Charter court judges 'overstepped authority'

[SICHONSTEVE]

65% of voters don't even know what a senators position entails.

So before one even looks at proposing changing the make up the voters have to be educated as to what the senators role is to ensure they vote for the most appropriate person and not just a red shirt leaders wife because she is popular and will vote yes on anything the PTP put to the senate. That is undemocratic.

For instance when over 60% (yep, thats a majority just like 43%) did not want the amnesty bill did the northern voters know it was still passed through parliament with a vote of 307 - 0? That doesn't sound like parliament MP's are reflecting the wishes of their electorate. That is not the kicker though. Thailand's stability was on the brink, millions of protestors took to the streets, 7000 police were called to protect parliament, the majority didn't want the bill, it would absolve the PM's brother as well as 25 000 other corrupt citizens and yet the senate still took 12 hours to debate it.

Now these northern voters need to imagine when the red shirt leaders wife, who harbored her fugitive husband and smuggled him across to Laos to live for 9 months to avoid prosecution, is sitting in that senators seat and would vote for the amnesty. The PTP minsters son's driver who won a vote through bribery or connections will also vote for the amnesty. Change the make up of the senate and the voters wishes will become inconsequential. They are ready are in parliament under PTP, but this will rubber stamp that now. Ludicrous that after all the laws the red shirt leaders wife and her husband broke she will now be responsible for drafting and passing legislation or make amendments to the existing laws. Criminals deciding on law amendments. That's PTP logic.

Across countries, education and democracy are highly correlated. The lack there of in Thailand is glaring and the consequences of 65% voting for something that they do not understand the ramifications of are unimaginable. The amnesty bill being a prime example.

Educate the northerners and then change the senate make up. Stop these northern red shirt radicalization indoctrination schools that teach more about demonizing opposition and filling there brains with hatred than they teach about democracy. These schools are more at home on the Pakistan / Afghanistan border, not in northern Thailand.

"Educate the northerners and then change the senate make up. Stop these northern red shirt radicalization indoctrination schools that teach more about demonizing opposition and filling there brains with hatred than they teach about democracy. These schools are more at home on the Pakistan / Afghanistan border, not in northern Thailand."

I will again take the opportunity to point out that no such schools exist in Thailand,

your words are an insult to the country you are a guest in.

Most school teachers and school directors and those of the Education board are because of their position in Thailand of a yellow political persuasion and as I mentioned earlier this is not taken into the classroom.

So you pointing out there are no red shirt schools is not dissimilar to Tida stating we do not support succession when she was on a stage two weeks earlier supporting succession.

Here are those red shirt radicalization schools who's existence of which you deny.

http://thairedshirts.org/2013/04/08/udd-political-schools-in-context/

And the leaders behind these schools are accused terrorists. Nattawut and Jatuporn.

This is how the great dictators of the world indoctrinate their children!!!

Dictator Shinawatra, yes that works!!!

[lostinsurin]

65% of voters don't even know what a senators position entails.

So before one even looks at proposing changing the make up the voters have to be educated as to what the senators role is to ensure they vote for the most appropriate person and not just a red shirt leaders wife because she is popular and will vote yes on anything the PTP put to the senate. That is undemocratic.

For instance when over 60% (yep, thats a majority just like 43%) did not want the amnesty bill did the northern voters know it was still passed through parliament with a vote of 307 - 0? That doesn't sound like parliament MP's are reflecting the wishes of their electorate. That is not the kicker though. Thailand's stability was on the brink, millions of protestors took to the streets, 7000 police were called to protect parliament, the majority didn't want the bill, it would absolve the PM's brother as well as 25 000 other corrupt citizens and yet the senate still took 12 hours to debate it.

Now these northern voters need to imagine when the red shirt leaders wife, who harbored her fugitive husband and smuggled him across to Laos to live for 9 months to avoid prosecution, is sitting in that senators seat and would vote for the amnesty. The PTP minsters son's driver who won a vote through bribery or connections will also vote for the amnesty. Change the make up of the senate and the voters wishes will become inconsequential. They are ready are in parliament under PTP, but this will rubber stamp that now. Ludicrous that after all the laws the red shirt leaders wife and her husband broke she will now be responsible for drafting and passing legislation or make amendments to the existing laws. Criminals deciding on law amendments. That's PTP logic.

Across countries, education and democracy are highly correlated. The lack there of in Thailand is glaring and the consequences of 65% voting for something that they do not understand the ramifications of are unimaginable. The amnesty bill being a prime example.

Educate the northerners and then change the senate make up. Stop these northern red shirt radicalization indoctrination schools that teach more about demonizing opposition and filling there brains with hatred than they teach about democracy. These schools are more at home on the Pakistan / Afghanistan border, not in northern Thailand.

"Educate the northerners and then change the senate make up. Stop these northern red shirt radicalization indoctrination schools that teach more about demonizing opposition and filling there brains with hatred than they teach about democracy. These schools are more at home on the Pakistan / Afghanistan border, not in northern Thailand."

I will again take the opportunity to point out that no such schools exist in Thailand,

your words are an insult to the country you are a guest in.

Most school teachers and school directors and those of the Education board are because of their position in Thailand of a yellow political persuasion and as I mentioned earlier this is not taken into the classroom.

http://thairedshirts.org/2013/04/08/udd-political-schools-in-context/

And the leaders behind these schools are accused terrorists. Nattawut and Jatuporn.

I think you will agree that the link has nothing to do with the Thai "school" system and even though I don't see the point of them (the political version)

I hardly think you can refer to them as terrorist camps that belong on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

try to see the good in the country you are a guest in and stop demonizing it's inhabitants.

Edited March 12, 2014 by lostinsurin

[khunken]

65% of voters don't even know what a senators position entails.

So before one even looks at proposing changing the make up the voters have to be educated as to what the senators role is to ensure they vote for the most appropriate person and not just a red shirt leaders wife because she is popular and will vote yes on anything the PTP put to the senate. That is undemocratic.

For instance when over 60% (yep, thats a majority just like 43%) did not want the amnesty bill did the northern voters know it was still passed through parliament with a vote of 307 - 0? That doesn't sound like parliament MP's are reflecting the wishes of their electorate. That is not the kicker though. Thailand's stability was on the brink, millions of protestors took to the streets, 7000 police were called to protect parliament, the majority didn't want the bill, it would absolve the PM's brother as well as 25 000 other corrupt citizens and yet the senate still took 12 hours to debate it.

Now these northern voters need to imagine when the red shirt leaders wife, who harbored her fugitive husband and smuggled him across to Laos to live for 9 months to avoid prosecution, is sitting in that senators seat and would vote for the amnesty. The PTP minsters son's driver who won a vote through bribery or connections will also vote for the amnesty. Change the make up of the senate and the voters wishes will become inconsequential. They are ready are in parliament under PTP, but this will rubber stamp that now. Ludicrous that after all the laws the red shirt leaders wife and her husband broke she will now be responsible for drafting and passing legislation or make amendments to the existing laws. Criminals deciding on law amendments. That's PTP logic.

Across countries, education and democracy are highly correlated. The lack there of in Thailand is glaring and the consequences of 65% voting for something that they do not understand the ramifications of are unimaginable. The amnesty bill being a prime example.

Educate the northerners and then change the senate make up. Stop these northern red shirt radicalization indoctrination schools that teach more about demonizing opposition and filling there brains with hatred than they teach about democracy. These schools are more at home on the Pakistan / Afghanistan border, not in northern Thailand.

"Educate the northerners and then change the senate make up. Stop these northern red shirt radicalization indoctrination schools that teach more about demonizing opposition and filling there brains with hatred than they teach about democracy. These schools are more at home on the Pakistan / Afghanistan border, not in northern Thailand."

I will again take the opportunity to point out that no such schools exist in Thailand,

your words are an insult to the country you are a guest in.

Most school teachers and school directors and those of the Education board are because of their position in Thailand of a yellow political persuasion and as I mentioned earlier this is not taken into the classroom.

http://thairedshirts.org/2013/04/08/udd-political-schools-in-context/

And the leaders behind these schools are accused terrorists. Nattawut and Jatuporn.

I think you will agree that the link has nothing to do with the Thai "school" system and even though I don't see the point of them (the political version)

I hardly think you can refer to them as terrorist camps that belong on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

try to see the good in the country you are a guest in and stop demonizing it's inhabitants.

First a big thank you to djjamie for the link to the brainwashing schools. Haven't seen that before.

You're correct in that these indoctrination places bear no relationship to the normal school system, which, incidentally, has much room for improvement in many ways.

As far as demonising Thais you could start with some of the red shirt followers on Thaivisa who not only demonise the opposition, protestors and the army, but have posted their support for the killing of protestors - the most nauseating series of posts I've ever seen on this forum.

To the topic. This is just another case of 'we won't accept decisions that go against us' no matter which institution (not under the PTP thumb) issues them. They - the independent bodies - are the last resort to prevent any government overstepping it's legal mandate and are currently holding back the downward slope to dictatorship.

[MrSlatersParrot]

The sticking point here is that half the country backs a party that believes total power should rest with the legislature which itself results from a pretty flawed system of allowing a lot of unqualified people to vote for MPs. There is regrettably no alternative than one-man-one-vote, so an upper house becomes necessary as a check and balance. Peua Thai don't like check and balances. But the simple answer, in a strictly democratic or political sense, is to ask Peua Thai if they would be happy being in opposition to a party with a blank cheque to legislate away freely to uphold themselves an unfair advantage.

In the case of the senate, it's not about elected versus appointed. In their verdict they explained that the resulting direction of the proposed legislation would clearly be a Senate dominate by the ruling party allies, rendering it useless. Strictly speaking, anything relating to interpretation of the charter and legislative process should be subject to consideration by the courts for clarity. To my mind, a Senate wholly elected by provincial representation and not proportional representation is not democratic, and hands too much vote power to one region of the country - as it happens the stronghold of Peua THai. You can see through their ruse immediately. Thus the explanation by the courts was valid in interpreting this as an affront to the 'spirit of the charter for a fair democracy'.

Fair point but in a normal democracy you have to go out and try to win the vote through persuasion, logic and you have to offer something for the voters whether it be skytrains, underground systems, healthcare, infrastructure, better schools etc.

By using unelecteds and appointees (by the same unelected) all that you do is perpetuate the cronyism from the feudal past.

If civil servants defy their own government then the government should be able to remove them if they won't carry out their duties impartially.

What is the point of an elected government when the top courts re-interpret the law to give themselves the authority to prevent the legislature doing its job and carrying out its mandate as voted for by the people.

[commie Joe]

If it's perfectly legal why don't they amend the charter to dissolve the senate completely? Or better still, dissolve all seats not held by PTP members?

I'll bet that you don't even know what the constitution says however if you do please enlighten us as to where it says nothing can be amended

[djjamie]

65% of voters don't even know what a senators position entails.

So before one even looks at proposing changing the make up the voters have to be educated as to what the senators role is to ensure they vote for the most appropriate person and not just a red shirt leaders wife because she is popular and will vote yes on anything the PTP put to the senate. That is undemocratic.

For instance when over 60% (yep, thats a majority just like 43%) did not want the amnesty bill did the northern voters know it was still passed through parliament with a vote of 307 - 0? That doesn't sound like parliament MP's are reflecting the wishes of their electorate. That is not the kicker though. Thailand's stability was on the brink, millions of protestors took to the streets, 7000 police were called to protect parliament, the majority didn't want the bill, it would absolve the PM's brother as well as 25 000 other corrupt citizens and yet the senate still took 12 hours to debate it.

Now these northern voters need to imagine when the red shirt leaders wife, who harbored her fugitive husband and smuggled him across to Laos to live for 9 months to avoid prosecution, is sitting in that senators seat and would vote for the amnesty. The PTP minsters son's driver who won a vote through bribery or connections will also vote for the amnesty. Change the make up of the senate and the voters wishes will become inconsequential. They are ready are in parliament under PTP, but this will rubber stamp that now. Ludicrous that after all the laws the red shirt leaders wife and her husband broke she will now be responsible for drafting and passing legislation or make amendments to the existing laws. Criminals deciding on law amendments. That's PTP logic.

Across countries, education and democracy are highly correlated. The lack there of in Thailand is glaring and the consequences of 65% voting for something that they do not understand the ramifications of are unimaginable. The amnesty bill being a prime example.

Educate the northerners and then change the senate make up. Stop these northern red shirt radicalization indoctrination schools that teach more about demonizing opposition and filling there brains with hatred than they teach about democracy. These schools are more at home on the Pakistan / Afghanistan border, not in northern Thailand.

"Educate the northerners and then change the senate make up. Stop these northern red shirt radicalization indoctrination schools that teach more about demonizing opposition and filling there brains with hatred than they teach about democracy. These schools are more at home on the Pakistan / Afghanistan border, not in northern Thailand."

I will again take the opportunity to point out that no such schools exist in Thailand,

your words are an insult to the country you are a guest in.

Most school teachers and school directors and those of the Education board are because of their position in Thailand of a yellow political persuasion and as I mentioned earlier this is not taken into the classroom.

http://thairedshirts.org/2013/04/08/udd-political-schools-in-context/

And the leaders behind these schools are accused terrorists. Nattawut and Jatuporn.

I think you will agree that the link has nothing to do with the Thai "school" system and even though I don't see the point of them (the political version)

I hardly think you can refer to them as terrorist camps that belong on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

try to see the good in the country you are a guest in and stop demonizing it's inhabitants.

I never said the indoctrination schools were part of the Thai school system. You did.

I never said they were terrorist camps. You did.

I never demonized Thailand's inhabitants. You said I did.

I said they need educating to understand the ramifications of what they are voting for. That is not demonizing.

The average farmer in Thailand possesses an education ranging between 3rd and 6th grade and I do not doubt, in fact I am a strong believer that the farmers are just as intelligent as any other member of society. It is their lack of knowledge that leaves them vulnerable to these red shirt schools where their minds are easily moulded by propaganda that is driven by the warped outlook of two accused terrorists.

I am only stating facts. They are accused terrorists and there are red shirts schools and all you do is put words in my mouth now and say I am demonizing when in fact I am not.

No offense, but after reading this reply of yours I think I prefer the old lostinsurin that simply demonized and belittled me and quite frankly you should stick with what you know.

[commie Joe]

Just because the Constitutional Court doesn't like something, doesn't make it unconstitutional.

A wholly elected Senate would just be going back to the constitution before the military gave themselves some comfy seats in their smash-n-grab coup.

Whether a wholly elected Senate is a good or bad thing is not the issue, but whether it is unconstitutional.

Good to see this judgment challenged.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-24997184

The problem with changing the current Constitution is that it has to have the agreement of the Senate, and the selected senators are hardly going to give away their nice little earner, are they?! Having said that, the Constitution says that amendments need to be passed by a majority of all members of the whole National Assembly - still difficult but not impossible.

Smash - and - grab what, read up a bit on what was going on before flapping your gums, there was no legal government at the time as Big T had not been approved by the King. The army stepped in to halt a power grab by Big T

wow post 10 before T is mentioned I wonder if ever a topic will reach the 2nd page before Mr T is mentioned

[khunken]

The sticking point here is that half the country backs a party that believes total power should rest with the legislature which itself results from a pretty flawed system of allowing a lot of unqualified people to vote for MPs. There is regrettably no alternative than one-man-one-vote, so an upper house becomes necessary as a check and balance. Peua Thai don't like check and balances. But the simple answer, in a strictly democratic or political sense, is to ask Peua Thai if they would be happy being in opposition to a party with a blank cheque to legislate away freely to uphold themselves an unfair advantage.

In the case of the senate, it's not about elected versus appointed. In their verdict they explained that the resulting direction of the proposed legislation would clearly be a Senate dominate by the ruling party allies, rendering it useless. Strictly speaking, anything relating to interpretation of the charter and legislative process should be subject to consideration by the courts for clarity. To my mind, a Senate wholly elected by provincial representation and not proportional representation is not democratic, and hands too much vote power to one region of the country - as it happens the stronghold of Peua THai. You can see through their ruse immediately. Thus the explanation by the courts was valid in interpreting this as an affront to the 'spirit of the charter for a fair democracy'.

Fair point but in a normal democracy you have to go out and try to win the vote through persuasion, logic and you have to offer something for the voters whether it be skytrains, underground systems, healthcare, infrastructure, better schools etc.

By using unelecteds and appointees (by the same unelected) all that you do is perpetuate the cronyism from the feudal past.

If civil servants defy their own government then the government should be able to remove them if they won't carry out their duties impartially.

What is the point of an elected government when the top courts re-interpret the law to give themselves the authority to prevent the legislature doing its job and carrying out its mandate as voted for by the people.

You're correct about a normal democracy. But if you think that exists here, you're seriously deluded. Not every senior post in all government, semi-government and independent body can be elected - certainly not by the whole Thai electorate. It doesn't even happen in 'normal' democracies.

For example, should the police chief be elected? Should judges be elected? It's not a one size fits all decision. Allowing the Thai senate to be elected by the same electorate as parliament is wasteful and certainly not democratic. Again in 'normal' democracies it varies from non-elected (UK) to fully elected - by a modified method - (USA) and many variations in-between.

The feudal system here covers far more than politics. It is teacher autocrats, police vetting police, abuse of immigrant workers, promotions based on favouritism, and many other examples. In politics it is the control over local populations by 'influential' figures often aligned to a party who control the voting by various means of providing 'rewards'. It is not solely based in Bangkok and in fact is more prevalent in rural areas.

Your point about civil servants is correct in theory but in practice they are fired & replaced because they are not partial to their political masters.

The courts are not perfect but are an absolute necessity to curtail government abuse (lots of it) and where they regard themselves above the law (too many times). If the government would stick to it's mandate & allow parliamentary democracy (including debate), it wouldn't be in so much hot water. The example are obvious - if you don't want to ignore them.

[SICHONSTEVE]

The sticking point here is that half the country backs a party that believes total power should rest with the legislature which itself results from a pretty flawed system of allowing a lot of unqualified people to vote for MPs. There is regrettably no alternative than one-man-one-vote, so an upper house becomes necessary as a check and balance. Peua Thai don't like check and balances. But the simple answer, in a strictly democratic or political sense, is to ask Peua Thai if they would be happy being in opposition to a party with a blank cheque to legislate away freely to uphold themselves an unfair advantage.

In the case of the senate, it's not about elected versus appointed. In their verdict they explained that the resulting direction of the proposed legislation would clearly be a Senate dominate by the ruling party allies, rendering it useless. Strictly speaking, anything relating to interpretation of the charter and legislative process should be subject to consideration by the courts for clarity. To my mind, a Senate wholly elected by provincial representation and not proportional representation is not democratic, and hands too much vote power to one region of the country - as it happens the stronghold of Peua THai. You can see through their ruse immediately. Thus the explanation by the courts was valid in interpreting this as an affront to the 'spirit of the charter for a fair democracy'.

Fair point but in a normal democracy you have to go out and try to win the vote through persuasion, logic and you have to offer something for the voters whether it be skytrains, underground systems, healthcare, infrastructure, better schools etc.

By using unelecteds and appointees (by the same unelected) all that you do is perpetuate the cronyism from the feudal past.

If civil servants defy their own government then the government should be able to remove them if they won't carry out their duties impartially.

What is the point of an elected government when the top courts re-interpret the law to give themselves the authority to prevent the legislature doing its job and carrying out its mandate as voted for by the people.

You're correct about a normal democracy. But if you think that exists here, you're seriously deluded. Not every senior post in all government, semi-government and independent body can be elected - certainly not by the whole Thai electorate. It doesn't even happen in 'normal' democracies.

For example, should the police chief be elected? Should judges be elected? It's not a one size fits all decision. Allowing the Thai senate to be elected by the same electorate as parliament is wasteful and certainly not democratic. Again in 'normal' democracies it varies from non-elected (UK) to fully elected - by a modified method - (USA) and many variations in-between.

The feudal system here covers far more than politics. It is teacher autocrats, police vetting police, abuse of immigrant workers, promotions based on favouritism, and many other examples. In politics it is the control over local populations by 'influential' figures often aligned to a party who control the voting by various means of providing 'rewards'. It is not solely based in Bangkok and in fact is more prevalent in rural areas.

Your point about civil servants is correct in theory but in practice they are fired & replaced because they are not partial to their political masters.

The courts are not perfect but are an absolute necessity to curtail government abuse (lots of it) and where they regard themselves above the law (too many times). If the government would stick to it's mandate & allow parliamentary democracy (including debate), it wouldn't be in so much hot water. The example are obvious - if you don't want to ignore them.

There is an interesting point about the House Of Lords in the UK. The Labour Party wanted it to be mainly elected but the Tories had it abandoned as it was against their interests!!

[Crushdepth]

How to spin a court decision that you lost.

Sent from somewhere in the Pacific

[Dogmatix]

Seems funny as surely the Criminal Court would have to refer to the Constitutional Court for a ruling on what is in line with the Constitution. If this guy is convicted in the Criminal Court and the conviction has been confirmed by the Appeal and Supreme Courts, will he then file a suit in the Administrative Court against the judges in all three courts for malfeasance and try to get all judges impeached? There is no end to this circular logic.