Pheu Thai vows to defy Constitutional Court's ruling on election

[rametindallas]

I see the yellow brigade are out decrying PT for disputing the legality of the Ombudsman's actions. It must be good to have an intricate knowledge of Thai law so that you can say without a reasonable doubt that the Ombudsman had a right to forward a petition on the poll to the Constitutional Court and that there was a conflict between the Royal Decree on the House dissolution, which stated February 2 as the only election date, and the charter.

Reality is, you just come out to cheer anything that can be construed as negative towards PT and you actually haven't got any idea about the legality of the issues involved.

Reality is, you just come out to cheer anything that can be construed as negative towards PT and you actually haven't got any idea about the legality of the issues involved.

Yes, isn't is grand?

BTW, no Farang would be a supporter of the PAD (Yellow Shirts) as PAD wants all foreigners out of Thailand. Most just realize how Thaksin is raping the country they love. p.s. We don't like Suthep, either.

[tezzainoz]

I see the yellow brigade are out decrying PT for disputing the legality of the Ombudsman's actions. It must be good to have an intricate knowledge of Thai law so that you can say without a reasonable doubt that the Ombudsman had a right to forward a petition on the poll to the Constitutional Court and that there was a conflict between the Royal Decree on the House dissolution, which stated February 2 as the only election date, and the charter.

Reality is, you just come out to cheer anything that can be construed as negative towards PT and you actually haven't got any idea about the legality of the issues involved.

If some one is guilty of breaking the law, and they are found guilty

what does it matter who reported them

The Law is the rules of the land

Do the Crime and do the time

PTP feel the Grand Master (Thaskin) has given them a mandate and right to rue Thailand

a democratic dictatorship

and there are many on this web site who agree

If at first you don't succeed, turn to threats and violence

there we be a lot of paper shredding n Govt departments soon

[whybother]

Oh come on, really?

All those you just mentioned are on the same team.

It's like a big vampire squid with all these vile tentacles out to destroy democracy in Thailand so they can keep on raping the country for their own benefit.

'They just changed a bit of the 1997 constitution" you say.

Well, which bit and why?

If the changes had no measurable affect on the constitution then why did they bother?

The fact is that they changed the constitution for 2 reasons: to try and help the Democrats win an election and to increase their control of non-elected institutions as a back up plan should the Reds win (even after the gerrymander).

Can you name one person that was part of the military junta or the appointed civilian government and was also part of the Democrat government?

Yes. They just changed a bit of the 1997 constitution. I didn't say the changes that they did make had no measurable affect. But it wasn't a re-write.

Which parts did they change that would help the Democrats get elected?

[tezzainoz]

Prior to 2007 the predessors to the Constitutional Court repeatedly ruled in favor of the Thaksin political parties. In 2007 when the Democrats grabbed power through the military coup and rewrote the Constitution, it re-established the Constitutional Court with partisan judges aligned with or sympathetic to the Democratic party through their appointments by a government lacking any significant opposition party with the removal of Thaksin's party.

The Constitutional Court members know where their allegiance lies and has become de facto a powerful tool of the Democrat party as evidenced by its consistent rulings against the PTP with minimal, flawed, or lacking evidence coming largely from the Democrats/PDRC. And so PTP's perceived partisan discrimination by the Court is real and its frustration is a natural response to the corruption of the Court's intended judicial fairness.

So another words, screw the courts and get on with raping the country?

PS. PTP has had years to change the judges , any reason why they have not? And if they have, any reason why new judges do not support them ? Besides the obvious of course

You may want to do a little research into the incestuous nature of how the appointed senators and judges come to be appointed.

No matter how they where elected

Yingluck and the PTP left the there

ever heard of

ou made your bed now you have to sleep in it

[patjem]

I see the yellow brigade are out decrying PT for disputing the legality of the Ombudsman's actions. It must be good to have an intricate knowledge of Thai law so that you can say without a reasonable doubt that the Ombudsman had a right to forward a petition on the poll to the Constitutional Court and that there was a conflict between the Royal Decree on the House dissolution, which stated February 2 as the only election date, and the charter.

Reality is, you just come out to cheer anything that can be construed as negative towards PT and you actually haven't got any idea about the legality of the issues involved.

I would assume that the constitutional court judges know the law, and the fact that they accepted the petition would mean that the ombudsman was in his right to do so.

A quick bit of research on the role/ mandate of the Ombudsman for Thailand confirms that very clearly. His comment has no credibility and is simply twaddle.

[ChrisY1]

really seems like the ptp are setting up everything for kotee to do his work, he declares he will start shooting if the ptp are removed and the ptp declare they will no abide by the decision, definitely see who is pulling all the strings here. The sooner the courts judge this mob of rodents the better.

It does now seem to show that the PTP are prepared to let their "dogs" out....

I hope that Prayuth has the tenacity to go ahead with his threats against them...which I'm sure he does.

If the slightest rumble is heard, then he must act quickly and decisively and squash any attempt by the reds.

[kuthow]

We also dont know this OP heading is true or accurate, it IS the Nation after all

If it's not true or accurate and the PTP has actually said they will wholeheartedly abide by the Court's decision on the case, then it shouldn't be difficult to find that.

We await your research.

[Publicus]

This is the game changer we all feared. Pheu Thai have outdone even themselves. They haven't just defied a Constitutional Court ruling. They will defy a Constitutional Court ruling whatever it is ! Not only that, but the Constitutional Court can now take it's place of honour among Pheu Thai's list of targets. They now include no less than six independent agencies, including the Election Commission and the National Anti-Corruption Commission, as well as the Civil Court and the Criminal Court. Is there anyone left ? Pheu Thai, the UDD, and most particularly the man behind it all - Thaksin - are now completely out of control. Thaksin has clearly placed his bets. Instead of allowing the legal system to do what it is supposed to do, he would rather risk chaos from his insane UDD leaders. If he can't have what he wants, he'll take everyone down with him. But one thing is certain. Thaksin has lost. He has lost every moral argument he ever pretended to pose. If he prefers acting like a tyrant, then let him order his hotel chambermaids about. What he doesn't count on is that the Thai people - by and large - are decent, decent people, who respect the rule of law and do not bend to terror or intimidation. The Thai people will prevail over Thaksin - because they are head over heels more mature than he ever will be. The Thai people are frankly tired of it and they want to move on. And they've earned it.

This is the same stuff we all expected. The poster and the Nation have outdone even themselves. Article 68 of the constitution failed them in their repeated and certain predictions the PM would lose her office back around March 3rd or 4th, as did Article 127 fail these legal beagle doom sayers who had fantasized and pronounced that the government would be removed the first week of the month. So now the feudalists are bunching up under the guise of independent agencies when these agencies were in fact modified by a coup appointed council of autocrats who rewrote the constitution to load the not independent agencies with old guard ammart appointed until 2017.

Worst of all for the ammart and pro-feudalist posters, it turns out Charlerm was right about the contents and substance of Article 181, which says a PM needs to be elected within 30 days of the formation of the parliament. (The questions before the court today are whether a new Royal Decree is needed for the 28 constituencies or whether a new election should be called, not on the 30-day period as defined correctly by Chalerm.) So the old guard are continuing to try everything and anything they can to prevent the seating of a parliament, focusing now on the Constitutional Court as reconstituted by the coup makers during 2007 and which threw out a TRT successor prime minister in 2008 then dissolved a TRT successor government a short time later.

The government survives because it has the support of the people and the international support of the world's democracies. The 2007 constitution was written by the coup makers for the coup makers and is a document of the coup makers. Makers of coups have no place or right to demand compliance to a document written by coup d'état military mutineers. Those who support this constitution and the pardon it granted to the coup makers and the coup rulers need to reflect on their consistently erroneous presumptions.

[chainarong]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The arrogance is truly shining bright now from the UDD and PT.

What happened to their claims of wanting democracy and insisting that others respect the laws and the constitution? Practice what you preach.

The UDD with Democracy in it's name , is like Dracula in charge of the blood bank .

[kuthow]

I see the yellow brigade are out decrying PT for disputing the legality of the Ombudsman's actions. It must be good to have an intricate knowledge of Thai law so that you can say without a reasonable doubt that the Ombudsman had a right to forward a petition on the poll to the Constitutional Court and that there was a conflict between the Royal Decree on the House dissolution, which stated February 2 as the only election date, and the charter.

Reality is, you just come out to cheer anything that can be construed as negative towards PT and you actually haven't got any idea about the legality of the issues involved.

I see the red soldier is trying desperately to raise questions over the legality of the Ombudsman's actions.

In accordance with Sections 13 and 14 of the Organic Act on Ombudsman BE 2552, the Ombudsman's actions have been wholly legal.

.

[Crushdepth]

I see the yellow brigade are out decrying PT for disputing the legality of the Ombudsman's actions. It must be good to have an intricate knowledge of Thai law so that you can say without a reasonable doubt that the Ombudsman had a right to forward a petition on the poll to the Constitutional Court and that there was a conflict between the Royal Decree on the House dissolution, which stated February 2 as the only election date, and the charter.

Reality is, you just come out to cheer anything that can be construed as negative towards PT and you actually haven't got any idea about the legality of the issues involved.

And you do?

A government that "defies" a ruling from the Constitution Court will be operating outside of the legal framework that empowers itself. It's fundamentally stupid.

[Publicus]

We also dont know this OP heading is true or accurate, it IS the Nation after all

If it's not true or accurate and the PTP has actually said they will wholeheartedly abide by the Court's decision on the case, then it shouldn't be difficult to find that.

We await your research.

Presumably you have read the whole of the Nation article presented in the OP as but a fragment. Based on your post however you seemed to have missed the PTP statement quoted verbatim yet buried deep at the end of the article. So for your edification, and to show the sensationalism of the Nation headline, I post here the PTP quotes buried by the Nation at the end of its article:

Cancelling a "democratic" poll would lead to more rifts, the party said in its statement. The court's willingness to consider the case "without a mandate" would be dangerous for the rule of law. It would cause a crisis of faith in the justice system, it said.

"The Pheu Thai Party accepts the conduct of constitutional organisations only under the Constitution and the law. The party will not accept any conduct not constitutional and lawful, especially dishonest use of laws as the tool for the purpose of political destruction," it said.

"The party will stand firm beside the people in the fight for the people's sovereign power, not to let the sovereign power be in the hands of the Constitutional Court or independent organisations according to the Constitution. The party is always ready for the election, which allows the people to decide on the political future on their own."

The statement said that if the court rules that the February 2 election should be nullified, it would set a bad standard for political parties, as they would be aware they could lose an election and come out and obstruct a poll being staged.

The last sentence is especially important to the integrity of democracy, which is not a strong point of the Democratic Party.

[almafudd]

The US and Japan have been very clear about what they expect to occur in Thailand.

The speculation is that the Chinese are quite fond of Thaksin too (you do recall that it was in Beijing where some Reds just recently visited Thaksin)

Coup = sanctions, sanctions and just for laughs, a few more sanctions.

Followed by businesses losing confidence in the country and then that's it - all the factories move to Myanmar, Indonesia or Vietnam and you're a banana nation.

It's an inter-connected global community my friend - if they pull your plug, you're screwed.

So there, I do know something, and my guess is my something is just a wee bit more than your something.

Well then that's fine Thaksin can move and live in China!!!!

Along with the rest of his corrupt and vile mates and family...

edit: spelling

Edited March 19, 2014 by almafudd

[whybother]

Presumably you have read the whole of the Nation article presented in the OP as but a fragment. Based on your post however you seemed to have missed the PTP statement quoted verbatim yet buried deep at the end of the article. So for your edification, and to show the sensationalism of the Nation headline, I post here the PTP quotes buried by the Nation at the end of its article:

Cancelling a "democratic" poll would lead to more rifts, the party said in its statement. The court's willingness to consider the case "without a mandate" would be dangerous for the rule of law. It would cause a crisis of faith in the justice system, it said.

"The Pheu Thai Party accepts the conduct of constitutional organisations only under the Constitution and the law. The party will not accept any conduct not constitutional and lawful, especially dishonest use of laws as the tool for the purpose of political destruction," it said.

"The party will stand firm beside the people in the fight for the people's sovereign power, not to let the sovereign power be in the hands of the Constitutional Court or independent organisations according to the Constitution. The party is always ready for the election, which allows the people to decide on the political future on their own."

The statement said that if the court rules that the February 2 election should be nullified, it would set a bad standard for political parties, as they would be aware they could lose an election and come out and obstruct a poll being staged.

The last sentence is especially important to the integrity of democracy, which is not a strong point of the Democratic Party.

Why wouldn't the courts have a mandate to review a case presented to it? Isn't that what courts do?

[Publicus]

I see the yellow brigade are out decrying PT for disputing the legality of the Ombudsman's actions. It must be good to have an intricate knowledge of Thai law so that you can say without a reasonable doubt that the Ombudsman had a right to forward a petition on the poll to the Constitutional Court and that there was a conflict between the Royal Decree on the House dissolution, which stated February 2 as the only election date, and the charter.

Reality is, you just come out to cheer anything that can be construed as negative towards PT and you actually haven't got any idea about the legality of the issues involved.

And you do?

A government that "defies" a ruling from the Constitution Court will be operating outside of the legal framework that empowers itself. It's fundamentally stupid.

Where's the word "defy" in the PTP statement?

You, the Nation and a bunch of other posters are cheerfully OTT.

[smedly]

This is the game changer we all feared. Pheu Thai have outdone even themselves. They haven't just defied a Constitutional Court ruling. They will defy a Constitutional Court ruling whatever it is ! Not only that, but the Constitutional Court can now take it's place of honour among Pheu Thai's list of targets. They now include no less than six independent agencies, including the Election Commission and the National Anti-Corruption Commission, as well as the Civil Court and the Criminal Court. Is there anyone left ? Pheu Thai, the UDD, and most particularly the man behind it all - Thaksin - are now completely out of control. Thaksin has clearly placed his bets. Instead of allowing the legal system to do what it is supposed to do, he would rather risk chaos from his insane UDD leaders. If he can't have what he wants, he'll take everyone down with him. But one thing is certain. Thaksin has lost. He has lost every moral argument he ever pretended to pose. If he prefers acting like a tyrant, then let him order his hotel chambermaids about. What he doesn't count on is that the Thai people - by and large - are decent, decent people, who respect the rule of law and do not bend to terror or intimidation. The Thai people will prevail over Thaksin - because they are head over heels more mature than he ever will be. The Thai people are frankly tired of it and they want to move on. And they've earned it.

I believe you are right, I also believe that the change in red leadership is quite sinister, I think Thida was told to go a certain direction which was beyond the pale for even her so she was removed and replaced by someone that would, this thing is going down a rat hole real quick and in any other country the government would take action against these terrorists pretty sharp

The only light I see is that the reds need support in order to operate, outside of a few thousand wasters I don't believe the general mass of red support is there for any sort of terrorist violence - the new red leadership could find themselves isolated very quickly

[HonestQuietBob]

Oh come on, really?

All those you just mentioned are on the same team.

It's like a big vampire squid with all these vile tentacles out to destroy democracy in Thailand so they can keep on raping the country for their own benefit.

'They just changed a bit of the 1997 constitution" you say.

Well, which bit and why?

If the changes had no measurable affect on the constitution then why did they bother?

The fact is that they changed the constitution for 2 reasons: to try and help the Democrats win an election and to increase their control of non-elected institutions as a back up plan should the Reds win (even after the gerrymander).

Can you name one person that was part of the military junta or the appointed civilian government and was also part of the Democrat government?

Yes. They just changed a bit of the 1997 constitution. I didn't say the changes that they did make had no measurable affect. But it wasn't a re-write.

Which parts did they change that would help the Democrats get elected?

There are other sources if you care to look, but here's Wiki:

In December, junta chief Sonthi Boonyaratglin issued several guidelines for the permanent constitution being drafted by the CNS's drafting body. These included:

• Restricting a Prime Minister to serving a maximum of two terms of office
• Preventing a government from acting as a caretaker administration after dissolving Parliament.
• Making it easier to launch a no-confidence debate against the Prime Minister. Whereas the 1997 Constitution required 200 out of the House's 500 MPs to launch a no-confidence debate against the Prime Minister, Sonthi demanded that 100 MPs be sufficient.

He also made several suggestions, including:

• Transforming the Senate from an all-elected body in order to prevent relatives of politicians from being elected and thus perverting the non-partisan intent of the 1997 Constitution.
• Allowing politicians to switch political parties at any time. The 1997 Constitution required that any candidate for the House belong to a political party for 90 days before the registration date for an election.
• Banning the merger of political parties.^[10]

He also suggested that the term in office of village heads and kamnan be increased from 5 years to 10 years, while the role of elected tambon administrative organisations be reduced.^[11]

Sonthi later denied dictating the content for the new constitution, but stated "We can't force them to do things but responsible people will know what the constitution should look like."^[12]

General Saprang Kalayanamitr, junta assistant secretary-general, noted that military coups against the government "should never be ruled out." The abrogated 1997 constitution had outlawed coups.^[13][14]

Despite repeated denials from the junta, public opinion persisted that the junta would enable their post-election grip on power via the clauses of the new constitution.^[15]

Edited March 19, 2014 by HonestQuietBob

[Publicus]

Presumably you have read the whole of the Nation article presented in the OP as but a fragment. Based on your post however you seemed to have missed the PTP statement quoted verbatim yet buried deep at the end of the article. So for your edification, and to show the sensationalism of the Nation headline, I post here the PTP quotes buried by the Nation at the end of its article:

Cancelling a "democratic" poll would lead to more rifts, the party said in its statement. The court's willingness to consider the case "without a mandate" would be dangerous for the rule of law. It would cause a crisis of faith in the justice system, it said.

"The Pheu Thai Party accepts the conduct of constitutional organisations only under the Constitution and the law. The party will not accept any conduct not constitutional and lawful, especially dishonest use of laws as the tool for the purpose of political destruction," it said.

"The party will stand firm beside the people in the fight for the people's sovereign power, not to let the sovereign power be in the hands of the Constitutional Court or independent organisations according to the Constitution. The party is always ready for the election, which allows the people to decide on the political future on their own."

The statement said that if the court rules that the February 2 election should be nullified, it would set a bad standard for political parties, as they would be aware they could lose an election and come out and obstruct a poll being staged.

The last sentence is especially important to the integrity of democracy, which is not a strong point of the Democratic Party.

Why wouldn't the courts have a mandate to review a case presented to it? Isn't that what courts do?

The CC enforces a 2007 constitution sealed by an illegal and extra-constitutional military coup d'état ruling clique that placed itself in position to alter the 1997 constitution by the illegal and extra-constitutional means of a military mutiny.

The military rulers then required by law that the public vote "yes" in a "referendum" to ratify the illegal constitution that also granted a pardon to the coup makers and coup rulers for their illegal, extra-constitutional military mutiny.

There's no mandate in the illegal and extra-constitutional act of a coup d'état military mutiny that establishes a military ruling council that then writes a constitution it likes and subsequently enforces on the population acceptance of the illegitimate document under the pains and penalties of bad laws wrongfully written.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Publicus

[HonestQuietBob]

Oh come on, really?

All those you just mentioned are on the same team.

It's like a big vampire squid with all these vile tentacles out to destroy democracy in Thailand so they can keep on raping the country for their own benefit.

'They just changed a bit of the 1997 constitution" you say.

Well, which bit and why?

If the changes had no measurable affect on the constitution then why did they bother?

The fact is that they changed the constitution for 2 reasons: to try and help the Democrats win an election and to increase their control of non-elected institutions as a back up plan should the Reds win (even after the gerrymander).

Can you name one person that was part of the military junta or the appointed civilian government and was also part of the Democrat government?

Yes. They just changed a bit of the 1997 constitution. I didn't say the changes that they did make had no measurable affect. But it wasn't a re-write.

Which parts did they change that would help the Democrats get elected?

More...

Thai Rak Thai party[edit]

The Thai Rak Thai party had several major objections to the draft constitution.

1. It disagreed with an appointed Senate, claiming that it reflected a condescending view of the electorate.
2. It disagreed with Article 299, which provided amnesty to the military junta for staging the September coup.
3. It disagreed with Article 173, which forbade ministers who are MPs from voting for a Prime Minister facing a censure motion, claiming that it undermined the authority of elected politicians.
4. It disagreed with Articles 257 and 259, which barred politicians from interfering in the work of bureaucrats, claiming that it would make it difficult for governments to implement their policies.
5. It noted fear of a return to bureaucratic rule in government, with too much power handed to officials and the courts.

A court later terminated the party and banned its entire executive team of over a hundred from politics for 5 years due to election fraud.^[38]

Democrat Party[edit]

The Democrat Party supported the draft constitution. Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said the Democrat Party considered the new constitution similar to the 1997 Constitution, but with improvements. "If we wanted to please the Council for National Security we would reject the draft so it could pick a charter of its own choosing. If we reject the draft, it will be like handing out power to the Council. We have come up with this stand because we care about the national interest and want democracy to be restored soon," he said.^[39] Acknowledging the flaws of the new Constitution, Abhisit has also proposed, along with asking for cooperation from other political parties, to amend the Constitution once he is in power.^[40]

[binjalin]

Oh come on, really?

All those you just mentioned are on the same team.

It's like a big vampire squid with all these vile tentacles out to destroy democracy in Thailand so they can keep on raping the country for their own benefit.

'They just changed a bit of the 1997 constitution" you say.

Well, which bit and why?

If the changes had no measurable affect on the constitution then why did they bother?

The fact is that they changed the constitution for 2 reasons: to try and help the Democrats win an election and to increase their control of non-elected institutions as a back up plan should the Reds win (even after the gerrymander).

Can you name one person that was part of the military junta or the appointed civilian government and was also part of the Democrat government?

Yes. They just changed a bit of the 1997 constitution. I didn't say the changes that they did make had no measurable affect. But it wasn't a re-write.

Which parts did they change that would help the Democrats get elected?

More...

Thai Rak Thai party[edit]

The Thai Rak Thai party had several major objections to the draft constitution.

1. It disagreed with an appointed Senate, claiming that it reflected a condescending view of the electorate.
2. It disagreed with Article 299, which provided amnesty to the military junta for staging the September coup.
3. It disagreed with Article 173, which forbade ministers who are MPs from voting for a Prime Minister facing a censure motion, claiming that it undermined the authority of elected politicians.
4. It disagreed with Articles 257 and 259, which barred politicians from interfering in the work of bureaucrats, claiming that it would make it difficult for governments to implement their policies.
5. It noted fear of a return to bureaucratic rule in government, with too much power handed to officials and the courts.

A court later terminated the party and banned its entire executive team of over a hundred from politics for 5 years due to election fraud.^[38]

Democrat Party[edit]

The Democrat Party supported the draft constitution. Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said the Democrat Party considered the new constitution similar to the 1997 Constitution, but with improvements. "If we wanted to please the Council for National Security we would reject the draft so it could pick a charter of its own choosing. If we reject the draft, it will be like handing out power to the Council. We have come up with this stand because we care about the national interest and want democracy to be restored soon," he said.^[39] Acknowledging the flaws of the new Constitution, Abhisit has also proposed, along with asking for cooperation from other political parties, to amend the Constitution once he is in power.^[40]

The constitution was accepted as the Army said it would not give up power if it was not - Hobson's Choice

[whybother]

Oh come on, really?

All those you just mentioned are on the same team.

It's like a big vampire squid with all these vile tentacles out to destroy democracy in Thailand so they can keep on raping the country for their own benefit.

'They just changed a bit of the 1997 constitution" you say.

Well, which bit and why?

If the changes had no measurable affect on the constitution then why did they bother?

The fact is that they changed the constitution for 2 reasons: to try and help the Democrats win an election and to increase their control of non-elected institutions as a back up plan should the Reds win (even after the gerrymander).

Can you name one person that was part of the military junta or the appointed civilian government and was also part of the Democrat government?

Yes. They just changed a bit of the 1997 constitution. I didn't say the changes that they did make had no measurable affect. But it wasn't a re-write.

Which parts did they change that would help the Democrats get elected?

There are other sources if you care to look, but here's Wiki:

In December, junta chief Sonthi Boonyaratglin issued several guidelines for the permanent constitution being drafted by the CNS's drafting body. These included:

• Restricting a Prime Minister to serving a maximum of two terms of office
• Preventing a government from acting as a caretaker administration after dissolving Parliament.
• Making it easier to launch a no-confidence debate against the Prime Minister. Whereas the 1997 Constitution required 200 out of the House's 500 MPs to launch a no-confidence debate against the Prime Minister, Sonthi demanded that 100 MPs be sufficient.

He also made several suggestions, including:

• Transforming the Senate from an all-elected body in order to prevent relatives of politicians from being elected and thus perverting the non-partisan intent of the 1997 Constitution.
• Allowing politicians to switch political parties at any time. The 1997 Constitution required that any candidate for the House belong to a political party for 90 days before the registration date for an election.
• Banning the merger of political parties.^[10]

He also suggested that the term in office of village heads and kamnan be increased from 5 years to 10 years, while the role of elected tambon administrative organisations be reduced.^[11]

Sonthi later denied dictating the content for the new constitution, but stated "We can't force them to do things but responsible people will know what the constitution should look like."^[12]

General Saprang Kalayanamitr, junta assistant secretary-general, noted that military coups against the government "should never be ruled out." The abrogated 1997 constitution had outlawed coups.^[13][14]

Despite repeated denials from the junta, public opinion persisted that the junta would enable their post-election grip on power via the clauses of the new constitution.^[15]

How would any of those points (or those of your second post) help the Democrats get elected?

[getthaid]

I see the yellow brigade are out decrying PT for disputing the legality of the Ombudsman's actions. It must be good to have an intricate knowledge of Thai law so that you can say without a reasonable doubt that the Ombudsman had a right to forward a petition on the poll to the Constitutional Court and that there was a conflict between the Royal Decree on the House dissolution, which stated February 2 as the only election date, and the charter.

Reality is, you just come out to cheer anything that can be construed as negative towards PT and you actually haven't got any idea about the legality of the issues involved.

If you really are a teacher then I pity your students.

The brigade are not 'decrying PT for disputing the legality of the Ombudsman's actions'. They are decrying PT for stating that they will refuse to accept the constitutional courts ruling.

But you know that already.

To paraphrase - the law maybe an ass. But it is still the law.

In this case - it's a teacher - or indeed a fake teacher as the PT are wont to say - who is the ass.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Edited March 19, 2014 by getthaid

[Publicus]

The 2007 constitution that was produced illegally by an extra-constitutional ruling military council helps the Democrat party and Abhisit by limiting what the electorate can accomplish in a general election.

The 2007 coup constitution changed the Senate from being 100% elected to slightly less than half being elected and most Senators appointed by an anonymous council of autocrats. This specifically restricts the electoral appeal of the clearly more popular PTP, which previously had been the constitutional court dissolved PPP, which previously had been the constitutional court dissolved TRT, each of which were highly successful in a succession of general elections.

The 2007 coup constitution removed the PM and cabinet further from any participation in choosing judges, agency or commission members, senior military commanders of the armed forces. Indeed, when was the last time the armed forces executed a coup d'état military mutiny against a Democrat party led government? Quite to the contrary, in 2008 the military was instrumental in installing Abhisit and Suthep in government after the CC used the 2007 coup constitution to dismiss a predecessor PTP government.

The 2007 coup constitution wasn't written by the autocrats and oligarchs to give power to the people. The autocracy wrote the document for themselves and to their own benefit, as we see most clearly in the behaviors of the institutions the coup rulers re-created for their own purposes, such as the constitutional court among the many others.

[whybother]

The 2007 constitution that was produced illegally by an extra-constitutional ruling military council helps the Democrat party and Abhisit by limiting what the electorate can accomplish in a general election.

The 2007 coup constitution changed the Senate from being 100% elected to slightly less than half being elected and most Senators appointed by an anonymous council of autocrats. This specifically restricts the electoral appeal of the clearly more popular PTP, which previously had been the constitutional court dissolved PPP, which previously had been the constitutional court dissolved TRT, each of which were highly successful in a succession of general elections.

The 2007 coup constitution removed the PM and cabinet further from any participation in choosing judges, agency or commission members, senior military commanders of the armed forces. Indeed, when was the last time the armed forces executed a coup d'état military mutiny against a Democrat party led government? Quite to the contrary, in 2008 the military was instrumental in installing Abhisit and Suthep in government after the CC used the 2007 coup constitution to dismiss a predecessor PTP government.

The 2007 coup constitution wasn't written by the autocrats and oligarchs to give power to the people. The autocracy wrote the document for themselves and to their own benefit, as we see most clearly in the behaviors of the institutions the coup rulers re-created for their own purposes, such as the constitutional court among the many others.

How does the 2007 constitution limit people voting for any party in a general election? How does it make people vote for the Democrats?

The Democrats were removed by a coup in 1976. The only coups after that were in 1992, removing a Chart Thai government, and 2006. I don't quite see the relevance of the question though.

[klauskunkel]

Pheu Thai vows to defy Constitutional Court's ruling on election

BANGKOK: -- The ruling Pheu Thai Party said Tuesday it would defy the Constitutional Court's ruling on the election, even before it knows what its decision is.

Pheu Thai: "We are not only corrupt, incompetent and violent criminals, we are also extremely stooopid. And proud of it. Loving every minute of it."

[Tatsujin]

Prior to 2007 the predessors to the Constitutional Court repeatedly ruled in favor of the Thaksin political parties. In 2007 when the Democrats grabbed power through the military coup and rewrote the Constitution, it re-established the Constitutional Court with partisan judges aligned with or sympathetic to the Democratic party through their appointments by a government lacking any significant opposition party with the removal of Thaksin's party.

The Constitutional Court members know where their allegiance lies and has become de facto a powerful tool of the Democrat party as evidenced by its consistent rulings against the PTP with minimal, flawed, or lacking evidence coming largely from the Democrats/PDRC. And so PTP's perceived partisan discrimination by the Court is real and its frustration is a natural response to the corruption of the Court's intended judicial fairness.

I'm confused. Which party has been in "power" for the majority of the last 10+ years? Do you not think they should have done something (within the framework of the law and within the constitution) about the judicial members before now IF it was indeed an issue?

The rulings keep going against PTP/Thaksin not solely because of bias, but (surprise,surprise) because PTP/Thaksin keep breaking the law. It's quite simple really.

[Publicus]

The 2007 constitution that was produced illegally by an extra-constitutional ruling military council helps the Democrat party and Abhisit by limiting what the electorate can accomplish in a general election.

The 2007 coup constitution changed the Senate from being 100% elected to slightly less than half being elected and most Senators appointed by an anonymous council of autocrats. This specifically restricts the electoral appeal of the clearly more popular PTP, which previously had been the constitutional court dissolved PPP, which previously had been the constitutional court dissolved TRT, each of which were highly successful in a succession of general elections.

The 2007 coup constitution removed the PM and cabinet further from any participation in choosing judges, agency or commission members, senior military commanders of the armed forces. Indeed, when was the last time the armed forces executed a coup d'état military mutiny against a Democrat party led government? Quite to the contrary, in 2008 the military was instrumental in installing Abhisit and Suthep in government after the CC used the 2007 coup constitution to dismiss a predecessor PTP government.

The 2007 coup constitution wasn't written by the autocrats and oligarchs to give power to the people. The autocracy wrote the document for themselves and to their own benefit, as we see most clearly in the behaviors of the institutions the coup rulers re-created for their own purposes, such as the constitutional court among the many others.

How does the 2007 constitution limit people voting for any party in a general election? How does it make people vote for the Democrats?

The Democrats were removed by a coup in 1976. The only coups after that were in 1992, removing a Chart Thai government, and 2006. I don't quite see the relevance of the question though.

Kindly be more attentive not to overstate what I wrote.

Nowhere did I say the coup written 2007 illegal constitution "make people vote for the Democrat party".

I said it reduces the number of elected MPs, in the Senate specifically, that the electorate may choose, and that, given the record of PTP (and its predecessor parties) popularity among the voters, the extra-constitutional 2007 document helps the DP. Fewer electoral choices effectively and deliberately limit the PTP rather than the less popular DP which doesn't elect that many MPs anyway.

The 2007 coup constitution reinstated appointed senators, who are appointed by an anonymous council of autocrats, not people. This calculated reduction of electoral choice hurts PTP, which in turn helps the DP.

It's like a handicap in golf mangled into Thai politics and government by the ammart.

The following piece by the private Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington, may help you figure this out and it may help others to get their own heads screwed on straight about protecting the political minority in government..

ASEAN, CORRUPTION, ELECTIONS, JUDICIARY, THAILAND, YINGLUCK SHINAWATRA Thailand’s Constitutional Court Highlights Bangkok’s Political Conundrum

The current structure of the Senate is clearly undemocratic. Many upper houses, including in the United States, purposely skew representation to protect against the tyranny of the majority. But in a democracy this is usually done by allowing groups with unequal populations, usually defined by geography, to elect an equal number of representatives.

The problems with Thailand’s Senate are two-fold. First, it does not allow the members of the minority it is allegedly protecting to vote for their own representatives. Instead, it allows the elite of the elite—a committee composed of judges and appointed officials—to handpick senators. Second, the minority it seeks to protect is not primarily geographic, ethnic, or religious; it is socio-economic. The Senate, along with the judiciary, was intentionally established as a bulwark against popular rule.

. http://cogitasia.com/thailands-constitutional-court-highlights-bangkoks-political-conundrum/

[pattayaorganic]

Prior to 2007 the predessors to the Constitutional Court repeatedly ruled in favor of the Thaksin political parties. In 2007 when the Democrats grabbed power through the military coup and rewrote the Constitution, it re-established the Constitutional Court with partisan judges aligned with or sympathetic to the Democratic party through their appointments by a government lacking any significant opposition party with the removal of Thaksin's party.

The Constitutional Court members know where their allegiance lies and has become de facto a powerful tool of the Democrat party as evidenced by its consistent rulings against the PTP with minimal, flawed, or lacking evidence coming largely from the Democrats/PDRC. And so PTP's perceived partisan discrimination by the Court is real and its frustration is a natural response to the corruption of the Court's intended judicial fairness.

There was definite bias in the drafting committee for the 2007 constitution but as far as I know it wasn't written by the Democrats and I believe anyone who had recently been a member of a political party couldn't be on the drafting committee. Of course that doesn't mean they didn't have political views. Abhisit and the Democrats agreed with most of the draft but disagreed with some points. It was decided to back it because if they didn't the Council for National Security which was basically the military would write their own. Bear in mind also that Abhisit did not support the coup.

Lest I remind those that no less than 3 TRT/PTP/Thaksin administrations followed the 2007 constitution which reinstated separation of powers. Separation of powers is critically fundamental to any democracy.

When the Democrat Party came into power via a parliamentary vote the UDD mobilised terrorists, stole weapons from the army, commandeered army tanks, hospitals, undertook stop and search of private citizens, assassinated an army leader, when these armed terrorists were attempted to be controlled, they embarked on a reign of terror that resulted in the burning down of key commercial centres in Bangkok.

This group attempted to overthrow the constitutional government, multiple times attacked the prime minister, attempted kidnapping in Pattaya, the list goes on and on.

Track to the present day situation, the present government is openly declaring the separation of powers as counter to their opinion of democracy which means that if you get the majority of election, you are free to do whatever you please, including ignoring the rule of law and separation of powers.

My personal opinion is that the PTP/Thaksin strategists are openly provoking a coup as they know more than anybody they have lost their support base amongst voters. The Red movement is damaged and fractured. What better way to regroup than to allow or provoke a coup and then return to their rhetoric that the evil amart are against democracy and the next administration has the catch-22 situation of the farmers needing to get paid and an unsustainable system. Better to let the democrats deal with that.

[Baerboxer]

I see the yellow brigade are out decrying PT for disputing the legality of the Ombudsman's actions. It must be good to have an intricate knowledge of Thai law so that you can say without a reasonable doubt that the Ombudsman had a right to forward a petition on the poll to the Constitutional Court and that there was a conflict between the Royal Decree on the House dissolution, which stated February 2 as the only election date, and the charter.

Reality is, you just come out to cheer anything that can be construed as negative towards PT and you actually haven't got any idea about the legality of the issues involved.

And neither have you. Your only comment is as always to proclaim the innocence of PTP and anyone who dares speak or challenge them must be part of the conspiracy against this democratically elected never do wrong landslide winning benevolent honest government,

Sorry, just doesn't cut the mustard. They have been caught out telling lie after lie and refusing to accept court rulings that go against them or respect the law. YL is always going on about everyone must respect the law and obey the constitution. It seems that doesn't include herself, her ministers, her party, its affiliates and her brother.

Maybe the Ombudsman knows more about Thai law and the constitution than you, and other posters here for that matter. Look how YL's legal team are performing on the NACC probes and you get an idea of their competence.

[binjalin]

I see the yellow brigade are out decrying PT for disputing the legality of the Ombudsman's actions. It must be good to have an intricate knowledge of Thai law so that you can say without a reasonable doubt that the Ombudsman had a right to forward a petition on the poll to the Constitutional Court and that there was a conflict between the Royal Decree on the House dissolution, which stated February 2 as the only election date, and the charter.

Reality is, you just come out to cheer anything that can be construed as negative towards PT and you actually haven't got any idea about the legality of the issues involved.

And neither have you. Your only comment is as always to proclaim the innocence of PTP and anyone who dares speak or challenge them must be part of the conspiracy against this democratically elected never do wrong landslide winning benevolent honest government,

Sorry, just doesn't cut the mustard. They have been caught out telling lie after lie and refusing to accept court rulings that go against them or respect the law. YL is always going on about everyone must respect the law and obey the constitution. It seems that doesn't include herself, her ministers, her party, its affiliates and her brother.

Maybe the Ombudsman knows more about Thai law and the constitution than you, and other posters here for that matter. Look how YL's legal team are performing on the NACC probes and you get an idea of their competence.

very unfair on this poster who always posts reasonable and well thought out comments

as I have stated the 'constitution' was, more or less, forced on the Thai people with the threat of the Army coup-makers staying in power indefinitely - no campaign was allowed against the 'new' constitution and it was anything but FAIR

so supporting the un-biased (sic) judiciary in quoting 'the constitution' is a bit of a scam and the Thai people know it - hence the 'troubles' which will NEVER be over until there is justice for ALL