Thai Constitution Court Asked To Order Thaksin To Stop Skype Conversation

[webfact]

Court asked to order Thaksin to stop Skype conversation
By English News



BANGKOK, May 3 – A senator yesterday asked the Constitution Court to order ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinwatra to stop 'giving commands' to government MPs through a voice-over Internet service.

Appointed Senator Paiboon Nititawan, accompanied by academic/social critics Chermsak Pinthong and Komsan Pohkong, told reporters after petitioning the court that Mr Thaksin has violated Section 122 of the constitution in ordering government MPs via Skype to propose several bills on national reconciliation, amnesty and the Bt2 trillion loans package for infrastructure investment.

Mr Thaksin was also involved in the selection of candidates for the recent Bangkok governor election and candidates for national elections, he said.

He said Mr Thaksin did not suggest but ordered the Pheu Thai MPs to follow his instructions and said that the MPs immediately followed suit. He also presented clips of Mr Thaksin’s voice to the court.

The court was asked to order Mr Thaksin and his colleagues to stop such behaviour and to rule that three proposed bills to amend the charter are unconstitutional. (MCOT online news)


-- TNA 2013-05-03

[slapout]

Not says this is a complete wasted effort, but the Senator may have more success,trying to teach his dog not to lick its balls.

[laurentbkk]

so what next ? they will forbid Skype ? I always wonder where those people got those very silly ideas.

[lemoncake]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

[muttley]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

[Bellweather]

Just where does Thai politics find these people are they specially bred somewhere ?

[scorecard]

Not says this is a complete wasted effort, but the Senator may have more success,trying to teach his dog not to lick its balls.

- I agree with your comment

- On the other hand IMHO there's value in raising such issues to keep the public well informed.

[lemoncake]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

censorship of what? convicted fugitive on the run conversations with MP's?

[scorecard]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

So if someone was Skyping in to a group of Thai teenagers (teenagers anywhere) to teach them how to make chemical weapons of mass destruction then would you say 'you can't stop them amking the Skype calls (or any other form of communication), because it would be censorship'?

[tomross46]

The court can make any ruling it wants, but the ruling party and big brother do not care. The PT have already said that they are above the court and will not accept any judgement, that is not in there favor.

[jonclark]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

I don't think anyone is in favour of censorship.

But by allowing this to happen don't you think that the wrong message is being sent out by the government.

In most cases - and if i am wrong I apologies - when a person is convicted they lose their rights to communicate with the outside world, otherwise you'd have drug lords running their empire from behind bars - And yes we know that happens, but it doesn't preclude the fact it is wrong and can't be used as justification in any instance. And i'm, sure you'll agree that the ability to communicate once convicted needs to be strictly monitored.

But this is possibly a unique situation where a government is being commanded by a 'criminal', and sees nothing wrong with that situation. Irrespective of the right or wrongs of his conviction the government must be publicly seen to be following the law and the rules that the rest of us follow, in both thought and action, otherwise they are setting a precedent in principle (in the highest public office of the land) that taking and following the instructions of those convicted of criminal wrongdoings to further the goals of the crimes of which they were first convicted or implicated in is acceptable. Or in more simple terms; it's okay to do the bidding of criminal which are convicted if they can get a message to you.

If a drug lord rings his 'mule' to deliver 10kg of heroin and the mule obliges, collects his payment and delivers the principle at play is exactly the same. Its not censorship, but common sense to stop this. You want to stop that mule being telephoned in the first place.

And please (red apologists) don't start yakking on about votes and elections. That's is just convenient distraction because if you follow that train of thought through to its ultimate conclusion and interpretation you end up in a situation where , rape, murder and genocide can all in theory be justified by victory in an election. Yes we murdered the Hutus/ Jews / Albanians but we won the election so its okay.

Edited May 3, 2013 by jonclark

[thaicbr]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

So your in favour of a convicted criminal running the country then?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[Robby nz]

It does show that while PT and the red mobs do things by threats and intimidation.

Those who oppose them try to do things by legal means.

A big difference, one side respects the rule of law the other does not.

Unfortunately the side that has no respect for the law is the one who is supposed to be governing the country.

[muttley]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

censorship of what? convicted fugitive on the run conversations with MP's?

First off he's hardly on the run if everybody knows where he is - it was the same during the democrat year/s. Secondly, lets agree to disagree on the "value" of the conviction. To the meat of your "argument".

You think it's perfectly acceptable to ask the Constitution Court to stop the MPs from talking with a Thai Citizen on Skype.

Have a think about that statement.

[lemoncake]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

I don't think anyone is in favour of censorship.

But by allowing this to happen don't you think that the wrong message is being sent out by the government.

In most cases - and if i am wrong I apologies - when a person is convicted they lose their rights to communicate with the outside world, otherwise you'd have drug lords running their empire from behind bars - And yes we know that happens, but it doesn't preclude the fact it is wrong and can't be used as justification in any instance. And i'm, sure you'll agree that the ability to communicate once convicted needs to be strictly monitored.

But this is possibly a unique situation where a government is being commanded by a 'criminal', and sees nothing wrong with that situation. Irrespective of the right or wrongs of his conviction the government must be publicly seen to be following the law and the rules that the rest of us follow, in both thought and action, otherwise they are setting a precedent in principle (in the highest public office of the land) that taking and following the instructions of those convicted of criminal wrongdoings to further the goals of the crimes of which they were first convicted or implicated in is acceptable.

If a drug lord ring his 'mule' to deliver 10kg of heroin and the mule obliges, collects his payment and delivers the principle at play is exactly the same. Its not censorship, but common sense to stop this.

And please (red apologists) don't start yakking on about votes and elections. That's is just convenient distraction otherwise you start on a dangerous path where, rape, murder and genocide can all in theory be justified by victory in an election

I do not think when person is convicted they loose their right to communicate, but they sure not really in the position NOT only to communicate with MP's but issue orders to them.

Furthermore, been convicted criminal on the run, Court should arrest all MP's involved in "chatting" as it is aiding convicted criminal on the run

[muttley]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

So your in favour of a convicted criminal running the country then?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

See my post above.

[muttley]

It does show that while PT and the red mobs do things by threats and intimidation.

Those who oppose them try to do things by legal means.

A big difference, one side respects the rule of law the other does not.

Unfortunately the side that has no respect for the law is the one who is supposed to be governing the country.

Unfortunately the side that supposedly "respects" the law ( a democrat party euphemism for misusing) has a disproportionate reliance on judges interpretation of the "law" to make up for their unelectability. They have previous.

[WhizBang]

First off he's hardly on the run if everybody knows where he is - it was the same during the democrat year/s. Secondly, lets agree to disagree on the "value" of the conviction. To the meat of your "argument".

You seem to be missing the fact that Thaksin was convicted while HIS PARTY was in power. So hardly a politically motivated conviction.

You think it's perfectly acceptable to ask the Constitution Court to stop the MPs from talking with a Thai Citizen on Skype.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to tell anyone, but ESPECIALLY government officials, to NOT be dealing, or talking, with a convicted fugitive and terrorist and taking orders from said terrorist.

They can talk with him all they want to arrange for his surrender to Thai authorities, so he can be returned to Thailand to serve out his prison sentence and face the additional charges against him.

[gl555]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

Yeah I'm all for my elected officials Skyping with a convicted fugitive and taking orders from him.

[Robby nz]

Robby nz, on 03 May 2013 - 11:36, said:

It does show that while PT and the red mobs do things by threats and intimidation.

Those who oppose them try to do things by legal means.

A big difference, one side respects the rule of law the other does not.

Unfortunately the side that has no respect for the law is the one who is supposed to be governing the country.

Unfortunately the side that supposedly "respects" the law ( a democrat party euphemism for misusing) has a disproportionate reliance on judges interpretation of the "law" to make up for their unelectability. They have previous.

How Mutt do you interpret asking the courts and therefore the judges to make a decision as misusing the law?

It is the judges job to interpret the law and make their judgments according to that law.

When we have people or groups who are suspected of breaking the law who do you think should be the ones to decide whether they are or not.

[chainarong]

The resulting problem stemming from this request , is Freedom of speech, the very basis of Democracy, it's all very well putting a muzzle on motor mouth, but it interferes with freedom, but as Thailand thinks it has democracy and it doesn't i can see no reason not to muzzle motor mouth, this will remind those numb nuts, the red shirts, what happens when you throw the rules out the window, freedom follows.

[TomTao]

muttley, on 03 May 2013 - 11:07, said:

lemoncake, on 03 May 2013 - 10:45, said:

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

I don't think censorship has that much to do with the issue, a convicted criminal who is a fugetive in self imposed exile is dictating policy and direction to the current administration, and the current administration must surely be engaging in unconstitutional activities by allowing it to happen. That is the issue, not censorship.

[OzMick]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

censorship of what? convicted fugitive on the run conversations with MP's?

First off he's hardly on the run if everybody knows where he is - it was the same during the democrat year/s. Secondly, lets agree to disagree on the "value" of the conviction. To the meat of your "argument".

You think it's perfectly acceptable to ask the Constitution Court to stop the MPs from talking with a Thai Citizen on Skype.

Have a think about that statement.

Your opinion, and for that matter, that of PTP MPs, is immaterial as under Thai law thaksin is a convicted criminal fugitive with many serious outstanding charges. That he didn't bother to appeal his conviction and sentence, after a failed attempt at bribery, indicates acceptance. He may well hold the thai court in contempt, but he is after all a Thai citizen and subject to Thai law.

Next let us address the crime of vote selling. If Thaksin is using coercion, bribery or influence to control the vote of an MP, both are committing a serious crime. That he is doing so to a whole party, of which he is not a member, nor is he eligible to be a member, only compounds the offence. When that party holds office and will not address the issue, but in fact uses it as part of the electoral campaign, it is the duty of the courts to correct the issue.

you may also like to consider other Thai law crimes, such as aiding and abetting a fugitive, and criminal association.

[Pattaya28]

This saga would be beyond belief in the real world.

It's not a "banana" republic, it's a "muppet" republic.

[bigbamboo]

Ridiculous demand.

How else is the leader of the nation's government supposed to address his cabinet?

[Thai at Heart]

All they need to do is make it illegal to converse/aid or abet a convicted criminal.

[OzMick]

All they need to do is make it illegal to converse/aid or abet a convicted criminal.

"They" would the current government - be serious! There is a law against criminal association, one of the reasons Yingluk avoids (allegedly) meeting her brother while in the same location.

[Thai at Heart]

All they need to do is make it illegal to converse/aid or abet a convicted criminal.

"They" would the current government - be serious! There is a law against criminal association, one of the reasons Yingluk avoids (allegedly) meeting her brother while in the same location.

If it's on the books, never heard of anyone accused of it. Interesting. I heard there is an exemption for family members, from when chalerm helped his son.

So is it legal to Skype a Thai fugitive?

Edited May 3, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[OzMick]

All they need to do is make it illegal to converse/aid or abet a convicted criminal.

"They" would the current government - be serious! There is a law against criminal association, one of the reasons Yingluk avoids (allegedly) meeting her brother while in the same location.

If it's on the books, never heard of anyone accused of it. Interesting. I heard there is an exemption for family members, from when chalerm helped his son.

So is it legal to Skype a Thai fugitive?

Skype, who knows? It would assume Thai law being up to date when electronic banking is illegal for party donations.

As for criminal association, here's a link - red shirt terrorism charges reduced. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/501673-justice-ministry-to-change-terrorism-charges-against-red-shirts-to-criminal-association/page-3

[jonclark]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

I don't think anyone is in favour of censorship.

But by allowing this to happen don't you think that the wrong message is being sent out by the government.

In most cases - and if i am wrong I apologies - when a person is convicted they lose their rights to communicate with the outside world, otherwise you'd have drug lords running their empire from behind bars - And yes we know that happens, but it doesn't preclude the fact it is wrong and can't be used as justification in any instance. And i'm, sure you'll agree that the ability to communicate once convicted needs to be strictly monitored.

But this is possibly a unique situation where a government is being commanded by a 'criminal', and sees nothing wrong with that situation. Irrespective of the right or wrongs of his conviction the government must be publicly seen to be following the law and the rules that the rest of us follow, in both thought and action, otherwise they are setting a precedent in principle (in the highest public office of the land) that taking and following the instructions of those convicted of criminal wrongdoings to further the goals of the crimes of which they were first convicted or implicated in is acceptable.

If a drug lord ring his 'mule' to deliver 10kg of heroin and the mule obliges, collects his payment and delivers the principle at play is exactly the same. Its not censorship, but common sense to stop this.

And please (red apologists) don't start yakking on about votes and elections. That's is just convenient distraction otherwise you start on a dangerous path where, rape, murder and genocide can all in theory be justified by victory in an election

I do not think when person is convicted they loose their right to communicate, but they sure not really in the position NOT only to communicate with MP's but issue orders to them.

Furthermore, been convicted criminal on the run, Court should arrest all MP's involved in "chatting" as it is aiding convicted criminal on the run

Okay perhaps communicate freely would have been more apt.