Abhisit slams Pheu Thai for announcement it won't recognise court ruling

[webfact]

POLITICS
Abhisit slams Pheu Thai for announcement it won't recognise court ruling
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva on Tuesday said he was taken aback to learn that the ruling Pheu Thai party would not accept the judicial decision on the charter amendment bill related to election of the Senate.

"I'm stunned because if we do not respect the authority of law enforcement of each administrative branch, it's hard to see how the country could function," Abhisit said in an interview broadcast by the Democrat affiliated Blue Sky satellite TV.

He was speaking after the 312 MPs and a group of senators announced today that they would not accept the ruling on the charter amendment concerning the Senate. The court is scheduled to rule on Wednesday.

"Pheu Thai party's announcement today shows that it is above an agency that is authorised by the constitution. The charter clearly states that the Constitutional Court's ruling is final and binding to all authorities. They reason the ruling party have dared to make this announcement because it believes that having a majority allows it to do anything it wants," Abhisit said.

Everybody is under the law and Pheu Thai has to be aware of this, he said.


-- The Nation 2013-11-19

[Emptyset]

Pretty dumb. They should have at least waited until after the ruling. Also, what choice do they have? If they are banned, are they just going to turn up at parliament as normal and pretend the ruling never happened?

[Artisi]

Welcome to the world of NakhornThaksin, nobody tells us what to do.

[angsta]

Is he still around? Move on son, it's all over.

[h90]

Pretty dumb. They should have at least waited until after the ruling. Also, what choice do they have? If they are banned, are they just going to turn up at parliament as normal and pretend the ruling never happened?

Which of course would work, but it would be a coup. Things like that happened in the past in other countries. The next step would be to put the judges in jail and form a peoples court and convict them for treason.

Of course the reds would call the banning a coup by the courts.

And it could trigger many things, coup is just one of it.

[jaidam]

Phua Thai's latest announcement is a confirmation that Thailand is officially in a state of anarchy. Good luck with that.

[JRSoul]

"Everybody is under the law and Pheu Thai has to be aware of this."

But , but, but, ..........we have a majority!

[gl555]

And that is why Thailand is the land of coups. Certain people like to cry and moan about how evil coups are. However, when you have a corrupt government that refuses to recognize the judiciary when it rules against it then there is no choice but to have the military move in.

[GentlemanJim]

Roll out the Tanks! Military coups in this country do not affect the population and if that is what is required to rid Thailand of the shiniwatra cancer then so be it. I am sure this latest snapshot of Thai democracy will win a lot of votes for Thailand with its bid for a UN security council seat.

[gemini81]

Is he still around? Move on son, it's all over.

Didn't notice all the anti-Thaksin Phuea Thai protests?

[tim armstrong]

Abhisit gets a few brownie points for this one. He's right, how can anyone have any confidence in a government that doesn't adhere to the law. The problem is that a very large chunk of the population have very little understanding of democratic institutions, and the need for such things as constitutions.

[Ricardo]

PTP do a 'judicial coup' of their own, and refuse to accept that they have to work within the Constitution, surely not !

Or are they only following orders ... from Dubai ?

[moe666]

Is he still around? Move on son, it's all over.

Didn't notice all the anti-Thaksin Phuea Thai protests?

A bit like PTP

[h90]

And that is why Thailand is the land of coups. Certain people like to cry and moan about how evil coups are. However, when you have a corrupt government that refuses to recognize the judiciary when it rules against it then there is no choice but to have the military move in.

Thailand is strange.

It needs military coups to secure the democracy. And military dictators act more democratic than elected leader.

Recalling the last coup, the soldiers got flowers and food...so much food that it can't be healthy.

HiSo girls and tourists posed with the soldiers and tanks. Tour guides asked if the tanks could stay a few days longer as they sold tours to it to tourists.

Soldiers gave their rifles to tourists so they can pose for a photo.

All of it is complete unbelievable in any other country.

[h90]

Abhisit gets a few brownie points for this one. He's right, how can anyone have any confidence in a government that doesn't adhere to the law. The problem is that a very large chunk of the population have very little understanding of democratic institutions, and the need for such things as constitutions.

With not accepting courts, there is no need for points anymore. That government must go away. As they don't accept the courts, maybe they won't accept the results of the next election if they don't win.

[kimamey]

Is he still around? Move on son, it's all over.

Didn't notice all the anti-Thaksin Phuea Thai protests?

angsta should go and ask some red shirts. All the ones I've met are very nice and I'm sure they could give some information on this.

[Emptyset]

Pretty dumb. They should have at least waited until after the ruling. Also, what choice do they have? If they are banned, are they just going to turn up at parliament as normal and pretend the ruling never happened?

Which of course would work, but it would be a coup. Things like that happened in the past in other countries. The next step would be to put the judges in jail and form a peoples court and convict them for treason.

Of course the reds would call the banning a coup by the courts.

And it could trigger many things, coup is just one of it.

Well, all those things are possibilities. The problem here is that many feel that the court shouldn't have accepted this case. And I think the court realizes that, so whilst it might rule on the relatively minor issue of some MPs using others' cards to vote or whatever it is, I doubt they would've taken the extreme step of banning MPs in what looks like an extremely controversial and dubious case, unless of course, they were, subject to external pressure. That's why PT should've waited. Now it looks as though they're no longer going to accept the authority of the CC whatever happens, which I think is a premature move at this point. At this point it looks certain to lead to massive upheaval if the court makes the wrong decision, and the problem of ensuring a functioning democracy & rule of law will start to look intractable.

[dru2]

Pretty dumb. They should have at least waited until after the ruling. Also, what choice do they have? If they are banned, are they just going to turn up at parliament as normal and pretend the ruling never happened?

Which of course would work, but it would be a coup. Things like that happened in the past in other countries. The next step would be to put the judges in jail and form a peoples court and convict them for treason.

Of course the reds would call the banning a coup by the courts.

And it could trigger many things, coup is just one of it.

Well, all those things are possibilities. The problem here is that many feel that the court shouldn't have accepted this case. And I think the court realizes that, so whilst it might rule on the relatively minor issue of some MPs using others' cards to vote or whatever it is, I doubt they would've taken the extreme step of banning MPs in what looks like an extremely controversial and dubious case, unless of course, they were, subject to external pressure. That's why PT should've waited. Now it looks as though they're no longer going to accept the authority of the CC whatever happens, which I think is a premature move at this point. At this point it looks certain to lead to massive upheaval if the court makes the wrong decision, and the problem of ensuring a functioning democracy & rule of law will start to look intractable.

What is your definition of a "wrong decision"? Answer: "One you don't like" of course.

[gemini81]

Abhisit gets a few brownie points for this one. He's right, how can anyone have any confidence in a government that doesn't adhere to the law. The problem is that a very large chunk of the population have very little understanding of democratic institutions, and the need for such things as constitutions.

With not accepting courts, there is no need for points anymore. That government must go away. As they don't accept the courts, maybe they won't accept the results of the next election if they don't win.

Why should they when an opposing party of swindlers cheat and buy the votes, and have village heads coerce locals into voting for red shirts. You call that an election?

[bigbamboo]

And that is why Thailand is the land of coups. Certain people like to cry and moan about how evil coups are. However, when you have a corrupt government that refuses to recognize the judiciary when it rules against it then there is no choice but to have the military move in.

Thailand is strange.

It needs military coups to secure the democracy. And military dictators act more democratic than elected leader.

Recalling the last coup, the soldiers got flowers and food...so much food that it can't be healthy.

HiSo girls and tourists posed with the soldiers and tanks. Tour guides asked if the tanks could stay a few days longer as they sold tours to it to tourists.

Soldiers gave their rifles to tourists so they can pose for a photo.

All of it is complete unbelievable in any other country.

So true.

And this is what really makes Thailand so amazing.

[Emptyset]

Pretty dumb. They should have at least waited until after the ruling. Also, what choice do they have? If they are banned, are they just going to turn up at parliament as normal and pretend the ruling never happened?

Which of course would work, but it would be a coup. Things like that happened in the past in other countries. The next step would be to put the judges in jail and form a peoples court and convict them for treason.

Of course the reds would call the banning a coup by the courts.

And it could trigger many things, coup is just one of it.

Well, all those things are possibilities. The problem here is that many feel that the court shouldn't have accepted this case. And I think the court realizes that, so whilst it might rule on the relatively minor issue of some MPs using others' cards to vote or whatever it is, I doubt they would've taken the extreme step of banning MPs in what looks like an extremely controversial and dubious case, unless of course, they were, subject to external pressure. That's why PT should've waited. Now it looks as though they're no longer going to accept the authority of the CC whatever happens, which I think is a premature move at this point. At this point it looks certain to lead to massive upheaval if the court makes the wrong decision, and the problem of ensuring a functioning democracy & rule of law will start to look intractable.

What is your definition of a "wrong decision"? Answer: "One you don't like" of course.

No. The wrong decision would be the decision made to ban PT MPs regardless of whether it's necessary to do so to according to the constitution or not. I'm no legal expert but I just cannot see how there is a case here according to the constitution. Perhaps someone else knows more than I do and can explain it. Let's go back to the 2008 decision in which PPP executives were banned and the party was dissolved. A lot of people at the time called that into question, and Constitutional Court President Wasan has since admitted it was a political decision. Of course, the way it was rushed through and coincided with 'Operation Hiroshima' was suspicious. But still, I thought it is true that the evidence is clear that a PPP executive broke election law by taking some village heads for an excursion in Bangkok with pocket money and other sundry hospitalities thrown in. And on that basis, I can see why PPP was disbanded. It makes legal sense, even though I think banning the whole party and all its executives for the actions of one MP is wrong and does nothing to help Thai democracy in the long run. This decision however... where is the case?

I mean I just don't see it. That's why I think PT should've held back on this one and waited for the decision. Making this move now is just pouring more fuel on the fire when it'd be better to step back and do some deep breathing exercises until the verdict is in. Sometimes the best thing to do is nothing.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Emptyset

[Moruya]

Those who plead democracy are the same bandits that cheated during the house vote.

That alone should see them hung from the Taksin Bridge by their gonads

[h90]

Pretty dumb. They should have at least waited until after the ruling. Also, what choice do they have? If they are banned, are they just going to turn up at parliament as normal and pretend the ruling never happened?

Which of course would work, but it would be a coup. Things like that happened in the past in other countries. The next step would be to put the judges in jail and form a peoples court and convict them for treason.

Of course the reds would call the banning a coup by the courts.

And it could trigger many things, coup is just one of it.

Well, all those things are possibilities. The problem here is that many feel that the court shouldn't have accepted this case. And I think the court realizes that, so whilst it might rule on the relatively minor issue of some MPs using others' cards to vote or whatever it is, I doubt they would've taken the extreme step of banning MPs in what looks like an extremely controversial and dubious case, unless of course, they were, subject to external pressure. That's why PT should've waited. Now it looks as though they're no longer going to accept the authority of the CC whatever happens, which I think is a premature move at this point. At this point it looks certain to lead to massive upheaval if the court makes the wrong decision, and the problem of ensuring a functioning democracy & rule of law will start to look intractable.

Well what you write would be true if the PTP wouldn't have an idea what happens tomorrow. But I am sure they have an idea. They most probably don't know exactly what happens tomorrow but they know more or less know what some judges think. And they are sending a message....They sent the red mob to intimidate them personally and they basically say if the court rules "wrong" Thailand will have a much bigger crises than now. But if they rule OK, tomorrow everything is forgotten. And for sure there were pastrybox offers as well.

[h90]

Which of course would work, but it would be a coup. Things like that happened in the past in other countries. The next step would be to put the judges in jail and form a peoples court and convict them for treason.

Of course the reds would call the banning a coup by the courts.

And it could trigger many things, coup is just one of it.

Well, all those things are possibilities. The problem here is that many feel that the court shouldn't have accepted this case. And I think the court realizes that, so whilst it might rule on the relatively minor issue of some MPs using others' cards to vote or whatever it is, I doubt they would've taken the extreme step of banning MPs in what looks like an extremely controversial and dubious case, unless of course, they were, subject to external pressure. That's why PT should've waited. Now it looks as though they're no longer going to accept the authority of the CC whatever happens, which I think is a premature move at this point. At this point it looks certain to lead to massive upheaval if the court makes the wrong decision, and the problem of ensuring a functioning democracy & rule of law will start to look intractable.

What is your definition of a "wrong decision"? Answer: "One you don't like" of course.

No. The wrong decision would be the decision made to ban PT MPs regardless of whether it's necessary to do so to according to the constitution or not. I'm no legal expert but I just cannot see how there is a case here according to the constitution. Perhaps someone else knows more than I do and can explain it. Let's go back to the 2008 decision in which PPP executives were banned and the party was dissolved. A lot of people at the time called that into question, and Constitutional Court President Wasan has since admitted it was a political decision. Of course, the way it was rushed through and coincided with 'Operation Hiroshima' was suspicious. But still, I thought it is true that the evidence is clear that a PPP executive broke election law by taking some village heads for an excursion in Bangkok with pocket money and other sundry hospitalities thrown in. And on that basis, I can see why PPP was disbanded. It makes legal sense, even though I think banning the whole party and all its executives for the actions of one MP is wrong and does nothing to help Thai democracy in the long run. This decision however... where is the case?

I mean I just don't see it. That's why I think PT should've held back on this one and waited for the decision. Making this move now is just pouring more fuel on the fire when it'd be better to step back and do some deep breathing exercises into the verdict is in. Sometimes the best thing to do is nothing.

No you are wrong. If the constitution makes it necessary to ban them than they must be banned. If not than not.

It is about right and wrong, it isn't a popularity contest.

And if the court must ban all the government every 2 years than so it is. Actually the law should be much stronger and MPs should be banned much easier.

[Siripon]

This is good news for Suthep and all those at Democracy Monument - more ammunition to attack the arrogant Pheua Thaksin party.

Even if they get banned how many MPs will they lose?- only 3 are executives. It's nothing.

[Emptyset]

This is good news for Suthep and all those at Democracy Monument - more ammunition to attack the arrogant Pheua Thaksin party.

Even if they get banned how many MPs will they lose?- only 3 are executives. It's nothing.

They could ban everyone who voted for the amendment.

[casindonet]

Why is he stunned? Not abiding by rules, locally & internationaly is something Thais are best at....the recent ruling by ICJ is just one good example that he supports.

Sent from my GT-I9200 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[BirdsandBooze]

A democratically elected government that chooses to ignore the law of the land has no right to call itself democratic.

[Emptyset]

No you are wrong. If the constitution makes it necessary to ban them than they must be banned. If not than not.

It is about right and wrong, it isn't a popularity contest.

And if the court must ban all the government every 2 years than so it is. Actually the law should be much stronger and MPs should be banned much easier.

Yes, it should be about right and wrong. It should be based entirely on what the constitution dictates with no other factors involved. But how does amending constitution for elected senate contravene section 68? I can't see how it does. And if I can't, don't be surprised if people who actually have something at stake resting on this decision see the decision as politicized.

They shouldn't keep banning parties, either. They should punish the individual responsible, but stop punishing the party as a whole and executives unless it can be found that they were directly involved. Make the law tougher for the individual responsible, sure. I'd say a ten year ban for starters.

[tim armstrong]

The missing link is education, both for all politicians and eventually the rest of the population. Think about western democracies - many or most voters don't really have a clue about how governments or political decision making works,. They just vote for their Party. But more or less, they also don't try to annihilate the Opposition, once an election is over, as they understand that it's OK to have a minority viewpoint and to have an Opposition.

But in Thailand voters are so polarised, along geographical, income and family lines, that anyone who is not with them should be hung, drawn and quartered! I suspect also that many politicians have little knowledge or interest in the legalities of constitutions. It's left to a few lawyers. There is no room for compromise. It's about who can get the biggest pieces of pie... and I wonder where that comes from ?? I hope the Court does make a clear and unambiguous decision tomorrow.