Pheu Thai reverses its stand on Constitutional Court

[rubl]

Totally correct.

It's a clarification to clarify clearly that a previous statement on possible not being able to fundamentally agree with a possible verdict was just another way of phrasing what we see in the OP:

"the party merely did not accept the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the composition of the Senate handed down on November 20 as the party deemed there is no section in the Constitution that allow the Constitutional Court to accept the petition for consideration and ruling."

and

"ruling Pheu Thai declared only that the Constitutional Court has no power to accept the petition in particular for consideration."

and

"The party did not declare that it will not accept the power of the Constitutional Court in general as understood."

So clearly in general yes, but when against us no.

Why is this statement called a 'reversal'. It is a clarification, understandable in plain English.

They accept the legality of the Constitutional Court to function as laid down by the attendant legislation, but they do not believe that the court acted within its remit when considering a matter brought to them via a petition which fell outside of the required protocol for bringing issues before the court.

As issues go in Thai politics, this isn't such a hard one to grasp.

[waza]

Totally correct.

It's a clarification to clarify clearly that a previous statement on possible not being able to fundamentally agree with a possible verdict was just another way of phrasing what we see in the OP:

"the party merely did not accept the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the composition of the Senate handed down on November 20 as the party deemed there is no section in the Constitution that allow the Constitutional Court to accept the petition for consideration and ruling."

and

"ruling Pheu Thai declared only that the Constitutional Court has no power to accept the petition in particular for consideration."

and

"The party did not declare that it will not accept the power of the Constitutional Court in general as understood."

So clearly in general yes, but when against us no.

Why is this statement called a 'reversal'. It is a clarification, understandable in plain English.

They accept the legality of the Constitutional Court to function as laid down by the attendant legislation, but they do not believe that the court acted within its remit when considering a matter brought to them via a petition which fell outside of the required protocol for bringing issues before the court.

As issues go in Thai politics, this isn't such a hard one to grasp.

Clarify this 15Peter20...........

BANGKOK: -- A group of Pheu Thai party MPs led by Sunai Chulapongsatorn will today ask the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) to file rebellion charge against Constitutional Court judges over its ruling of the amendment to the Constitution regarding the composition of the Senate.

Edited November 29, 2013 by waza

[noitom]

That be some serious backpeddling right there. Unfortunately for them it is also as transparent as the space between Yingluck's ears.

Let's go to the video tape.

[Keesters]

That be some serious backpeddling right there. Unfortunately for them it is also as transparent as the space between Yingluck's ears.

I wouldn't refer to that space as transparent at all. It is more like a black hole, sucking in everything and giving out nothing.

[Ulic]

Come to Jesus meeting.

[JRSoul]

Why is this statement called a 'reversal'. It is a clarification, understandable in plain English.

They accept the legality of the Constitutional Court to function as laid down by the attendant legislation, but they do not believe that the court acted within its remit when considering a matter brought to them via a petition which fell outside of the required protocol for bringing issues before the court.

As issues go in Thai politics, this isn't such a hard one to grasp.

Well yes. PTP take the attitude that all petition to the court will go via their "non-political" AG who will decide on the case's merits. A quick way to ensure nothing reaches the court without their approval. Very democratic, would you say?

[Emptyset]

Why is this statement called a 'reversal'. It is a clarification, understandable in plain English.

They accept the legality of the Constitutional Court to function as laid down by the attendant legislation, but they do not believe that the court acted within its remit when considering a matter brought to them via a petition which fell outside of the required protocol for bringing issues before the court.

As issues go in Thai politics, this isn't such a hard one to grasp.

Well yes. PTP take the attitude that all petition to the court will go via their "non-political" AG who will decide on the case's merits. A quick way to ensure nothing reaches the court without their approval. Very democratic, would you say?

That was the 'attitude' expressed in Section 68 of the sacrosanct constitution too. “In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Attorney General to investigate the facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person”.

That's not the only reason that PT have for believing court acted outside it's remit though. I recommend Atiya Achakulwisut's article in today's Bangkok Post titled 'Democracy lies with the people, not the court' for more on this.

Thanks also to 15Peter20 for making plain PT's actual position. I was also wondering why statement was described a 'reversal' when it's clearly nothing of the sort.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Emptyset

[JRSoul]

Why is this statement called a 'reversal'. It is a clarification, understandable in plain English.

They accept the legality of the Constitutional Court to function as laid down by the attendant legislation, but they do not believe that the court acted within its remit when considering a matter brought to them via a petition which fell outside of the required protocol for bringing issues before the court.

As issues go in Thai politics, this isn't such a hard one to grasp.

Well yes. PTP take the attitude that all petition to the court will go via their "non-political" AG who will decide on the case's merits. A quick way to ensure nothing reaches the court without their approval. Very democratic, would you say?

That was the 'attitude' expressed in Section 68 of the sacrosanct constitution too. “In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Attorney General to investigate the facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person”.

That's not the only reason that PT have for believing court acted outside it's remit though. I recommend Atiya Achakulwisut's article in today's Bangkok Post titled 'Democracy lies with the people, not the court' for more on this.

Thanks also to 15Peter20 for making plain PT's actual position. I was also wondering why statement was described a 'reversal' when it's clearly nothing of the sort.

The problem is that this government doesn't understand the concept of "independent". Supposedly independent positions, the AG, the house Speaker and the DSI, are quite obviously not, and this is not a boost for democracy in this country, removing the checks and balances that stop democracy sliding into dictatorship.

[Moruya]

Until the entire collection of 312 misfits in the big house and the red turnip crunchers in the moo baan sign a letter of humble apology to the CC and promise never again to criticize or threaten then they haven't done enough.

[Thai at Heart]

Doesn't look like they reversed their stand at all.

"In fact, the statement said, the party merely did not accept the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the composition of the Senate handed down on November 20"

Looks like the usual belligerent "We know Best, and the rest of you <deleted>" attitude.

How about getting the media to report this correctly, instead of just being a Government mouthpiece?

Before the coup Thailand had elected Senate memebers, it was only the army who changed it so they could hand pick Senators thereby controlling any government. What was wrong with the 97 constitution

And eventually the senate became filled up with the wives and relatives of the mps. Is that what was intended?

[Emptyset]

Why is this statement called a 'reversal'. It is a clarification, understandable in plain English.

They accept the legality of the Constitutional Court to function as laid down by the attendant legislation, but they do not believe that the court acted within its remit when considering a matter brought to them via a petition which fell outside of the required protocol for bringing issues before the court.

As issues go in Thai politics, this isn't such a hard one to grasp.

Well yes. PTP take the attitude that all petition to the court will go via their "non-political" AG who will decide on the case's merits. A quick way to ensure nothing reaches the court without their approval. Very democratic, would you say?

That was the 'attitude' expressed in Section 68 of the sacrosanct constitution too. “In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Attorney General to investigate the facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person”.

That's not the only reason that PT have for believing court acted outside it's remit though. I recommend Atiya Achakulwisut's article in today's Bangkok Post titled 'Democracy lies with the people, not the court' for more on this.

Thanks also to 15Peter20 for making plain PT's actual position. I was also wondering why statement was described a 'reversal' when it's clearly nothing of the sort.

The problem is that this government doesn't understand the concept of "independent". Supposedly independent positions, the AG, the house Speaker and the DSI, are quite obviously not, and this is not a boost for democracy in this country, removing the checks and balances that stop democracy sliding into dictatorship.

It's a fair point. How do you ensure these positions are independent under any govt? But that IS the way the constitution is written, so I don't see why PT are in the wrong for claiming as much.

[Magenta2013]

Why is this statement called a 'reversal'. It is a clarification, understandable in plain English.

They accept the legality of the Constitutional Court to function as laid down by the attendant legislation, but they do not believe that the court acted within its remit when considering a matter brought to them via a petition which fell outside of the required protocol for bringing issues before the court.

As issues go in Thai politics, this isn't such a hard one to grasp.

Its called a reversal as previously the "media" under the control of the Democrats/PAD/Elite reported that PTP would not accept the ruling in order to whip up protest numbers and hate of PTP.

The PTP party itself never officially did half what the media reported they did from their "sources".

PTP has issued a clarification (not a reversal) - but the media under the control of the Dems/PAD/Elite will not report it as a clarification as this is against what they already wrote - so they will headline the clarification as a reversal.

You have to remember, 99% of the PTP "source" stories quoted in the media are in fact nothing to do with PTP or PTP sources - its purely propoganda by the Dems/PAD/Yellows/Elite to try to stir up hatred of Thaksin/Yingluck/Red Shirts/PTP etc.....

One of the major issues with Thai media is the ability to print any story and quote an unamed source.................

[jdinasia]

An elegantly executed backflip

Not really ..... they are still saying they do not accept the ruling of the court. They are just backtracking on not accepting the court's power in theory.

I am unsure if the Supreme Ct has the power to overtyrn the Constitutional court's rulings but if not then there is zero semantic change in their claim. if the Supreme Ct does have that power, has PTP petitioned it for redress yet?

[waza]

An elegantly executed backflip

Not really ..... they are still saying they do not accept the ruling of the court. They are just backtracking on not accepting the court's power in theory.

I am unsure if the Supreme Ct has the power to overtyrn the Constitutional court's rulings but if not then there is zero semantic change in their claim. if the Supreme Ct does have that power, has PTP petitioned it for redress yet?

So tell me are they going ahead with the rebellion charges against the CC? If not then its another crude clumsy backflip.

Edited November 30, 2013 by waza