Coup Makers Cannot Be Above The Law

[Lite Beer]

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

'Coup makers cannot be above the law'

Kanittha Thepphajorn,

Olan Lertrudtanadumrongkul,

Somruitai Sapsomboon

The Nation on Sunday

Somsak

BANGKOK: -- Speaker Somsak Kiartsuranon says Article 309 of the Charter has to go

House Speaker Somsak Kiartsuranon told The Nation in an exclusive interview that the Yingluck Shinawatra administration should not sail against public sentiment and must hold a referendum on charter amendments and more. Excerpts:

Q : Do you believe astrologers who predicted that politics will be chaotic next year?

A : I'm not worried that politics will be even more chaotic as things have been hard in this passing year, be it the constitutional amendment or the national reconciliation issue. On charter amendment, it has become clear that the public must be consulted in a referendum. That means taking time explaining without hurry and not forcing it.

As for national reconciliation, the government should apply the same principle as in approaching the charter amendment issue. Let us not believe any fortune-teller, as I have data with me. I believe politics will not be tense next year but since politics is unpredictable, we can never be too sure.

Q : What about the fear that the charter referendum will not be approved by voters?

There's no other good choice except to hold a referendum. I am confident of 50 per cent [voting], in regard to the chance of the referendum to amend the charter being endorsed by the voters. Although [fugitive former premier] Thaksin [shinawatra] said it would be a piece of cake to have the referendum approved, but my experience suggests otherwise.

It's not going to be easy because the opponents will come up and campaign against it.

The big mystery, however, is whether the government can proceed with charter amendment if a majority of the voters support the amendment but the number of voters falls short of what is required by the referendum law.

Q : Will the referendum result be binding on MPs' decision in regard to charter amendment?

A : As for the government, it will be binding because they have asked the people - [and] if the people say turn left but the government turns right, they must answer to the people. But nothing indicates how the MPs will vote, but MPs, as representatives of the people, will have to answer to the people too.

Q : Do you agree with the view that Section 309 is the heart of the charter amendment?

A : Yes, because it states that coup makers and its network can do no wrong and nothing can be done against them retroactively. This severely goes against democratic principle. Only the King is above the Constitution and no one else has such right to be above the Constitution. Let me ask, if MPs want to put a section in the charter saying they can do no long, are you willing to accept it?

Section 309 has always been used to destroy [the] People's Power Party.

Q : Please analyse why opponents see amending section 309 as being linked to Thaksin?

A : All sides must reduce their stubbornness and personal interests. As for section 309, it has been cited with misgiving. It's untrue that Thaksin will benefit from it and escape from his two-year prison sentence, as charged by the Democrat Party, as legal sentences cannot be undone retroactively.

Q : Are the issues of charter amendment and reconciliation hot potatoes for the government? Will it affect the government's stability?

A : There should be no forcing of the issues. This will be difficult for the opposition to go against. They have called for a referendum, now that it's going to be done, what else can [the opposition] ask? Things won't be rushed this time round. As for the reconciliation bill, it will be considered when it's appropriate.

Q : Do you think a new charter can reduce or solve political conflicts?

A : Political conflicts will not perish no matter what. But we can reduce it to a minimum by adhering to what is right and just. So the charter must be right and just and not enable one side to do whatever and consider it right and vice versa.

Q : When the 2007 charter was being drafted, it was defined as a charter for national reform, what will it be described as this time?

A : The drafting assembly will come from people from throughout the country - 77 from [all provinces] plus 22 [experts] that will never have a defining number of votes. So the 77 drafters who have been selected by the people will be the voices that will truly determine the direction of Thailand. If successful, it will become "the people's constitution", much like the 1997 charter.

Q : How will the next charter look and be democratic?

It's up to the people. Ask a citizen, I expect it not to be against democratic principles and to provide as much chance for people to participate.

-- The Nation 2012-12-30

[LaoPo]

Of course the Coup Makers cannot be above the law. NEVER!

Look at Chile, Greece, Egypt the Philippines, Indonesia, Iraq, Tunisia, Lybia and now Syria and many more examples of coup makers and/or tyrants who twisted the laws and constitutions to their own will and benefit

One way or another, the people and democracy will always call them to stand trial and explain their moves, never mind the people who voted "yes" for the amendment of the 2007 charter which was misleading in the first place but drafted solely for the benefit of the Coup Makers.

JUSTICE IS CALLING!

[Time Traveller]

Of course the Coup Makers cannot be above the law. NEVER!

Look at Chile, Greece, Egypt the Philippines, Indonesia, Iraq, Tunisia, Lybia and now Syria and many more examples of coup makers and/or tyrants who twisted the laws and constitutions to their own will and benefit

One way or another, the people and democracy will always call them to stand trial and explain their moves, never mind the people who voted "yes" for the amendment of the 2007 charter which was misleading in the first place but drafted solely for the benefit of the Coup Makers.

JUSTICE IS CALLING!

Have to tell you they already are. It's in the constitution

[LaoPo]

Of course the Coup Makers cannot be above the law. NEVER!

Look at Chile, Greece, Egypt the Philippines, Indonesia, Iraq, Tunisia, Lybia and now Syria and many more examples of coup makers and/or tyrants who twisted the laws and constitutions to their own will and benefit

One way or another, the people and democracy will always call them to stand trial and explain their moves, never mind the people who voted "yes" for the amendment of the 2007 charter which was misleading in the first place but drafted solely for the benefit of the Coup Makers.

JUSTICE IS CALLING!

Have to tell you they already are. It's in the constitution

Exactly; the constitution of the Coup Makers...declaring themselves "above the law".

Sooner or later that will be changed in an amendment to the Constitution.

Or have people forgotten about the Generals in Argentina who declared themselves above all laws also?

[edwinchester]

Interesting that Yingluck is saying Taksins conviction and sentence cannot be undone by getting rid of 309.

Even more need for a general amnesty in that case.

[waza]

Somsak Kiartsuranon "The Hammer Man" he holds a Bachelor's degree from the Khon Kaen University, and a Master's degree from the Chulalongkorn University in engineering. No background in constitutional law so I guess we can take his statement as uneducated opinion not a statement of fact.

This is the same guy whos controversial seven million baht tax payer funded 3 country trip with a party of his closest aides and 39 reporters and his wife and daughter Ploypailin. Other members whom he brought along and made his trip more controversial were Pheu Thai party-list MP Puwanida Khuplin and her two aides. The media members he invited are not Parliament-beat reporters but those known to have close ties with the government and sports media led by Chakrapan Yomchinda, his wife and daughter.

It was called an academic study tour to observe water management systems. However,parliament officials and journalists noted that reservations for English Premier League matches in London, museum visits, visits to the Economist and BBC Broadcasting House the French Parliament, Louvre Museum in Paris and a dinner cruise on the Seine made it seem more like a tourist jaunt than a study tour.

Somsack justified it by saying "it was useful and worth doing again".

Edited December 30, 2012 by waza

[OzMick]

If "coup makers" cannot be above the law, why should those charges with serious crimes be allowed to be appointed (NOT elected) as MPs allowing their charges to be delayed almost indefinitely? Why should they be allowed "political excuses" to deny attendance for capital charges court cases during parliamentary breaks, the only time there can be any proceedings?

[scorecard]

Somsak says:

Q : Please analyse why opponents see amending section 309 as being linked to Thaksin?

A : All sides must reduce their stubbornness and personal interests. As for section 309, it has been cited with misgiving. It's untrue that Thaksin will benefit from it and escape from his two-year prison sentence, as charged by the Democrat Party, as legal sentences cannot be undone retroactively.

Section 309

(protecting coup makers)

has always been used to destroy [the] People's Power Party.

Comment:

- If section 309 is removed, then we need to see another or an enhanced section which strongly stops / prohibits leaders / individuals / parties from gaining too much power.

The most obvious should be a limit of 4 years for one leader who cannot ever be re-elected (no matter what the process of deciding which party / which coalition / which leaders is.

Also let's see the Electoral Commission become much more professional and with more teeth, and staffed by credible people, and electoral laws which can easily identify and punish vote buying.

Also let's see electoral laws which require that parties have a detailed and publically broadcast manifesto.

And electoral laws which require a number of forms of public debate, with activities (by law) which require active public participation.

And electoral laws which require that all materials handed out by parties / candidates are filed with the electoral commission and put on a public website.

- Somsak says removing section 309 will not cancel the 2 year convicion of the paymaster.

- Meanwhile there is renewed push for amnesty (as a seperate action to changing the constitution), which no doubt would include the paymaster.

- And you can bet your bottom dollar there is already detailed back room discussion of other strategies which could whitewash the paymaster, if needed.

- Somsak says: Section 309 (protecting coup makers) has always been used to destroy [the] People's Power Party.

Well sorry mr somsak, your not being balanced in that statement: the last coup makers tried to reinstate the Peoples Power, and fairly quickly. Unfortunately they were inept at this task.

Beware of the tricks behind the smokescreen.

[geriatrickid]

Somsak Kiartsuranon "The Hammer Man" he holds a Bachelor's degree from the Khon Kaen University, and a Master's degree from the Chulalongkorn University in engineering. No background in constitutional law so I guess we can take his statement as uneducated opinion not a statement of fact.

Correct as to education. However, PM Abhisit had no formal education in fiscal policy or law and yet there he was initiating fiscal policy and laws. Same for the current PM, right? The Speaker is served by qualified departmental staff and has access to outside legal counsel. He will have been briefed on the salient constitutional law issues. Please do not make the assumption that he is not informed. Considering the fact that the man is far better educated than the typical TVFer, why denigrate him , yet offer your uninformed opinion of how senior officials set policy?

Edited December 30, 2012 by geriatrickid

[BrianCR]

Somsak Kiartsuranon "The Hammer Man" he holds a Bachelor's degree from the Khon Kaen University, and a Master's degree from the Chulalongkorn University in engineering. No background in constitutional law so I guess we can take his statement as uneducated opinion not a statement of fact.

Correct as to education. However, PM Abhisit had no formal education in fiscal policy or law and yet there he was initiating fiscal policy and laws. Same for the current PM, right? The Speaker is served by qualified departmental staff and has access to outside legal counsel. He will have been briefed on the salient constitutional law issues. Please do not make the assumption that he is not informed. Considering the fact that the man is far better educated than the typical TVFer, why denigrate him , yet offer your uninformed opinion of how senior officials set policy?

Well said, if we all took serious notice of TV posters we would believe that they should be running not just Thailand but most other countries as well - remember Bush and Blair had no formal education (sic) in starting wars but with advice they successfully managed! TV posters should understand that for the main politicians are figureheads representing their voters with advice from civil servants (all of) who should be over qualified and experienced in their given subject!

[jerrysteve]

NEITHER can the Government ( the people in Parliment), Senior Thaksin, or the Heir of Red Bull and others like him ad-infinitum, BUT THEY ARE! Ab solutely New Here!!!!!!!!!!

[waza]

Somsak Kiartsuranon "The Hammer Man" he holds a Bachelor's degree from the Khon Kaen University, and a Master's degree from the Chulalongkorn University in engineering. No background in constitutional law so I guess we can take his statement as uneducated opinion not a statement of fact.

Correct as to education. However, PM Abhisit had no formal education in fiscal policy or law and yet there he was initiating fiscal policy and laws. Same for the current PM, right? The Speaker is served by qualified departmental staff and has access to outside legal counsel. He will have been briefed on the salient constitutional law issues. Please do not make the assumption that he is not informed. Considering the fact that the man is far better educated than the typical TVFer, why denigrate him , yet offer your uninformed opinion of how senior officials set policy?

Very confusing and hypocritical post GK. You make a broad assumption that he has a better education than the "typical" TVF member without any basis in fact. You then complain that I judge the man harshly while applying the same assessment to Abihist. Lastly you claim I offered an opinion of, "how senior officials set policy?" in the form of a question when I see no evidence of that in my post.

The cruxs of my post was that Somsak Kiartsuranon lacks credibility firstly because of the point I made previously and secondly because he, displays hypercrital judgement because he says the coup leaders shouldnt be above the law, while he is content to abuse public funds for a private jaunt. Which I believe could be construed as graft and corruption.

Edited December 30, 2012 by waza

[gatorsoft]

NEITHER can the Government ( the people in Parliment), Senior Thaksin, or the Heir of Red Bull and others like him ad-infinitum, BUT THEY ARE! Ab solutely New Here!!!!!!!!!!

It seems to me that efforts to change that culture should be applauded instead of criticized and ridiculed. The ubiquitous argument that if something was permitted to happen previously, it should continue to be permitted (eg: Thaksin got away with extra-judicial killings so why shouldn't Abhisit and Suthep) seems like a poor and childish argument that will keep Thailand forever in turmoil.

[whybother]

Seriously, what is the chance of the coup makers actually being charged with anything if the clause is removed?

There is only one reason why they want to remove this clause. And it's not about wanting to charge the coup makers.

[gatorsoft]

Seriously, what is the chance of the coup makers actually being charged with anything if the clause is removed?

There is only one reason why they want to remove this clause. And it's not about wanting to charge the coup makers.

Please explain further what the only one reason might be.

[whybother]

Seriously, what is the chance of the coup makers actually being charged with anything if the clause is removed?

There is only one reason why they want to remove this clause. And it's not about wanting to charge the coup makers.

Please explain further what the only one reason might be.

Oh plleeeeassee .... you're not that stupid.

[gatorsoft]

Seriously, what is the chance of the coup makers actually being charged with anything if the clause is removed?

There is only one reason why they want to remove this clause. And it's not about wanting to charge the coup makers.

Please explain further what the only one reason might be.

Oh plleeeeassee .... you're not that stupid.

So given a straightforward opportunity to state your position, that is the best you can do? Disappointing.

P.S. - You might be surprised how stupid I can be!

Edited December 30, 2012 by gatorsoft

[whybother]

So given a straightforward opportunity to state your position, that is the best you can do? Disappointing.

It would be disappointing if the answer wasn't so obvious.

[waza]

Seriously, what is the chance of the coup makers actually being charged with anything if the clause is removed?

There is only one reason why they want to remove this clause. And it's not about wanting to charge the coup makers.

Please explain further what the only one reason might be.

Oh plleeeeassee .... you're not that stupid.

I understood

Edited December 30, 2012 by waza

[gatorsoft]

Somsak Kiartsuranon "The Hammer Man" he holds a Bachelor's degree from the Khon Kaen University, and a Master's degree from the Chulalongkorn University in engineering. No background in constitutional law so I guess we can take his statement as uneducated opinion not a statement of fact.

Correct as to education. However, PM Abhisit had no formal education in fiscal policy or law and yet there he was initiating fiscal policy and laws. Same for the current PM, right? The Speaker is served by qualified departmental staff and has access to outside legal counsel. He will have been briefed on the salient constitutional law issues. Please do not make the assumption that he is not informed. Considering the fact that the man is far better educated than the typical TVFer, why denigrate him , yet offer your uninformed opinion of how senior officials set policy?

Very confusing and hypocritical post GK. You make a broad assumption that he has a better education than the "typical" TVF member without any basis in fact. You then complain that I judge the man harshly while applying the same assessment to Abihist. Lastly you claim I offered an opinion of, "how senior officials set policy?" in the form of a question when I see no evidence of that in my post.

The cruxs of my post was that Somsak Kiartsuranon lacks credibility firstly because of the point I made previously and secondly because he, displays hypercrital judgement because he says the coup leaders shouldnt be above the law, while he is content to abuse public funds for a private jaunt. Which I believe could be construed as graft and corruption.

I think the question mark was meant to accompany the question: why denigrate him?

[whybother]

So given a straightforward opportunity to state your position, that is the best you can do? Disappointing.

P.S. - You might be surprised how stupid I can be!

Here's a hint:

[waza]

Somsak Kiartsuranon "The Hammer Man" he holds a Bachelor's degree from the Khon Kaen University, and a Master's degree from the Chulalongkorn University in engineering. No background in constitutional law so I guess we can take his statement as uneducated opinion not a statement of fact.

Correct as to education. However, PM Abhisit had no formal education in fiscal policy or law and yet there he was initiating fiscal policy and laws. Same for the current PM, right? The Speaker is served by qualified departmental staff and has access to outside legal counsel. He will have been briefed on the salient constitutional law issues. Please do not make the assumption that he is not informed. Considering the fact that the man is far better educated than the typical TVFer, why denigrate him , yet offer your uninformed opinion of how senior officials set policy?

Very confusing and hypocritical post GK. You make a broad assumption that he has a better education than the "typical" TVF member without any basis in fact. You then complain that I judge the man harshly while applying the same assessment to Abihist. Lastly you claim I offered an opinion of, "how senior officials set policy?" in the form of a question when I see no evidence of that in my post.

The cruxs of my post was that Somsak Kiartsuranon lacks credibility firstly because of the point I made previously and secondly because he, displays hypercrital judgement because he says the coup leaders shouldnt be above the law, while he is content to abuse public funds for a private jaunt. Which I believe could be construed as graft and corruption.

I think the question mark was meant to accompany the question: why denigrate him?

Ah yes I see that now, just poor sentence construction. Thank you for the clarification.

[bigbamboo]

Quite right.

Coup makers should not be above the law. Neither should any politicians convicted of crimes against the state.

Edited December 30, 2012 by bigbamboo

[gatorsoft]

Quite right.

Coup makers should not be above the law. Neither should any politicians convicted of crimes against the state.

It's hard to see how anyone can argue against that.

[ramrod711]

Let me ask, if MPs want to put a section in the charter saying they can do no long, are you willing to accept it?

effectively, that is what Thailand has, the ridiculous law regarding charges while parliament is sitting has to go. I wonder if they will put that to a referendum?

[Hugo6]

by [changing] what the person in the interview says

Although [fugitive former premier] Thaksin [shinawatra] said it would be a piece of cake to have the referendum approved, but my experience suggests otherwise.

makes it clear that the nation just cant stop itself and just give the quote as it was given to them

[hellodolly]

Of course the Coup Makers cannot be above the law. NEVER!

Look at Chile, Greece, Egypt the Philippines, Indonesia, Iraq, Tunisia, Lybia and now Syria and many more examples of coup makers and/or tyrants who twisted the laws and constitutions to their own will and benefit

One way or another, the people and democracy will always call them to stand trial and explain their moves, never mind the people who voted "yes" for the amendment of the 2007 charter which was misleading in the first place but drafted solely for the benefit of the Coup Makers.

JUSTICE IS CALLING!

Have to tell you they already are. It's in the constitution

Exactly; the constitution of the Coup Makers...declaring themselves "above the law".

Sooner or later that will be changed in an amendment to the Constitution.

Or have people forgotten about the Generals in Argentina who declared themselves above all laws also?

Very similar to what we had with Thaksin.

[billd766]

A copy of both the 1997 and 2007 constitutions can be found in English by Googling for them.

Meanwhile here is Section 309 of the 2007 Constitution.

Section 309. Any act that its legality and constitutionality has been recognised by the Constitution of

the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2549, including all acts related therewith committed whether

before or after the date of promulgation of this Constitution shall be deemed constitutionally under

this Constitution.

Countersigned by:

Meechai Ruchuphan

President of the National Legislative Assembly

Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007 http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/1.html#C02

86

[hellodolly]

Well three questions.

1 If the 1997 charter was so wonderful how did Thaksin manage to come so close to being a dictator?

2 He states

" As for the reconciliation bill, it will be considered when it's appropriate.

Appropriate for what. Would not Reconciliation be appropriate today?

Or is it inconvenient to the PT at this time.

Makes one wonder what the conditions are that would make it appropriate.

3

He states

Q : Do you think a new charter can reduce or solve political conflicts?

A : Political conflicts will not perish no matter what. But we can reduce it to a minimum by adhering to what is right and just. So the charter must be right and just and not enable one side to do whatever and consider it right and vice versa.

Is he saying that what the PT is doing now will be made wrong?

[hellodolly]

A copy of both the 1997 and 2007 constitutions can be found in English by Googling for them.

Meanwhile here is Section 309 of the 2007 Constitution.

Section 309. Any act that its legality and constitutionality has been recognised by the Constitution of

the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2549, including all acts related therewith committed whether

before or after the date of promulgation of this Constitution shall be deemed constitutionally under

this Constitution.

Countersigned by:

Meechai Ruchuphan

President of the National Legislative Assembly

Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007 http://www.asianlii....2007/1.html#C02

86

If they take that out of the constitution does that mean they can go back and charge all leaders in past Coups?