PM Yingluck heads for judicial showdown

[renaissanc]

All of this because of one greedy and corrupt man. "I want my money back!" "I want to go home!"

[Publicus]

" If the court steps across the boundary too much, do you think their decision will be respected? "

​This is a troubling leitmotiv, but it keeps cropping up again and again. Pheu Thai and the UDD in particular have adopted this as a common refrain. And it's truly dangerous. Never should any doubt in the judicial process be encouraged. And yet, every day we see evidence of it. It is to Pheu Thai and the UDD's advantage that people don't respect the verdict if they deem it " unfair " in some form or another. For Pheu Thai and the UDD, the law has always been malleable.

The only way forward constitutionally is to respect the ruling of the Constitutional Court.

The Constitution Court in 2008 dismissed from government the People's Power Party PM Samak who consequently did honor and respect the CC by immediately vacating the office. Samak retained his MP status, which had been unaffected by the Constitution Court decision, and silently vacated the office of prime minister, as ordered by the Constitution Court.

Again in 2008, the Constitutional Court dissolved the People's Power Party which accepted and honored this CC ruling also, thus being abolished from the political landscape by the CC ruling.

Simultaneously in 2008, the Constitutional Court dismissed the People's Power Party led coalition government which consequently accepted and honored the Constitution Court decision by immediately vacating their offices of government.

The Constitution Court in 2008 thus conducted a radical cancelling of the election outcome and completely dissolved the parliamentary coalition government.

Indeed, the elected coalition government of the People's Power Party quietly and respectfully obeyed the Constitution Court by vacating its offices of government. The party that received the plurality of votes, the PPP, and the coalition government it had formed in the parliament, disappeared, quietly and respectfully, thus honoring and obeying the ruling of the Constitutional Court. (Yeah, some vocal complaining was of course done, but the party and the government honored and respected the Constitution Court decision.)

So in 2008 the orders of the Constitutional Court were honored and obeyed by the PPP and by its coalition in government.

Just recently the CC nullified the Feb 2nd election that had been strategically disrupted by Suthep and PCAD violence and, while there has been some critiquing of the ruling, there hasn't been any insurrection because ot it.

I know reality is a strange place for you to be, but welcome to it anyway and try to make yourself at home with it.

So compare and contrast the quiet and respectful compliance of the Constitution Court by the TRT, the PPP, and presently by the PTP to the anti-parliament rabble of the Democrat Party of Abhisit, Suthep, and their pals of the PCAD and its predecessor anarchists of the PAD.

You never address the fact the 2007 constitution was written by a martial law military coup d'état dictatorship that compelled voters to approve the document.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Publicus

[HKChris]

"We cannot be ousted a second time," he said

You will be ousted every time you ( PT & Thaksin ) do something illegal.

So you should have been ousted many times before.

I can't believe it has taken this long to soon get rid of this bunch of thieving criminalsi

To be replaced by....... another 'bunch of thieving criminals'?

Be careful what you wish for......

[HKChris]

She won't be able to make the hearing on Friday and her lawyers will ask tomorrow for a new date and time.

Seems like that is standard procedure here. If that option can apply to someone charged with murder and treason, why should it not apply to YL who is accused of much lesser crimes?

[fstarbkk]

" If the court steps across the boundary too much, do you think their decision will be respected? "

​This is a troubling leitmotiv, but it keeps cropping up again and again. Pheu Thai and the UDD in particular have adopted this as a common refrain. And it's truly dangerous. Never should any doubt in the judicial process be encouraged. And yet, every day we see evidence of it. It is to Pheu Thai and the UDD's advantage that people don't respect the verdict if they deem it " unfair " in some form or another. For Pheu Thai and the UDD, the law has always been malleable.

The only way forward constitutionally is to respect the ruling of the Constitutional Court.

I would not use the word "respect" in regard to court rulings. Until it becomes legal to publicly question the merits of rulings of courts and the reasoning of judges, all there can be is acceptance.

The rule of law is necessary, but the right to discuss the work of the judicial branch and offer criticism thereof is also necessary if this country is to develop a court system which is seen to be fair by one and all.

I understand what you're saying. All the more remarkable that many red shirt leaders, as well as certain members of the (caretaker) government, seem to have no trepidation to discuss and question the work of the judicial branch at length, with great frequency and specificity.

[worgeordie]

So if they rule against her,on this matter and is barred ,is not PM

anymore, does that mean she does not have to answer to the much

greater charges of corruption,I think she would be quite pleased in

that case, as she knows she can never answer the questions that

will/should be put to her.

What this country needs is a program like Panorama,or 60 mins ?

in the US, to really investigate to bring the truth into the daylight,

of course that will never happen.

regards Worgeordie

[fcbkk]

There will definitely not be a civil war. Talk to anybody. Most Thai people are sick and tired of both sides by now. Suthep still has a lot of followers and has the momentum (never really lost the momentum), because he advocates a peaceful solution. Jatuporn, on the other side, has lost most of his followers, because nobody wants to get their butts blown off for Thaksin and his henchmen. Thai People don't want civil war and are getting tired of the Red rhetoric. Look at the small turnout, Jattuporn had for his "Mass Rally", which he later called "just a warmup", when hardly anybody showed up.

If, or rather when, the courts find Yingluck and her crew guilty and they are removed, a lot of Reds will cry foul. There may be some more isolated red terrorist attacks, but nobody will let themselves get drawn into a civil war.

It's sad, that so many people have died in this conflict already. A conflict, that is really only about who will be at the money trough

i fear there will be more terrorist attacks, but this time the army knows what to expect. Hopefully that will help to guide measures better, and thus avoid escalation beyond isolated attempts to provoke undue force.

Having said that, i hope that speculation will not come true, but whatever happens, i think you are right that people will not be drawn into anything like a civil war. The vast majority of Thais are way too smart and good to fall for extremes, regardless what color it is "promoted" in.

Edited April 16, 2014 by fcbkk

[GuestHouse]

Thaksin and his mouthpiece PTP have for the past months been preparing their Red Shirt supporters for the outcome - with constant comments that amount to one thing and one thing only.

Thaksin and his mouthpiece PTP shall not be held accountable to the law.

The PTP is a single issue political party - do whatever is necessary to get their paymaster Thaksin (currently on the lam) freed of his criminal conviction.

Do What Ever Is Necessary!

[empireboy]

Thank gawd Friday is 'GOOD FRIDAY'...

[Arkady]

The government argument re the cabinet hangs on the fact that it has already vacated office en masse in accordance with Article 180 as a result of the dissolution of parliament and that Article 181 requires it to stay in as caretaker until the next government is formed. Thus the argument goes they cannot be made to vacate office en masse again on the PM's removal from office under another clause of Article 180.

There is certainly some legal merit to this argument and the court might concur with it and leave the rest of the cabinet in place, even if it removes YL. It also has some weaknesses though. The principal of hearings to remove politicians from office retroactively is well established and several have undergone impeachment votes after leaving office, including Suthep and Somchai. The government's argument also implies total impunity for caretaker governments, even though they are in office for at least 3 months when things are working normally. At any rate the argument for impunity for a caretaker government applies equally to a caretaker PM but the judges voted unanimously to hear the case against her.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[moonao]

Thai judiciary needs serious reform, i'd like to see some accountability and a public investigation opened . A healthy democracy needs an independent judiciary and one that serves the law, not one that serves some minority interests.

[issanaus]

Thai judiciary needs serious reform, i'd like to see some accountability and a public investigation opened . A healthy democracy needs an independent judiciary and one that serves the law, not one that serves some minority interests.

You mean like a real western democracy - maybe Australia

google 'nsw premier resigns' to find how a democracy and appropriate checks and balances work

[fcbkk]

The talk of civil war is laughable really....Thais don't want to kill each other, and they won't...save for a few dumb ass reds..!

And as mentioned in a previous post...it's hard enough to get 'em out of bed....let alone going out to shoot people!!

Scroll back to 1992 and you might change that attitude.

You don't have to go back that far, unless I'm mistaken and the RTA regiments involved in abhisits "crackdown" were populated by foreigners.

I don't know about populated by foreigners, but they were drawn from the units that could be "relied upon", and are therefore based in or near Bangkok.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You both seem to be missing the point. Nationality of those killed did not and does not matter for some - up until now it had gone rather well either way for their family fortunes, and that seems all that matters in their world driven by greed.

[Tatsujin]

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

The talk of civil war is laughable really....Thais don't want to kill each other, and they won't...save for a few dumb ass reds..!

And as mentioned in a previous post...it's hard enough to get 'em out of bed....let alone going out to shoot people!!

Scroll back to 1992 and you might change that attitude.

You don't have to go back that far, unless I'm mistaken and the RTA regiments involved in abhisits "crackdown" were populated by foreigners.

Oh, this one I got to hear ... just who were the foreign conscripts in the Royal Thai Army and how come no one noticed?

"populated by" -are you also implying the majority of them were not Thai?

[ginjag]

Thai judiciary needs serious reform, i'd like to see some accountability and a public investigation opened . A healthy democracy needs an independent judiciary and one that serves the law, not one that serves some minority interests.

There there now don't be nervous and afraid cause if you don't do wrong then you have no cares in the world.

I do NOT see many PTP party people with a carefree look on their faces, in fact I do NOT see many of them around, how many of them are standing up and cheering Yingluck on now. I have and idea a % of them are missing -sort of extended holidays. The roaches are on the run.

You see when the money stops flowing into your bank and dries up these people look around and find their friends have GONE. They were only friends when helping themselves in the trough.

[Baerboxer]

Thai judiciary needs serious reform, i'd like to see some accountability and a public investigation opened . A healthy democracy needs an independent judiciary and one that serves the law, not one that serves some minority interests.

A healthy democracy also needs a government that does not lie (repeatedly), act illegally, and cheat the parliamentary process. It needs the robust checks and balances and independent judiciary to deal with any such corrupt criminal government.

Allowing a serving government to be totally controlled by a criminal fugitive wanted on numerous other charges, whilst acting illegally, somehow doesn't seem to cut the democratic mustard some how.

[catterwell]

The government argument re the cabinet hangs on the fact that it has already vacated office en masse in accordance with Article 180 as a result of the dissolution of parliament and that Article 181 requires it to stay in as caretaker until the next government is formed. Thus the argument goes they cannot be made to vacate office en masse again on the PM's removal from office under another clause of Article 180.

There is certainly some legal merit to this argument and the court might concur with it and leave the rest of the cabinet in place, even if it removes YL. It also has some weaknesses though. The principal of hearings to remove politicians from office retroactively is well established and several have undergone impeachment votes after leaving office, including Suthep and Somchai. The government's argument also implies total impunity for caretaker governments, even though they are in office for at least 3 months when things are working normally. Constitutional Court charges could thus be avoided by dissolving parliament. At any rate the argument for impunity for a caretaker government applies equally to a caretaker PM but the judges voted unanimously to hear the case against her.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

The charges against Yingluck are under Articles 266 and 268 of the Constitution. If found guilty under 268, then under 182(7) the caretaker PM's position is terminated, as a result of which, under 180(1) the position of all incumbent Ministers is automatically terminated. When the PM goes, the entire Cabinet goes; any other charges against other Ministers are irrelevant in this event.

On the argument that it would be illegal for YL to resign under 182(2), the same would apply in case she dies under 182(1). Article 181 says the Cabinet remains in power in a caretaker capacity, but that doesn't preclude such events as resignation, death, or under 182(3) imprisonment.

On the other hand, if the caretaker PM is suspended with the initiation of an impeachment process, it can be argued that an acting caretaker PM could take her place and the rest of the caretaker Cabinet would be intact, until things change as a result of a Senate impeachment vote.

Edited April 16, 2014 by metisdead

[Publicus]

The government argument re the cabinet hangs on the fact that it has already vacated office en masse in accordance with Article 180 as a result of the dissolution of parliament and that Article 181 requires it to stay in as caretaker until the next government is formed. Thus the argument goes they cannot be made to vacate office en masse again on the PM's removal from office under another clause of Article 180.

There is certainly some legal merit to this argument and the court might concur with it and leave the rest of the cabinet in place, even if it removes YL. It also has some weaknesses though. The principal of hearings to remove politicians from office retroactively is well established and several have undergone impeachment votes after leaving office, including Suthep and Somchai. The government's argument also implies total impunity for caretaker governments, even though they are in office for at least 3 months when things are working normally. At any rate the argument for impunity for a caretaker government applies equally to a caretaker PM but the judges voted unanimously to hear the case against her.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

It's clear the judges are going ahead with a case. Almost everyone expects YS to be gone after the dust settles. There's really limited latitude however to know what judges might do, even in jurisprudence based in rule of law using precedent, which this legal system only occasionally uses. So the question beyond that concerns the cabinet, meaning the caretaker government itself. Does whatever the PM did or didn't do apply to the government as a whole, and if so, how? The judges have to rule on the future of the country. The consequences either way will be real.

[tezzainoz]

Members are always refering and comparing things in thailand to what happens in the west

and in the west it would never happen what happens in Thailand

so lets look at that

The Premier of NSW in Australia today quit because he made a mistake and said he did not get an expensive bottle of wine when he did

he never whinged, wined, twisted his foot etc, just said yes, I did and quit

he gave dignity to the office he held

so why are we not asking Yingluck to take an example for his book

when she went to Australia she said how great their democracy was

so Yingluck, be a real leader and give back dignity to your office, and retire

or is it do what I say, not what I do

Edited April 16, 2014 by tezzainoz

[gabruce]

" If the court steps across the boundary too much, do you think their decision will be respected? "

​This is a troubling leitmotiv, but it keeps cropping up again and again. Pheu Thai and the UDD in particular have adopted this as a common refrain. And it's truly dangerous. Never should any doubt in the judicial process be encouraged. And yet, every day we see evidence of it. It is to Pheu Thai and the UDD's advantage that people don't respect the verdict if they deem it " unfair " in some form or another. For Pheu Thai and the UDD, the law has always been malleable.

The only way forward constitutionally is to respect the ruling of the Constitutional Court.

The troubling leitmotif, throughout your posts is ignoring the will of the electorate in favour of a nondemocratic "solution". You may be a ( self proclaimed) expert on the Thai Constitution but you are no supporter of the democratic process prescribed by that constitution.Yet again, the constitutional way forward is to hold an election, and abide by the result. And all said in one paragraph!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

It's just as troubling to ignore the law in favor of a "democratic" tyranny, especially amid claims of corrupt voting. tyranny in any form is undesirable. My stance is that a balance of both is crucial along with some mechanism to ensure trouble free campaigning and voting.

[sweatalot]

"The court has a track record of judgement against the Yingluck government and her Pheu Thai Party"

Can't say that I noticed.................................

And if so it shows that the Yingluck government and her Pheu Thai Party are not following the law

[Crushdepth]

"We cannot be ousted a second time," he said..

Coup + dissolved for electoral fraud + dissolved for electoral fraud + whatever's next = 4th time.

[Artisi]

Members are always refering and comparing things in thailand to what happens in the west

and in the west it would never happen what happens in Thailand

so lets look at that

The Premier of NSW in Australia today quit because he made a mistake and said he did not get an expensive bottle of wine when he did

he never whinged, wined, twisted his foot etc, just said yes, I did and quit

he gave dignity to the office he held

so why are we not asking Yingluck to take an example for his book

when she went to Australia she said how great their democracy was

so Yingluck, be a real leader and give back dignity to your office, and retire

or is it do what I say, not what I do

Come on now, a bottle of Grange Hermitage far out guns a few lousy billion Bht and can't be compared - so you don't expect YL to resign do you?

Plus it has a lot to do with integrity - unfortunately this word doesn't appear in the fugitives little red book.

[ginjag]

The government argument re the cabinet hangs on the fact that it has already vacated office en masse in accordance with Article 180 as a result of the dissolution of parliament and that Article 181 requires it to stay in as caretaker until the next government is formed. Thus the argument goes they cannot be made to vacate office en masse again on the PM's removal from office under another clause of Article 180.

There is certainly some legal merit to this argument and the court might concur with it and leave the rest of the cabinet in place, even if it removes YL. It also has some weaknesses though. The principal of hearings to remove politicians from office retroactively is well established and several have undergone impeachment votes after leaving office, including Suthep and Somchai. The government's argument also implies total impunity for caretaker governments, even though they are in office for at least 3 months when things are working normally. At any rate the argument for impunity for a caretaker government applies equally to a caretaker PM but the judges voted unanimously to hear the case against her.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

It's clear the judges are going ahead with a case. Almost everyone expects YS to be gone after the dust settles. There's really limited latitude however to know what judges might do, even in jurisprudence based in rule of law using precedent, which this legal system only occasionally uses. So the question beyond that concerns the cabinet, meaning the caretaker government itself. Does whatever the PM did or didn't do apply to the government as a whole, and if so, how? The judges have to rule on the future of the country. The consequences either way will be real.

After this, maybe most of the cabinet will be up before the bench--ALONG with any other big wig--DEM etc that are in the queue waiting. hoping the offenders/parties are banned so an election can be taken in late JULY, reform IS needed to make the election clean--heavy penalties for offenders, this has to start NOW with ANYONE--set an example courts. Put Thailand on a cleaner path.

[fcbkk]

Members are always refering and comparing things in thailand to what happens in the west

and in the west it would never happen what happens in Thailand

so lets look at that

The Premier of NSW in Australia today quit because he made a mistake and said he did not get an expensive bottle of wine when he did

he never whinged, wined, twisted his foot etc, just said yes, I did and quit

he gave dignity to the office he held

so why are we not asking Yingluck to take an example for his book

when she went to Australia she said how great their democracy was

so Yingluck, be a real leader and give back dignity to your office, and retire

or is it do what I say, not what I do

there's been a distinct lack of moral integrity and leadership on many occasions already, so i'd say the chance of that happening (for the right reasons) is as slim as her going to "die for democracy".

[fstarbkk]

The government argument re the cabinet hangs on the fact that it has already vacated office en masse in accordance with Article 180 as a result of the dissolution of parliament and that Article 181 requires it to stay in as caretaker until the next government is formed. Thus the argument goes they cannot be made to vacate office en masse again on the PM's removal from office under another clause of Article 180.

There is certainly some legal merit to this argument and the court might concur with it and leave the rest of the cabinet in place, even if it removes YL. It also has some weaknesses though. The principal of hearings to remove politicians from office retroactively is well established and several have undergone impeachment votes after leaving office, including Suthep and Somchai. The government's argument also implies total impunity for caretaker governments, even though they are in office for at least 3 months when things are working normally. At any rate the argument for impunity for a caretaker government applies equally to a caretaker PM but the judges voted unanimously to hear the case against her.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

The notion of de facto blanket immunity for a caretaker PM implies the extremely dangerous possibility that all you have to do, is to dissolve parliament and then you can get away with anything you bloody well want.

I cannot imagine that this is the spirit of this or any other democratic constitution. For people with dictatorial leanings, of course, it would be a gold mine!

[JAG]

What, do you mean people like Suthep? Surely not!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[tezzainoz]

Members are always refering and comparing things in thailand to what happens in the west

and in the west it would never happen what happens in Thailand

so lets look at that

The Premier of NSW in Australia today quit because he made a mistake and said he did not get an expensive bottle of wine when he did

he never whinged, wined, twisted his foot etc, just said yes, I did and quit

he gave dignity to the office he held

so why are we not asking Yingluck to take an example for his book

when she went to Australia she said how great their democracy was

so Yingluck, be a real leader and give back dignity to your office, and retire

or is it do what I say, not what I do

Come on now, a bottle of Grange Hermitage far out guns a few lousy billion Bht and can't be compared - so you don't expect YL to resign do you?

Plus it has a lot to do with integrity - unfortunately this word doesn't appear in the fugitives little red book.

I take that as tongue in cheek

[Now or Never]

As one Australian Politician said

"The best way to win an election is to have a Hangin" signed Sir Henry Bolte.

Hang the whole cabinet.

[dinooz]

You are right, there were foreign fighters under the red shirts at that time

Do you have a problem with the English language? You understand the basics, yes? Right, then please tell me why, when I write this,

"You don't have to go back that far, unless I'm mistaken and the RTA regiments involved in abhisits "crackdown" were populated by foreigners"

Why on earth would you think that I was referring to the red shirts?

and then you take it further alleging that foreign fighters were involved with the red shirts in 2010! Do you believe everything you read? If so, I can recommend cartalucci or yon or better still a comprehensive "true" story of what happened in 2010. it's English title is The Simple Truth, read it. you'll love it.

(though if he's heard of Oscar Wilde you may wonder why he chose that title)

I you were here well before and during the 2010 you will not have to read anything or be in command of perfect English.

Maybe you could have been reading what you wanted to believe. Sort of self inflicted brainwash.

Sorry, run that past me again in English.

I think Ginjag was saying "if you were here and witnessed what was happening during the Red insurrection you wouldn't need to read what happened as it was all there to see,,,,, were you here during the burn Bangkok days Fab? or are you relying on media and propaganda to assert your biased views?