Democrat: Justice Minister intimidates Charter Court

BANGKOK, 15 April 2014 (NNT) – Deputy Democrat Leader Satit Pitutecha has indicated that Justice Minister Chaikasem Nitisiri may have intimidated the Charter Court for his suggestion to request His Majesty the King to rule on Section 7 of the constitution should the court decide to disqualify Miss Yingluck Shinawatra as caretaker Prime Minister.

Mr. Satit explained that the court has the authority to remove the Premier as stated in Section 214. He invalidated Mr. Chaikasem’s claim that the court would overstep its authority should it rule the caretaker Prime Minister is guilty of corruption charges, causing her to lose legitimacy to stay in the post and also a political vacuum.

The Democrat Party’s Deputy Leader urged all sides to allow the court to do its duty before criticizing it. He indicated the judges are judicial employees under the Justice Ministry who can be impeached under the law should they proved to have misused their authority.


-- NNT 2014-04-15

Wow,is this story mixed up.

-Satit did not invalidate Minister Chaikesem's comment. He refuted it. Is the Nation suggesting the Democrat party has the power to "invalidate" legal opinions?

- The intimidation is from Satit, who stated, "judges are judicial employees under the Justice Ministry who can be impeached under the law should they proved to have misused their authority." That is not an appropriate statement.

​The reality is that both have erred. A sitting minister should never comment on a case before the courts. Nor should any responsible political party official who has the capacity to influence the decision comment. It is a breach of ethics. Unfortunately, the Justice Minister as a former attorney general and a respected member of the Thai bar is held to a higher level of accountability. In other countries, it could force a minister to resign. The Justice Minister's argument will be that he offered his comment as an individual, but that does not wash. The Democrat should not have commented on the case, but should have instead taken the Minister to task for the error in judgement. I've noticed that making such comments is the norm for all political parties in Thailand and that the Democrats made similar errors in judgement when they were in power. This gets to the core of the problem. No one in any of the political parties seems to have much of a grasp of appropriate behaviour.

Wow,is this story mixed up.

-Satit did not invalidate Minister Chaikesem's comment. He refuted it. Is the Nation suggesting the Democrat party has the power to "invalidate" legal opinions?

- The intimidation is from Satit, who stated, "judges are judicial employees under the Justice Ministry who can be impeached under the law should they proved to have misused their authority." That is not an appropriate statement.

​The reality is that both have erred. A sitting minister should never comment on a case before the courts. Nor should any responsible political party official who has the capacity to influence the decision comment. It is a breach of ethics. Unfortunately, the Justice Minister as a former attorney general and a respected member of the Thai bar is held to a higher level of accountability. In other countries, it could force a minister to resign. The Justice Minister's argument will be that he offered his comment as an individual, but that does not wash. The Democrat should not have commented on the case, but should have instead taken the Minister to task for the error in judgement. I've noticed that making such comments is the norm for all political parties in Thailand and that the Democrats made similar errors in judgement when they were in power. This gets to the core of the problem. No one in any of the political parties seems to have much of a grasp of appropriate behaviour.

One of the rare occasions I have agreed with you. Keep up the good work.

If the Constitutional Court has been intimidated by any party it has been Pheu Thai. The history of their discord with the court included their ruling on the Senate bill. Prior to the judgment of the Constitutional Court on that verdict in November, the court was being openly and continually intimidated by both Pheu Thai and the UDD about issuing an " inappropriate verdict ". When the judgement was made, they refused to acknowledge it at first. Similarly, in the period before the Constitutional Court invalidated the February 2 election, it was subject to exactly the same kind of open talk from Pheu Thai and the UDD about the danger of an " inappropriate verdict ". That verdict is still not accepted by Pheu Thai to this day, and to this day they still rail against it in the international media. Noppodon's remarks yesterday - meant to " soften " Thaksin's aggressive stance towards the judiciary - specifically cited the election ruling - not that Thaksin's lockstep with Pheu Thai and the UDD should be any surprise. And ever since the Constitutional Court agreed to review the Tawil case, they have come under continual intimidation from Yingluck, from Surapong, from Chalerm, from cabinet ministers, from Prompong and Pheu Thai in general, and from the UDD. The intimidating dialogue is the same. Exactly the same. They caution against an " inappropriate " verdict - or a verdict the " people won't like ". That dialogue persists to this day. So make no mistake where the pressure on the court is coming from. The fact of the matter is that the Constitutional Court indeed does have the constitutional power to render a judgement in accord with the constitution as they see fit. Period. And the sooner Pheu Thai, Thaksin, the UDD, and their brazen supporters accept that, the better.

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

Wow,is this story mixed up.

-Satit did not invalidate Minister Chaikesem's comment. He refuted it. Is the Nation suggesting the Democrat party has the power to "invalidate" legal opinions?

- The intimidation is from Satit, who stated, "judges are judicial employees under the Justice Ministry who can be impeached under the law should they proved to have misused their authority." That is not an appropriate statement.

​The reality is that both have erred. A sitting minister should never comment on a case before the courts. Nor should any responsible political party official who has the capacity to influence the decision comment. It is a breach of ethics. Unfortunately, the Justice Minister as a former attorney general and a respected member of the Thai bar is held to a higher level of accountability. In other countries, it could force a minister to resign. The Justice Minister's argument will be that he offered his comment as an individual, but that does not wash. The Democrat should not have commented on the case, but should have instead taken the Minister to task for the error in judgement. I've noticed that making such comments is the norm for all political parties in Thailand and that the Democrats made similar errors in judgement when they were in power. This gets to the core of the problem. No one in any of the political parties seems to have much of a grasp of appropriate behaviour.

Appropriate behaviour, neither have some of their supporters.

So after thinking a couple of days, it is no longer what you wanted after all?

Wow,is this story mixed up.

-Satit did not invalidate Minister Chaikesem's comment. He refuted it. Is the Nation suggesting the Democrat party has the power to "invalidate" legal opinions?

- The intimidation is from Satit, who stated, "judges are judicial employees under the Justice Ministry who can be impeached under the law should they proved to have misused their authority." That is not an appropriate statement.

​The reality is that both have erred. A sitting minister should never comment on a case before the courts. Nor should any responsible political party official who has the capacity to influence the decision comment. It is a breach of ethics. Unfortunately, the Justice Minister as a former attorney general and a respected member of the Thai bar is held to a higher level of accountability. In other countries, it could force a minister to resign. The Justice Minister's argument will be that he offered his comment as an individual, but that does not wash. The Democrat should not have commented on the case, but should have instead taken the Minister to task for the error in judgement. I've noticed that making such comments is the norm for all political parties in Thailand and that the Democrats made similar errors in judgement when they were in power. This gets to the core of the problem. No one in any of the political parties seems to have much of a grasp of appropriate behaviour.

And what happened to the separation of powers under a democratic system? The Judicial Power is now an employee of the Executive Power?

I would say a totally inappropriate statement.

But it shows PT's crooked understanding of some basics principals of democracy. In their opinion, the ruling political party has all the 3 powers in one hand: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. "We come from erlection!"

Of course, when a minister or any high ranking of PT tells total nonsense, then every time it is just a statement made as an individual. That's their easy way out. Never take responsibility, right?

The important thing is that the king do as he wishes.

No can can tell the king what do to.

Those who suggest that they will tell the king what to do should be charged under 112, and put in jail for 5 years.

Please respect the king.

Geriatrickid talks like he literally shares live one on one conversations with both satit and chaikaserm. He talks so matter of fact that he knows more than anyone else about what really happens. Only things we van know is what the papers tell us and we all know the papers are very biased towards their own respective affiliations. There is really very little that anyone can speak factually about the politics in this country. Politicians change their own words from one week to the next if not day to day. So, i read these comments nearly everyday and the one constant repeating fact is that geriatrickid is so arrogant about what he thinks he knows but really knows no more than anyone else is this "opinions" forum. Pls stop forcing ur opinions on others as if they r facts. Unless u r personally in these meetings or side by side with these politicians in thailand then pls stop talking like u really know the facts about anything.

Who is going to pay the farmers 1,000 Baht per person to show the Court that they are so upset with the ruling that they just had to leave their homes to protest in Bangkok?

When the so-upset farmers arrive in Bangkok ready to fight and die in a civil war over the matter, someone should ask them if they have any idea what the Constitution is and what the court case was about.

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

If the Constitutional Court has been intimidated by any party it has been Pheu Thai. The history of their discord with the court included their ruling on the Senate bill. Prior to the judgment of the Constitutional Court on that verdict in November, the court was being openly and continually intimidated by both Pheu Thai and the UDD about issuing an " inappropriate verdict ". When the judgement was made, they refused to acknowledge it at first. Similarly, in the period before the Constitutional Court invalidated the February 2 election, it was subject to exactly the same kind of open talk from Pheu Thai and the UDD about the danger of an " inappropriate verdict ". That verdict is still not accepted by Pheu Thai to this day, and to this day they still rail against it in the international media. Noppodon's remarks yesterday - meant to " soften " Thaksin's aggressive stance towards the judiciary - specifically cited the election ruling - not that Thaksin's lockstep with Pheu Thai and the UDD should be any surprise. And ever since the Constitutional Court agreed to review the Tawil case, they have come under continual intimidation from Yingluck, from Surapong, from Chalerm, from cabinet ministers, from Prompong and Pheu Thai in general, and from the UDD. The intimidating dialogue is the same. Exactly the same. They caution against an " inappropriate " verdict - or a verdict the " people won't like ". That dialogue persists to this day. So make no mistake where the pressure on the court is coming from. The fact of the matter is that the Constitutional Court indeed does have the constitutional power to render a judgement in accord with the constitution as they see fit. Period. And the sooner Pheu Thai, Thaksin, the UDD, and their brazen supporters accept that, the better.

Maybe Nitisiri's suggestion to request His Majesty the King to rule on Section 7 of the constitution was based only a hypothetical situation wherein the court decides to disqualify Miss Yingluck Shinawatra as caretaker Prime Minister. Suthep's excuse for anything that he says that he might be held accountable for is that he was talking about hypothetical situation, not a real situation. When you hear from the PDRC, Suthep never intimidates anyone. By that reasoning Nitisiri did not intimidate the Charter Court with his statement.

He invalidated Mr. Chaikasem’s claim that the court would overstep its authority should it rule the caretaker Prime Minister is guilty of corruption charges, causing her to lose legitimacy to stay in the post and also a political vacuum.

Mr. Chaikasem shouldn't be afraid of the vacuum. Thailand has lived with the vacuum for quite a while now, it's just that the "Big Empty" would move from hiding between a set of shapely ears to the outside for all to see.

And since we are discussing cosmic issues, don't let me get started on allegories of Black Holes, Big Bangs and Alternative Realities (some politicos live in)...

Wow,is this story mixed up.

-Satit did not invalidate Minister Chaikesem's comment. He refuted it. Is the Nation suggesting the Democrat party has the power to "invalidate" legal opinions?

- The intimidation is from Satit, who stated, "judges are judicial employees under the Justice Ministry who can be impeached under the law should they proved to have misused their authority." That is not an appropriate statement.

​The reality is that both have erred. A sitting minister should never comment on a case before the courts. Nor should any responsible political party official who has the capacity to influence the decision comment. It is a breach of ethics. Unfortunately, the Justice Minister as a former attorney general and a respected member of the Thai bar is held to a higher level of accountability. In other countries, it could force a minister to resign. The Justice Minister's argument will be that he offered his comment as an individual, but that does not wash. The Democrat should not have commented on the case, but should have instead taken the Minister to task for the error in judgement. I've noticed that making such comments is the norm for all political parties in Thailand and that the Democrats made similar errors in judgement when they were in power. This gets to the core of the problem. No one in any of the political parties seems to have much of a grasp of appropriate behaviour.

It is not an inappropriate statement it is a fact!!! Since when is stating facts improper??