Danger: Thai Politicians Try To Demolish Independent Agencies

[webfact]

THAI TALK
Danger: Politicians try to demolish independent agencies
Suthichai Yoon
The Nation


Charan Pakdithanakul

BANGKOK: -- A new war is brewing between the Pheu Thai Party and the Constitutional Court - a new round of confrontation that could decide the fate of independent agencies in the Constitution, which is the subject of a proposed amendment by the ruling party.

There is little doubt that ousted former premier Thaksin Shinawatra is behind the new move. His antagonism toward the Constitutional Court is well known. A last-ditch effort to neutralise the panel of judges empowered by the current charter to rule on constitutional issues is sparking a heated debate on a new question: Can the country afford to let politicians who wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches?

The first sign of trouble began when the court accepted a petition from a group of senators headed by Somchai Sawaengkan to halt the House's move to amend the Constitution under Article 68.

In retaliation, 312 pro-government MPs and senators voiced their opposition to the court accepting the case for consideration, arguing that the judicial branch was overstepping the legislative branch, which was exercising its right to make changes to the charter. The court, they insisted, should have referred the issue to the chief public prosecutor before accepting the case directly from the lawmakers.

The pro-government MPs then, in a gesture of "civil disobedience", declared their intention not to accept the Constitutional Court's authority. They called for the removal of the three judges who had taken up the petition: Charan Pakdithanakul, Charoon Intacharn and Supot Kaimook.

For Pheu Thai strategists, this represented a "pre-emptive move" to prevent the court from repeating an earlier decision to put the brakes on the third reading of a proposed amendment to Article 291 of the Constitution, which itself governs the process of amending clauses in the charter.

In a parallel move, between 200 and 300 pro-government red shirts began a vigil in front of the court building, calling for the ouster of the judges in question. After the fifth day of a protest filled with heated speeches by red-shirt leaders, the Constitutional Court judges filed charges of contempt of court against them.

The likelihood of a prolonged and heated face-off between the judges and the Pheu Thai Party has suddenly intensified, with no sign of either side letting up. The reason is clear: the stake for Thaksin in pushing through these constitutional changes is so high that he is ready to go for broke this time.

Premier Yingluck Shinawatra might try to distance herself from the controversy. But she won't be able to stay out of the conflict for long before she has to make her stand clear on the issue, which is related to another, even more controversial move - the proposed amnesty bill for political offences. That, again, is inevitably linked to her elder brother, who has made no secret of his intention to push his MPs to leave no stone unturned and no avenue unexplored, to ram the bill through Parliament and to get him back to Thailand a free man.

Underscoring the uncompromising mood on both sides is the exchange between Judge Charan and Pheu Thai's Chaturon Chaisaeng. The judge had said the Constitutional Court justices wouldn't get involved in a verbal exchange with the red-shirt protesters because it would be "like a boxer hitting the referee in the ring".

Chaturon reacted promptly through Twitter, to the effect that he doesn't consider the judges neutral referees in this case. "Perhaps it's more appropriate to say this is a case of the referee hitting the boxer. In fact, it may turn out to be a case of the spectators trying to oust the referee from the ring."

Whatever the case may be, for the real spectators, it is important that the Constitution continues to attach great importance to the existence and protection of independent agencies that can withstand undue pressure from politicians. In other words, whether this is a case of the boxer trying to knock out the referee or vice versa, the rules of the game must remain sacred and all parties concerned must pay due respect to the fair and impartial best practices upheld by independent agencies.


-- The Nation 2013-05-02

[scorecard]

"Chaturon reacted promptly through Twitter, to the effect that he doesn't consider the judges neutral referees in this case. "Perhaps it's more appropriate to say this is a case of the referee hitting the boxer. In fact, it may turn out to be a case of the spectators trying to oust the referee from the ring."

Really meaning that the paymaster and his blind followers try to oust the referee because they don't like the referees decision - it doesn't match their selfish ends - red politics at work here...

Edited May 1, 2013 by scorecard

[yourauntbob]

"Can the country afford to let politicians who wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches?"

You mean like when the Democrats are the majority in parliament?

[whybother]

"Can the country afford to let politicians who wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches?"

You mean like when the Democrats are the majority in parliament?

No.

[LuckyLew]

TS will not be until he has complete and total control of everything in Thailand

He wants to own everything, rule everything and be dictator in charge

Sounds like he wants to be like North Korea

[Thai at Heart]

"Can the country afford to let politicians who wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches?"

You mean like when the Democrats are the majority in parliament?

Abhisit modified the constitution prior to the last election to jiggle the size of the constituencies.

So, you see parliament can do this it would appear.

[A Member]

TS will not be until he has complete and total control of everything in Thailand

He wants to own everything, rule everything and be dictator in charge

Sounds like he wants to be like North Korea

Remember years ago when the King made a very pointed birthday speech in which he siad the country was being run like a wholly owned subsidiary ? If Mr. T gets back in the way he wants the word subsidiary can be dropped.

[OzMick]

"Can the country afford to let politicians who wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches?"

You mean like when the Democrats are the majority in parliament?

Abhisit modified the constitution prior to the last election to jiggle the size of the constituencies.

So, you see parliament can do this it would appear.

But it hardly restricted the independence of the CC or any other agency. If passed as suggested the AG (a political appointee) could stop ALL petitions to the CC.

[Thai at Heart]

"Can the country afford to let politicians who wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches?"

You mean like when the Democrats are the majority in parliament?

Abhisit modified the constitution prior to the last election to jiggle the size of the constituencies.

So, you see parliament can do this it would appear.

But it hardly restricted the independence of the CC or any other agency. If passed as suggested the AG (a political appointee) could stop ALL petitions to the CC.

I know that, but legally, it causes a rather big problem. Parliament would appear to be able to make the changes.

[Mampara]

guys if you let this happen, then the last bit of democracy that we have is gone forever. we will be an enslaved nation with no morals.

[AleG]

Next independent agency to feel the wrath of the government will be the Ombudsman office, with their nagging insistence to revoke the illegally issued passport to Thaksin.

All in the name of Democracy, Transparency Ice Cream and Rainbows, of course.

[chainarong]

If there is not a separation between government and the independence of the courts, all you have got is a dictatorship , back to the good ol Junta days, which most of these numb nuts have been trying to do since 1992., so next time, a coup might not be so peaceful.

[Robby nz]

Second post and we have 'what about the dems' aren't the red supporters pathetic.

Didn't the Govt just cut the budgets to the independent agencies?

Meaning they wont have proper funding to carry out their function, a 2 pronged attack.

[gl555]

If the scum from Dubai succeeds, this is just another step towards a dictatorship.

One thing this country has going for it is the truly independant military. The scum may dominate everything else but hopefully he can't dominate the Army. While many may not like it, if the scum succeeds, a coup would be the only way to stop them.

[moe666]

TS will not be until he has complete and total control of everything in Thailand

He wants to own everything, rule everything and be dictator in charge

Sounds like he wants to be like North Korea

No more like the old failed dictatorship of marcos in the Philippines

[smutcakes]

"Can the country afford to let politicians who wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches?"

You mean like when the Democrats are the majority in parliament?

Abhisit modified the constitution prior to the last election to jiggle the size of the constituencies.

So, you see parliament can do this it would appear.

But it hardly restricted the independence of the CC or any other agency. If passed as suggested the AG (a political appointee) could stop ALL petitions to the CC.

I know that, but legally, it causes a rather big problem. Parliament would appear to be able to make the changes.

SSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH dont mention the numerous other Govt's that have modified the Charter without a peak from the CC judges.

[hellodolly]

"Can the country afford to let politicians who wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches?"

You mean like when the Democrats are the majority in parliament?

And when was the last time the Democrats had the majority in Parliament?

It would have to be some time back in the 1990s I think and even then it might have been a coalition of parties. My history of Thai politics is not that good.

So I ask historians to clarify this obviously inept attempt to justify an attempt at a dictatorship under Thaksin and the rest of his family.

[hellodolly]

"Can the country afford to let politicians who wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches?"

You mean like when the Democrats are the majority in parliament?

Abhisit modified the constitution prior to the last election to jiggle the size of the constituencies.

So, you see parliament can do this it would appear.

Not sure but is that not what e=we in America call redistricting. Nothing to do with the constitution just modifing the voting districts to better represent the district?

[smutcakes]

"Can the country afford to let politicians who wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches?"

You mean like when the Democrats are the majority in parliament?

Abhisit modified the constitution prior to the last election to jiggle the size of the constituencies.

So, you see parliament can do this it would appear.

Not sure but is that not what e=we in America call redistricting. Nothing to do with the constitution just modifing the voting districts to better represent the district?

yeah, sure that was the reason. Good old Abhisit.

[hellodolly]

"Can the country afford to let politicians who wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches?"

You mean like when the Democrats are the majority in parliament?

Abhisit modified the constitution prior to the last election to jiggle the size of the constituencies.

So, you see parliament can do this it would appear.

But it hardly restricted the independence of the CC or any other agency. If passed as suggested the AG (a political appointee) could stop ALL petitions to the CC.

I know that, but legally, it causes a rather big problem. Parliament would appear to be able to make the changes.

appear does not make any thing real.

That would be like saying every UFO sighting was real.

Or the claims for years that Elvis was seen working in a McDonald's.

[bigbamboo]

TS will not be until he has complete and total control of everything in Thailand

He wants to own everything, rule everything and be dictator in charge

Sounds like he wants to be like North Korea

No more like the old failed dictatorship of marcos in the Philippines

I think he's rather envious of his eternal brother, Hun Sen.

[hellodolly]

TS will not be until he has complete and total control of everything in Thailand

He wants to own everything, rule everything and be dictator in charge

Sounds like he wants to be like North Korea

No more like the old failed dictatorship of marcos in the Philippines

No he does not want that. It would mean getting a wife who collects shoes.

[dressedingreen]

guys if you let this happen, then the last bit of democracy that we have is gone forever. we will be an enslaved nation with no morals.

It has been 'an enslaved nation' since the year 'dot'. And the real slave owners have never been elected. Almost every country is the same. The real power hardly ever resides with elected officials. Simply another struggle for the power behind the power.

DIG

[khunken]

SSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH dont mention the numerous other Govt's that have modified the Charter without a peak from the CC judges.

So did PTP or any of its predecessors file petitions to the CC about Abhisit's changes? I seem to remember that he got a consensus in favour of the changes & so there was no need to file anything against them.

The point this time is that a petition has been filed that Thaksin doesn't like & so he calls on his henchmen & women to act. Nothing has been decided apart from the CC accepting a petition. The problem here is that the CC is a barrier to PTP exercising total power which is why we have a CC in place.

A side issue is the efforts of Kittirat to totally undermine the BOT - another awkwardly independent body. The pattern is there - PTP want to turn all independent bodies into subservient DSIs.

[OzMick]

"Can the country afford to let politicians who wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches?"

You mean like when the Democrats are the majority in parliament?

Abhisit modified the constitution prior to the last election to jiggle the size of the constituencies.

So, you see parliament can do this it would appear.

Not sure but is that not what e=we in America call redistricting. Nothing to do with the constitution just modifing the voting districts to better represent the district?

yeah, sure that was the reason. Good old Abhisit.

In Australia, electoral boundaries are regularly re-drawn to reflect changes in population distribution. It has nothing to do with MPs or the Constitution, nor should it.

[Locationthailand]

"... There is little doubt that ousted former premier Thaksin Shinawatra is behind the new move. His antagonism toward the Constitutional Court is well known. A last-ditch effort to neutralise the panel of judges empowered by the current charter to rule on constitutional issues is sparking a heated debate on a new question: Can the country afford to let politicians who wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches?"

So if there is "little doubt" about all this, send some more charges against this crook and try him in absentia - find him (very) guilty and attempt to silence him. Why are the courts holding back? Time to act is NOW

Edited May 2, 2013 by Locationthailand

[rubl]

So, some here don't think the Constitutional Court refraining from engaging in a shouting match with red-shirt protesters demanding they step down now and immediately, is a good idea? With protesters threatening to get 100,000 protesters to demand the same? Threatening to completely block the CC offices and make it impossible for the Constitutional Court to function?

Interesting.

Anyway, where's the Police, or will the government ask the Army to protect the Constitution (Court)?

[Thai at Heart]

"Can the country afford to let politicians who wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches?"

You mean like when the Democrats are the majority in parliament?

Abhisit modified the constitution prior to the last election to jiggle the size of the constituencies.

So, you see parliament can do this it would appear.

Not sure but is that not what e=we in America call redistricting. Nothing to do with the constitution just modifing the voting districts to better represent the district?

But it required a change to the constitution. Not saying that to do so is the same as changing the role of the CC, but legally it is a change to the constitution by parliamentary vote.

[brd199]

"Can the country afford to let politicians who wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches?"

You mean like when the Democrats are the majority in parliament?

Abhisit modified the constitution prior to the last election to jiggle the size of the constituencies.

So, you see parliament can do this it would appear.

Changing the number of constituency and party-list MP's did nothing to alter the judicial system.

The Democrats did not "wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches".

Also, the constitutional article that was amended by the then coalition government did not begin with the same verbage of the the constitution article that PTP is trying to amend:

Article 68.

No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State

[Thai at Heart]

"Can the country afford to let politicians who wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches?"

You mean like when the Democrats are the majority in parliament?

Abhisit modified the constitution prior to the last election to jiggle the size of the constituencies.

So, you see parliament can do this it would appear.

Changing the number of constituency and party-list MP's did nothing to alter the judicial system.

The Democrats did not "wield executive power dominate both the legislative and judicial branches".

Also, the constitutional article that was amended by the then coalition government did not begin with the same verbage of the the constitution article that PTP is trying to amend:

Article 68.

No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State

I know. So, if they can prove that doing so violates article 68, it's moot. Unfortunately, Thailand is incapable of having a reasoned debate on article 68.

Lese majeste law is open to abuse in my opinion and many think the same, so why can it not be changed if parliament decides? As for the bit about overthrowing the government, isn't that a bit of a silly discussion considering this is the hub of coups.