here.

[rubl]

Added to which they don't even live in Thailand, have no commitment, no stake, no home here, no family here, no job here, no life here at all, safely ensconced in another country drinking coffee over their keyboards and amusing themselves lobbing cheap propagandist potshots at the residents... and these people are in it for....... What? Do tell.......

'they'? I have lived here for years and traveled extensively in Thailand and have many friends here. If you are referring tp some posters then I would have to agree (for once) that living here and having a 'stake' here does give a better perspective AND I respect the commentary more but (and you won't like this bit) most of 'those' are in the yellow/traditionalist/don't like change to 'their' Thailand camp yes, as you say, don't live here.

If I read correctly, you're saying

"living here and having a 'stake' here does give a better perspective AND I respect the commentary more" followed by

"most of those ... yes, as you say, don't live here".

IMHO most with a stake here are concerned and would like to see the country move forward. To put a colour to it seems somewhat misleading and doesn't help much in discussions.

[binjalin]

Added to which they don't even live in Thailand, have no commitment, no stake, no home here, no family here, no job here, no life here at all, safely ensconced in another country drinking coffee over their keyboards and amusing themselves lobbing cheap propagandist potshots at the residents... and these people are in it for....... What? Do tell.......

'they'? I have lived here for years and traveled extensively in Thailand and have many friends here. If you are referring tp some posters then I would have to agree (for once) that living here and having a 'stake' here does give a better perspective AND I respect the commentary more but (and you won't like this bit) most of 'those' are in the yellow/traditionalist/don't like change to 'their' Thailand camp yes, as you say, don't live here.

If I read correctly, you're saying

"living here and having a 'stake' here does give a better perspective AND I respect the commentary more" followed by

"most of those ... yes, as you say, don't live here".

IMHO most with a stake here are concerned and would like to see the country move forward. To put a colour to it seems somewhat misleading and doesn't help much in discussions.

Good morning - well I do respect more opinions and debate, on both sides, from folk who live here. It has been my perception that many who are staunch defenders of the 'don't like change/won't change' love and want Thailand to be stuck in the Dark Ages and tend to be ultra-conservative, right wing and support the yellow cause - often VERY vocally.

It has been my observation that farang are staunchly more right wing than most Thais - many of my farang friends are yellow supporters - and they are all relatively wealthy (compared to most Thais) and are 'protective' of that position. They are AGHAST that I am more sympathetic to the red cause and I actually care what happens to the poor here and so, as on TVF, we argue a lot.

It's about development and change vs. traditionalism and conservatism

[rixalex]

They are AGHAST that I am more sympathetic to the red cause and I actually care what happens to the poor here and so, as on TVF, we argue a lot.

As much as i may disagree with some of the members here, i don't think any of us would spend so much time and argue so passionately, if we didn't care about what happens to the poor here. If you have friends who don't, my advise would be, find new friends.

The reason why i am not sympathetic to the red cause, is funnily enough the same reason why you are. I care about what happens to the poor. The red cause does not (much like the yellow cause).

[rubl]

'they'? I have lived here for years and traveled extensively in Thailand and have many friends here. If you are referring tp some posters then I would have to agree (for once) that living here and having a 'stake' here does give a better perspective AND I respect the commentary more but (and you won't like this bit) most of 'those' are in the yellow/traditionalist/don't like change to 'their' Thailand camp yes, as you say, don't live here.

If I read correctly, you're saying

"living here and having a 'stake' here does give a better perspective AND I respect the commentary more" followed by

"most of those ... yes, as you say, don't live here".

IMHO most with a stake here are concerned and would like to see the country move forward. To put a colour to it seems somewhat misleading and doesn't help much in discussions.

Good morning - well I do respect more opinions and debate, on both sides, from folk who live here. It has been my perception that many who are staunch defenders of the 'don't like change/won't change' love and want Thailand to be stuck in the Dark Ages and tend to be ultra-conservative, right wing and support the yellow cause - often VERY vocally.

It has been my observation that farang are staunchly more right wing than most Thais - many of my farang friends are yellow supporters - and they are all relatively wealthy (compared to most Thais) and are 'protective' of that position. They are AGHAST that I am more sympathetic to the red cause and I actually care what happens to the poor here and so, as on TVF, we argue a lot.

It's about development and change vs. traditionalism and conservatism

I think you missed my point on your quote. Let's try again

"living here and having a 'stake' here

==> does give a better perspective AND I respect the commentary more"

==>"most of those ... yes, as you say, don't live here".

That raises the question as to where the heck do they live if here and not here?

[jerrysteve]

It seems the people on both sides cannot determine their rectums from a hole in the ground. Every ones an expert. I believe this is the old

old missouri waltz...3 steps forward and 4 steps backwards.