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

[whybother]

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/

Apologies, it was Bob that said the 2007 constitution was written to get the Democrats elected.

Senators are not MPs and are not members of any political party. Senators don't get elected during a general election.

So the 2007 constitution doesn't limit the PTP in the election. It does potentially limit what laws they can try to pass in parliament.

[JamesDean3]

Statements like these by the PT party which they later on denie just lives you thinking there must be stupidity in the air were breathing

[soalbundy]

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.

The ombudsman obviously had a right to forward a petition otherwise the constitution court would not have accepted it in the first place.I think we can safely assume that the constitution court knows the constitution better than we do,better in fact than anybody,it's their job.

[soalbundy]

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

If i remember rightly there was a nation wide vote on the constitution,whether to accept the new one or keep the old one,i don't think it was forced onto anyone.

[HonestQuietBob]

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/

Apologies, it was Bob that said the 2007 constitution was written to get the Democrats elected.

Senators are not MPs and are not members of any political party. Senators don't get elected during a general election.

So the 2007 constitution doesn't limit the PTP in the election. It does potentially limit what laws they can try to pass in parliament.

It was me and and it was undemocratically changed to favour the Democrats.

All the changes made were to tilt the playing field in the Democrats favour.

Abhisit then had a second go at it when he was PM and made more changes to further tilt the playing field.

Guess what they still lost and now want a 3rd crack at changing the rules to favour the Democrats.

*Remember under the 1997 Constitution, we had 400 single member constituency MPS and 100 MPs from the party vote. Thaksin won under that system so in 2007, they changed this to 157 multi-member constituencies (with up to 3 MPs per constituency and 400 constituency MPs in total) and 80 MPs from the party vote (because Thai Rak Thai had done well under the party vote system previously) but a pro-Thaksin party still won in 2007 so the Abhisit-led government, who had done well on the party list vote in 2007, changed the electoral system in 2011 to move to 375 single member constituencies and 125 MPs from the party vote. Yet, the pro-Thaksin party won again in 2011 and the change didn’t help. Hence, we need a third change to somehow weaken Puea Thai, but BP thinks they realize this is not enough. They are unhappy that the 2007 Constitution didn’t go far enough in weakening Thaksin so want a do-over.

Edited March 19, 2014 by HonestQuietBob

[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

If i remember rightly there was a nation wide vote on the constitution,whether to accept the new one or keep the old one,i don't think it was forced onto anyone.

you remember wrongly

[In Town]

Seems like the army may have to come in and quell this terrorist uprising lest it result in more deaths at the hands of the UDD as it did in 2010.

I think you have that a bit backward. It was the army causing death in 2010, not the UDD. Its astonishing what people will say on this forum.

[fab4]

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.

abhisit made amendments to the organic laws on the election of MP's to benefit the democrat party in the 2011 election. abhisit increased the Party List MP's from 80 to 125, based on fact that the dems have historically fared better in votes for Party List MPs.

In addition, abhisit also reduced the number of regular MPs from 400 to 375 by changing from multi seat to single seat constituencies, immediately cutting out 16 MPs from the North and Isaan region, and only 4 (maybe 2) from Southern Thailand, to weaken Pheu Thai that is strong in the North and Isaan region.

I think the motive is fairly obvious, but you can't legislate for being unelectable.

Edited March 19, 2014 by fab4

[SICHONSTEVE]

So just to get it right.

Current government refuses to follow the law, but expects opposition and anyone or everyone else to follow it?

Yes, you have got it right (even though it's wrong).

[Publicus]

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/

Apologies, it was Bob that said the 2007 constitution was written to get the Democrats elected.

Senators are not MPs and are not members of any political party. Senators don't get elected during a general election.

So the 2007 constitution doesn't limit the PTP in the election. It does potentially limit what laws they can try to pass in parliament.

Senators not being members of a political party militates against the singularly most popular political party, which means PTP, thus very likely removing potential PTP senators from the electoral process and from the Senate itself. This is good news to the Democrat party

Moving the election of Senators out of the GE to a special election day further reduces possibilities / probabilities of the majority party by requiring voters in each province to make a special effort to get to the polls to vote. In the only Senate election under the illegal 2007 coup written constitution, the 2008 special senate election had a 56% voter turnout, which sharply contrasts to the 75% turnout of the 2011 general election and similar turnout data in 2008.

The extra-constitutional, coup written 2007 constitution was produced to sharply curtail popular voting, to reduce the number of potential candidates on offer to the voters, to remove political parties from the political process and from government itself. The 2007 coup written constitution is not only undemocratic compared to the 1997 document, it is actively as anti-democratic as its writers believed the could get away with.

[In Town]

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.

The army has been in power for the last ten years...

[In Town]

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

If i remember rightly there was a nation wide vote on the constitution,whether to accept the new one or keep the old one,i don't think it was forced onto anyone.

Yes, there was no force involved; just a statement by the army that if the constitution was rejected they would write the new one....

[whybother]

Senators not being members of a political party militates against the singularly most popular political party, which means PTP, thus very likely removing potential PTP senators from the electoral process and from the Senate itself. This is good news to the Democrat party

Moving the election of Senators out of the GE to a special election day further reduces possibilities / probabilities of the majority party by requiring voters in each province to make a special effort to get to the polls to vote. In the only Senate election under the illegal 2007 coup written constitution, the 2008 special senate election had a 56% voter turnout, which sharply contrasts to the 75% turnout of the 2011 general election and similar turnout data in 2008.

The extra-constitutional, coup written 2007 constitution was produced to sharply curtail popular voting, to reduce the number of potential candidates on offer to the voters, to remove political parties from the political process and from government itself. The 2007 coup written constitution is not only undemocratic compared to the 1997 document, it is actively as anti-democratic as its writers believed the could get away with.

So, basically, what you're saying, is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Senate has always been "independent" with no senators allowed to be on a party ticket.

The Senate elections have never been part of the General election.

This was all written in the 1997 "peoples constitution".

Try again.

[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.

The army has been in power for the last ten years...

That has to be the most inane posting to date.

I was of the understanding it had been pro-Thaksin Govt's predominantly who held a huge majority.

Guess I was wrong then.

[LevelHead]

What an absolutely disgusting and disgraceful article.

Look at the content.

The Headline is they will defy.

Then it says this :

Bhokin Bhalakula, Pheu Thai's legal expert, said the party had yet to discuss what to do if the court nullifies the election. But it wanted to show that it felt the hearing was not right.

So the whole article is total nonsense as the party have said nothing. How on earth did the writer and The Nation think they could get away with printing an article whose headline is total rubbish as they themselves later in the article say the party has not even discussed what to do.

They HAVE NOT said they will DEFY the court ruling, and they have not even discussed it. The Nation - what a disgrace !!

All in my opinion of course.

[Amavel]

Vote, or you don't get to play the game of Democracy. Voting is the ante. Then the cards get dealt and then you play or pass.

Standing outside the table is only a distraction to the game, which will go on anyway.

Whatever Suthep and Abhisit are playing, it isn't Democracy.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Publicus]

Senators not being members of a political party militates against the singularly most popular political party, which means PTP, thus very likely removing potential PTP senators from the electoral process and from the Senate itself. This is good news to the Democrat party

Moving the election of Senators out of the GE to a special election day further reduces possibilities / probabilities of the majority party by requiring voters in each province to make a special effort to get to the polls to vote. In the only Senate election under the illegal 2007 coup written constitution, the 2008 special senate election had a 56% voter turnout, which sharply contrasts to the 75% turnout of the 2011 general election and similar turnout data in 2008.

The extra-constitutional, coup written 2007 constitution was produced to sharply curtail popular voting, to reduce the number of potential candidates on offer to the voters, to remove political parties from the political process and from government itself. The 2007 coup written constitution is not only undemocratic compared to the 1997 document, it is actively as anti-democratic as its writers believed the could get away with.

So, basically, what you're saying, is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Senate has always been "independent" with no senators allowed to be on a party ticket.

The Senate elections have never been part of the General election.

This was all written in the 1997 "peoples constitution".

Try again.

......and.....btw......

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...ical-conundrum/

Edited March 19, 2014 by Publicus

[whybother]

Senators not being members of a political party militates against the singularly most popular political party, which means PTP, thus very likely removing potential PTP senators from the electoral process and from the Senate itself. This is good news to the Democrat party

Moving the election of Senators out of the GE to a special election day further reduces possibilities / probabilities of the majority party by requiring voters in each province to make a special effort to get to the polls to vote. In the only Senate election under the illegal 2007 coup written constitution, the 2008 special senate election had a 56% voter turnout, which sharply contrasts to the 75% turnout of the 2011 general election and similar turnout data in 2008.

The extra-constitutional, coup written 2007 constitution was produced to sharply curtail popular voting, to reduce the number of potential candidates on offer to the voters, to remove political parties from the political process and from government itself. The 2007 coup written constitution is not only undemocratic compared to the 1997 document, it is actively as anti-democratic as its writers believed the could get away with.

So, basically, what you're saying, is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Senate has always been "independent" with no senators allowed to be on a party ticket.

The Senate elections have never been part of the General election.

This was all written in the 1997 "peoples constitution".

Try again.

......and.....

And, what does it have to do with the 2007 constitution?

[tezzainoz]

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.

You need to do more research as you are wrong in many statements

1) if does not matter who wrote the new constitution even if Joe Blog had done it, as long as it was voted into to being by the people, and this was done

2) "The government survives because it has the support of the people" what I have seen is many of th PTP backers from the last election are now protesting against them

Areas that used to be 100% red are now anti red

3) support of the world's democracies

You must be living in a dream world SBS in Australia had a documentary last week that was saying the goverment seem to be corrupt and the Thai people are calling them to account

if those three things are not true, how can we believe any thing you say

[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.

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.

Yes, the red soldier has been proven to be wrong on this Ombudsman issue by quoting the easily found law regarding it.

As far as her other case is going, YL's legal team is staffed with the convicted Pastry Box Lawyer from TS's legal team.

Amazing Thaksinland

[tezzainoz]

Vote, or you don't get to play the game of Democracy. Voting is the ante. Then the cards get dealt and then you play or pass.

Standing outside the table is only a distraction to the game, which will go on anyway.

Whatever Suthep and Abhisit are playing, it isn't Democracy.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

so if we include Thaskin and his sister Yingluck

There is no democracy in Thailand

Just people mouthing the word when it pleases them

So you admit we need reform so we can finaly have a democratic Thailand

[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.

The ombudsman obviously had a right to forward a petition otherwise the constitution court would not have accepted it in the first place.I think we can safely assume that the constitution court knows the constitution better than we do,better in fact than anybody,it's their job.

Indeed.

Wash out the distortions.

Rinse.

Repeat.

.

Edited March 19, 2014 by kuthow

[Tatsujin]

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.

Enlighten us then oh poor educator ... if the "Courts" themselves have the authority and mandate themselves to decide such things, how can it be "illegal" to do so? Cos PT say so?

Do you have the faintest clue on the legalities yourself to claim it is in fact illegal as you seem to be asserting?

As far as I can see, PT consistently try to achieve their aims using underhand and outright illegal methods and then cry foul when they get pulled up on it.

If they followed the law instead of ignoring or breaking it continually, they wouldn't be in the mess they are currently.

[Local Drunk]

Senators not being members of a political party militates against the singularly most popular political party, which means PTP, thus very likely removing potential PTP senators from the electoral process and from the Senate itself. This is good news to the Democrat party

Moving the election of Senators out of the GE to a special election day further reduces possibilities / probabilities of the majority party by requiring voters in each province to make a special effort to get to the polls to vote. In the only Senate election under the illegal 2007 coup written constitution, the 2008 special senate election had a 56% voter turnout, which sharply contrasts to the 75% turnout of the 2011 general election and similar turnout data in 2008.

The extra-constitutional, coup written 2007 constitution was produced to sharply curtail popular voting, to reduce the number of potential candidates on offer to the voters, to remove political parties from the political process and from government itself. The 2007 coup written constitution is not only undemocratic compared to the 1997 document, it is actively as anti-democratic as its writers believed the could get away with.

So, basically, what you're saying, is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Senate has always been "independent" with no senators allowed to be on a party ticket.

The Senate elections have never been part of the General election.

This was all written in the 1997 "peoples constitution".

Try again.

......and.....btw......

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...ical-conundrum/

."the elite of the elite" Your term is a bit ambiguous and certainly definable according to anyone's particular bias, unless you've defined the elite as the wealthy. Therein lies the problem. You singled no one out as an example in your definition of ."the elite of the elite" You simply paint a broad swath of rhetoric at those that you seem to disagree with. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being an elitist. Indeed, I 'm sure that you are .

[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.

You need to do more research as you are wrong in many statements

1) if does not matter who wrote the new constitution even if Joe Blog had done it, as long as it was voted into to being by the people, and this was done

2) "The government survives because it has the support of the people" what I have seen is many of th PTP backers from the last election are now protesting against them

Areas that used to be 100% red are now anti red

3) support of the world's democracies

You must be living in a dream world SBS in Australia had a documentary last week that was saying the goverment seem to be corrupt and the Thai people are calling them to account

if those three things are not true, how can we believe any thing you say

Hey pal, I posted elsewhere the ruling coup made it illegal to criticize the coup written 2007 constitution in the bogus referendum carried out by the coup government. I'd add to that here that the coup rulers told voters they would not surrender state power if their extra-constitutional constitution failed at referendum. Forty-one percent still voted to reject it.

The fact is the government continues in office because it has the support of the people, as demonstrated by voters under great duress February 2nd and in early polling the week before, and because it continues to have the unwavering support of democracies internationally.

You can cite one or more tv programs in the ways you want to characterize them, or you can try ever so cynically to exaggerate the quantity or quality of them, but you fail to present substantial or significant variations to anything I or any other democracy poster presents.

Your post is a feeble waste of our time.

[HonestQuietBob]

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.

You need to do more research as you are wrong in many statements

1) if does not matter who wrote the new constitution even if Joe Blog had done it, as long as it was voted into to being by the people, and this was done

2) "The government survives because it has the support of the people" what I have seen is many of th PTP backers from the last election are now protesting against them

Areas that used to be 100% red are now anti red

3) support of the world's democracies

You must be living in a dream world SBS in Australia had a documentary last week that was saying the goverment seem to be corrupt and the Thai people are calling them to account

if those three things are not true, how can we believe any thing you say

1). About that vote...

The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.

The restrictions against opposition to the draft were criticized by human rights bodies. "Even if amended to allow for 'factual' campaigning on the referendum, it is clear that the main purpose of the law is to intimidate and silence persons who don’t share the official view," the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said. "Meanwhile the administration is pumping vast amounts of money into Yes propaganda that is set to increase quickly

2). Quote - "what I have seen"

Rather scientific measure you using there mate.

Any chance you can peer out the window and let us know how many senators each side will win in the upcoming election.

Of cause you can't, idiotic reasoning doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

3). International support?

There is more than one other country in the world.

The international support for current government is as close to universal as you can get.

Also, in Australia, a major newspaper, The Sydney Morning Herald has repeatedly come out very strong against Suthep and the cronies behind him.

[Lite Beer]

Constitutional Court may decide validity of Feb 2 poll today
By Digital Content

BANGKOK, Mar 19 – Thailand's Constitutional Court may announce its ruling today on the validity of the Feb 2 general election amid a challenge that it was not authorised to consider the case into consideration.

Election Commission (EC) chairman Supachai Somcharoen said before attending the hearingsl that the EC organised the election in accord with the legal process but it would be willing to accept the charter court’s verdict.

If the court orders to annul the election, the EC will accept the verdict, he said.

Three related parties – the EC, the caretaker government and the Office of the Ombudsman – were required to appear in the court today.

The Office of the Ombudsman earlier filed a petition with the Constitution Court, seeking to nullify the Feb 2election – a move challenged by the caretaker Yingluck Shinawatra government.

Caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Phongthep Thepkanjana, who represented the caretaker government, told reporters that the royal decree on general election, issued in 2013, did not contradict the Constitution and the authority to organise the poll belongs to the EC.

The Office of the Ombudsman is not empowered to lodge a petition with the charter court, he said, adding that the ruling Pheu Thai Party’s statement objecting the charter court’s authority in the case has nothing to do with the caretaker government.

The government is ready to follow the court’s ruling no matter how it will be, he said.

Ombudsman Pornpetch Vichitcholachai insisted on the legal power of the Office of the Ombudsman in filing the petition with the Constitution Court, explaining that the Ombudsman once exercised the power in 2006 which ended with the charter court’s verdict to annul then general election.

“Though we currently under a different charter, the Ombudsman’s power remains unchanged. Ombudsman performs its duty with honesty, fairness, transparency and neutrality,” he said. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2014-03-19

[Crushdepth]

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.

Take another look at the article, "defy" is an entirely reasonable summary of the quote below. Phuea Thai aren't going to accept the court decision if it nullifies the election result. They're already claiming the court has no right to consider the complaint, and obviously they imply that nullifying the election would be unconstitutional, unlawful and dishonest.

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 [that is] 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."

Edited March 19, 2014 by Crushdepth

[Dogmatix]

PT likes to bring out its sleazy barrack room lawyers like Bhokin and Pongthep to state that any court rulings they don't happen to like are illegal, even before they know which way the court is going to rule. So if the court rules that the 2 Feb election was lawful and should be completed, that means they won't accept that ruling and should scrap the election.

They are making pronouncements as if they are a higher legal power than the Constitutional Court. Perhaps they will pay Robert Amsterdam to fly in and opine that the Constitutional Court judges should be tried in the Hague next.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Dogmatix

[kimamey]

I've just read the original post. It is the Nation which is saying PT will defy the court ruling.

The PT spokesman said that they hadn't decided what to do, although they didn't agree that the case should have been brought, and they were suspicious of the EC motivation.

That doesn't read to me like defying the court come what may. Perhaps some of the outrage is "a little bit previous"?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Looking at the OP it seems that they are defying (or whatever word you want to use) not because of the court's decision but because they feel that the the ombudsman shouldn't have forwarded the case to them in the first place.

It does look like they're giving themselves a way out if the court finds in their favour.