Law's sanctity must be respected if we are to avoid Blood Moon prophecy: Thai opinion

[webfact]

TELL IT AS IT IS
Law's sanctity must be respected if we are to avoid Blood Moon prophecy
Pornpimol Kanchanalak
Special to The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The reprieve afforded by Songkran came and went much too fast. Now we return to our evermore-acute anxiety over the country's political and economic state of affairs. Without a fully functioning government for more than four months, Thailand has been shamefully put on an autopilot. Truth be told, we have become a failed state.

In the next 30 days, the Constitutional Court will rule whether Premier Yingluck Shinawatra abused her power in removing Thawil Pliensri from his post as National Security Agency chief to make way for her relative. A judgement against her could mean a "pink slip" for the caretaker prime minister, reprising Donald Trump's catchphrase in his TV "reality" show "The Apprentice" - "You are Fired!"

Then, Yingluck has another case to answer at the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) over her alleged dereliction of duty in the rice-pledging scam, which puts to shame all previous political frauds in Thai history.

Both the PDRC (the People's Democratic Reform Committee) and the UDD (United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship) are bracing for the end game, as the two verdicts loom. We don't need to believe the dire predictions surrounding the appearance of the rare astronomical phenomenon known as the Blood Moon on April 15 to know that we are in deep trouble. No matter how fair and just the two verdicts are, chances are high that not everybody will be completely thrilled.

Already, the UDD has issued threats against the two independent organisations not to rule against their liking. Meanwhile, the PDRC leader has told the protesters to cross the T's and dot the I's for the judgement day.

Lost in the eye of this twister is the notion of the sanctity of the law, which must be respected regardless of any side's liking. Thailand cannot be a bona fide democratic nation unless we are willing to uphold and respect the law and the ruling of the courts.

In the United States - arguably the world's oldest constitutional democracy - there was a time when the Supreme Court, not the people, elected the president. The case involved the 2000 presidential elections contested by Al Gore and George W Bush. The infamous "hanging chads" in Florida - where the number of votes was decisive - made the country more aware that polls were a very messy business in more ways than one could count. In that election, Bush was declared the winner despite the fact that Al Gore received more votes (48.4 per cent) than Bush (47.9 per cent).

But riots did not break out. Like or dislike the Supreme Court Justices and their decisions, Americans realise and accept that the court is not final because it is infallible; but rather it is infallible because it is final.

In an eloquent New York Times op-ed piece on Monday headed "A Long Obedience", David Brook pointed out that laws "tame the ego and create habits of deference by reminding you of your subordination to something permanent". He contended that America's founding fathers understood that in creating a social order, the first people who need to be bound down by the laws are the leaders themselves, and that just as leaders need binding, so do regular people.

America has been through a Civil War (1861-65) which saw more Americans perish than in all other wars in the country combined. President Abraham Lincoln, in his short yet powerful 1863 Gettysburg address, declared that the country must never forget why so many men had to die so the country could move forward. And the American people have never forgotten. The two shades of stone on the Washington Monument (one shade at the base built before the civil war, a different one on top, built after the war was over) remind the 4th of July revelers every year of the long brutality of that war, so it shall not be repeated.

The Justice of the US Supreme Court is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. But once confirmed, they know their only consecrated duty is to uphold the laws, not to bend the laws to the liking of the people who nominated and confirmed them. Of course, the president and the Senate can tip the composition of the Supreme Court to suit their political philosophy, yet they know that once in office, the Supreme Court Justice does not answer to them. The public may disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, and may stage protests. Hundreds and thousands of legal cases and petitions may be filed with the Supreme Court, arguing for the reversal of its decision. But no Americans have entertained the thought of starting a civil war to get their way. Lincoln's words still resonate.

Siam at the end of the Ayutthaya period was in turmoil. The root cause of the disunity was the lack of a legal governing framework to deal with the prevailing situation. King Rama I (1737-1809), after establishing the new capital, devoted all his effort to reforming the political and legal framework and mechanisms. In 1804, he created the "Laws of the Three Seals", which became the law of the land until King Rama V (1868-1910) embarked on another major reform of the legal system, which helped the country avoid falling under the yoke of aggressive Western colonialism.

If Americans can still remember the pain and suffering of their forefathers during the Civil War and have learned to respect the sanctity of the law, why can Thais not remember the disintegration of Ayutthaya, and learn not to repeat it?


-- The Nation 2014-04-17

[waza]

The rule of law must prevail and no one is above the law. Bye bye the darling of Issan, your caddy has left you in the rough.

Edited April 16, 2014 by waza

[Thai at Heart]

Moving a civil servant is enough to remove a prime minister.

Incredible

[NongKhaiKid]

I don't know for the accuracy of this but Saddam Hussein was supposed to have said " the law is whatever I write on a piece of paper ".

In Thailand the rule of law is under attack from all sides and none more so than PTP and their red attack dogs with their interpretation of " the law is whatever we say it is '.

[ChrisY1]

IMO, many Thais have been taken over by greed, spite and vengence....if there is face loss, hatred sets in and is not forgotten!

[Robby nz]

Moving a civil servant is enough to remove a prime minister.

Incredible

It was not just a matter of moving a civil servant TaH.

It was a move that was deemed to be with the intention of putting a family member into a powerful position to increase the family influence.

In this particular instance to put a family member in the position of police chief.

And that is what has been considered to be against the law.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Robby nz

[kratiam]

Moving a civil servant is enough to remove a prime minister.

Incredible

If you truly believe what you are saying then it's time you read up on the subject...........!

[Thaiisnotrequired]

"why can Thais not remember the disintegration of Ayutthaya, and learn not to repeat it"

Because, Khun Pornpimol, Thais don't remember much from yesterdays, and simply want and want a rich tomorrow.

[Jack Mountain]

Moving a civil servant is enough to remove a prime minister.

Incredible

Even show up in a TV cooking program is enough ...

[Tatsujin]

Moving a civil servant is enough to remove a prime minister.

Incredible

No, moving a Civil Servant and replacing him with a relative of Thaksin (again) as a reward is nepotism and is enough to remove a Prime Minister.

[Tatsujin]

Moving a civil servant is enough to remove a prime minister.

Incredible

No, moving a Civil Servant and replacing him with a relative of Thaksin (again) as a reward is nepotism and is enough to remove a Prime Minister.

[noitom]

Thais only understand that everything is for sale. Take my mind, my body and my soul, but just pay me. That's all I care about - what's in it for me? Law and order is for fools who can't buy their way out.

[Thait Spot]

Moving a civil servant is enough to remove a prime minister.

Incredible

It's high time that the 2 biggest feeders of corruption - nepotism and cronyism - were banished from Thailand.

Breaking the law is enough to fire a prime minister in the same way as it would for a tuk tuk driver.

It's high time the laws were applied to all. Yingluck and Red Bull heir included

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited April 17, 2014 by Thait Spot

[issanaus]

Thais only understand that everything is for sale. Take my mind, my body and my soul, but just pay me. That's all I care about - what's in it for me? Law and order is for fools who can't buy their way out.

That's a bit of a generalisation that borders on cultural sterotyping.

If you were to say that about the polies I would general agree

There is good and bad in all countries, cultures and races Thai people are no different.

I know many good Thai people - but then I am fussy who I associate with.

edit: typos

Edited April 17, 2014 by issanaus

[chainarong]

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

Moving a civil servant is enough to remove a prime minister.

Incredible

I think at the end of the day the structure of the system needs modifying , where a special independent select committee sits, after a candidates Qualifications are assessed, these people are then signed off by the parliamentary secretary ,PM appoints no one and neither do the Ministers, this then prevents nepotism and replaces the generals as heads of departments.

[boomerangutang]

"We don't need to believe the dire predictions surrounding the appearance of the rare astronomical phenomenon known as the Blood Moon on April 15 to know that we are in deep trouble."

Go ahead and discuss political strife as much as you want, but leave silly superstition out of it. Just that one silly mention of 'blood moon' gives the headline writer his attention-grabbing headline. A slight reddish tinge on the moon, is 100% astronomical effect. It has absolutely nothing to do with this one crazy species despoiling the planet - unless you want it to.

[Thaddeus]

Moving a civil servant is enough to remove a prime minister.

Incredible

"I knew you'd say that"

Judge Dredd.

[Thaddeus]

Sanctity.

1.The state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly:

2. Ultimate importance and inviolability:

Knocking the sanctimonious attitude on the head would also help.

[Scamper]

The anecdote recounted here about Bush versus Gore is the perfect example for this backdrop. It is perhaps the most controversial decision the U.S. Supreme Court has ever made. For Gore - it must have been agonizing. And yet, he accepted the court's decision with grace. The point made surrounding this event in American history in this article is an excellent one. And it is this - deference to the court is not an acknowledgement of its infallibility. It is an acknowledgment of its finality. Gore made it clear that he strongly disagreed with the court's verdict. Yet he accepted it. Here as well, there will be those that vehement disagree with the court's decision. And yet they are bound to accept it. They have every right to protest it. But they have no right to prevent the court's ruling from being implemented. Prayuth recently spoke of the need to address " unprecedented incidents ".

" He also promised that the military would not let violence take over this country while assuring that the army would be well-prepared for any unprecedented incidents. " ( April 12, National News Bureau of Thailand )

​Not adhering to the court's decision would unquestionably be an " unprecedented incident ". Why ? Because it's never happened before. The army is sworn to protect the constitution and the institutions of law under the constitution. As are all Thais.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Scamper

[MMarlow]

I don't know for the accuracy of this but Saddam Hussein was supposed to have said " the law is whatever I write on a piece of paper ".

In Thailand the rule of law is under attack from all sides and none more so than PTP and their red attack dogs with their interpretation of " the law is whatever we say it is '.

"I don't know for the accuracy of this but Saddam Hussein was supposed to have said " the law is whatever I write on a piece of paper "

What is certain though is that it is completely irrelevant to this report.

[MMarlow]

Thais only understand that everything is for sale. Take my mind, my body and my soul, but just pay me. That's all I care about - what's in it for me? Law and order is for fools who can't buy their way out.

The OP opinion is about respecting courts decisions not about anyone selling their soul or anything else, nether is it about people buying their way out of trouble, that's just your usual xenophobic spin nonsense.

Edited April 17, 2014 by MMarlow

[animatic]

Moving a civil servant is enough to remove a prime minister.

Incredible

no, in normal circumstance it shouldn't be,

But it has already been determined to a breaking of a law.

That is what she would be removed for.

Breaking a law while in office,

whether taking pay for cooking pig with coke and talking politics on TV,

or,

removing one office holder so your own clans pawn can move up and solidify your control;

If a law is broken while in office, down you must fall.

How big a law is irrelevant, it is a law,

and the breaking is the fault, not the size of offence.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[tim armstrong]

'At the end of the day' as a farang living in Thailand I am just an observer and a guest here. While I might think that Thais should accept a western style of democracy, and the values of fairness, equality and respect for the law as final arbitrator, these ideas are not part of the history or the culture. Thais are very reluctant to change and the process that is now in play will continue and inevitably be painful. I hope the end result leads Thailand towards a more open society, and not just a change of 'deck chairs', as in so many ways the country could quickly lose its attraction for both business and tourism.

[virtualtraveller]

This country's legal system is indeed in need of reform for the third time in the history of present dynasty. For the sake of the whole country we should be applauding a judiciary that's getting tough on abusive leadership. Finally it's doing its job.

[Thai at Heart]

Moving a civil servant is enough to remove a prime minister.

Incredible

It was not just a matter of moving a civil servant TaH.

It was a move that was deemed to be with the intention of putting a family member into a powerful position to increase the family influence.

In this particular instance to put a family member in the position of police chief.

And that is what has been considered to be against the law.

Yes, indeed. But just think about it. Moving a civil servant can bring down a prime minister. It is absurd. Or is the charge nepotism. Bloody hell, that would catch thousands.

[Thai at Heart]

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

Moving a civil servant is enough to remove a prime minister.

Incredible

I think at the end of the day the structure of the system needs modifying , where a special independent select committee sits, after a candidates Qualifications are assessed, these people are then signed off by the parliamentary secretary ,PM appoints no one and neither do the Ministers, this then prevents nepotism and replaces the generals as heads of departments.

Probably the way forward. It's absurd that they can't be moved, and yet he has been blatenly political . she shouldn't be able to appoint a relative in a trice, but neither should he be untouchable.

Once again TIT

[boomerangutang]

​Not adhering to the court's decision would unquestionably be an " unprecedented incident ". Why ? Because it's never happened before. The army is sworn to protect the constitution and the institutions of law under the constitution. As are all Thais.

Why say an 'unprecedented incident' ? Thaksin didn't adhere to a court's decision. I think, in this case, her brother's snuffing of a court decision (and maintaining his popularity in the process), will give Yingluck confidence to snuff the current court's decision, when it rules against her. It's part of the Shinawatre credo: Talk haughtily about 'upholding rule of law' but if/when the law rules against you, snub it.

[Ulic]

The rule of law must prevail and no one is above the law. Bye bye the darling of Issan, your caddy has left you in the rough.

Thailand's problem is no political parties respect the law here in Thailand and neither do the military

[Thai at Heart]

​Not adhering to the court's decision would unquestionably be an " unprecedented incident ". Why ? Because it's never happened before. The army is sworn to protect the constitution and the institutions of law under the constitution. As are all Thais.

Why say an 'unprecedented incident' ? Thaksin didn't adhere to a court's decision. I think, in this case, her brother's snuffing of a court decision (and maintaining his popularity in the process), will give Yingluck confidence to snuff the current court's decision, when it rules against her. It's part of the Shinawatre credo: Talk haughtily about 'upholding rule of law' but if/when the law rules against you, snub it.

I think this characteristic of hypocrisy is pretty much universal in Thai politics.

The corrupt will smash corruption. Lol

[WoopyDoo]

Moving a civil servant is enough to remove a prime minister.

Incredible

No... removing a civil servant for the reasons of nepotism and Shinawatra ownership of the NSA is enough to remove a prime minister.

Justly so.