Pheu Thai Statement To Target Court

[rubl]

Instead of a referendum we do things slightly different in the Netherlands. Not necessarily the best way, but it works nicely in a democratic system based on coalition and co-operation. Read and be amazed impressed (text in English)
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/nl00000_.html#C008_

[chainarong]

More and more a dictatorship. If judges don't do what we want they and their court are out, arsonists get cabinet posts and the DSI " investigates, sort of, then finds " as directed. The amnesty bill is now the only thing that matters as it benefits one person and it's orchestrated from overseas by that very person

300 elected members of the parliament, 300 elected lawmakers, make a statement. that sounds like peoples power to me and not like dictatorship.

In a Democracy The people have a referendum vote, they decide whether the constitution will be altered, not a load of self serving politicians .Zhou Zhou , you need to do a course in political science at a UNI in HK or Singapore, you need to understand there is no such thing as democracy in Thailand

You don't need to do a political science degree to know that Thailand has its own version of democracy.

The army and the amart wouldn't have it any other way.

yes, but ZhouZhou looks like he was educated in Thailand and needs all the help he can get.

[Locationthailand]

More and more a dictatorship. If judges don't do what we want they and their court are out, arsonists get cabinet posts and the DSI " investigates, sort of, then finds " as directed. The amnesty bill is now the only thing that matters as it benefits one person and it's orchestrated from overseas by that very person

300 elected members of the parliament, 300 elected lawmakers, make a statement. that sounds like peoples power to me and not like dictatorship.

Clarification - a party was elected and the members were 'appointed'. The 'election' was a democratic 'process' but the resulting actions of the members and their appointment was at the hands of a would be dictator.

[Locationthailand]

Since when can a political party reject or try to override a court? The arrogance and displayed ignorance of PTP has no boundaries.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Locationthailand

[chainarong]

Instead of a referendum we do things slightly different in the Netherlands. Not necessarily the best way, but it works nicely in a democratic system based on coalition and co-operation. Read and be amazed impressed (text in English)

http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/nl00000_.html#C008_

Yeah Ruby it's not as straight forward as I have mentioned in Oz, it go's to the house of review (Senate) any amendments added , back to the lower house to agree to the amendments then down to the Attorney General depart where the legal beavers poor over it for about twelve months , if any alterations, back it go's to both houses again, back and forth , until everyone is happy, then a vote is then taken to see if there will be a referendum from the people, about two, three years in the making ,not three months.Australia has had about six since federation ,only one has succeeded, That Say's something. Cheers C

[khunken]

Since when can a political party reject or try to override a court? The arrogance and displayed ignorance of PTP has no boundaries.

Members of the parliament are called LAWMAKERS for a reason.

A Constitutional Court is part of checks & balances in a democracy for a reason. You don't understand that which shows your shallow knowledge of democracy.

[philw]

Since when can a political party reject or try to override a court? The arrogance and displayed ignorance of PTP has no boundaries.

Members of the parliament are called LAWMAKERS for a reason.

A Constitutional Court is part of checks & balances in a democracy for a reason. You don't understand that which shows your shallow knowledge of democracy.

Self appointed checks and balances are not checks and balances.

An elected government has the right to adjust the administration and judiciary, provided they have parliamentary approval.

Who appoints most of the senate ????

Under the 2007 Constitution

The 2007 Constitution mandated that the Constitution Court consists of 9 justices, who serve for nine-year terms.

• Three justices are elected by a general assembly of Supreme Court judges by secret ballot from their own ranks.
• Two justices are elected by a general assembly of Administrative Court judges by secret ballot from their own ranks.
• Four justices (two experts in the field of law and two experts in

  the administration of state affairs) are nominated by a selection

  committee and confirmed by the Senate.^[4]

[khunken]

Since when can a political party reject or try to override a court? The arrogance and displayed ignorance of PTP has no boundaries.

Members of the parliament are called LAWMAKERS for a reason.

A Constitutional Court is part of checks & balances in a democracy for a reason. You don't understand that which shows your shallow knowledge of democracy.

Self appointed checks and balances are not checks and balances.

An elected government has the right to adjust the administration and judiciary, provided they have parliamentary approval.

Who appoints most of the senate ????

Under the 2007 Constitution

The 2007 Constitution mandated that the Constitution Court consists of 9 justices, who serve for nine-year terms.

• Three justices are elected by a general assembly of Supreme Court judges by secret ballot from their own ranks.
• Two justices are elected by a general assembly of Administrative Court judges by secret ballot from their own ranks.
• Four justices (two experts in the field of law and two experts in

  the administration of state affairs) are nominated by a selection

  committee and confirmed by the Senate.^[4]

No they don't and that is the crux of the matter. Allowing (corrupt) politicians to appoint judges is subverting the separation of power between the legislature & judiciary. This is of course what PTP wants and was one tactic used by Thaksin under his rule. Threatening the judges is as bad if not worse.

Their is nothing wrong with the way judges are appointed. Thailand is only partially democratic and needs time to evolve in working out how to strike a balance between (for example) a blindly voted senate (just an extension of the lower house) and an appointed senate (who does the appointing?).

[Thai at Heart]

Since when can a political party reject or try to override a court? The arrogance and displayed ignorance of PTP has no boundaries.

Members of the parliament are called LAWMAKERS for a reason.

A Constitutional Court is part of checks & balances in a democracy for a reason. You don't understand that which shows your shallow knowledge of democracy.

Self appointed checks and balances are not checks and balances.

An elected government has the right to adjust the administration and judiciary, provided they have parliamentary approval.

Who appoints most of the senate ????

Under the 2007 Constitution

The 2007 Constitution mandated that the Constitution Court consists of 9 justices, who serve for nine-year terms.

• Three justices are elected by a general assembly of Supreme Court judges by secret ballot from their own ranks.
• Two justices are elected by a general assembly of Administrative Court judges by secret ballot from their own ranks.
• Four justices (two experts in the field of law and two experts in

  the administration of state affairs) are nominated by a selection

  committee and confirmed by the Senate.^[4]

Thanks for this. Have never seen it written out like this.

Zero influence from any government and the majority appointed by the senate. At least the senate is elected. Oh poop, they did away with that didn't they.

[Thai at Heart]

Half of the Senate is appointed.half of the Senate is elected.

the PTP is up to a charter amendment so that all members of the senate get elected.

Abhisit calls that a threat to political stability and backward move and domocracy loving forum members think it is a dictatorship in the making.

I actually think it's ok that there is an appointed element. At the moment it is maybe too much for my liking. 35 % would be enough. They should run different terms for senators and parliament. They coulod even do it old British style and hand out gongs to successful people or people who have served the country and allow them to sit in there. The right to sit could be done on random ballot every few years.

Abhisit isn't allowed to have an opinion on anything that rolls back or alters anything according in the 2007 constitution. He would be rapidly out of a job.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[473geo]

Guys it is a hierachical system with the representatives voted in by the electorate on the bottom rung......Democracy?

[backtonormal]

PTP are of course free to petition the CC, just as the senator is free to lodge a complaint, but why are they so very afraid of what the CC might rule, when there is still every chance that the complaint will be rejected ?

They seem very eager to deny other peoples' democratic and legal rights, for a party which claims to fight for justice & freedom, now they're in-power !

Not that they're displaying Double-Standards, of course !

Because the cc is literally a law unto itself?

The constitution is a law unto itself, the constitutional court is an independent arbitrator who determine if a new law. legislation and amnesty bills are in accord with the constitution, in other words legal. I can understand how a follower of a convicted criminal and fugitive from justice would have little regard for legalities but the rule of law is the background of democracy that protects the rest of Thai society from criminal dictators like Thaksin.

Once I got to the bit in red I stopped because I knew you dont know what your talking about. Most of those sitting judges were in total agreement with the last constitution change by the army government that ousted Thaksin. Independent my brown hole. Time to sack these judges and bring in some new boys

[waza]

PTP are of course free to petition the CC, just as the senator is free to lodge a complaint, but why are they so very afraid of what the CC might rule, when there is still every chance that the complaint will be rejected ?

They seem very eager to deny other peoples' democratic and legal rights, for a party which claims to fight for justice & freedom, now they're in-power !

Not that they're displaying Double-Standards, of course !

Because the cc is literally a law unto itself?

The constitution is a law unto itself, the constitutional court is an independent arbitrator who determine if a new law. legislation and amnesty bills are in accord with the constitution, in other words legal. I can understand how a follower of a convicted criminal and fugitive from justice would have little regard for legalities but the rule of law is the background of democracy that protects the rest of Thai society from criminal dictators like Thaksin.

Once I got to the bit in red I stopped because I knew you dont know what your talking about. Most of those sitting judges were in total agreement with the last constitution change by the army government that ousted Thaksin. Independent my brown hole. Time to sack these judges and bring in some new boys

So I will ask you and your little brown hole, since you know it all. How many of the constitutional court judges have been in these positions since the coup?

Edited April 21, 2013 by waza

[khunken]

Half of the Senate is appointed.half of the Senate is elected.

the PTP is up to a charter amendment so that all members of the senate get elected.

Abhisit calls that a threat to political stability and backward move and domocracy loving forum members think it is a dictatorship in the making.

There it is..........What about Abhist? You should have gone for the double and began your post with, "I don't support Thaksin but"...................lol

Think about it.jpg

where is your problem when i simply state some facts?

Facts?

[Robby nz]

Once I got to the bit in red I stopped because I knew you dont know what your talking about. Most of those sitting judges were in total agreement with the last constitution change by the army government that ousted Thaksin. Independent my brown hole. Time to sack these judges and bring in some new boys

Could it possibly be that the judges were in total agreement with the last constitution change because they were good and addressed problems with the previous constitution?

[Ricardo]

PTP are of course free to petition the CC, just as the senator is free to lodge a complaint, but why are they so very afraid of what the CC might rule, when there is still every chance that the complaint will be rejected ?

They seem very eager to deny other peoples' democratic and legal rights, for a party which claims to fight for justice & freedom, now they're in-power !

Not that they're displaying Double-Standards, of course !

Because the cc is literally a law unto itself?

I don't think it's all that bad, that the judges on the CC should be a bit independent, rather than merely a rubber-stamp for (and appointed directly by) the government of the day.

Part of the necessary checks & balances, and all that.

Giving too much power to any government tends to be a bad thing, IMO.

[Thai at Heart]

PTP are of course free to petition the CC, just as the senator is free to lodge a complaint, but why are they so very afraid of what the CC might rule, when there is still every chance that the complaint will be rejected ?

They seem very eager to deny other peoples' democratic and legal rights, for a party which claims to fight for justice & freedom, now they're in-power !

Not that they're displaying Double-Standards, of course !

Because the cc is literally a law unto itself?

I don't think it's all that bad, that the judges on the CC should be a bit independent, rather than merely a rubber-stamp for (and appointed directly by) the government of the day.

Part of the necessary checks & balances, and all that.

Giving too much power to any government tends to be a bad thing, IMO.

They shouldn't be a rubber stamp, but at the moment (and in the last few months) it seems no one really knows when they can intercede or not.

People keep asking crazy questions of them such as policies possibly overthrowing the monarchy, with no hard proof, and they keep judging.

It's ok with me, but their role is a little confused and is possibly being abused also.

[khunken]

yes.

lets check:

Half of the Senate is appointed.half of the Senate is elected. - true.

the PTP is up to a charter amendment so that all members of the senate get elected. - true.

Abhisit calls that a threat to political stability - true.

forum members think it is a dictatorship in the making. - true.

please tell me where i was wrong.

There is not enough space to correct you & you wouldn't listen anyway.

Suffice to say that one of the above is a half-truth & two are lies..

You first statement is correct.

The second one omits the other amendments that PTP want, including preventing the CC from doing its job. A half-truth.

Third is not even a half truth. Abhisit has stated that the intimidation of the CC is a threat to democracy - that the topic. He has argued against the senate being fully elected - he didn't say this is a threat to democracy. A lie.

The fourth is another lie. Many forum members have experienced Thaksin's modus operandi when in power. Intimidation, attempts to stifle any check & balance, amnesty & use of money to achieve his ends are, taken together, a major threat to democracy.

That's enough of the chairman T's mantras from you today - for me.

[rubl]

As some posters here don't seem to have seen some or all of the 2007 constitution (and maybe not even from the holy 1997 version) let's post some links again :-)

1997 Constitution: http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/
2007 Constitution: http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/
some legal comments on the differences: http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

[rubl]

Too late to correct the post, but the 1997 link should be

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/1997/

[Ricardo]

Who needs a Constitution, or the Courts, when you have a majority-coalition, eh ?

Who needs checks-&-balances, regardless of whether the Reds or the Dems are in-power, one might wonder ?

Perhaps it's time for a well-meaning all-understanding impartial populist President, to sweep away all this democracy nonsense, and run things for the right peoples' interests instead !

But whoever might be willing to do the job ?

[dcutman]

BANGKOK: -- About 200 red shirts rallied outside the
Constitutional Court Monday, demanding all nine judges resign for
allegedly interfering in the affairs of the government's executive and
legislative branches.


The red shirts, who called themselves "brave prodemocracy people", began
the protest at noon. They were led by Pongpisit Khongsena and occupied
the road island in front of the Government Complex where the
Constitutional Court is located.


The protesters said they would rally for at least three days. The
Metropolitan Police dispatched a company of crowd control officers to
keep security at the site.


The red shirts claim that the Constitutional Court judges had caused rifts in society.

[dcutman]

power to the people? Or just another Red Shirt Mob? Hopefully they dont release personal info and threaten the judges like your hero Korkaew did.

[metisdead]

A number of trolling nonsense posts and replies have been removed.