Samak Disqualification Ruling Queried

[webfact]

POLITICS
Samak disqualification ruling queried
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Pro-government activist Ruangkrai Leekitwattana said on Monday he would be filing a complaint with the NCCC to probe if the Constitution Court misused Article 157 of the Criminal Code in issuing the ruling number 1213/2008 related to the disqualification of former PM Samak Sundaravej over a television cooking show.

He said he would submit evidence, a video clip featuring Constitution Court chairman Wasan Soypisudh talking about the Samak case on April 5, 2011 and at a seminar on March 15.

Ruangkrai said he suspected the court did not follow the law in delivering the ruling on the Samak case. Ruangkrai would also request the NCCC to decide if the ruling is invalid.

In his defence, Wasan said he had earlier mentioned the flaw in the ruling of the Samak case, which had to do with the format of the ruling and not the content. He added that the ruling was confusing, hard to understand and did not prioritise key topics but there was no flaw or deficiency in the content.

Meanwhile, Democrat deputy spokesman Rames Rattanachaweng accused Ruangkrai of trying to discredit the Constitution Court judges by moving to file a complaint against the court with the National Counter Corruption Commission over its ruling.

Rames said Ruangkrai should check the personal verdicts of nine Constitution Court judges before filing the complaint.


-- The Nation 2013-03-25

[webfact]

Senator files charge against Constitution Court judges over "careless" ruling

BANGKOK, 25 March 2013 (NNT) - A former appointed senator has filed charge against 9 Constitution Court judges over their ruling to disqualify former Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, following the court president's admission that the ruling was "careless" and "flawed".

Former appointed senator Ruangkrai Leekijwattana has submitted his complaint to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), together with what he believed to be evidence of Constitution Court judges' violation of Article 157 of the Criminal Code.

Article 157 of the Criminal Code states that any state official who "wrongfully exercises, or fails to exercise his functions, to the injury of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of one to ten years, or fined of 2,000-20,000 baht, or both".

The senator's move came after Constition Court President Wasan Soipisut had admitted in a seminar that the Constitution Court's ruling to disqualify Mr Samak from premiership was "careless" and "flawed".

-- NNT 2013-03-25

[A_Traveller]

The ability to have selective memory and perspective here is nothing short of miraculous.

A comment is made which in effect says the court looked at the law and the political situation before making a judgement.

So up in arms go the happy band of [redish] warriors.

Only problem is that comment is not far off paraphrasing the statement made about another case in 2001 where a judge noted that taking the law and the political situation [in that case the number of votes for TRT] was part of the decision process.

So I wonder if I should hold my breath for the above former Senator or others to leap into the fray of raising that case and the strikingly similar "political nature" of said judgement.

My guess is I might turn a rather fetching shade of blue before any such thing occurs.

Edited March 25, 2013 by A_Traveller

[ZhouZhou]

Senator Ruangkrai is also the guy who started the whole thing. It was Ruangkrai who filed the complaint that if Samak as PM also works for that cooking show it violates the constitution.

Edited March 25, 2013 by ZhouZhou

[GazR]

The ability to have selective memory and perspective here is nothing short of miraculous.

A comment is made which in effect says the court looked at the law and the political situation before making a judgement.

So up in arms go the happy band of [redish] warriors.

Only problem is that comment is not far off paraphrasing the statement made about another case in 2001 where a judge noted that taking the law and the political situation [in that case the number of votes for TRT] was part of the decision process.

So I wonder if I should hold my breath for the above former Senator or others to leap into the fray of raising that case and the strikingly similar "political nature" of said judgement.

My guess is I might turn a rather fetching shade of blue before any such thing occurs.

Re the 2001 Asset Concealment case against Thaksin: the Supreme Court did comment specifically on the case a few years afterwards, saying that "judges should know the law" i.e. the judges should have followed the law.

[animatic]

Of course this is the reality:

" ...Wasan said he had earlier mentioned the flaw in the ruling of the Samak case,

which had to do with the format of the ruling and not the content... "

They made a bad write up of a good decision.

So 'flawed in format' = badly written,

'not in content' = a correct decision.

Of course the legal brain surgeons here will try to re- parse this till the cows come home.

[Locationthailand]

Does anyone really care? Must be short on stories again.

[hellodolly]

Does anyone really care? Must be short on stories again.

That or Ruangkrai Leekijwattana is looking for publicity. Maybe he is trying to climb the ladder to get closer to a man in Dubai posterior.

[ZhouZhou]

Does anyone really care? Must be short on stories again.

That or Ruangkrai Leekijwattana is looking for publicity. Maybe he is trying to climb the ladder to get closer to a man in Dubai posterior.

he exercise his citizen rights and duties. he saw something that looks highly unlawfully to him so he is filing a complaint

[Thai at Heart]

I thought it was sort of illegal to critize a decision

[A_Traveller]

Yes that is on balance true the trick being used here is to use the Judge's statement outside the court to raise the possibility of an enquiry which as noted before could have been used in another case after public statements of Judges involved.

[rubl]

Does anyone really care? Must be short on stories again.

That or Ruangkrai Leekijwattana is looking for publicity. Maybe he is trying to climb the ladder to get closer to a man in Dubai posterior.

he exercise his citizen rights and duties. he saw something that looks highly unlawfully to him so he is filing a complaint

He'd better hurry because the government is getting serious about amending the constitutions articles and one of them is about citizens directly complaining

BTW "he saw something that looks highly unlawfully to him" is actually "he believed to be evidence of Constitution Court judges' violation of Article 157 of the Criminal Code", In his humble opinion, of course

Edited March 25, 2013 by rubl

[Thai at Heart]

Yes that is on balance true the trick being used here is to use the Judge's statement outside the court to raise the possibility of an enquiry which as noted before could have been used in another case after public statements of Judges involved.

I would take it quite personally if someone criticised my writing style. Expect a defamation come back

[Bluespunk]

He was guilty, accept it PT. Though to be fair this case is in line with your policy of rewriting everything in a PT favourable light. Stop it with this buffalo faeces and sort out the country's real problems. Act like a government and not a kid with their hand in the candy jar.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Bluespunk

[drdoom6996]

Really?????????? In this Soap Opera????????????????????????? This ain't NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ZhouZhou]

Does anyone really care? Must be short on stories again.

That or Ruangkrai Leekijwattana is looking for publicity. Maybe he is trying to climb the ladder to get closer to a man in Dubai posterior.

he exercise his citizen rights and duties. he saw something that looks highly unlawfully to him so he is filing a complaint

He'd better hurry because the government is getting serious about amending the constitutions articles and one of them is about citizens directly complaining:ermm:

BTW "he saw something that looks highly unlawfully to him" is actually "he believed to be evidence of Constitution Court judges' violation of Article 157 of the Criminal Code", In his humble opinion, of course:rolleyes:

i think he will left that for the mob.

Senator Ruangkrai is know for to spot the petite things and never fails to surprise with his observation skills when it comes to spot something that looks highly unlawfully to him.

He filed complaints against almost everybody and seems to do that since ages.

[bigbamboo]

The Samak disqualification was a bit petty by first and new world standards but this Thailand and Thai politics is nothing if not petty.

But to cite article 157 is a bit risky. Can't be too many Thai officials who haven't wrongly or failed to exercise their functions and as a result caused injury to another person?

[Noistar]

The Samak disqualification was a bit petty by first and new world standards but this Thailand and Thai politics is nothing if not petty.

But to cite article 157 is a bit risky. Can't be too many Thai officials who haven't wrongly or failed to exercise their functions and as a result caused injury to another person?

As you and many posters point out - we are 1st world people living in a 2nd world country and looking in total amazement at how things are run here.

Hence our contributions.

I am not anti-Thai, after all I live here with my Thai family. It doesn't stop me having frustrations along the lines of "what the....?"

IMHO of course

[animatic]

I thought it was sort of illegal to critize a decision

Not if you are one of the judges who made that decision,

and are discussing it in seminar about law.

Of course the other guy is twisting the judges words,

at least for propaganda if not actual legal redress.

He might not be on the same legal footing, read quicksand.