Yingluck questions Constitutional Court for accepting case against her

[webfact]

Yingluck questions Constitutional Court for accepting case against her

BANGKOK: -- April 9, 2014 3:29 pmCaretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra Wednesday questioned the decision of the Constitutional Court to proceed with a petition against her related to the transfer of the National Security Council Chief.

Yingluck posted a message on her Facebook wall that it was unprecedented for the Constitutional Court to take up a case related to personnel administration for deliberation.

She said the Constitutional Court took up the case for deliberation although the Supreme Administrative Court had already made a ruling in the issue and although the government had already reinstated Thawil Pliensri as the NSC secretary general.


-- The Nation 2014-04-09

[Basil B]

If she had done nothing wrong why she worried?

I thought she would welcome the opportunity to prove she had done nothing wrong.

[amerasian]

She should have fired him instead. If she fired 50% of all govt employees no one would miss them. They are worthless. In every country. They should start at the top...excluding the PM and see how much work gets done then...

[amerasian]

She should have fired him!

[ubonjoe]

Several off topic and slanderous posts and quotes of them have been removed.

[jcb2001]

^{She is so naïve. Who would believe that a caretaker prime minister would communicate with the press and the world by facebook. Such a stately lady, NOT!}

^{Only in Thailand.}

[djjamie]

A lot of people post a lot of things on FB. That is their opinion. My opinion on the lunar landing may be different than the next persons which may be different than the next persons. They are opinions. They are not law.

Well done on yingluck stating her opinion. Now we all know her opinion lets move forward and see what the Constitutional Courts ruling is on her transfer of Thawil.

My opinion is she will be removed from office, but then….that's only my opinion.

[uty6543]

What would you do if you were the CEO of a company and you knew that one of your senior employees was out campaigning against your company, calling you and your family crooks?

Doesn't everybody have a right to support which ever polictal party they chose even if they are employed by the government?

[Thait Spot]

What would you do if you were the CEO of a company and you knew that one of your senior employees was out campaigning against your company, calling you and your family crooks?

Thank God and several other deities that the courts are not under the employ of the government.

The CC covers all forms of governance so this should not be a shock. The highest court in the land found her guilty but no complaints from her on that!!!!

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[marcusd]

Several off topic and slanderous posts and quotes of them have been removed.

Now they would have been the more interesting ones. RUINED our fun

[djjamie]

What would you do if you were the CEO of a company and you knew that one of your senior employees was out campaigning against your company, calling you and your family crooks?

I would charge them with defamation. Of course, if they didn't say that then the defamation suit would not hold. Was the CEO's defamation suit successful against the employees?

Which company are we talking about BTW.

This article is about yingluck questioning the CC in her perception that they overstepped their mark.

Seems you are unfamiliar with the background of Tawil's case. Please do some research.

Very familiar. As I stated this is about yingluck questioning the CC in her perception that they overstepped their mark.

So, was the "CEO" defamation suit successful? Did the employees actually slander the "CEO"?

[Thait Spot]

Most reputable companies prohibit the use of Facebook and other social networking channels as a means of communication.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Rich teacher]

What would you do if you were the CEO of a company and you knew that one of your senior employees was out campaigning against your company, calling you and your family crooks?

I would charge them with defamation. Of course, if they didn't say that then the defamation suit would not hold. Was the CEO's defamation suit successful against the employees?

Which company are we talking about BTW.

This article is about yingluck questioning the CC in her perception that they overstepped their mark.

Seems you are unfamiliar with the background of Tawil's case. Please do some research.

Very familiar. As I stated this is about yingluck questioning the CC in her perception that they overstepped their mark.

So, was the "CEO" defamation suit successful? Did the employees actually slander the "CEO"?

a·nal·o·gy

əˈnaləjē/

noun

1. 1.

   a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

[marcusd]

What would you do if you were the CEO of a company and you knew that one of your senior employees was out campaigning against your company, calling you and your family crooks?

I understand your point, but in Government not all people are always on your side, as you INHERIT bureaucrats and have to accept not everyone believes the same as you do. That is LIFE and Government. BUT if that person is in a position whereas making a POLITICAL move can be a violation of a law then you should be careful.

It would appear in this case that this was something that should not have occurred and ths the Constituional Court making its decision.

I am no expert in ANY law as one Judge will rule this way and another Judge will overturn the previous decision. But there MUST be grounds or this would not have such an impact upon the Yingluck administration.

So I guess it is a case of Naughty Yinny

[Torkmada]

What would you do if you were the CEO of a company and you knew that one of your senior employees was out campaigning against your company, calling you and your family crooks?

I would charge them with defamation. Of course, if they didn't say that then the defamation suit would not hold. Was the CEO's defamation suit successful against the employees?

Which company are we talking about BTW.

This article is about yingluck questioning the CC in her perception that they overstepped their mark.

Seems you are unfamiliar with the background of Tawil's case. Please do some research.

Very familiar. As I stated this is about yingluck questioning the CC in her perception that they overstepped their mark.

So, was the "CEO" defamation suit successful? Did the employees actually slander the "CEO"?

In the entire history of this court have they ever accepted a similar case?

No.

Not once.

Not ever.

It is entirely without precedent.

So it begs the question, why do so now?

Could they have an ulterior motive?

Are they motivated by factors other than the rule of law?

Are they serving hidden masters instead of the people of Thailand?

[Bluespunk]

@torkmada

You said:

In the entire history of this court have they ever accepted a similar case?

No.

Not once.

Not ever.

It is entirely without precedent.

So it begs the question, why do so now?

Could they have an ulterior motive?

Are they motivated by factors other than the rule of law?

Are they serving hidden masters instead of the people of Thailand?

Me:

No. They are upholding the law.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Bluespunk

[Chupup]

Yo Torkmader, do you mean they are like ...er Clones or puppets or somthing like the CPM

[Pushit]

She posted on facebook so it must be so...

[rubl]

"She said the Constitutional Court took up the case for deliberation although the Supreme Administrative Court had already made a ruling in the issue and although the government had already reinstated Thawil Pliensri as the NSC secretary general."

The SAC already made a ruling on the issue which forced the Yingluck government to re-instate a person wronged. Now because of the ruling of the SAC the Senate petitioned the CC noting that the charter did not allow the government to transfer permanent officials for the sake of vested interests.

To suggest that all has been corrected already is like a thief telling a court that he already returned the money he stole and therefor he should not be tried.

I would almost think Ms. Yingluck took some lessons in logic from our rich teacher

[webfact]

PM questions Charter Court’s power to accept Tawin’s transfer case

BANGKOK, 9 April 2014 (NNT) – Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has expressed her view that the Constitutional Court might not have the power to consider removing her from office in the case concerning the transfer of Mr Tawin Pleansri from the National Security Council (NSC) chief post.

With her latest Facebook message, Ms Yingluck criticized the Constitutional Court for taking into consideration an impeachment motion filed by a group of senators against her over the transfer of Mr Tawin from the NSC to the Prime Minister’s Office in 2011. The premier claimed that it had never before seen in the Thai administrative system that the Charter Court would interfere with the government’s appointment of staff. She also said the court took on the case even though Mr Tawin had been reinstated as the NSC chief as ordered by the Supreme Administrative Court.

Ms Yingluck further pointed out that her premiership had already ended since the dissolution of Parliament and she was only assuming the caretaker role. Therefore, the court’s verdict to dismiss her as Prime Minister would be contradictory to the Constitution itself.

Lastly, the premier concluded by calling on the Constitutional Court to perform its duty within the framework allowed by the charter. As an independent organization, she said the court must refrain from meddling with the roles of the legislative, executive and judicial bodies and must not create social rifts by adopting double standard.


-- NNT 2014-04-09

[slapout]

''could they have an ulterior motive'' just to make things more clear, change they to she. and its a nobrainer quiz.

torkmada; As this little unprecedented case may be related to a brother in law type ending up in a plum position after the game of musical chairs finished. So the answers to your questions is a resounding yes. Of course you knew that as do the people of Thaland and the run away brother hiding from some jail time as well as his prescense for additional cases to proceed.

Edited April 9, 2014 by slapout

[rubl]

wow, Ms. Yingluck really spelled it out, didn't she.

The SAC interfered with the government's appointment of staff, not the C.C. The re-instatement of Thawill doesn't change the fact that the SAC ruled his transfer to an inactive Advisor of the PM post illegal.

The rest is equally distorting laws and issues. Just the type of stuff we're seeing more and more on facebook, allegations without real background, without real value.

[tezzainoz]

She posted on facebook so it must be so...

Are you sure it was a her

and not a min in Dubai

[chotthee]

New York Times on the impending judicial coup in Thailand By Bangkok Pundit Apr 09, 2014 10:00AM UTC

Share:

• Share
• • 

New York Times:

“It no longer makes sense to attempt to explain the current political situation in Thailand by relying on legal principles,” Verapat Pariyawong, a lawyer and commentator, said in a Facebook posting. “The current situation is more or less a phenomenon of raw politics whereby t

he rule of law is conveniently stretched and stripped to fit a political goal

.”

http://asiancorrespondent.com/121489/new-york-times-on-the-impending-judicial-coup/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BangkokPundit+%28Bangkok+Pundit%29

Edited April 9, 2014 by chotthee

[bigbamboo]

Several off topic and slanderous posts and quotes of them have been removed.

Now they would have been the more interesting ones. RUINED our fun

They were. And it did.

But it must be horrible for Poo to know that so many people seem to want her out and we have't even had a proper election yet.

[Why ask]

Why didn't she first question it when first asked to appear at court, or at least get her lawyers to questions it when she was out shopping and buying votes in the NORTH?

Why ask today?

Why question a legal proceeding on Facebook? Totally bizarre, unethical as a caretaker primeminister and in reality 'ludicrous'.

Next, she'll be saying she took no responsibility in her role as the head of the rice pledging scheme, and knew nothing about the proposal, nor knew that 350M Baht disappeared in floodgate re-designs anti-flooding, nor 800,000 laptops from China don't work, and she'll deny she never gets advice from her big Bro (c.f. Daddy) from Dubai via telecon or Skype.

How longer can she lie, and believe she can avoid prison/jail?

Of course she can, Jatuporn and Chalerm will do anything to avoid prison/jail themselves with their links to all the corruption involved.

She is more naive than a baby trying to change the shit out of its own nappy... and that doesn't take naievety, but pure lack of knowledge and undeveloped coordination to even attempt the position necessary to do so.

Good Riddance Khun Poo....... I suggest you fly out quickly, before hands in cells get their fists up your jacksy.

[rubl]

Isn't it much more that Ms. Yingluck, her government and (her) Pheu Thai party have a longstanding antagonistic relationship with various courts. Mostly because of their disrespect for the law, their continuous show of contempt for the law. The 'respect a ruling' followed by questioning the correctness, or the legality of a ruling or even if a court was legally entitled to even accept a case.

About the CC and its 2006 coup origins.

The membership of the Constitutional Court was reduced from 15 to 9.

Of the 9 justices, 3 are chosen by a General Assembly of the Supreme

Court, 2 are chosen by a General Assembly of the Supreme

Administrative Court, and 4 are chosen by a Selection Committee

(subject to Senate confirmation) composed of the President of the

Supreme Court, the President of the Supreme Administrative Court, the

Chair of the NACC, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the

leader of the opposition

Besides expanding the role of the judiciary in the selection process, the “Coup

Constitution” of 2007 has greatly reduced the democratic accountability of

the Constitutional Court by means of: 1) Reducing

the role of elected officials in the nomination process; 2) Making the

confirmation of nominated members of these three bodies subject to the

approval of a new Senate where almost half of the members are selected by

the judiciary and administrative bodies like the ECT and the NACC.

Do you really think that judges should be 'democratically' elected? By removing some of the political influence one may get courts which can function without fear of political influence.

I must admit that that is what politicians may fear most, not being able to influence courts. With all the activities of Ms. Yingluck, her government, Pheu Thai MPs and members and even the UDD PLUS a few foolhardy posters here it would certainly look as if 'rule of law' against Ms. Yingluck is close to threatening Thailand.

BTW the 74 appointed senators must have the same qualifications as the elected senators. Read more in the constitution:

Section 113. There shall be the Senators Selective Committee consisting of the President of the Constitutional Court, the Chairperson of the Election Commission, the President of the Ombudsmen, the Chairperson of the National Counter Corruption Commission, the Chairperson of the State Audit Commission, a judge of the Supreme Court of Justice holding the position of not lower than judge of the Supreme Court of Justice as entrusted by the general meeting of the Supreme Court of Justice and a judge of the Supreme Administrative Court as entrusted by the general meeting of the Supreme Administrative Court, having a duty to select persons under section 114 within thirty days as from the date of receiving the list of candidates from the Election Commission and to notify the selection result to the Election Commission for publication of the persons selected as senators.

Members of the Committee under paragraph one shall select one among themselves to be the Chairperson of the Committee.

In the absent of any member or a member is unable to perform his duty and the remaining members are not less than one-half of the total number of members, the Senators Selective Committee shall consist of the remaining members.

Section 114. The Senators Selection Committee shall carry out the selection process for persons who may be beneficial to the performance of powers and duties of the Senate from persons nominated by academic institutions, public sector, private sector, professional organisations and other organisations to be senators in an amount as prescribed in section 111 paragraph one.

In selection of person under paragraph one, regard shall be had to knowledge, skills or experience of the nominated persons which will be beneficial to the performance of the Senate, and the composition of the selected persons shall be regarded to interdisciplinary knowledge and experience, genders opportunity and equality, closely apportion of the persons nominated by the organisations under paragraph one and opportunity of social vulnerable groups.

The rules, procedure and conditions for the selection of senators shall be in accordance with the organic law on election of members of the House of Representatives and acquisition of senators.

and now back to Ms. Yingluck once more questioning why so many are against her. She didn't do anything, only looked at policies, photo-ops and smiling to people. Complaining that re-instating a person seems not enough to some, like the thief who returned stolen goods would complain.

Isn't it interesting that the people elected to give PTP 53% (265 out of 500) seats in the lower house yet of the appointed senators 80% (60 out of 74) are anti PTP.

In the recent senate election PTP and its allies won 53% (40 out of 76) of the senate positions.

These statistics show why the anti-democrats love appointed senators - appointed senators do not reflect the will of the people.

The statistics also expose the true purpose behind the 2007 constitution.

Control the senate through appointed senators who in turn control the CC, EC and the NACC and thus seek to exert authority over the nation without being elected by the people.

For this nation to move forward it must at the very least return to the 1997 constitution.

You show some ignorance here. The senate candidates are not representing political parties and no political party will campaign for 'their' candidates. This also explains why you go on and on about this in a topic which has Ms. Yingluck complaining she corrected a mistake and now the CC is out to get her.

For this country to move forward it should not return backward.

[metisdead]

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed as well as a number of posts quoting that post.

[Scamper]

Yingluck is back to the tired Pheu Thai strategy of refusing to refer to the courts except on facebook, and only then to admonish them. You've got to wonder - how did she ever acquire such nerve ? Since when has she ever been qualified to address Constitutional Court judges ? Since when did she think that managing to post some silly comments on facebook qualifies her to question the judgement of Constitutional Court judges ? If she isn't questioning the NACC, she's questioning the Constitutional Court. Maybe she'll just post comments on either on alternate days from now on. The reason, Citizen Yingluck, why the Constitutional Court is taking up this case is because the Supreme Administrative Court deemed the transfer unconstitutional. Savvy ?

I can tell you one thing. Although Thaksin and Pheu Thai are absolutely delighted that Suthep ludicrously got off message and diverted all the attention away from them, the PDRC is beyond excitement every time Yingluck or Pheu Thai go after the judicial process. Every time Pheu Thai does that, they destroy their narrative. Every time they do that, they signal that they are above the judicial process. Every time the UDD says that they will not accept the rulings of the Constitutional Court and the National Anti-Corruption Commission - they brand themselves as being above the law. In two weeks, if Pheu Thai actually follows the UDD lead, and refuses to accept the ruling of the Constitutional Court, it will be a constitutional crisis. Beyond question. And if that happens, not a single person will be talking about Suthep. Not a single person in the international community will be talking about Suthep. They will be talking about the Yingluck administration's defiance of constitutional law. And Surapong will have a dickens of a time convincing the international community that's a peachy state of affairs.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Scamper

[Thait Spot]

Boo hoo hoo.

Nobody told me I had to follow the rules.

Something that her brother should have taught her is to state that you will accept the ruling of the court and then drag it into the drains when it doesn't go your way.

This new strategy is sure to work in her favour. Maybe handing the phone numbers of the judges out will be a master tactic.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app