Redshirts press charges against Constitutional Court for annulling election

[Morch]

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

For me the part that stands out the most is they neglected to mention that of the 20 million voters they quoted 12 million were NO-Votes or spoiled and only 8 million actually supported a candidate and of those 8 million it would be wrong to assume they were all for PTP

That photo just says it all - the face of red Thaksin Democracy at work - maybe the 1 finger salute means they all got 1000 baht each for being there

Can you provide a reference for the voting results? I haven't heard of anything other than speculation.

Make it a little over 14 million valid votes.

The EC announced that as many as 20.1 million out of 43.024 million eligible voters submitted votes in 68 provinces where voting was not disrupted by protestors, with 71.38 percent of those ballots valid, 12.05 percent invalid and 16.57 percent "no-vote".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2014#Election_day

[DrTuner]

Respect for Thailand...???

Respect for the Constitution...???

Respect for the law...???

<deleted> respect seems to be the message portrayed by that photo.

[Amavel]

Good for them. That is the finger they vote with. The finger of Democracy. Learn it, live it, love it.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[kimamey]

" ...Termed "The National Complaint Day", the campaign encouraged the Redshirts to file charge of treason

and attempt to overthrow sovereign power of the Legislative Branch

under Article 113 of the Criminal Codes against the 6 majority Constitutional Court judges who ruled in the election verdict... "

SOVEREIGNTY.

The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Story on the Const. Sec. 207.

2. Abstractedly, sovereignty resides in the body of the nation and belongs to the people. But these powers are generally exercised by delegation.

3. When analysed, sovereignty is naturally divided into three great powers;

namely, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary;

the first is the power to make new laws, and to correct and repeal the old;

the second is the power to execute the laws both at home and abroad;

and

the last is the power to apply the laws to particular facts; to judge the disputes which arise among the citizens, and to punish crimes.

Te obvious point being that sovereign power devolves into ALL THREE

and each answerable to the other through their Differing POWERS of function.

So the Legislative has no sovereign power if not

used in delegation legally with The People.

used in concert with the other 2 branches,and their independent functions with in soverignty.

And under the constitutional framework The People have decide to implement.

They should in the big picture direct their complaints to not at the protestors,

nor the courts making a verdict on if the Executive branch has done it's job.

In this case, the Executive did not for what ever reasons successfully fulfil

'it's mandate to run an election country wide in one day.' Even with the aide of early voting days.

It's not like other nations do NOT have protestors on election days, nor violence,

but it seems Thailands executive did a particularly bad job of keeping order to run the election,

in spite pf truck loads of talk that they would.

In the end they did not and the Court ruled it was insufficient in fulfilling

it's sovereign duty as the executive.

.

A great many words that boil down to this: It is OK by you that a few people, who disrupted the election in certain parts of the country to prevent citizens from lawfully exercising their right to vote, stole the election from the great many people who did vote for the candidate of their choice irrespective of which party that was, other than the Dems who chose not to field any candidates. It is OK by you to blame the government knowing full well they asked the army to support the police in ensuring all the ballot boxes were delivered, polling stations were open and able to receive votes and the army refused that request. It is OK by you that the Constitutional Court penalized those who voted by declaring the whole election void without any sanction against those who prevented people from voting.

Clearly, you have no respect for the democratic wishes of the people who did vote.

A great many people are angry that the election has been stolen from them and see the Election Commission and the Constitutional Court as supporting the PRDC. These people have seen and understand the big picture much better than you do.

Unfortunately the court has to decide based on the law not on fairness. This sometimes happens with laws as they tend to be fixed. If a law is seen to not working on a regular basis it needs to be changed. A court can highlight this but can't change the law. In this instance it seems likely that this is not going to happen all the time but it might be worth seeing if the law can be changed.

I have some sympathy with those who voted but so long as all sides get together and sort out reforms, which I'm sure they will eventually then they will be able to vote again in another election either after reforms or before if some way can be found to do that.

When they have placards which read "How come 6 judges have more power than 20 million votes?" it just shows that they don't understand how things work in a democracy as that is normal everywhere.

Whilst this may well be unfair the same can be said for those who didn't vote for the government in the last proper election and ended up with a government seemingly controlled by someone who didn't take part in the election or get any votes.

[hawker9000]

" ...Termed "The National Complaint Day", the campaign encouraged the Redshirts to file charge of treason

and attempt to overthrow sovereign power of the Legislative Branch

under Article 113 of the Criminal Codes against the 6 majority Constitutional Court judges who ruled in the election verdict... "

SOVEREIGNTY.

The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Story on the Const. Sec. 207.

2. Abstractedly, sovereignty resides in the body of the nation and belongs to the people. But these powers are generally exercised by delegation.

3. When analysed, sovereignty is naturally divided into three great powers;

namely, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary;

the first is the power to make new laws, and to correct and repeal the old;

the second is the power to execute the laws both at home and abroad;

and

the last is the power to apply the laws to particular facts; to judge the disputes which arise among the citizens, and to punish crimes.

Te obvious point being that sovereign power devolves into ALL THREE

and each answerable to the other through their Differing POWERS of function.

So the Legislative has no sovereign power if not

used in delegation legally with The People.

used in concert with the other 2 branches,and their independent functions with in soverignty.

And under the constitutional framework The People have decide to implement.

They should in the big picture direct their complaints to not at the protestors,

nor the courts making a verdict on if the Executive branch has done it's job.

In this case, the Executive did not for what ever reasons successfully fulfil

'it's mandate to run an election country wide in one day.' Even with the aide of early voting days.

It's not like other nations do NOT have protestors on election days, nor violence,

but it seems Thailands executive did a particularly bad job of keeping order to run the election,

in spite pf truck loads of talk that they would.

In the end they did not and the Court ruled it was insufficient in fulfilling

it's sovereign duty as the executive.

.

A great many words that boil down to this: It is OK by you that a few people, who disrupted the election in certain parts of the country to prevent citizens from lawfully exercising their right to vote, stole the election from the great many people who did vote for the candidate of their choice irrespective of which party that was, other than the Dems who chose not to field any candidates. It is OK by you to blame the government knowing full well they asked the army to support the police in ensuring all the ballot boxes were delivered, polling stations were open and able to receive votes and the army refused that request. It is OK by you that the Constitutional Court penalized those who voted by declaring the whole election void without any sanction against those who prevented people from voting.

Clearly, you have no respect for the democratic wishes of the people who did vote.

A great many people are angry that the election has been stolen from them and see the Election Commission and the Constitutional Court as supporting the PRDC. These people have seen and understand the big picture much better than you do.

Unfortunately the court has to decide based on the law not on fairness. This sometimes happens with laws as they tend to be fixed. If a law is seen to not working on a regular basis it needs to be changed. A court can highlight this but can't change the law. In this instance it seems likely that this is not going to happen all the time but it might be worth seeing if the law can be changed.

I have some sympathy with those who voted but so long as all sides get together and sort out reforms, which I'm sure they will eventually then they will be able to vote again in another election either after reforms or before if some way can be found to do that.

When they have placards which read "How come 6 judges have more power than 20 million votes?" it just shows that they don't understand how things work in a democracy as that is normal everywhere.

Whilst this may well be unfair the same can be said for those who didn't vote for the government in the last proper election and ended up with a government seemingly controlled by someone who didn't take part in the election or get any votes.

Exactly right. Re: "How come x judges have more power than yy million votes?". The US Federal and individual state supreme courts overturn duly legislated statute as well as direct voter referendums all the time. It's what "supreme courts" do, supposedly to protect the constitutional rights of minorities. That's precisely how gay rights initiatives are being advanced in the US. Such courts certainly have the power as well to rule particular elections invalid. Every time such a court rules, one faction or the other has to lose, and is bound to start squawking about the judges, the way they decided, and the way they were appointed. Thailand is simply no exception.

[Mrgk]

NO matter who else did or didn't do their job, the government is supposed to run the election with in a constitutional framework, it did not, for reasons of ineptness, and basically lack of respect from other governmental bodies, lack of respect brought on by their own illegitimate actions while in office.

The reason was PDRC sabotage of the election, as any reasonably informed observer knows. This is what makes the whole saga so deliciously perverse - the Royalists insisting on rigid adherence to the "rules", even rules that were wholly unknown up until just recently, while themselves embarking on a rule-breaking spree of rather spectacular proportions.

[Mrgk]

I agree with holding elections. I do not believe they should be hindered. However if they are hindered and the constitution outlines that results from such an election must be nullified, then so be it. Don't defy the constitution or get angry at those who uphold it if that is what it actually says/prescribes.

Needless to say, that is not what the constitution "actually says", it is merely the excuse that the Constitutional Court decided to use to help the judicial coup along. As for getting angry, I agree that is useless - what matters is getting even.

[Khunangkaro]

A classic..

(1 April) Pro-government supporters in many provinces have simultaneously filed complaints against the Constitutional Court for invalidating the 2nd of February general election.

"The National Complaint Day"

APRIL F O O L S DAY

The very best...

[Snowdog]

hey I got an idea lets outlaw vote buying and sponsored terrorism by thaksin and his family. outlaw any relation to thaksin from running for public office then finally there will be peace

[zydeco]

I see the new redshirt leadership is bring out their 25 most educated supporters.

Group photo of leaders of taxi drivers, tuk tuk operators, jet ski renters, traffic police, and immigration officers in mufti. I especially like the photo of that little goomer on the bottom row, second from the right. If he doesn't sell used cars, then YL is a rocket scientist.

Edited April 2, 2014 by zydeco

[Ricardo]

"What number were we, on the voting-slip ?"

"Where's the song-thaew home gotten to ?" from the person front-left.

"So how many thousand Baht were we promised, for showing-up ?"

"We hereby show our deep-affection and support for Thaksin Yingluck !"

"So who forgot to deliver our free red shirts, then ?"

[Malone]

I agree with holding elections. I do not believe they should be hindered. However if they are hindered and the constitution outlines that results from such an election must be nullified, then so be it. Don't defy the constitution or get angry at those who uphold it if that is what it actually says/prescribes.

Needless to say, that is not what the constitution "actually says"

Actually, that's precisely what it says.

[hawker9000]

hey I got an idea lets outlaw vote buying and sponsored terrorism by thaksin and his family. outlaw any relation to thaksin from running for public office then finally there will be peace

But you can't reasonably expect the Thaksinistas to be willing to have any truck with that idea...

[HiSoLowSoNoSo]

I see the new redshirt leadership is bring out their 25 most educated supporters.

Group photo of leaders of taxi drivers, tuk tuk operators, jet ski renters, traffic police, and immigration officers in mufti. I especially like the photo of that little goomer on the bottom row, second from the right. If he doesn't sell used cars, then YL is a rocket scientist.

Understandable why most Thais with a functional brain don't want these kind of people to run the country.

[tezzainoz]

PDCR really doesn't need to do anything. Just let degenerates perform their stunts with brownish matter and hygienic towels. Just look at all those old fellas and ladies and their gestures. How classic. Some idiots told them it's cool to act like that. All they do is bring the shame onto the movement, their families and themselves.

Yes if you look at the pictures you will see that these red shirts are yesterdays heros, and running on their last fuel limit

where the anti- Government protestors are the younger generation of Thailand

Time it self will change the politics of Thailand as the aging population of the north is replaced by educated youth

[tezzainoz]

No, no, no... those ARE rich Amart in the photo. Only Amart are against the Yingluck government! All the regular people LOVE Thaksin and PTP. /sarc

Other than than the willful ignorance and rude display shown by the Red Shirts (as usual) and the peaceful anti govt protesters. I do see some similarity. But neither one appears to be the rich Bangkok Amart, you so often refer to them as.

so yo are saying the shinawat family are not rich, as they come from Chaing Mai

Please give me a glass or what you have been drinking

[rametindallas]

No, no, no... those ARE rich Amart in the photo. Only Amart are against the Yingluck government! All the regular people LOVE Thaksin and PTP. /sarc

Other than than the willful ignorance and rude display shown by the Red Shirts (as usual) and the peaceful anti govt protesters. I do see some similarity. But neither one appears to be the rich Bangkok Amart, you so often refer to them as.

so yo are saying the shinawat family are not rich, as they come from Chaing Mai

Please give me a glass or what you have been drinking

First of all and to prevent more misunderstanding, the photo I was referring to was the one posted by rich teacher showing some poor PDRC members sitting on mats near a wall. Please take notice of the '/sarc' tag at the end of the first part of my post. For your future reference, it means 'sarcasm'. I was being sarcastic when I referred to those poor PDRC members as 'rich Amart'. One would think you have never read any of my posts before. I re-read my post and cannot see where I even hinted that the Shinawatra family are not wealthy, and I never even mentioned Chiang Mai. Are we talking about my post that you have quoted? I don't want a glass of what you're drinking. In the nest paragraph, I explain some of my view of the social landscape of Thailand.

The Shinawatras are Thai-Chinese, three generations removed from China (Thaksin's great-grandfather was born in China) His father, Lert Shinawatra opened a coffee shop, grew oranges and flowers in Chiang Mai's San Kamphaeng district, and opened two movie theatres, a gas station, and a car and motorcycle dealership. By the time Thaksin was born, the Shinawatra family was one of the richest and most influential families in Chiang Mai owned a cinema and was reasonably successful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra#Heritage_and_early_life

The Amataya, or Amart, are all long-established Thai (no Chinese mix) families whose wealth, in many cases stems from huge land grants and concessions from the nineteenth century (1800s) as gifts from one king or another. Kings, their heirs, and their favored were the only land holders in feudal Thailand. There has never been land reform in a big way here, also. Those old-line families have developed the, until Thaksin, current system of power sharing. Thaksin broke that mold and now there is a battle against the newly-rich Thai-Chinese (who, even as late as the 1960s were repressed) and the old-guard Thai families that control most of Thailand's wealth and want to keep it that way.

Are we good now or do I still need to explain myself?

[rametindallas]

I am confused. Thought the Constitutional Court mades ruling on constitutionality of laws that are deemed compromised. Is holding an election breaking any law? Especially when it is royally endorsed. Is CC guilty of LM? Ah, the intricacy of skewed politics.

The Royal Endorsement was for a fully legal election. What part of the Constitutional rule that states that the elections must be held country-wide and on the same day do you not understand? Are you a Thai Constitutional scholar? If you think the CC is guilty of LM, why don't you file charges? Why hasn't the UDD filed charges?

[northernjohn]

Respect for Thailand...???

Respect for the Constitution...???

Respect for the law...???

1 Respect for Thailand...???

Yes the problem with that is they have so much respect for Thailand that if it isn't Thai they think it is no good.

2 Respect for the Constitution...???

Yes unless you are PTP or red shirt.

3 Respect for the law...???

See answer to number 2

[northernjohn]

I agree with holding elections. I do not believe they should be hindered. However if they are hindered and the constitution outlines that results from such an election must be nullified, then so be it. Don't defy the constitution or get angry at those who uphold it if that is what it actually says/prescribes.

Needless to say, that is not what the constitution "actually says"

Actually, that's precisely what it says.

I believe in informed elections.

The PTP does not.

They refuse to inform the voters of how much money they intend to steal.

[Mrgk]

Exactly right. Re: "How come x judges have more power than yy million votes?". The US Federal and individual state supreme courts overturn duly legislated statute as well as direct voter referendums all the time. It's what "supreme courts" do, supposedly to protect the constitutional rights of minorities. That's precisely how gay rights initiatives are being advanced in the US. Such courts certainly have the power as well to rule particular elections invalid. Every time such a court rules, one faction or the other has to lose, and is bound to start squawking about the judges, the way they decided, and the way they were appointed. Thailand is simply no exception.

Judicial review is certainly used (and abused) in the US and elsewhere. What makes Thailand special is that unlike in most countries, the constitution that is being divinated and (a hefty chunk of) the judges that do the divination are not the result of some form of democratic process, but rather an artifact of anti-democratic forces (of a military coup even).

This is most obvious with regards to the "independent agencies" and the courts in terms of personel, and in terms of, say, the semi-unelected senate in terms of the policy-making structure of Thailand. Hence, the "checking and balancing" is not based in the consent of the governed, at any level, but rather in a naked grab of power through violent means.

[hawker9000]

Exactly right. Re: "How come x judges have more power than yy million votes?". The US Federal and individual state supreme courts overturn duly legislated statute as well as direct voter referendums all the time. It's what "supreme courts" do, supposedly to protect the constitutional rights of minorities. That's precisely how gay rights initiatives are being advanced in the US. Such courts certainly have the power as well to rule particular elections invalid. Every time such a court rules, one faction or the other has to lose, and is bound to start squawking about the judges, the way they decided, and the way they were appointed. Thailand is simply no exception.

Judicial review is certainly used (and abused) in the US and elsewhere. What makes Thailand special is that unlike in most countries, the constitution that is being divinated and (a hefty chunk of) the judges that do the divination are not the result of some form of democratic process, but rather an artifact of anti-democratic forces (of a military coup even).

This is most obvious with regards to the "independent agencies" and the courts in terms of personel, and in terms of, say, the semi-unelected senate in terms of the policy-making structure of Thailand. Hence, the "checking and balancing" is not based in the consent of the governed, at any level, but rather in a naked grab of power through violent means.

"Every time such a court rules, one faction or the other has to lose, and is bound to start squawking about the judges, the way they decided, and the way they were appointed. Thailand is simply no exception." JUST like I said...

[Mrgk]

"Every time such a court rules, one faction or the other has to lose, and is bound to start squawking about the judges, the way they decided, and the way they were appointed. Thailand is simply no exception." JUST like I said...

Aside from that you didn´t adress any of my points, I note that you seem to be arguing for the infallibility and incoruptability of the judiciary, as some sort of axiomatic position. That´s pretty far out there, especially given the history of judicial jurisprudence in Thailand...

[hawker9000]

"Every time such a court rules, one faction or the other has to lose, and is bound to start squawking about the judges, the way they decided, and the way they were appointed. Thailand is simply no exception." JUST like I said...

Aside from that you didn´t adress any of my points, I note that you seem to be arguing for the infallibility and incoruptability of the judiciary, as some sort of axiomatic position. That´s pretty far out there, especially given the history of judicial jurisprudence in Thailand...

Lol. Well, they can't possibly be any more fallible or corrupt than the party they seem to be ruling against... Tactics-wise, shin-rouge are probably better off not trying to argue those particular "points"! Reds want to attack the reputation of the courts (it's their only recourse at this point actually), but don't seem particularly interested in defending the reputation of the PT while in power. Some do struggle to defend the fugitive convict's reputation, and only manage to set everyone to laughing everytime they do so.

I'm certainly not arguing that any judiciary is infallible & incorruptible (anywhere on earth), but they are as much as part of the process as the "majority vote" Thaksinistas love to wail on about so. BOTH can be turned to ill purpose!

Edited April 4, 2014 by hawker9000

[Mrgk]

Lol. Well, they can't possibly be any more fallible or corrupt than the party they seem to be ruling against... Tactics-wise, shin-rouge are probably better off not trying to argue those particular "points"! Reds want to attack the reputation of the courts (it's their only recourse at this point actually), but don't seem particularly interested in defending the reputation of the PT while in power. Some do struggle to defend the fugitive convict's reputation, and only manage to set everyone to laughing everytime they do so.

I'm certainly not arguing that any judiciary is infallible & incorruptible (anywhere on earth), but they are as much as part of the process as the "majority vote" Thaksinistas love to wail on about so. BOTH can be turned to ill purpose!

What you seem to miss is that the legitimacy of the courts and the charter in Thailand rests on... what exactly? The appointments and forced-through charter of a military junta? Whatever the flaws of the popular voting procedures in Thailand, they pale compared to the basic illegitimacy on the "Checks and Balances" that were put into place by the usual suspects by force, in order to maintain their hold on power no matter what the public at large wants or believes.

[animatic]

NO matter who else did or didn't do their job, the government is supposed to run the election with in a constitutional framework, it did not, for reasons of ineptness, and basically lack of respect from other governmental bodies, lack of respect brought on by their own illegitimate actions while in office.

The reason was PDRC sabotage of the election, as any reasonably informed observer knows. This is what makes the whole saga so deliciously perverse - the Royalists insisting on rigid adherence to the "rules", even rules that were wholly unknown up until just recently, while themselves embarking on a rule-breaking spree of rather spectacular proportions.

If they still had actual unsquandered respect from other bodies in the government, other than one inept segment of the police, then there is nothing the PDRC could have done to prevent an adequate election. Their egotistic and irrational machinations have been burning bridges for years and those chickens came home to roost come election day. PDRC and the other groups or not, PTP Gov, only only the PTP Gov, blew running the election.

It is a gross simplification to purport this is just " royalists " versus the ' great hope for the poor '.

This is Thaksin losing yet another round in his egomaniacal drive

to wrest control of Thailand, and prove he has more face than all others.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[rubl]

Lol. Well, they can't possibly be any more fallible or corrupt than the party they seem to be ruling against... Tactics-wise, shin-rouge are probably better off not trying to argue those particular "points"! Reds want to attack the reputation of the courts (it's their only recourse at this point actually), but don't seem particularly interested in defending the reputation of the PT while in power. Some do struggle to defend the fugitive convict's reputation, and only manage to set everyone to laughing everytime they do so.

I'm certainly not arguing that any judiciary is infallible & incorruptible (anywhere on earth), but they are as much as part of the process as the "majority vote" Thaksinistas love to wail on about so. BOTH can be turned to ill purpose!

What you seem to miss is that the legitimacy of the courts and the charter in Thailand rests on... what exactly? The appointments and forced-through charter of a military junta? Whatever the flaws of the popular voting procedures in Thailand, they pale compared to the basic illegitimacy on the "Checks and Balances" that were put into place by the usual suspects by force, in order to maintain their hold on power no matter what the public at large wants or believes.

What you seem to imply is the courts and constitution may not be legitimate.

The constitution was voted on in a referendum apart from being 90% the same as the 1997 version with additional protection for individuals and independent organisations. Plus the amnesty part for the coup involved. Gen Sonthi was probably not sure about that as he voted for the blanket amnesty bill. Just making double sure I guess.

The courts are still covered by the constitution and again no real difference between 1997 and 2007 version. The Junta or it's Surayut led government didn't sack judges en-masse.

As for 'basic illegitimacy' of checks and balances, now you're really going off into 'unchartered' country. May I remind you we're talking about the 2007 constitution in Thailand?