2 February election can be postponed, Constitutional Court rules: Thailand

[Kooweerup]

So the demonstrations need to be called off so Thai's can go to the polls. Guess democracy is in Suthep's hands. Do we want continued mayhem or a democratically elected government?

[Thai at Heart]

THE FEBRUARY 2 election can only be postponed if the ongoing protests are brought to an end and there is no boycott of the election,

Shouldn't that be proceed,

There is a tautology in the logic here surely?

[icommunity]

2007 Constitutional referendum and the subsequent general election were held under military rule. As for the 2007 Constitutional referendum the junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. It was a national referendum which attracted only about 55.6% turned up and 59.3% voted for.

Which is significantly more voters than those who voted for PTP in the 2011 election.

What are you trying to compare??? Or are you trying to mislead again???

[MaiChai]

6 months or 4 month delay. That gives plenty of time for PT to further shoot themselves in the foot and be disqualified. I would say there is very little chance Yingluck or any of the current PT cabinet will serve in Taksins next government. Will another family member be groomed for the next PM?

[JRSoul]

2007 Constitutional referendum and the subsequent general election were held under military rule. As for the 2007 Constitutional referendum the junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. It was a national referendum which attracted only about 55.6% turned up and 59.3% voted for.

Which is significantly more voters than those who voted for PTP in the 2011 election.

What are you trying to compare??? Or are you trying to mislead again???

Correction just for you. A higher percentage of eligible voters voted for the 2007 constitution than for PTP in 2011 (assuming the percentage figures supplied here were correct).

[icommunity]

2007 Constitutional referendum and the subsequent general election were held under military rule. As for the 2007 Constitutional referendum the junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. It was a national referendum which attracted only about 55.6% turned up and 59.3% voted for.

Which is significantly more voters than those who voted for PTP in the 2011 election.

Yes votes for 2007 Constitution: 14,727,306

Votes for PT in 2011: 15,744,190

Hmmm. Must have been a large increase in the number of eligible voters, or the percentage figures posted here were wrong.

48% of 65% = 31.2% of voters

59% of 55.6% = 32.8

The different is : One is a national referendum and the other a General election.

2007 Constitution - It is not only illegal but an criminal act to made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum.

2011 GE : Free, democratic election

When you consider the figure of 14,727,306, what is the % of the total eligible voters voted for the 2007 Constitution. Who were they likely be? I guess - the soldiers, the DEM, those who were confused by the campaign of the military that it was for the King, vote buying, those who were intimidated and those who wanted a General Election - the junta threatened if the Constitution is not voted for, there would be no GE.

[icommunity]

2007 Constitutional referendum and the subsequent general election were held under military rule. As for the 2007 Constitutional referendum the junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. It was a national referendum which attracted only about 55.6% turned up and 59.3% voted for.

Which is significantly more voters than those who voted for PTP in the 2011 election.

What are you trying to compare??? Or are you trying to mislead again???

Correction just for you. A higher percentage of eligible voters voted for the 2007 constitution than for PTP in 2011 (assuming the percentage figures supplied here were correct).

National referendum and General Election are entirely two different types of election. Further more they were held at different time and apparently the eligible votes had increased.

[rickirs]

So the court just threw the case right back at the EC. Now what? Can the EC change the date without the government approval? If either side disagree with the other side what happens? Seems the court did a terrible job making a decision here.

Court clearly went against the Constitution but clearly decided that BOTH the Government and EC must agree to any change in election date. Mothing is thrown back to the EC. I would imagine if either side disagrees with a change, the mandated date stays in place. And all the Government has to do is abide by the Constitutional mandated date. Win - Win for the Government.

[MrSlatersParrot]

The different is : One is a national referendum and the other a General election.

2007 Constitution - It is not only illegal but an criminal act to made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum.

2011 GE : Free, democratic election

When you consider the figure of 14,727,306, what is the % of the total eligible voters voted for the 2007 Constitution. Who were they likely be? I guess - the soldiers, the DEM, those who were confused by the campaign of the military that it was for the King, vote buying, those who were intimidated and those who wanted a General Election - the junta threatened if the Constitution is not voted for, there would be no GE.

and as has been revealed in Wikileaks the US extracted a promise from the Junta that elections would be held within a year so the threat they made NOT to hold an election was an empty threat but they still duped the people and gave themselves an amnesty for their duplicity and corruption (like the 5 million dollars stolen from Swampy by the general who took charge.)

[rickirs]

Really, what's the point of asking whether elections should be delayed based on the spector of disruptions on election day? Suthep has made it clear he will block ANY election until he has control of the Government and election process via his people's committee. How can the Government believe Suthep won't dusrupt a rescheduled election in ad infinitum; Suthep will just continue to use civil disobediance and the denial of people's right to a free election mandated by the Constituion. If Suthep goes back on an agreement to a new specified election date with more dusruptions, what will happen? A State of Emergency already exists and he clearly disregards any civility. The only advantage to the Government to reschedule is that if Suthep reneges on his word, it has the moral authority to arrest him.

[JRSoul]

Correction just for you. A higher percentage of eligible voters voted for the 2007 constitution than for PTP in 2011 (assuming the percentage figures supplied here were correct).

National referendum and General Election are entirely two different types of election. Further more they were held at different time and apparently the eligible votes had increased.

Different time? Hey, you spotted that. I bet the given dates gave it away.

[icommunity]

Correction just for you. A higher percentage of eligible voters voted for the 2007 constitution than for PTP in 2011 (assuming the percentage figures supplied here were correct).

National referendum and General Election are entirely two different types of election. Further more they were held at different time and apparently the eligible votes had increased.

Different time? Hey, you spotted that. I bet the given dates gave it away.

What are you talking about?????

[Thait Spot]

So the court just threw the case right back at the EC. Now what? Can the EC change the date without the government approval? If either side disagree with the other side what happens? Seems the court did a terrible job making a decision here.

Court clearly went against the Constitution but clearly decided that BOTH the Government and EC must agree to any change in election date. Mothing is thrown back to the EC. I would imagine if either side disagrees with a change, the mandated date stays in place. And all the Government has to do is abide by the Constitutional mandated date. Win - Win for the Government.

The constitution says that elections may be postponed in the event of a national emergency.

By passing the decision back to the same 2 bodies - the EC and the caretaker government - it maintains the constitution.

By calling a state of emergency, the government may have shot itself in what little remains of its feet

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Thai at Heart]

Really, what's the point of asking whether elections should be delayed based on the spector of disruptions on election day? Suthep has made it clear he will block ANY election until he has control of the Government and election process via his people's committee. How can the Government believe Suthep won't dusrupt a rescheduled election in ad infinitum; Suthep will just continue to use civil disobediance and the denial of people's right to a free election mandated by the Constituion. If Suthep goes back on an agreement to a new specified election date with more dusruptions, what will happen? A State of Emergency already exists and he clearly disregards any civility. The only advantage to the Government to reschedule is that if Suthep reneges on his word, it has the moral authority to arrest him.

They should vote and anyone from the protest site be banned from voting next time.

Lol. Why do they care they don't like elections anyway.

[icommunity]

The different is : One is a national referendum and the other a General election.

2007 Constitution - It is not only illegal but an criminal act to made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum.

2011 GE : Free, democratic election

When you consider the figure of 14,727,306, what is the % of the total eligible voters voted for the 2007 Constitution. Who were they likely be? I guess - the soldiers, the DEM, those who were confused by the campaign of the military that it was for the King, vote buying, those who were intimidated and those who wanted a General Election - the junta threatened if the Constitution is not voted for, there would be no GE.

and as has been revealed in Wikileaks the US extracted a promise from the Junta that elections would be held within a year so the threat they made NOT to hold an election was an empty threat but they still duped the people and gave themselves an amnesty for their duplicity and corruption (like the 5 million dollars stolen from Swampy by the general who took charge.)

Yes, the threat might be an empty one, but they were those voted for under the influence of the threat of no General Election if the constitution is not voted for.

[Ricardo]

They should vote and anyone from the protest site be banned from voting next time.

Lol. Why do they care they don't like elections anyway.

Lists should be kept, and peoples' right-to-vote removed, isn't that what the yellows are usually accused-of (falsely IMO) ?

And if there were really over-a-million on-the-streets, at some points last year, that's going to be a pretty long list.

Call for Tarit and the DSI, to remove their rights investigate them all, freeze their assets & charge them with fascism or treason too, why not ?

Yay for Red Democracy, etcetera !

But the anti-government protesters are, if what we're told is true, pro-democracy & pro-elections ... it's just that they think a bit of reform is needed, first.

Personally I do think they have the right to think that, although I don't entirely agree, with the Dems (a different, if sometimes over-lapping, sub-set of Thais) boycotting this particular election.

Of course if that goes against what Thaksin wants, then they must be wrong, perhaps re-education camps should be added to the list, to teach them 'true democracy' and 'red thinking' ?

Not directed against you, Thai at Heart , just a wider comment on where that approach can lead.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Ricardo

[kikoman]

I praise the results, the EC attempt to postpone the election, by refering it to the Court back fired on them.

Now they must meet with the government to make a mutual decision to posrpone the election.

Yingluck has no opposition to the postponing but the protesters must agree to end their protest and go home, and all must agree to participate in the new election.

Ball back in your court Suthep!

Cheers

[Spalpeen]

PCAD claim that their protests are 'entirely peaceful' but the EC expect widespread violence on the day of the election. They can't both be right. Clearly the EC believes PCAD to be a terrorist organisation bent on subverting an election by violence.

Personally I think the predicted violence would be like Suthep's Big Bangkok Shutdown - a big flop. Roll on the election.

[slapout]

Both sides are showing their arse by throwing out conditions before even agreeing to setting down and talking like the adults they are suspose to be. One side wants a formal invite to meet, with additional party stipulations to be met. The other is demanding complete removal of the Shin family from government, and cancel the scheduled election Then add in the nonpublicized requests/demands that seem to be a part of Thai political 'horse trading' and the public is still in the dark and on the outside looking in.

If the need for a for a independent/unbiased mediator/team was ever in doubt, this bunch of school yard want to be 'teacher lackies' should wake the people of Thailand, to just how far their political system has sunk into the cesspool, that is referred to as Thai government/politics.

[GeorgeO]

Despite Khaosod's utterly gratuitous last sentence, the EC has indeed constitutional authority. The Constitution Court has affirmed it, and Khoasod - and the administration - was wrong. The Yingluck administration said that the EC did not have the authority. They also insisted that a delay was unconstitutional. The Constitution Court ruled that assumption was wrong. And the administration - and Khaosod - should get over it. The Yingluck administration - and Khaosod - have egg all over their face. How's that for a Khaosod headline ?

As the Constitution Court says that the EC and the administration - jointly - have the power to delay, it obviously means that the administration will simply keep on their path, dictate to the EC or ignore it completely, and forge ahead. A terrible decision - but it's Pheu Thai - one can't expect them to suddenly be cured of their inclination to make terrible decisions. So the election goes ahead. In Udon Thani it will be a roaring success, and likely will go smoothly through at least most of the North. But the bets stop there, and it's anyone's guess what's going to happen elsewhere. But even if the whole thing went without a hitch, the numbers add up to a quorum-less parliament before it even starts. There is no endgame for the administration. And in the interim, there is an unprecedented lack of consensus in the country, a great deal of unrest, and an unlawful caretaker-imposed emergency decree, as the Yingluck administration is determined to exit the stage by delivering a good, swift kick to the media.

The constitutional court and the elites are one and the same making this up as they go along, and so are you.

I beg to disagree. This outcome was blindingly obvious to anyone who bothered to consider the constitution.

Just the fact that any election date is announced by the sitting government, after agreeing with the electoral commission, was the great big clue.

Neither the government, caretaker or otherwise, or the electoral commission have the right to unilaterally decide on an acceptable election date.

The election date must be agreed by both parties.

The constitution court has merely reaffirmed this and sent it back to both the government and the EC to reach agreement.

That the caretaker government has continually refused to discuss setting a new election date, is definitely more questionable and, in effect, contrary to the constitution.

I actually think that the CC's decision is a prelude to further intervention. The CC has suggested that the caretaker government 'may' wish to start discussing an election delay with the EC, but the EC has been calling on YL to meet to discuss the matter for weeks, and has been ignored.

Yl has now been told that her objection to such a move, that she might be charged with failing to do her duty, has been removed, so she can cancel the election without any fear of prosecution.

If YL refuses to recognise that what the CC has actually done is to offer her a face-saving way out of the current impasse, then the next step will probably be for the CC to advise the EC that they have the power to unilaterally delay the election, citing the intransigence of the caretaker government as sufficient grounds to warrant such a move.

[GeorgeO]

PCAD claim that their protests are 'entirely peaceful' but the EC expect widespread violence on the day of the election. They can't both be right. Clearly the EC believes PCAD to be a terrorist organisation bent on subverting an election by violence.

Personally I think the predicted violence would be like Suthep's Big Bangkok Shutdown - a big flop. Roll on the election.

That's some wonderful insight that you have into the thinking of the EC. Are they providing you with daily updates? And who exactly with the Commission was it that told you that the PCAD was a "terroist organisation bent on subversion"?

Don't you think that the fact that the EC expects violence on the day of the election might be based upon: (i) the recent spoutings of the red shirts stating that they will intervene by whatever measures are necessary; and (ii) a reasoned response to the current impasse aimed at avoiding such violence?

[gabruce]

So the court just threw the case right back at the EC. Now what? Can the EC change the date without the government approval? If either side disagree with the other side what happens? Seems the court did a terrible job making a decision here.

Well... I think the full reading might be better than this summary - it still doesn't say *what* the basis of delaying an election should be. The reasons listed in the constitution don't seem to apply here, but if the court has not said clearly that these protests constitute a "National" emergency, then I think the government is still on thin ice if it agrees to delay.

The constitution is fairly clear that civil unrest is a valid reason. So maybe it's just a question of whether the current situation could be described as civil unrest. My opinion is that it's definitely civil unrest. It seems widespread and broad-based.

[Publicus]

Despite Khaosod's utterly gratuitous last sentence, the EC has indeed constitutional authority. The Constitution Court has affirmed it, and Khoasod - and the administration - was wrong. The Yingluck administration said that the EC did not have the authority. They also insisted that a delay was unconstitutional. The Constitution Court ruled that assumption was wrong. And the administration - and Khaosod - should get over it. The Yingluck administration - and Khaosod - have egg all over their face. How's that for a Khaosod headline ?

As the Constitution Court says that the EC and the administration - jointly - have the power to delay, it obviously means that the administration will simply keep on their path, dictate to the EC or ignore it completely, and forge ahead. A terrible decision - but it's Pheu Thai - one can't expect them to suddenly be cured of their inclination to make terrible decisions. So the election goes ahead. In Udon Thani it will be a roaring success, and likely will go smoothly through at least most of the North. But the bets stop there, and it's anyone's guess what's going to happen elsewhere. But even if the whole thing went without a hitch, the numbers add up to a quorum-less parliament before it even starts. There is no endgame for the administration. And in the interim, there is an unprecedented lack of consensus in the country, a great deal of unrest, and an unlawful caretaker-imposed emergency decree, as the Yingluck administration is determined to exit the stage by delivering a good, swift kick to the media.

The constitutional court and the elites are one and the same making this up as they go along, and so are you.

I beg to disagree. This outcome was blindingly obvious to anyone who bothered to consider the constitution.

Just the fact that any election date is announced by the sitting government, after agreeing with the electoral commission, was the great big clue.

Neither the government, caretaker or otherwise, or the electoral commission have the right to unilaterally decide on an acceptable election date.

The election date must be agreed by both parties.

The constitution court has merely reaffirmed this and sent it back to both the government and the EC to reach agreement.

That the caretaker government has continually refused to discuss setting a new election date, is definitely more questionable and, in effect, contrary to the constitution.

The Thai judicial system does not use the doctrine of stare decisis in its processes or in its substantive decision making, which means the constitutional court does not base its decisions on precedent, i.e., previous rulings it has made in like, same, similar cases in the past.

Adhering to the doctrine of precedent would require the court to categorize all cases before it based on its prior rulings, all the way back to year zero.

Stare decisis, or precedent, would mean the court would have to develop a consistent, coherent, body of law in cases of any given category. The body of law would be somewhat predictable and applicable to all cases that are like, same, similar, although it's recognized no one can really predict what a court will do in a given case.

By not adhering to the legal principle of precedent, the Thai legal system does not have to have a consistent and coherent body of law in matters of election law or in any other matters pertaining to any other law. Without precedent, the courts of the Thai legal system have freedom and latitude to roam the legal landscape in any given case or decision, unbound or unobligated by any constraints from prior rulings and unrestrained in the rulings it can make at any time.

Absent the legal doctrine of stare decisis, precedent, the court is free to make any determination in anything anytime regardless of what it may have ruled previously.

[pipkins]

Well the letter to Obama really had an effect. NY Times is his paper's propaganda arm and totally in line with Democrat (the real ones who contest elections in the US, not the ones hiding under the bed here) thinking and policy.

Coup d' etat attempt by CC they are saying. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/world/asia/thai-constitutional-court-says-election-can-be-postponed.html?_r=0

Meanwhile the Democrats hedging as usual. Pity Korn didn't come out and start a new movement, he could have been the one to boot Suthep out, but carry on the reform elements of the movement and ditch the personal vendetta and power claw back elements.

But, when he popped out from under the bed, Suthep threatened him and Abhisit pulled him back in. Now they are only to be seen praising the traitor for fear they may be even further out in the cold should he get in.

Nobody on the horizon yet, but meanwhile,,,,,, thailand is once again called out be world media who KNOW what a Judicial Coup is. All the junk thai media journalism is for home consumption. They cynically exploit thais by appealing to their baser instincts.

Proof today that Yingluk is right with the SOE as they are trying to contain the red shirts in Pathum Thani who the straits times says are massing 1 -2,000 every night. Many armed is a big problem that the Gov. very sensibly is also tryint to contain along with this fascist mob in Asoke.

She is coming out as a calm, even handed leader... compare that with the alternative.... NY Times did

Coup if you want to, but you put the country into serious strife for at least a generation.

[Spalpeen]

PCAD claim that their protests are 'entirely peaceful' but the EC expect widespread violence on the day of the election. They can't both be right. Clearly the EC believes PCAD to be a terrorist organisation bent on subverting an election by violence.

Personally I think the predicted violence would be like Suthep's Big Bangkok Shutdown - a big flop. Roll on the election.

That's some wonderful insight that you have into the thinking of the EC. Are they providing you with daily updates? And who exactly with the Commission was it that told you that the PCAD was a "terroist organisation bent on subversion"?

Don't you think that the fact that the EC expects violence on the day of the election might be based upon: (i) the recent spoutings of the red shirts stating that they will intervene by whatever measures are necessary; and (ii) a reasoned response to the current impasse aimed at avoiding such violence?

Just yesterday Suthep was ranting from a stage that PCAD was going to disrupt the election. The EC obviously pays more attention to the news than you do. Or maybe you agree with that loony SEAL Admiral and think the Cambodians are going to invade.

PCAD threatens to disrupt election - EC expects violence on election day. It ain't rocket science.

[Ulic]

So I guess nothing is unconstitutional as long as you issue a Royal Decree. A slippery slope in my view.

[whybother]

I praise the results, the EC attempt to postpone the election, by refering it to the Court back fired on them.

Now they must meet with the government to make a mutual decision to posrpone the election.

Yingluck has no opposition to the postponing but the protesters must agree to end their protest and go home, and all must agree to participate in the new election.

Ball back in your court Suthep!

Cheers

Actually, it hasn't back fired. The government keep saying that the election can't be postponed. The courts have now said that it can be.

Sent from my phone ...

[Piichai]

Most of you are forgetting the reasons "why" the election was scheduled in such a rush and "why" the Govt is not keen to postpone it:

1. The 180 days for the Amnesty Bill has not expired yet which they can pass without hinderance if reelected soon

2. The dissatisfaction with payments for the Rice Scheme is growing daily, losing them support from their main power base

They can't and won't postpone.

First post I've seen today that is downright true and gets to the heart of the matter!

Nothing but a bunch of speculation and BS

Not at all!

[Arkady]

The Thai judicial system does not use the doctrine of stare decisis in its processes or in its substantive decision making, which means the constitutional court does not base its decisions on precedent, i.e., previous rulings it has made in like, same, similar cases in the past.

Adhering to the doctrine of precedent would require the court to categorize all cases before it based on its prior rulings, all the way back to year zero.

Stare decisis, or precedent, would mean the court would have to develop a consistent, coherent, body of law in cases of any given category. The body of law would be somewhat predictable and applicable to all cases that are like, same, similar, although it's recognized no one can really predict what a court will do in a given case.

By not adhering to the legal principle of precedent, the Thai legal system does not have to have a consistent and coherent body of law in matters of election law or in any other matters pertaining to any other law. Without precedent, the courts of the Thai legal system have freedom and latitude to roam the legal landscape in any given case or decision, unbound or unobligated by any constraints from prior rulings and unrestrained in the rulings it can make at any time.

Absent the legal doctrine of stare decisis, precedent, the court is free to make any determination in anything anytime regardless of what it may have ruled previously.

Publicus, you are absolutely correct but this is because Thailand has a European style civil law system, not an Anglo-Saxon style common law system. The principle of legal precedents is the corner stone of the common law system, whereas in civil law jurisdictions it is codified laws that are open to interpretation by courts and precedents of much lesser importance. One of Chulalongkorn's sons, Prince Ratchburi, studied law at Oxford and later put forward a detailed proposal for Thailand to adopt the common law system. However, the King's advisors who favoured French law won the day and Thailand adopted civil law and based the Penal Code on French law. It was thought at the time that common law would be too fluid for that stage in the nation's development under absolute monarchy and that civil law would be allow for more control through the courts, enabling Thailand's administration to follow more closely the systems that were working well in Britain's colonies in the region that were admired by King Chulalongkorn as facilitating stability and prosperity for the citizenry.

Things would be different if Chulalongkorn had been swayed by Ratchburi's advice but, as it is, your comments could equally apply to France, Italy, Spain, Germany and other European legal systems.

An excellent example of how precedents can be disregarded was Thaksin's assets concealment case in the Constitutional Court when he was acquitted of hiding his Shin Corp shares in the accounts of his family's servants, one of whom was in the habit of trading his portfolio after he had already passed away. Sanan was found guilty of assets/ iability concealment by the same court two weeks earlier, despite the fact that the amount of the concealment was trivial, compared to Thaksin's, and that he had concealed a debt, rather than assets.

Notwithstanding, the Constitutional Court in his recent ruling did in fact take precedents into account, citing the postponed of elections in 2006 in a similarly chaotic situation when Thaksin had refused to resign as caretaker PM (but took leave).

Anyway, is your point that Thailand and most Western European countries should reform their legal systems by adopting common law systems. It may be a good idea but does seem to smack of Anglo-Saxon arrogance?

[Covertjay]

Thai Court Says Delay of Elections Is Constitutional

By THOMAS FULLER

JAN. 24, 2014

BANGKOK — A Thai court ruled Friday that a postponement of coming elections, which protesters have worked feverishly to block, is lawful under the country’s Constitution.

The decision by the Constitutional Court was a blow to Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and surprised many legal scholars, who say there are no provisions under Thai law for a delay.

Some constitutional experts described the decision as a form of judicial coup d’état because it could leave a power vacuum if elections were not held.

An aide to Ms. Yingluck said on Thai television that the government would study the court’s decision. But he also seemed to leave the door open for negotiations with opposition forces, especially the Democrat Party, which is boycotting the elections.

Explaining its decision, the court said in a short statement that the Constitution “does not absolutely mandate that the election day cannot be rescheduled.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/world/asia/thai-constitutional-court-says-election-can-be-postponed.html?_r=0

Edited January 25, 2014 by metisdead
Edited per fair use policy