Constitutional Court Debate Is A Risky Proxy War: Thai Editorial

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
Constitutional Court debate is a risky proxy war
The Nation

Old wounds will be reopened if the government goes ahead with charter reform; perhaps a reason for it to think twice before taking that course

BANGKOK: -- Charter "reform" has always been a political time bomb. When it deals with sensitive matters like the powers of the Constitutional Court, the situation becomes potentially more explosive. And when lawmakers are hell bent on changing the highest law of the land at a time of deep national divisions, the danger increases.

Does the Constitutional Court have the power to pre-empt charter amendments? That sounds like a legitimate question, but just because it's probably legitimate does not mean that demanding an absolute answer "right now" won't open fresh wounds and compound Thailand's political strife. Perhaps an equally important question is whether Thais are prepared for another serious conflict.

In any democracy, we can expect this kind of showdown between Parliament and the guardians of constitutional values. Many people believe that Parliament is empowered to initiate and attempt any kind of constitutional amendment, including one that could lead to eventual abolishment of the existing charter itself. The other school of thought insists that Constitutional Court judges are supposed to protect the will of the charter when it is under threat.

So society has been divided. One side sees the judges as an autocratic clique rocking Thailand's democratic boat. According to this camp, if elected representatives of the people do not have the ultimate say on what political values to instil, the country's democracy is half-baked at best.

The other side considers the judges the last line of defence against abuse of a democratic mandate. This current so-called "charter reform" plan is no more than a thinly veiled attempt to whitewash the patriarch of the ruling party, Thaksin Shinawatra. This camp charges that only through constitutional changes can his post-coup corruption conviction be annulled and seizure of his massive wealth undone. Should an entirely new constitution be adopted to accommodate just one man?

The question of which side is right and which is wrong might not be as important as whether Thailand can "take it some more" - and right now. Hostility, relatively subdued when the charter issue remained under the surface, is heating up again. Thaksin has been belligerent, as have his cohorts and enemies alike.

Protests against the Constitutional Court, which has asserted its power to pre-empt the attempt to write a new constitution, are likely to intensify. The court's supporters have not yet poured into the streets, but they will when push comes to shove. Again, protests and counter-protests are common in any democracy, but the situation in Thailand is far from normal. Our "peace" remains simply too fragile.

Some analysts believe the government and Pheu Thai Party are in fact not that keen to rewrite the charter. No one in power wants to risk his position by implementing an agenda that is certain to spark an explosion. With power to wield on other matters and a massive budget to spend, no government would want to see angry mobs on the streets and its future on the line.

It must also be noted that Thaksin and his supporters made no attempt to challenge the Constitutional Court's action when it acquitted him of share-concealment in 2001, and that the existing charter is almost a replica of the 1997 "People's Charter" that he so publicly advocates. The difference, of course, is that the present Constitution contains clauses that directly affect his legal status and wealth.

"If this Constitution should not be changed now, when is the most appropriate time?" advocates of charter "reform" have been asking. "Any time but now" may be a blunt yet sensible answer. Granted, democracy is all about implementing the will of the people, but there is also a thin line between being democratic and forcing something on a not-so-small minority. That thin line is dividing Thailand acrimoniously, and it's the responsibility of the Pheu Thai government to recognise this fact as well.


-- The Nation 2013-04-27

[moe666]

A country should not change its constitution willy-nelly and especially for one person. Changing the constitution on a whelm only weakens democracy

[Bellweather]

Another stupid headline, "... open old wounds...", they are still open sores. A reason to think twice is a nonsense as the government does not have to think at all just simply do as instructed on Skype from Dubai and they will do their best to comply no matter the cost to the country.

[reiltin]

Good editorial,Its a nation divided,they could silence the constitutional court and press on with their amendments-and you can bet there will be even more blood on the streets than In 2010 and many more killed or they could cool their jets at least for now,time may not heal all wounds but surely better than applying salt...

[Locationthailand]

The answer lies in...

"... It must also be noted that Thaksin and his supporters made no attempt to challenge the Constitutional Court's action when it acquitted him of share-concealment in 2001, and that the existing charter is almost a replica of the 1997 "People's Charter" that he so publicly advocates. The difference, of course, is that the present Constitution contains clauses that directly affect his legal status and wealth."

Dubai is the problem in case some of us slow bloggers in TV can't/haven't figured it out. Seems the Thai's in general simply can't. Ignorance os bliss and the changes completely motivated by their hero and saviour.

[chainarong]

The answer lies in...

"... It must also be noted that Thaksin and his supporters made no attempt to challenge the Constitutional Court's action when it acquitted him of share-concealment in 2001, and that the existing charter is almost a replica of the 1997 "People's Charter" that he so publicly advocates. The difference, of course, is that the present Constitution contains clauses that directly affect his legal status and wealth."

Dubai is the problem in case some of us slow bloggers in TV can't/haven't figured it out. Seems the Thai's in general simply can't. Ignorance is bliss and the changes completely motivated by their hero and saviour.

Quiet right, all this revolves around Thaskin and they are taking the same dangerous route like last time , above the law, it might be time to remind LT, you don't need generals for a coup

[scorecard]

Another stupid headline, "... open old wounds...", they are still open sores. A reason to think twice is a nonsense as the government does not have to think at all just simply do as instructed on Skype from Dubai and they will do their best to comply no matter the cost to the country.

And comply and act regardless of whether the changes are in the best interests of all, regardless of whether the changes are positive towards developing a fair and civil society, and regardless of morals which would display to all concerned (including our children) the right and moral thing to do. And regardless of proper and open debate.

[kimamey]

The answer lies in...

"... It must also be noted that Thaksin and his supporters made no attempt to challenge the Constitutional Court's action when it acquitted him of share-concealment in 2001, and that the existing charter is almost a replica of the 1997 "People's Charter" that he so publicly advocates. The difference, of course, is that the present Constitution contains clauses that directly affect his legal status and wealth."

Dubai is the problem in case some of us slow bloggers in TV can't/haven't figured it out. Seems the Thai's in general simply can't. Ignorance os bliss and the changes completely motivated by their hero and saviour.

Thaksin does seem to be the problem. I'm pretty sure that without his interests being attended to things would be a lot calmer. There will still be arguments in parliament about other matters but that's normal. What isn't normal is a government being apparently so closely involved with a convicted criminal. I've noticed that amnesty is the word used a lot now. You don't need an amnesty if you've done nothing wrong. I remember the PM saying when she took up power that a fresh look would be taken at Thaksin's conviction to see if everything was correct. I haven't heard how that's going and now it's an amnesty that's needed.

[scorecard]

The answer lies in...

"... It must also be noted that Thaksin and his supporters made no attempt to challenge the Constitutional Court's action when it acquitted him of share-concealment in 2001, and that the existing charter is almost a replica of the 1997 "People's Charter" that he so publicly advocates. The difference, of course, is that the present Constitution contains clauses that directly affect his legal status and wealth."

Dubai is the problem in case some of us slow bloggers in TV can't/haven't figured it out. Seems the Thai's in general simply can't. Ignorance is bliss and the changes completely motivated by their hero and saviour.

Quiet right, all this revolves around Thaskin and they are taking the same dangerous route like last time , above the law, it might be time to remind LT, you don't need generals for a coup

Another possibility:

- yxxxxxxx moved to the side for big sister to take the reins

- Big sister demands and bangs the table for fast action, regardless of morals, laws, etc

- The unaligned masses react negatively and confront big sister

- All hell breaks loose

- Renew the lease on Dubai for at least a few more years

[Just1Voice]

OK, first off, I'm not a Thaksin fan or supporter, so let's clear the air about that, and talk about the legality of the situation. I'll try to keep it short and simple.

1) His wife participated in an OPEN bid for a piece of property. Matter of public record.

2) Her bid was the highest of the tree. Matter of public record.

3) Under Thai law, if a woman wishes to buy property, she must obtain written agreement from her husband. Again, matter of public record.

4) Thaksin, following Thai law in regards to #3,signs his consent.

5) Thaksin, by following Thai law, is conviced of "abuse of power".

6) The courts later ruled the land deal was "Null & Void". For those of you not familiar with this legal term, it basically means that LEGALLY, IT NEVER HAPPENED. Wife was told to give the land back, and she got her money back, with interest.

7) Therefore, if it legally never happened, that also means that all actions involved in the transaction LEGALLY NEVER HAPPENED as well.

8) If it legally never happened, which is what the court has stated, then Thaksin can not be guilty of "abuse of power", and also means that his conviction is also Null & Void.

9) Why his legal team hasn't attacked his conviction from this angle is something I have yet to figure out.

Fan or no fan, look at the law.

[rubl]

While a rehash of the Thaksin conviction is interesting even when coming from someone who is not a Thaksin fan, the topic is on the Constitutional Court Debate. That's related to the government cabinet just deciding to curtailed the budget for the coming fiscal year (although to be discussed in parliament first in August), Pheu Thai seeking to impeach judges, red-shirts seeking to impeach judges and obviously because they are wrong, incorrect and no good. The judges that is, allegedly. Even our popular criminal fugitive said so.

[khunken]

OK, first off, I'm not a Thaksin fan or supporter, so let's clear the air about that, and talk about the legality of the situation. I'll try to keep it short and simple.

1) His wife participated in an OPEN bid for a piece of property. Matter of public record.

2) Her bid was the highest of the tree. Matter of public record.

3) Under Thai law, if a woman wishes to buy property, she must obtain written agreement from her husband. Again, matter of public record.

4) Thaksin, following Thai law in regards to #3,signs his consent.

5) Thaksin, by following Thai law, is conviced of "abuse of power".

6) The courts later ruled the land deal was "Null & Void". For those of you not familiar with this legal term, it basically means that LEGALLY, IT NEVER HAPPENED. Wife was told to give the land back, and she got her money back, with interest.

7) Therefore, if it legally never happened, that also means that all actions involved in the transaction LEGALLY NEVER HAPPENED as well.

8) If it legally never happened, which is what the court has stated, then Thaksin can not be guilty of "abuse of power", and also means that his conviction is also Null & Void.

9) Why his legal team hasn't attacked his conviction from this angle is something I have yet to figure out.

Fan or no fan, look at the law.

I'm not a Thaksin fan............yeah, how many times have we heard that falsehood.

I will answer your points one by one.

1. Correct

2. Half truth - the other bidders withdrew when they saw who they were up against.

3. Correct as far as I know.

4. Correct.

5. Yes although it is more a conflict of interest.

6. The deal was reversed & cancelled but that dosn't make the conflict of interest disappear (no re-writing of history).

7. The deal did happen and was not scrubbed from the record.

8. Very false logic and just not true.

9. His legal team tried to bribe the court so they knew that the case was virtually lost. Some got 6 months for attempting to pervert the course of justice or similar. No effort to find the source of the bribe.

Thaksin will use the courts when it suits him and accept judgements that go in his favour. His mindset is that he has never done anything wrong and when anything goes against him - it's political. Megalomania.

[whybother]

OK, first off, I'm not a Thaksin fan or supporter, so let's clear the air about that, and talk about the legality of the situation. I'll try to keep it short and simple.

1) His wife participated in an OPEN bid for a piece of property. Matter of public record.

2) Her bid was the highest of the tree. Matter of public record.

3) Under Thai law, if a woman wishes to buy property, she must obtain written agreement from her husband. Again, matter of public record.

4) Thaksin, following Thai law in regards to #3,signs his consent.

5) Thaksin, by following Thai law, is conviced of "abuse of power".

6) The courts later ruled the land deal was "Null & Void". For those of you not familiar with this legal term, it basically means that LEGALLY, IT NEVER HAPPENED. Wife was told to give the land back, and she got her money back, with interest.

7) Therefore, if it legally never happened, that also means that all actions involved in the transaction LEGALLY NEVER HAPPENED as well.

8) If it legally never happened, which is what the court has stated, then Thaksin can not be guilty of "abuse of power", and also means that his conviction is also Null & Void.

9) Why his legal team hasn't attacked his conviction from this angle is something I have yet to figure out.

Fan or no fan, look at the law.

Maybe his legal team hasn't attacked his conviction from this angle because it's a load of crap.

Just because the sale was reversed doesn't change the fact that he broke the law.

[Dap]

OK, first off, I'm not a Thaksin fan or supporter, so let's clear the air about that, and talk about the legality of the situation. I'll try to keep it short and simple.

1) His wife participated in an OPEN bid for a piece of property. Matter of public record.

2) Her bid was the highest of the tree. Matter of public record.

3) Under Thai law, if a woman wishes to buy property, she must obtain written agreement from her husband. Again, matter of public record.

4) Thaksin, following Thai law in regards to #3,signs his consent.

5) Thaksin, by following Thai law, is conviced of "abuse of power".

6) The courts later ruled the land deal was "Null & Void". For those of you not familiar with this legal term, it basically means that LEGALLY, IT NEVER HAPPENED. Wife was told to give the land back, and she got her money back, with interest.

7) Therefore, if it legally never happened, that also means that all actions involved in the transaction LEGALLY NEVER HAPPENED as well.

8) If it legally never happened, which is what the court has stated, then Thaksin can not be guilty of "abuse of power", and also means that his conviction is also Null & Void.

9) Why his legal team hasn't attacked his conviction from this angle is something I have yet to figure out.

Fan or no fan, look at the law.

Jeez, that's just depressing ... I mean, having nothing to bit*h about. What fun is that?

[scorecard]

OK, first off, I'm not a Thaksin fan or supporter, so let's clear the air about that, and talk about the legality of the situation. I'll try to keep it short and simple.

1) His wife participated in an OPEN bid for a piece of property. Matter of public record.

2) Her bid was the highest of the tree. Matter of public record.

3) Under Thai law, if a woman wishes to buy property, she must obtain written agreement from her husband. Again, matter of public record.

4) Thaksin, following Thai law in regards to #3,signs his consent.

5) Thaksin, by following Thai law, is conviced of "abuse of power".

6) The courts later ruled the land deal was "Null & Void". For those of you not familiar with this legal term, it basically means that LEGALLY, IT NEVER HAPPENED. Wife was told to give the land back, and she got her money back, with interest.

7) Therefore, if it legally never happened, that also means that all actions involved in the transaction LEGALLY NEVER HAPPENED as well.

8) If it legally never happened, which is what the court has stated, then Thaksin can not be guilty of "abuse of power", and also means that his conviction is also Null & Void.

9) Why his legal team hasn't attacked his conviction from this angle is something I have yet to figure out.

Fan or no fan, look at the law.

Not quite right.

a. Yes, Thai wifes have to get written permission of their husband to buy property - that's NOT what this case is all about.

b. This case is purely about abuse of power. In Thailand and in almost every country in the world there are laws to prevent unscrupulous politicians from buying state assets. The land in question was the commonwealth assets of all Thais.

The law is very clear and says that PMs, politicians etc., and their immediate families, cannot buy state assets. These laws are there for very good reasons, and as already said they exist in nearly all countries in the world.

The Thai laws saying that PMs, politicians and their families cannot buy state property / assets very obviously overrides (and obviously should override) the laws about wifes have to have husbands permission.

Yes, several red shirt leaders have tried to paint a picture that the paymaster was convicted on point a. above. They have also said many times that the whole case was politically motivated. All of this not true, blatantly dishonest, blatant lies, and not the first time red leaders have told blatant lies.

Further, if the paymaster wanted to he could have appealed the courts decision to convict him on abuse of power. He fled and didn't appeal and has in fact never ever since that time given any substantive information or argument at press interviews or whatever in terms of legal arguments to substantiate his claims of innocence of abuse of power. Neither have his lawyers.

He has said on numerous occasions (e.g. when pressured by international reporters) that his conviction was politically motivated but deliberately never expanded with any details or avoided any further comment.

Further, the case was heard and the decision handed down when his party were still in the limelight.

Your comment that, at a later time, the sale and purchase agreement was declared 'Null & Void' refers specifically to the contract between the state (sale of commonwealth property) and the paymasters ex wife.

This factor has nothing whatever to do with the fact that the paymaster abused his power by signing on behalf of the state to approve the sale of state assets to a family member. He signed the document when in fact the law specifically says he cannot sign such document.

The fact that later the sale was declared null and void has no bearing. He willingly signed the document and broke a serious law about abuse of power. And please don't tell me that he didn't know he was breaking the law. Please, not another 'genuine mistake'.

Please keep in mind that he had earlier railroaded serious changes to ownership laws through parliament in record breaking time (a few hours) to enable him to sell to the state investment agency of Singapore. Nobody from his party said boo - all too frightened to speak up.

Previously these laws were seen strongly as sacred cows to stop outsiders getting their fingers into large Thai organizations. The paymaster acted purely in his own interests - his pocket. He totally ignored the loud outcry objecting to changes to these laws. This is not a man known for high morals or values.

Additionally he was surrounded by state officials who all knew well that he was breaking the abuse of power laws. None spoke up - typical of his attitude and overbearing approach whilst he sat in the PM chair. No state officials, none of his party members ever once said boo - they were all afraid of him, total yes men .

Edited April 28, 2013 by scorecard