Minister slammed for proposal to seek royal judgement if PM is disqualified

[Thai at Heart]

Some folks here need to try and figure out what "Ammat" means & quit throwing it around like some code word. If you mean "elite" then use "elite". Actually, on the lips of the reds it is a code word, that even many Thais don't understand.

On PAD-DEM: Huh? What was left of the PAD and its political spin-off the NPP opposed the Dems in 2010 ("Vote No" remember?). After the Airport fiasco many, many anti-Thaksin folks turned against PAD (torching Bangkok cost the reds much support as well). Then when the PAD-NPP came out with its corporatist (proto-fascist in the technical sense) platform they lost all credibility and popular support. Even the madman Suthep isn't PAD.

--S

Kindly indulge me a moment if you would, sae57 as I look around for the long time TVF poster Uncle rubl who doesn't like my political language. Uncle rubl, I want you to check out this recent guy here, sae57, cause if you don't like my political terminology (ammart, fascist, feudal, reactionary et al ), you're gonna have a lot to chew on with this:

proto-fascist

corporatist proto-fascist

corporatist proto-fascist in the technical sense platform

PAD-DEM

PAD-NPP

Thx sae57 for your patience and for your kind indulgence as I try to point out to the long time TVF poster Uncle rubl that my polly sci grad political language s/he complains about might be rather basic and stock stuff contrasted to that of some others. Again, this is a purely academic exercise which isn't intended to be taken in any other way.

A request for information: can anyone cite the constitutional article that states how the transfer of an official may be deemed both improper and an impeachable defense? I have an authorized and accredited English translation of the current constitution and I cannot find such a citing.

Article 266(2),(3) the issue being "For his or her personal benefits [sic] or those of others or a political party."

Article 268 is also mentioned, but it doesn't quite make sense. I suspect a poor translation but I'm too lazy to look up the Thai.

That she would be removed from office if convicted is covered in Article 182(7) & 268.

The issue, as I understand it, is that replacing an official who has been appointed to a permanent, non-political position with a croney weakens the system of checks and balances. This is an important issue in parliamentary systems where there is no separation between the legislative and executive branches (as in the US).

--S

I do raise the matter however that if everything illegal is also unconstitutional, then there's going to be a lot of chaos in the country. Even if half of what is illegal is also and necessarily unconstitutional, the country is on the road to oblivion. Or even 10%. That's what we have in this transfer case - it is illegal and unconstitutional to transfer one single government employee.

So because there are Thai Logic & Ethics 1001 that state two wrongs make a right, and that five more wrongs make it even more right, Thais will sooner or later reap the whirlwind, as is occurring currently, inevitably.

Very true. It is also a curiosity that the more hypocritical your standpoint the more likely you are to be believed.

A corrupt man pointing out corruption is trusted implicitly. Really bizarre.

[benny1616]

The ammart are so wrapped up in the petty absurdities of their own private fiefdom here they haven't any clue of the world's reaction to a court removing a prime minister and the entire legitimate democratic government because the PM transferred one single government employee.

Thailand has negatively been in the global news for years and years on end, starting with the PAD occupying Swampy, to include a coup, and now to Suthep the seizure mad self-appointed sovereign and the PDRC. The ammart's next moves will amount to a damning self-expose'.

Unmistakably and deservedly so.

Utter garbage...shame on you for misrepresenting the situation.

perhaps garbage for the dictatorship lovers from the yellows but not for real democrats.

[Acharn]

The ammart are so wrapped up in the petty absurdities of their own private fiefdom here they haven't any clue of the world's reaction to a court removing a prime minister and the entire legitimate democratic government because the PM transferred one single government employee.

Thailand has negatively been in the global news for years and years on end, starting with the PAD occupying Swampy, to include a coup, and now to Suthep the seizure mad self-appointed sovereign and the PDRC. The ammart's next moves will amount to a damning self-expose'.

Unmistakably and deservedly so.

Utter garbage...shame on you for misrepresenting the situation.

It seems to me the only thing he's misrepresenting is world reaction. Doesn't anybody remember 2008? Of course they're going to remove her. The decision was made months ago. Everybody knows. Even the New York Times ran a story on it on March 31. The law is a tool to be twisted and deformed until it accomplishes the end desired. Of course this shows the leadership is divided. The people behind PDRC and Suthep are not united. They have their diverse goals and hopes. They are only united it their overarching goal. The elephant in the room will not wait forever.

[Fryslan boppe]

@ Publicus.

I have read through this thread from start to finish, and I have to say that never in all my time on internet forums have I come across a member that has been so badly beaten on every front in a debate as you have been.

I have also never come across someone so stubborn as to cling to every last possibility of trying to justify a case that is quite simply unjustifiable.

You are completely vanquished in this augment. Just by the fact you base your argument on a system of completely ignoring and discounting FACTS and focusing on small and mostly irrelevant details

Even Thaksin would have given up the argument as having been clearly defeated around 20 posts back.

I bet your reply to this will be denial, which is the core of your problems, because you clearly live there.

"I have to say that never in all my time on internet forums have I come across a member that has been so badly beaten on every front in a debate as you have been.

You are completely vanquished in this augment"

PAD-Dem wishful thinking...along the same lines as when they try to make black appear to be white.

I am seeing a lot of responses devoid of addressing the message, just assailing the messenger.....And they think they are debating on "even-footing'...Implying they have some knowledge to refute the message, when in fact they have none.......

A little like the characterization of some men as being the "Strong, silent types"....Basically, they are just silent.

[sae57]

Typo in my previous, #38 removal upon conviction is provided for in Article 182(7) & 180 (not 268). Sorry.

I can't find where the constitution provides for what happens after the PM & ministers are removed. If convicted, I'd expect another court case to decide whether they should remain in a sort of caretaker caretaker status. In any case it seems to be un"charted" territory & intervention by HM the King under Article 7 would seem to be the only route. A somewhat similar constitutional crises occurred under TS--the max time elapsed for sitting a new government after dissolving parliament. Constitutionally Thailand had no government & he was ruling by edict. The King did not step in and we had a coup instead.

I.e. the writers put impossible situations (see also the 20% rule) into both constitutions.

"Constitutionally Thailand had no government & he was ruling by edict. The King did not step in and we had a coup instead."

Well actually he did, otherwise there wouldn't have been a Royally decreed Election scheduled initially for October 15th 2006. Of course the coup trampled all over that "unfortunate" part of democracy.

The 20% rule no longer exists as a stumbling block as abhisit amended the 2007 constitution with respect to the organic law on elections. Now by elections will continue to take place until the third by-election. Whoever has the most votes at that stage wins the seat regardless of the number of votes cast or parties contesting the seat. Other impossible situations in the 2007 constitution seemingly hold no fear for the present CC who make up decisions as they go along.

No the King did not step in (i.e. Article 7). An election was scheduled and he signed off on it as the usual formality.

Correct about the 20% rule, I was refering to the 1997 constitution. The point is that these constitutions are not fully thought out. Tomorrow's issue: Article 180 "Ministers vacate office en masse" upon conviction for current offence versus Article 181 "the outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office" in a caretaker role till replaced. As the alternative to letting them stay is Article 7, I wouldn't be surprised if they let them stay, with even more restrictions.

[sae57]

Publicus: "I do raise the matter however that if everything illegal is also unconstitutional, then there's going to be a lot of chaos in the country. Even if half of what is illegal is also and necessarily unconstitutional, the country is on the road to oblivion. Or even 10%. That's what we have in this transfer case - it is illegal and unconstitutional to transfer one single government employee."

The transfer was almost certainly unconstitutional (depends on intent) but probably /not/ illegal. It wasn't the transfer of just any government employee, but of an appointee to a permanent, non-political post. These posts are "permanent" as a check & balance--and there aren't many of them. Nevertheless she could have constututionally gone through the parliament to effect the transfer (reference how dept secretaries & judges are appointed in the US). It's possible she and her ministers were simply ignorant of the process.

--S

[GeorgeO]

@ Publicus.

I have read through this thread from start to finish, and I have to say that never in all my time on internet forums have I come across a member that has been so badly beaten on every front in a debate as you have been.

I have also never come across someone so stubborn as to cling to every last possibility of trying to justify a case that is quite simply unjustifiable.

You are completely vanquished in this augment. Just by the fact you base your argument on a system of completely ignoring and discounting FACTS and focusing on small and mostly irrelevant details

Even Thaksin would have given up the argument as having been clearly defeated around 20 posts back.

I bet your reply to this will be denial, which is the core of your problems, because you clearly live there.

"I have to say that never in all my time on internet forums have I come across a member that has been so badly beaten on every front in a debate as you have been.

You are completely vanquished in this augment"

PAD-Dem wishful thinking...along the same lines as when they try to make black appear to be white.

I am seeing a lot of responses devoid of addressing the message, just assailing the messenger.....And they think they are debating on "even-footing'...Implying they have some knowledge to refute the message, when in fact they have none.......

A little like the characterization of some men as being the "Strong, silent types"....Basically, they are just silent.

....Basically, they are just silent.

...yes, that's something a great many of us on TVF wish you would be...!!

[Publicus]

The ammart are so wrapped up in the petty absurdities of their own private fiefdom here they haven't any clue of the world's reaction to a court removing a prime minister and the entire legitimate democratic government because the PM transferred one single government employee.

Thailand has negatively been in the global news for years and years on end, starting with the PAD occupying Swampy, to include a coup, and now to Suthep the seizure mad self-appointed sovereign and the PDRC. The ammart's next moves will amount to a damning self-expose'.

Unmistakably and deservedly so.

Peblicus is so wrapped up in his petty absurdities of his own private imaginary ammart here that he hasn't any clue of the world's reaction to a court removing a prime minister and the entire legitimate democratic government because the PM transferred one single government employee.

I corrected your mistake for you. No thanks needed.

However a list off this mysterious ammart would be nice.

Are you sure it is not the illuminati?

The happing's here in Thailand is I presume followed very closely by Sudan, Somalia and the other 75 countries who are more corrupt than Thailand or the 100 that are more honest.

My guess is they don't care. It is just some thing to watch while they are filling in time for real news. Even Newsasia doesn't make much of a deal about it. They occasionally mention the rallies. No opinion on the PM.

If you want to make a statement about the world I would suggest you stop watching red shirt Thai news.It is equivalent to American Fox news.

You imagined you corrected my post as yet another of your fantasies here in the Fantasy Land you and other far right wingnuts have created for yourselves.

In respect of the subset of countries you mentioned and also the expanded number, almost everyone knows they don't think much about here or that people here don't think at all about those out there. People here don't even think of Myanmar unless they're in the northwest. You're wasting your time and mine even mentioning them.

Your time might be better spent thinking about the 40 democracies of the world whose governments spoke out specifically to support the Feb 2nd election that the sovereign dictator Suthep violated and the ever straying and out of step CC nulled .

You might also consider the extremely negative MSM coverage the PDRC and the DP have been given in the foreign press / media. You should think about these factors because there's only more of it coming, the heavy criticism of the loud but minority anti-democracy elements of Thai society.

And there's more heavy criticism coming of the feudal right wingers here at TVF who are fast losing ground in your cynical pretexts arguments against democracy, arguments that leave much wanting. As crunch time gets ever closer, you people in here and your people out there are beginning to lose serious steam.

The NACC is taking so much heat for its biases and prejudices that it felt the need to make public statements trying to convince Thais and the world that they are good guys, which, if anyone had ever believed it, they now have serious doubts of. The seizure mad self-appointed sovereign power, the Ultraman Suthep has to keep explaining how he's not a megalomaniac dictator, which means he's now lost his war in addition to all of the battles he's lost in a succession of this is it final stands.

You people in here and your people out there are taking on serious water because a coup is a coup is a coup.

[djjamie]

@ Publicus.

I have read through this thread from start to finish, and I have to say that never in all my time on internet forums have I come across a member that has been so badly beaten on every front in a debate as you have been.

I have also never come across someone so stubborn as to cling to every last possibility of trying to justify a case that is quite simply unjustifiable.

You are completely vanquished in this augment. Just by the fact you base your argument on a system of completely ignoring and discounting FACTS and focusing on small and mostly irrelevant details

Even Thaksin would have given up the argument as having been clearly defeated around 20 posts back.

I bet your reply to this will be denial, which is the core of your problems, because you clearly live there.

An inability to rebut claims or argue a differing view point is usually countered by condescension. Just look at his first sentence in the above post. He cannot help himself.

Every one of his posts without fail exhibits this trait, that in debating circles, is a sign of weakness and shows an inability to drive the message home.

One could suggest he does it to impress his peers on this forum, but like most condescending people he falls far short of the mark and only gives them a true window into what this person represents.

<EDIT> See below for point in case. Inability to counter so is simply condescending.

Edited April 14, 2014 by djjamie

[Publicus]

@ Publicus.

I have read through this thread from start to finish, and I have to say that never in all my time on internet forums have I come across a member that has been so badly beaten on every front in a debate as you have been.

I have also never come across someone so stubborn as to cling to every last possibility of trying to justify a case that is quite simply unjustifiable.

You are completely vanquished in this augment. Just by the fact you base your argument on a system of completely ignoring and discounting FACTS and focusing on small and mostly irrelevant details

Even Thaksin would have given up the argument as having been clearly defeated around 20 posts back.

I bet your reply to this will be denial, which is the core of your problems, because you clearly live there.

Irrelevant blowhard.

[geriatrickid]

@ Publicus.

I have read through this thread from start to finish, and I have to say that never in all my time on internet forums have I come across a member that has been so badly beaten on every front in a debate as you have been.

I have also never come across someone so stubborn as to cling to every last possibility of trying to justify a case that is quite simply unjustifiable.

You are completely vanquished in this augment. Just by the fact you base your argument on a system of completely ignoring and discounting FACTS and focusing on small and mostly irrelevant details

Even Thaksin would have given up the argument as having been clearly defeated around 20 posts back.

I bet your reply to this will be denial, which is the core of your problems, because you clearly live there.

An inability to rebut claims or argue a differing view point is usually countered by condescension. Just look at his first sentence in the above post. He cannot help himself.

Every one of his posts without fail exhibits this trait, that in debating circles, is a sign of weakness and shows an inability to drive the message home.

One could suggest he does it to impress his peers on this forum, but like most condescending people he falls far short of the mark and only gives them a true window into what this person represents.

<EDIT> See below for point in case. Inability to counter so is simply condescending.

On the contrary, it is you and your associated group of TVF bullies who are unable to offer intelligent arguments based upon the applicable laws. Publicus argues the law and you come back with insults and emotional diatribes rooted in abject ignorance. You perceive Publicus as condescending because you cannot follow the somewhat difficult legal issues. Are you that insecure that you perceive someone offering his opinion in a logical and rational fashion as trying to impress people? Here's a reality check: In the world of the people who make decisions in life that impact others, that is how issues are discussed. The discussions can be heated, but they are based upon the facts at hand, and not driven by a primitive hate. Your whole premise from day 1 has been to bash the government and the Prime Minister. You cannot offer an argument based upon the applicable law, so you instead insult others.

Edited April 14, 2014 by geriatrickid

[mok199]

the thai way ......or the hiway......................................................................hit the road jack..............................

[NanLaew]

Why is it "illegal" for the democratically elected PM to transfer one of her civil servants? Why is this a matter for the Constitutional Court? Why is this matter so serious that it would justify the removal of a democratically elected Government? Can civil servants not be transferred or dismissed at all?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

It is only 'illegal' to those who subscribe to the notion that populist agendas that empower the underprivileged are also 'illegal'.

The 'clutching at straws' brigade that so wrongfully and selfishly chose to boycott the only election since 2006 that they could possibly have won. Why? Because if they had won, it would have been too hard to actually work on delivering the reforms the country needs to remain viable in the modern world. Why? Because having a highly publicised policy to follow, they wouldn't have time to set up their own scams to siphon off the nations wealth. Instead, they boycotted it in the hope that they could garner enough yellow-flavoured discontent to draw a disproportionate and violent red-flavored response that would have required the military to step in and HAND THEM the keys like the last time they 'won'.

Well sorry. Suthep's clown army hasn't won the hearts and minds of the enlightened Bangkok middle class and the reds can tell the difference between being set up for a fall and a legit call to man the barricades.

The EC and CC are blowing in the wind but ultimately know what the constitution says; what the contitution demands.