Let's keep things in perspective, and not let PAD-Dem characterizations appear to be Democratically legitimate.

>>>>"Chaikasem, a former attorney-general, had told the media that if the Constitutional Court rules to disqualify Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for allegedly illegally transferring National Security Council secretary-general Thawil Pliensri,...."

For allegedly what?.......Same old, same old....Trying to obscure anti-democratic coup-activism by burying the motives under this issue or that.

This has nothing to do with transferring somebody, and everything to do with advancing the objectives of those agitating for a coup.

Using phoney issue and legality nonsense as cover doesn't fool anyone, unless it is in their interest to appear fooled....Their demonization mantra of categorizing all those who object to this folderol as being unlawful anarchists, can usually be traced back to its' source of unelectables.

"However, it would be problematic if Yingluck were to be disqualified and forced out of the caretaker's post"

Yeah, DUH!

The reaction of the electoral majority worries them....They are running in place, trying to muster enough courage to pull their 'coup-trigger".....Delaying elections, scheduling these coup advocacy actions via their user friendly judiciary later and later, etc. etc.

I am sure they are pining away for the good old days, like in 2006...When they didn't need to worry so....The unintended consequence of these dastardly UDD/Red Shirts who formed after that 2006 coup-caper, sure muddies the water this time.

<yawns> . . . your tired old ramblings don't change do they? Same old rubbish day in and day out and not even well "spun" this time. Just garbage.

Pot, kettle.

Let's keep things in perspective, and not let PAD-Dem characterizations appear to be Democratically legitimate.

>>>>"Chaikasem, a former attorney-general, had told the media that if the Constitutional Court rules to disqualify Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for allegedly illegally transferring National Security Council secretary-general Thawil Pliensri,...."

For allegedly what?.......Same old, same old....Trying to obscure anti-democratic coup-activism by burying the motives under this issue or that.

This has nothing to do with transferring somebody, and everything to do with advancing the objectives of those agitating for a coup.

Using phoney issue and legality nonsense as cover doesn't fool anyone, unless it is in their interest to appear fooled....Their demonization mantra of categorizing all those who object to this folderol as being unlawful anarchists, can usually be traced back to its' source of unelectables.

"However, it would be problematic if Yingluck were to be disqualified and forced out of the caretaker's post"

Yeah, DUH!

The reaction of the electoral majority worries them....They are running in place, trying to muster enough courage to pull their 'coup-trigger".....Delaying elections, scheduling these coup advocacy actions via their user friendly judiciary later and later, etc. etc.

I am sure they are pining away for the good old days, like in 2006...When they didn't need to worry so....The unintended consequence of these dastardly UDD/Red Shirts who formed after that 2006 coup-caper, sure muddies the water this time.

<yawns> . . . your tired old ramblings don't change do they? Same old rubbish day in and day out and not even well "spun" this time. Just garbage.

Pot, kettle.

That's usually my line lol

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

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.

----------------------

There is no legitimate elected government at this time in Thailand.

It was an election in which most of the opposition candidates did not participate and which was shown to be rife with corruption anyhow.

Would you say that an election in the U.K. was "fair and democratic" if all the Tory party did not or was not allowed to participate.

The problem with you "Red Shirt sympathizers" is that you have you head so far up the red shirts backside all you can see is the view from their a--hole.

The one authority that COULD end this political deadlock is the royal family.

It's the one thing all Thai politicians claim allegiance to .... even if many of them don't really mean that .... and it's the one ultimate authority most Thai voters and citizens trust.

And that authority is the best answer to the corrupt self-serving Thai politicians of ALL Thai political parties in this time of political turmoil.

That's why it is needed.

The election has been annulled. The caretaker government are still the same government who at the last un-annulled election won 265 seats as opposed to the democrat party that won only 159 seats. They were legitimately elected to form a government. Nothing has changed since - the dissolution of parliament does not make them an non legitimate government, it makes them a caretaker government trying to run a country and call a new election.

If the democrat party do not wish to contest that election that is their problem - it doesn't make the election not "fair or democratic". You may notice abhisit and his "democrat" partners are prevaricating about contesting a new election whilst the EC are doing their best to delay that election until the conditions are right for the dems to suddenly declare that the election is free and fair and that they will contest it. Nothing to do with the fact that the judicial coup will hopefully (for them) have succeeded by then and they won't actually have to win seats or anything to form a government.

Let's keep things in perspective, and not let PAD-Dem characterizations appear to be Democratically legitimate.

>>>>"Chaikasem, a former attorney-general, had told the media that if the Constitutional Court rules to disqualify Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for allegedly illegally transferring National Security Council secretary-general Thawil Pliensri,...."

For allegedly what?.......Same old, same old....Trying to obscure anti-democratic coup-activism by burying the motives under this issue or that.

This has nothing to do with transferring somebody, and everything to do with advancing the objectives of those agitating for a coup.

Using phoney issue and legality nonsense as cover doesn't fool anyone, unless it is in their interest to appear fooled....Their demonization mantra of categorizing all those who object to this folderol as being unlawful anarchists, can usually be traced back to its' source of unelectables.

"However, it would be problematic if Yingluck were to be disqualified and forced out of the caretaker's post"

Yeah, DUH!

The reaction of the electoral majority worries them....They are running in place, trying to muster enough courage to pull their 'coup-trigger".....Delaying elections, scheduling these coup advocacy actions via their user friendly judiciary later and later, etc. etc.

I am sure they are pining away for the good old days, like in 2006...When they didn't need to worry so....The unintended consequence of these dastardly UDD/Red Shirts who formed after that 2006 coup-caper, sure muddies the water this time.

Can you write one, coherent paragraph?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

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.

Actually, no snipe intended, the whole thing started in the early 20th century, and was horrendously highlighted in the 60's.

This mess predated almost all the current players.

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.

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

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

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.

Obey the law or face charges.

No official is above the law.

Except in Thailand where PT ( and their one-eyed supporters ) think they are because they bought enough votes to get elected.

Illegal to have transferred in your brother in law, solely or principally because he's your relative, yes. Unconstitutional, no. The Constitution Court is making it up as it goes along, which not only isn't the rule of law, it is a judicial coup. A coup is a coup is a coup.

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

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.

The English throne , through the Governor General, removed Gough Wihtlam PM of Australia in the seventies , so what is new. You certainly are right about international negativity , everyone I see still asks me are those <deleted> red shirts still burning Bangkok, along with comments like ,shove Thailand where the sun don't shine sweetheart, that's their memories of LOS.

I recall it from when it happened, in 1975 and you know it will never happen again in Australia. The United States got the heat for it and the English Throne got the backlash - the English Throne no longer appoints the Governor General. Whitlam was so far left the CIA considered he and Ho Chi Minh to be joined at the hip, which was completely unacceptable from a U.S. national security treaty ally. The dismissal of Whitlaw's outlaw government also ignited republicanism which continues to be a force to the present. Be careful what you wish for.

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.

It is always the ammarts fault. Your fellow reds need tp look in the mirror and they would see who is wrong.

Who benefits from a coup whether it is a military mutiny coup d'état or a judicial coup d'état? Is it the farmer? The laborer? The minimum wage worker? The family that has to scrape, beg, borrow, steal, to pay for education past Grade 6? The restaurant server who rides the wooden box bus to work? The farmer's son who can't teach at the military academy as Abhisit did to avoid the firing line? A coup of any kind never does anything for these people or for others like them.

A coup is a coup is a coup.

Edited for typo.

Let's keep things in perspective, and not let PAD-Dem characterizations appear to be Democratically legitimate.

>>>>"Chaikasem, a former attorney-general, had told the media that if the Constitutional Court rules to disqualify Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for allegedly illegally transferring National Security Council secretary-general Thawil Pliensri,...."

For allegedly what?.......Same old, same old....Trying to obscure anti-democratic coup-activism by burying the motives under this issue or that.

This has nothing to do with transferring somebody, and everything to do with advancing the objectives of those agitating for a coup.

Using phoney issue and legality nonsense as cover doesn't fool anyone, unless it is in their interest to appear fooled....Their demonization mantra of categorizing all those who object to this folderol as being unlawful anarchists, can usually be traced back to its' source of unelectables.

"However, it would be problematic if Yingluck were to be disqualified and forced out of the caretaker's post"

Yeah, DUH!

The reaction of the electoral majority worries them....They are running in place, trying to muster enough courage to pull their 'coup-trigger".....Delaying elections, scheduling these coup advocacy actions via their user friendly judiciary later and later, etc. etc.

I am sure they are pining away for the good old days, like in 2006...When they didn't need to worry so....The unintended consequence of these dastardly UDD/Red Shirts who formed after that 2006 coup-caper, sure muddies the water this time.

Can you write one, coherent paragraph?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

What do you expect from a lawyer?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Once again we are treated to all sorts of tangents, none of which relate to the actual suggestion by Justice Minister Chaikasem Nitisiri, a former attorney general, and someone qualified to offer a comment on Thailand's constitutional law(s). What part of the legal comment do those of you offering negative comments disagree with? How was the reasoning, the legal argument flawed?

Instead of a coherent rational rebuttal, the thread is filled with the grunts and belches of people who haven't considered the actual legal issue(s) involved. The constitution sets out the procedures to be followed, and the justice minister has offered his opinion. It doesn't mean he is right, but the argument he has raised has yet to be countered. not one comment in this thread that provides an alternative argument based upon the constitutional law. Judging from the comments made, it seems that the subject matter is too difficult for some people to comprehend.

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

Yes, you raise a valid argument. However, it is difficult to make a case, except in the most blatant of circumstances. In this particular case, it will be argued that the incumbent was hostile to the new government and was not willing to carry out the new government's policy(s).

I'll leave the legal arguments to the experts, but one of the side arguments will be that a government must be able to appoint officials to carry out the government's policies. When this cannot be done, we see events such as the former deputy transport minister appointed by the former Democrat party who was alleged to have profited from his position. It should also be noted that the former Abhisit government and the military junta appointed officials and transferred officials who had been appointed under the Thaksin government.

As an aside, the flaw with the inability to remove political appointees when there is a change in government, is a civil service bureaucracy who are a law unto themselves. Yingluck was burdened with the former military and Abhisit administrations' collection of appointed twits, and Abhisit's government inherited some rather questionable characters from the Thaksin era. A new government must be allowed to start fresh with new people if so required.

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.

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.

...and what exactly do you believe that the world's reaction to the current situation is?

There is no point in you trying to infer that this is all because of the "transfer of one single government employee", because that would clearly represent the most extreme spin we have seen from any of you Red apologists in weeks...!! Attempting to undermine constitutional principles by removing someone from office for nepotistic reasons is just the tip of the iceberg, so please refrain from trying to make that the main issue.

You attempt to whitewash over the antics of the PTP and their terrorist supporters by referring to the occupation of the airport, a coup, and the current uprising by the people (not Suthep, as people of your ilk keep harping on). The one thing that all of these protests have in common is that they were aimed at getting Thaksin out of office for the damage that he was causing to the country.

You prefer not to make any mention of several noteworthy incidents, such as taking a vote at 4:00 am to dismantle part of the constitutional system, the attempts to give amnesty to everything relating to the 2010 turmoil and beyond (including of course, your precious leader, Thaksin), refusal to allow opposition parties to have their say in political debate, allowing (possibly even encouraging) party members to cast votes (multiple votes) on behalf of other members, coercion of anyone opposing the PTP stance (particularly in Red Villages), threats to the families and property of farmers who intended to go to Bangkok to protest against what they now see as a corrupt government, and last but not least, the numerous peaceful demonstrators who have been shot and killed, including children.

All of this is ignored essentially because it doesn't suit your agenda, does it?! You also continuously use the term 'ammart', when in fact, none of those who were responsible for creating the current movement to oust this corrupt government has any position in the bureaucratic polity or the Royal household. Do you actually understand who the ammart are? They are certainly not the people on the streets, or their leaders...!

To many people it is clear that in most Western nations, this PM and her Cabinet would have been suspended, impeached, indicted, tried, found guilty, and be serving time for what they have done to this country, and all of that would have happened quite some time ago. I suspect that, contrary to your supposition, the rest of the world may be wondering how on earth it’s taken so long for the judicial system to come into play to oust these villains…!

Good post

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

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

I think it has something to do with nepotism replacing people doing their job properly with inept buffoons. This is not a private enterprise where being the boss's son is all the qualifications you need. This is a government where you should put the best man available in to the job. Not your relatives or people who did you a favor. Perhaps she could have gort away with it if she had done it at a lower level of power.

Let's keep things in perspective, and not let PAD-Dem characterizations appear to be Democratically legitimate.

>>>>"Chaikasem, a former attorney-general, had told the media that if the Constitutional Court rules to disqualify Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for allegedly illegally transferring National Security Council secretary-general Thawil Pliensri,...."

For allegedly what?.......Same old, same old....Trying to obscure anti-democratic coup-activism by burying the motives under this issue or that.

This has nothing to do with transferring somebody, and everything to do with advancing the objectives of those agitating for a coup.

Using phoney issue and legality nonsense as cover doesn't fool anyone, unless it is in their interest to appear fooled....Their demonization mantra of categorizing all those who object to this folderol as being unlawful anarchists, can usually be traced back to its' source of unelectables.

"However, it would be problematic if Yingluck were to be disqualified and forced out of the caretaker's post"

Yeah, DUH!

The reaction of the electoral majority worries them....They are running in place, trying to muster enough courage to pull their 'coup-trigger".....Delaying elections, scheduling these coup advocacy actions via their user friendly judiciary later and later, etc. etc.

I am sure they are pining away for the good old days, like in 2006...When they didn't need to worry so....The unintended consequence of these dastardly UDD/Red Shirts who formed after that 2006 coup-caper, sure muddies the water this time.

<yawns> . . . your tired old ramblings don't change do they? Same old rubbish day in and day out and not even well "spun" this time. Just garbage.

If he say's any thing intelligent let me know I skip right over his posts. They are so inane they are not worth reading. I do how ever read the other PTP red shirt supporters they are not that goofy. GK occasionally as in rarely even puts up a good post.

I would like to point out to the emotionally imbalanced that I do not accuse you of being in love with them I merely say supporters. Where as some of you are so emotionally wrapped up in it all you can see is love and hate. No in between.

Let's keep things in perspective, and not let PAD-Dem characterizations appear to be Democratically legitimate.

>>>>"Chaikasem, a former attorney-general, had told the media that if the Constitutional Court rules to disqualify Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for allegedly illegally transferring National Security Council secretary-general Thawil Pliensri,...."

For allegedly what?.......Same old, same old....Trying to obscure anti-democratic coup-activism by burying the motives under this issue or that.

This has nothing to do with transferring somebody, and everything to do with advancing the objectives of those agitating for a coup.

Using phoney issue and legality nonsense as cover doesn't fool anyone, unless it is in their interest to appear fooled....Their demonization mantra of categorizing all those who object to this folderol as being unlawful anarchists, can usually be traced back to its' source of unelectables.

"However, it would be problematic if Yingluck were to be disqualified and forced out of the caretaker's post"

Yeah, DUH!

The reaction of the electoral majority worries them....They are running in place, trying to muster enough courage to pull their 'coup-trigger".....Delaying elections, scheduling these coup advocacy actions via their user friendly judiciary later and later, etc. etc.

I am sure they are pining away for the good old days, like in 2006...When they didn't need to worry so....The unintended consequence of these dastardly UDD/Red Shirts who formed after that 2006 coup-caper, sure muddies the water this time.

Can you write one, coherent paragraph?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

What do you expect from a lawyer?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Ok, an attorney not being paid explains it all.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Once again we are treated to all sorts of tangents, none of which relate to the actual suggestion by Justice Minister Chaikasem Nitisiri, a former attorney general, and someone qualified to offer a comment on Thailand's constitutional law(s). What part of the legal comment do those of you offering negative comments disagree with? How was the reasoning, the legal argument flawed?

Instead of a coherent rational rebuttal, the thread is filled with the grunts and belches of people who haven't considered the actual legal issue(s) involved. The constitution sets out the procedures to be followed, and the justice minister has offered his opinion. It doesn't mean he is right, but the argument he has raised has yet to be countered. not one comment in this thread that provides an alternative argument based upon the constitutional law. Judging from the comments made, it seems that the subject matter is too difficult for some people to comprehend.

And your, independent, legal point is?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Hit the road, Roadman.

I am neither Red nor Yellow supporter. IMHO they are all inadequate.

Back to the topic - it is highly inappropriate for ANY lousy politician to attempt to drag His Majesty The King of Thailand into their petty squabbles.

Thailand's politics and economics are sicker than ever. Nobody can deny this. We are willing to hear YOUR ideas on how to fix them preserving Democracy.

No mob darling is the way out. It will turn out to be the way in. Into some place dark and scary.

So, let's hear your brilliant precious idea or hit the road.

Let's keep things in perspective, and not let PAD-Dem characterizations appear to be Democratically legitimate.

>>>>"Chaikasem, a former attorney-general, had told the media that if the Constitutional Court rules to disqualify Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for allegedly illegally transferring National Security Council secretary-general Thawil Pliensri,...."

For allegedly what?.......Same old, same old....Trying to obscure anti-democratic coup-activism by burying the motives under this issue or that.

This has nothing to do with transferring somebody, and everything to do with advancing the objectives of those agitating for a coup.

Using phoney issue and legality nonsense as cover doesn't fool anyone, unless it is in their interest to appear fooled....Their demonization mantra of categorizing all those who object to this folderol as being unlawful anarchists, can usually be traced back to its' source of unelectables.

"However, it would be problematic if Yingluck were to be disqualified and forced out of the caretaker's post"

Yeah, DUH!

The reaction of the electoral majority worries them....They are running in place, trying to muster enough courage to pull their 'coup-trigger".....Delaying elections, scheduling these coup advocacy actions via their user friendly judiciary later and later, etc. etc.

I am sure they are pining away for the good old days, like in 2006...When they didn't need to worry so....The unintended consequence of these dastardly UDD/Red Shirts who formed after that 2006 coup-caper, sure muddies the water this time.

<yawns> . . . your tired old ramblings don't change do they? Same old rubbish day in and day out and not even well "spun" this time. Just garbage.

Pot, kettle.

That's usually my line lol

ok frog, toad

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

I can assure you every Thai knows what the Amaart is and it is very REAL and is kicking, screaming and using every means possible at the thought of losing it's feudal power

Inflammatory posts and replies have been removed. Few if any here are Thai citizens who have any say in the political process so stop taking this so seriously. Nothing anyone says here is likely to make any difference. So calm yourselves down.

A nonsense trolling post has been removed as well.

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.

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.

It is always the ammarts fault. Your fellow reds need tp look in the mirror and they would see who is wrong.

Who benefits from a coup whether it is a military mutiny coup d'état or a judicial coup d'état? Is it the farmer? The laborer? The minimum wage worker? The family that has to scrape, beg, borrow, steal, to pay for education past Grade 6? The restaurant server who rides the wooden box bus to work? The farmer's son who can't teach at the military academy as Abhisit did to avoid the firing line? A coup of any kind never does anything for these people or for others like them.

A coup is a coup is a coup.

Edited for typo.

It is likely that the average Thai will not directly benefit from a coup, nor will he be directly damaged by it.

Coups in Thailand aren't for the people, but more to do with "my turn at the trough".

Having/not having a coup will have little bearing on the condition described in your post.

There may be long term effects, but that's more to do with gradual change rather than a radical actions.

Situation of education didn't change an iota regardless of regime.

Any rich people (regardless of political affiliation) can avoid the draft, as it was always.

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

Yes, you raise a valid argument. However, it is difficult to make a case, except in the most blatant of circumstances. In this particular case, it will be argued that the incumbent was hostile to the new government and was not willing to carry out the new government's policy(s).

I'll leave the legal arguments to the experts, but one of the side arguments will be that a government must be able to appoint officials to carry out the government's policies. When this cannot be done, we see events such as the former deputy transport minister appointed by the former Democrat party who was alleged to have profited from his position. It should also be noted that the former Abhisit government and the military junta appointed officials and transferred officials who had been appointed under the Thaksin government.

As an aside, the flaw with the inability to remove political appointees when there is a change in government, is a civil service bureaucracy who are a law unto themselves. Yingluck was burdened with the former military and Abhisit administrations' collection of appointed twits, and Abhisit's government inherited some rather questionable characters from the Thaksin era. A new government must be allowed to start fresh with new people if so required.

There ought to be certain positions, clearly defined, for which a new government can post people they trust (if candidates are qualified, obviously). These should be limited in scope and rank. Having massive changes in civil service with every regime change is not workable.

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

I can assure you every Thai knows what the Amaart is and it is very REAL and is kicking, screaming and using every means possible at the thought of losing it's feudal power

There is no "r". "ar" is an archaic way of writing a long "a", i.e. ahh. Like Khaosarn. Okay, having been pedantic... while I was researching the word several years ago I came across Thai-language forums where Thais were asking what "ammat" means and "Who are these ammat we are supposed to be opposed to??????" The answer: "come to the rallies (this was in 2010) listen to the speeches, ask the people around you. Then you'll find out." If you look in a dictionary, one of the definitions is "kharachakan", i.e. government worker. That's certainly not who the red leadership is refering to. Some people think it means those in service to His Majesty the King. Others just scratch their heads. Yes there is fuedal power here along with its abuses. Think how long it took Europe to get past that (if indeed it fully has) BTW, the attitude to political leaders is rather fuedal--rather than public servants they are often thought of as patrons who take care of their vassals and reward loyalty. I think we need to observe and comment constructively and let Thailand evolve. That doesn't mean we have to be neutral--I'm not--

Once again we are treated to all sorts of tangents, none of which relate to the actual suggestion by Justice Minister Chaikasem Nitisiri, a former attorney general, and someone qualified to offer a comment on Thailand's constitutional law(s). What part of the legal comment do those of you offering negative comments disagree with? How was the reasoning, the legal argument flawed?

Instead of a coherent rational rebuttal, the thread is filled with the grunts and belches of people who haven't considered the actual legal issue(s) involved. The constitution sets out the procedures to be followed, and the justice minister has offered his opinion. It doesn't mean he is right, but the argument he has raised has yet to be countered. not one comment in this thread that provides an alternative argument based upon the constitutional law. Judging from the comments made, it seems that the subject matter is too difficult for some people to comprehend.

And your, independent, legal point is?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

I an not qualified to argue Thai constitutional law, but the Justice Minister and former attorney general who is far better qualified and educated than me, presented some rather sentient points, don't you think? If he has his constitutional law wrong, then please educate me. I haven't seen any arguments posted in this thread against his interpretation and application of the relevant law(s).

Let's keep things in perspective, and not let PAD-Dem characterizations appear to be Democratically legitimate.

>>>>"Chaikasem, a former attorney-general, had told the media that if the Constitutional Court rules to disqualify Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for allegedly illegally transferring National Security Council secretary-general Thawil Pliensri,...."

For allegedly what?.......Same old, same old....Trying to obscure anti-democratic coup-activism by burying the motives under this issue or that.

This has nothing to do with transferring somebody, and everything to do with advancing the objectives of those agitating for a coup.

Using phoney issue and legality nonsense as cover doesn't fool anyone, unless it is in their interest to appear fooled....Their demonization mantra of categorizing all those who object to this folderol as being unlawful anarchists, can usually be traced back to its' source of unelectables.

"However, it would be problematic if Yingluck were to be disqualified and forced out of the caretaker's post"

Yeah, DUH!

The reaction of the electoral majority worries them....They are running in place, trying to muster enough courage to pull their 'coup-trigger".....Delaying elections, scheduling these coup advocacy actions via their user friendly judiciary later and later, etc. etc.

I am sure they are pining away for the good old days, like in 2006...When they didn't need to worry so....The unintended consequence of these dastardly UDD/Red Shirts who formed after that 2006 coup-caper, sure muddies the water this time.

Boppe/Bob: do you realize Chaikasem is the caretaker Justice Minister? Isn't it remarkable the PTP's own guy suggests this?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Isn't he the guy who welcomed Suthep "With open arms and waiting meeting rooms" according to the media earlier this week..

It is one of the biggest knocks the UDD/RS have against the PTP....That they were too chickens... to follow through on their electoral planks of revising the Coup-rooted constitution and de-politicizing the judiciary.....

About current events, the UDD/RS are saying to the PTP.."Serves you right"

The Lumpini/DP crowd can't wait to actualize their coup, while pretending to be anti-govt and pretending to be protesters....and then quickly change the constitution so that a Prime Minister doesn't need to come from an election as the current constitution specifies.

Let's all watch the unelectables actualize this plan!

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

Yes, you raise a valid argument. However, it is difficult to make a case, except in the most blatant of circumstances. In this particular case, it will be argued that the incumbent was hostile to the new government and was not willing to carry out the new government's policy(s).

I'll leave the legal arguments to the experts, but one of the side arguments will be that a government must be able to appoint officials to carry out the government's policies. When this cannot be done, we see events such as the former deputy transport minister appointed by the former Democrat party who was alleged to have profited from his position. It should also be noted that the former Abhisit government and the military junta appointed officials and transferred officials who had been appointed under the Thaksin government.

As an aside, the flaw with the inability to remove political appointees when there is a change in government, is a civil service bureaucracy who are a law unto themselves. Yingluck was burdened with the former military and Abhisit administrations' collection of appointed twits, and Abhisit's government inherited some rather questionable characters from the Thaksin era. A new government must be allowed to start fresh with new people if so required.

There ought to be certain positions, clearly defined, for which a new government can post people they trust (if candidates are qualified, obviously). These should be limited in scope and rank. Having massive changes in civil service with every regime change is not workable.

Your point on not having massive changes in the civil service is valid, and no person who supports a professional and efficient government would argue against you. However, it is normal in functioning governments for key civil service positions to be subject to change. One extreme is the US approach that sees many senior bureaucrats change with each new administration. At the other end, are countries like the UK, Canada & Australia where most of the civil service remains unchanged dup top the rank of deputy minister. However, those governments have the right to change key administration & agency heads when the incumbent bureaucrat's term ends.

IMO it can be argued that Yingluck admin bungled when it replaced the incumbent. However, the valid counter argument is that Thailand had just emerged from a bitter period of military dictatorship, civil strife and a quasi civilian government that had never been elected with a mandate to govern. There was a palpable fear of another coup and it was reasonable to expect a change in the national security chief, particularly one that would be instrumental in the prevention of another coup. How does one make such a statement without embarrassing the nation of Thailand, that Thailand was a teetering on the abyss of failed democracy? Such an admission would damage Thailand's economy and cause a loss of face.

"it can be argued that Yingluck admin bungled when it replaced the incumbent."

Indeed. As I read the constitution, she could have gone through parliament to make the change--though it seems a bit garbled here. But instead, she just did it. Possibly without even realizing that she was violating the constitution. When you change them every few years why bother reading the latest? Just keep doing things the same way. I suspect Suthep hadn't consulted the new constitution either, given that there is no constitutional pathway to carry out his demands. It's an old Thai tradition to force a government to resign (not dissolve parliament & call elections, but literally get out) with mass demonstrations, to be replaced by an appointed one (by who depending on the current constitution). The new constitution removed that possibility. But who knew?

BTW the tension between the need for a stable beurocracy and the power of new governments to effectively implement policy is an old, old problem worldwide, never fully resolved.

--S