Problems reflect lack of a neutral agency to maintain order: Thai politics

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Problems reflect lack of a neutral agency to maintain order
Supalak Ganjanakhundee
The Nation

Unless the law can be enforced, what is the reason for a nation to have the rule of law?

BANGKOK: -- The current political conflict was supposed to settle within the legal framework from last year when the government, under Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, decided to dissolve the House of Representative and called a snap election to assemble a new Cabinet to run the country.

Those who disliked the government's policies, including the proposal of an amnesty bill, had the opportunity to install a new government and leaders they favoured.

Those who wanted to reform the country, including proposals to amend many laws as well as the charter, had a chance to test their ideas on the public and ask for a national mandate to do so.

Those who had a number of good ideas to run and develop their beloved country would also get the right to propose themselves as candidates in the election.

An election is the best forum for all conflicting parties to contest their proposals freely, fairly and peacefully.

The urban middle class protesters and allies in high society did not make the right choice, but pushed forward in an unconstitutional and undemocratic way to have non-elected legislative and executive branches administer the country.

Legally speaking, the idea to have a non-elected government run the country and a people's council to make the laws is clearly against Article 68 of the current Constitution.

In its wording, the article says 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 under this Constitution, or to "acquire the power to rule the country by any means not in accordance with the methods provided in this Constitution."

The election is the only right and legitimate way to acquire the power to run the country and to constitutionally empower elected MPs to make laws. No single clause in the charter could apply to supporting a non-elected government.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed an act as mentioned above, "the person knowing of such an act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such an act without, however, prejudice to the

institution of a criminal action against such person", it says.

Cases were brought before the Constitutional Court, but the judgement simply ruled that the anti-government protest was constitutional. Such a verdict set precedence for other court rulings that all actions - including disruption of an election, violence and procession of weapons - committed by the protesters were lawful.

Violence and street battles that have claimed nearly two dozen lives since the end of November loom over the capital and other cities and the trend is for them to increase.

The government and state agencies lack the power to enforce the law to keep peace and order, not only because they are part of the conflicting parties, but also because the judicial branch uses its authority to support the opposing side.

There is no neutral agency in Thailand to act as a state authority to maintain law and order.

The government, its ministries and police are on one side while the judicial, independent agencies including the Election Commission, are on the other.

The military tried to say it's non-partisan but apparently at least some commanders favour the anti-government allies.

The rule of law is an unlikely option to solve the problem, so real and raw power is likely to.


-- The Nation 2014-02-26

[pookiki]

Will anyone listen to a rational argument as this without the writer being labeled a flaming red-shirt supporter?

[Thai at Heart]

That's what pooyais of all sides day every day.

What's the point in having a law?

[NongKhaiKid]

Is anything neutral or independent In Thailand, can it ever be ?

Too many vested and usually financial interests in play.

[PaullyW]

I've said it before, and it really is a core problem in Thai society.

Thais do not follow ideas or principles or laws as a priority. Instead, they follow PEOPLE. They are beholden to their pooyais and bosses and families and friends and coworkers and village etc

The financial interests are important, but those exist in every country and still many such countries don't consistently fall into chaos like Thailand does.

The difference is that when encountered with a decision to make, rather than a Thai consulting principle, morality, ethics or laws, he/she will instead ask "who is my leader here or what is my group affiliation and how can I act to benefit them"

Its at the core of all flaws in Thai society and it is the biggest reason there is no independence in Thailand.

Thais are not stupid, many understand the concepts of independence and rule of law. As a people, however, they seem unable to break with the old feudal mentality that still rules the country under all the shiny law books of course.

Edited February 26, 2014 by PaullyW

[Fryslan boppe]

It all gets back to the imperfect concept of elections to identify the majority to govern and a minority to challenge and critique....There is absolutely no reason for a PAD-Dem defeatist attitude against elections.....They can win an election every bit as easily as the Thaksin legacy governments.

Just not the way they are trying to do it. But unfortunately for them to adapt, they need to overcome a sense of Elitist entitlement and disrespect for those not of their station.

Imagine them going through the electoral cycle of carefully segmenting society, adopting policies geared to each of those segments, divesting themselves of leadership with huge historical baggage of anger and previous electoral malfeasance, including R'song and being hoisted into political power via unelected means, combining all that with a dynamic new leader with roots outside the Elitist realm, etc.....

With all of that for starters, why couldn't they win an election?

[BlueNoseCodger]

<deleted>, even theNation is saying this?

How about they remove the legal protection that courts have that stop them being criticized. At least then we'd be free to discuss the real problems. How many times has TV shown actual videos of what happened, then reads out a court verdict that says the exact opposite happened. Naturally they don't comment, but the message is clear. So the court doesn't really escape criticism anyway, even with this law.

People don't trust the courts as a result they don't trust the law.

The courts should be criticized if they make bad or corrupt decisions.

[binjalin]

GULP... I can't believe I actually like a 'The Nation' article

[Yunla]

Its not about election, its about regulation.

That applies to parliamentary regulation, application of justice, hard prison sentences as deterrent. Crooks ar far more reluctant to indulge their antisocial habits if there is a prison cell waiting for them.

But the weak regulation of extremist policy and bill-making, lack of regulation of House Speaker who takes orders via Skype from unelected criminal interests overseas (treason), these things all add up to a loopholed system that enables crooks to push through corrupt schemes like passports-for-relatives and larcenous tablet/rice scams etc.

Lack of regulation in the political sphere is reflected in the wider society, in lack of regulation of food, water, roads, driving-standards, bridges, tourist-trap scams, etc.etc.etc..

Lack of regulation is the only problem here, and it is cross-spectrum and truly gargantuan.

[djjamie]

An this article in itself shows the complete hypocrisy of the unelected accused mass murderer, accused terrorist, convicted criminal fugitive regime bosses minions.

The UDD / PTP respect the rule of law when it suits them. They will ignore them when it does not suit them. The courts can't be correct one day and incorrect the next depending on the judgement.

The minions respect "The Nation" newspaper when it suits them as in this OP. Yet call it a tool of the DME's when it does not suit them. So what is. "The Nation" is a tool of the DEM's or not.

With all that aside though. They can harp on about elections all they like. The Honorable Abhisit is more electable than thaksin yet the unelected thaksin runs the country (yes yes yingluck WAS PM)

I like the veiled threat to start a civil war at the end if the courts don't rule in the PTP's favor.

[taony]

"Those who disliked the government's policies, including the proposal of an amnesty bill, had the opportunity to install a new government and leaders they favoured."

Which election was this? The 2 February was a farce. There was nothing to vote for. Barely any campaigning, no one to choose from. Really people could only speak out by not voting or voting "no one". You are left with the same result. So maybe people did speak out, its just no one wants to listen.

[blaze]

A good article- Thailand is, as others have mentioned above ruled not by law, but by custom- and custom dictates that you leave important decisions to your social betters-- Not think too mut. But follow blindly. The law traditonally has existed as a method of maintaing the status quo- maintaining the harmonious dynamics of a classist society. Yet currently, it is written to reflect the western values of individual rights to justice- that principles trump expedience. This makes no sense to a lot of people- In the west the law has an almost sancrosanct value- here, it is at best a convenience with which to hammer your enemies- or simply an inconvenience to be reinterpreted in the most absurd fashion, to be circumvented- or to be simply ignored.

Maybe- maybe this analysis is wrong-- but...

[retarius]

Finally a balanced article....but I do hate the "snap" election comment which has become routine now in the media. It suggests she called the election to surprise her opponents when, in fact her opponents were calling for her resignation knowing that when she resigned she was constitutionally required to call an election within a certain timeframe.

[binjalin]

Its not about election, its about regulation.

That applies to parliamentary regulation, application of justice, hard prison sentences as deterrent. Crooks ar far more reluctant to indulge their antisocial habits if there is a prison cell waiting for them.

But the weak regulation of extremist policy and bill-making, lack of regulation of House Speaker who takes orders via Skype from unelected criminal interests overseas (treason), these things all add up to a loopholed system that enables crooks to push through corrupt schemes like passports-for-relatives and larcenous tablet/rice scams etc.

Lack of regulation in the political sphere is reflected in the wider society, in lack of regulation of food, water, roads, driving-standards, bridges, tourist-trap scams, etc.etc.etc..

Lack of regulation is the only problem here, and it is cross-spectrum and truly gargantuan.

yes it ALL comes down to this... regulation and law but I understand the 'law of precedent' does not apply here - just each judge making up his own mind

complete overhaul top to bottom

[animatic]

Which should read :

" Problems reflect lack of a neutral agency to maintain order",

respected by all sides, even when it rules against them.

Which in the current status quo means impossible to find.

Edited February 26, 2014 by animatic

[Suriya4]

"The government, its ministries and police are on one side while the judicial, independent agencies including the Election Commission, are on the other."

I don't think this statement is fair.

Is the writer implying that the "Judges" in Thailand are bias?

[BlueNoseCodger]

An this article in itself shows the complete hypocrisy of the unelected accused mass murderer, accused terrorist, convicted criminal fugitive regime bosses minions.

The UDD / PTP respect the rule of law when it suits them. They will ignore them when it does not suit them. The courts can't be correct one day and incorrect the next depending on the judgement.

The minions respect "The Nation" newspaper when it suits them as in this OP. Yet call it a tool of the DME's when it does not suit them. So what is. "The Nation" is a tool of the DEM's or not.

With all that aside though. They can harp on about elections all they like. The Honorable Abhisit is more electable than thaksin yet the unelected thaksin runs the country (yes yes yingluck WAS PM)

I like the veiled threat to start a civil war at the end if the courts don't rule in the PTP's favor.

Trust me when I tell you, the minions do not respect "TheNation Newspaper" and no single article will ever restore that trust.

The rest of your comment is the usual spreadsheet filler statements.

"The Honorable Abhisit is more electable"

He's not running for election, so he has zero electability.

"more electable than thaksin"

Thaksin isn't running either, Yingluk is and while it suits you to conflate the two (because it makes it easier to justify in your head), that's not the reality.

It's not a threat to start civil war, Suthep clearly has been trying to get a civil war to justify a military coup. You don't threaten popcorn men will go after the elected Prime minister, and go after any counter protests, unless you want to ensure those counter protests are armed, and you are making it clear that you are above the law, and even the PM isn't safe.

Edited February 26, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[BillyBobThai]

My question is what happens on March 3/4 when the constitution mandates that Yingluck step down.

[robblok]

Will anyone listen to a rational argument as this without the writer being labeled a flaming red-shirt supporter?

I will listen just as much to it as you and your red shirt buddies listen to the other side of arguments.. NOT.

[robblok]

Its not about election, its about regulation.

That applies to parliamentary regulation, application of justice, hard prison sentences as deterrent. Crooks ar far more reluctant to indulge their antisocial habits if there is a prison cell waiting for them.

But the weak regulation of extremist policy and bill-making, lack of regulation of House Speaker who takes orders via Skype from unelected criminal interests overseas (treason), these things all add up to a loopholed system that enables crooks to push through corrupt schemes like passports-for-relatives and larcenous tablet/rice scams etc.

Lack of regulation in the political sphere is reflected in the wider society, in lack of regulation of food, water, roads, driving-standards, bridges, tourist-trap scams, etc.etc.etc..

Lack of regulation is the only problem here, and it is cross-spectrum and truly gargantuan.

yes it ALL comes down to this... regulation and law but I understand the 'law of precedent' does not apply here - just each judge making up his own mind

complete overhaul top to bottom

Finally something we can all agree on, if there were tough corruption laws (and other laws) that were actually checked and enforced we would not be in this mess because there would be far less crooks in the goverment.

Below this is not accepted by red shirt as they dont believe there is corruption in the rice scam and they dont believe YL is responsible (and others).

Lets just wait what the NACC has to show about the corruption and hopefully head will roll.

[Suriya4]

I see Thailand going to be the next Ukraine.

[chainarong]

It is hard for government agency's to stay neutral, after all you are being paid by big brother, however the military is another thing, their sworn allegiance is to the crown and the country , not to any government, when you salute the flag you are respecting the crown, as with the anthem , so in the real world CIC Gen. Prayuth will get the nod from the crown to take control, whether members of other government agency's take sides, is another thing, these people must up hold the law, at present that is not happening.

[focus27]

I've said it before, and it really is a core problem in Thai society.

Thais do not follow ideas or principles or laws as a priority. Instead, they follow PEOPLE. They are beholden to their pooyais and bosses and families and friends and coworkers and village etc

The financial interests are important, but those exist in every country and still many such countries don't consistently fall into chaos like Thailand does.

The difference is that when encountered with a decision to make, rather than a Thai consulting principle, morality, ethics or laws, he/she will instead ask "who is my leader here or what is my group affiliation and how can I act to benefit them"

Its at the core of all flaws in Thai society and it is the biggest reason there is no independence in Thailand.

Thais are not stupid, many understand the concepts of independence and rule of law. As a people, however, they seem unable to break with the old feudal mentality that still rules the country under all the shiny law books of course.

Agreed - have seen this behaviour many times. However, relying on a network of human relationships is not in itself a bad thing; for one, it limits the power of external media to atomize society and hence control the individuals through pretend relationships. However, such a human network becomes dangerous when the core is made up of malignant psychopaths - this is not meant as an insult, but a diagnosis.

Most countries have a similar nest of heartless individuals at the heart of the establishment. The problem in Thailand, and some other countries, is that there are two cores that are unwilling to coalesce; the obvious result is conflict. (There is a fascinating book on this, called Ponerology. There is also a series of very good articles starting here: http://www.sott.net/article/203026-Ponerology-101-Lobaczewski-and-the-origins-of-Political-Ponerology .)

The solution boils down to a problem that has taxed philosophers throughout the ages. Who guards the guardians? Seemingly nobody. What good is being good in the face of evil?

Thais already have agencies that are supposed to be independent and neutral - they don't work as they are not seen to be above the fray but rather part of one core group. For anybody to step in and be truly non-partisan requires them having the authority to be neutral. As far as I can see, that can only come from the top of the pyramid. The alternative is a victory for one side - but if that merely leaves one core of elite psychopaths, how happy will the people be long term?

Just to add that, even in the above article, I don't see any basic philosophy of good governance, merely a hope for peace. But I don't think that peace can be achieved by standing in the middle of two warring factions.

[zakk9]

There will be no functional democracy in Thailand until most people, politicians included, start following the law. When I arrived in Thailand many years ago, and was picked up by a friend at the airport, the first thing he told me after we got into the car was: "In Thailand, we drive on the left side of the road... as a main rule." Later, I've discovered that that goes for all laws and regulations. There is simply no understanding of why it's important that everybody follow the rules. How it has come to that, I don't know, but it's a big problem, and a major hindrance for the any democratic development. It's the same concept behind people driving on the wrong side of the road, dumping toxic waste into the important waterways of Thailand, having month long demonstrations blocking central areas of cities, paying bribes to get off the hook for anything from shoplifting to murder, and a prime minister refusing to respect the courts and other government institutions.

While other Southeast Asian countries have their problems too, some of them very serious, in all of them, people have a totally different understanding of right and wrong and how the laws are there to regulate the society. Thailand seems to be a permanent legal backwater.

[ramrod711]

Problems reflect lack of a neutral agency to maintain order

Trying very hard to say something positive about this article which totally ignores the fact that the government is guilty of a number of things. The best i can come up with, at least they didn't suggest Tarit or Chalerm lead the agency.

[bigbamboo]

The writer is correct when he says that those opposing the government had the opportunity to vote them out in an election.

But Thailand already has a neutral agency whose responsibility it is to uphold the law. Unfortunately given it's past record of 'fleeing the scene' when it should be upholding the law coupled with it's chief being on kissing terms with the government's convicted de facto leader that agency's neutrality is rightly brought into question.

And as no one take any notice of the courts that only leaves the military and they are perceived by one side as being anti government although their first loyalty is to the king.

No wonder no one studies politics here.

[Scamper]

Poor article and also a clear manipulation of the facts. The concluding opinions of the writer differ not a whit with the views of the UDD, that place a blanket of suspicion over the independent agencies and the courts. The writer of this article ought to be aware that the UDD has openly called on Yingluck to defy the independent agencies and the courts. That should concern the writer more than anything. To suggest that the independent agencies and the courts are not neutral is to play right into the narrative of the UDD. The Constitution Court was approached on Article 68 and found no infraction. That should be the end of it. The writer is terribly absolute in his pronouncements, so he should be reminded that Article 7 will take effect on March 5 when the Yingluck caretaker administration will be stripped of its caretaker status as per Article 7, as a quorum after an election will have not taken place. The constitution maps out the process for that vacuum, and the writer fully realizes that. In contrast with this writer's supposition, there is indeed a neutral factor at play. It is called the constitution, the courts, and the independent agencies. As long as their constitutional work is unimpeded, the constitutional path forward is there.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Scamper

[britmaveric]

Excellent article and I almost fell off my chair when it came from The Nation.

Courts have been embarrassingly biased against the government and sanctioned rule by street mob. Basically said the police have no power or authority to maintain order - protect oneself, open govt buildings, unblock streets, stop harrassment of govt officials, stop polls being blocked and ballots being stolen. As I said during the Red protests many years ago - any sort of street protest like reds did in 2010, yellows in 2006, and current whistle mob should never be allowed ever. This craziness needs to stop - it doesnt work and it ultimately sets up the next set of protesters to do their thing.

Edited February 26, 2014 by britmaveric