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

[WoopyDoo]

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

And neither do the so called police, or the UDD / red shirts.

[HeavyDrinker]

Siam at the end of the Ayutthaya period was in turmoil.

Understatement time but a poor analogy.

Throughout the entire period there was turmoil with powerful families and dynasties scrapping over the new found wealth pouring up the Chao Praya. Just look at the number of usurpers throughout. Makes today's shenanigans look like silly buggers in comparison.

The mind boggles as to what TV forum or the chatter in the expat clubs and institutions would have been like during that period.

[Rimbuman]

"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.

Right! Tooooooooo long ago and probably not much of a topic in primary school.

[fab4]

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 '.

Actually if you removed the chip from your shoulder and looked at recent cases objectively you would realise that the problem is the judges interpretation of " the law is whatever we say it is '.

It doesn't matter what the PTP says, the power is with the judges, and don't they (and others) know it.

[fab4]

​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.

Did you state that same opinion when abhisit removed the Police Chief illegally? Hence the "unprecedented" remark. abhisits does it, nothing happens, a Shinawatra does it, democracy is on a knife edge.

It's so obvious it's almost amusing.

[Baerboxer]

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

Incredible

Moving a civil servant to benefit ones own family and ensure a 'friend" is in a key position where you want him to be.

Incredible - that PTP never bothered to learn the rules, regulations and procedures for doing things properly. Or maybe the detail was lost as this move was just one of many to get "the right family members and friends" into the right positions?

[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 '.

"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.

Hightly relevant but not to a troll

[Baerboxer]

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 '.

Actually if you removed the chip from your shoulder and looked at recent cases objectively you would realise that the problem is the judges interpretation of " the law is whatever we say it is '.

It doesn't matter what the PTP says, the power is with the judges, and don't they (and others) know it.

Many Thais laws are written in a very non precise way and therefore leave room for interpretation either by the offices enforcing them or the judges applying them. There is also no convention of precedence which therefore gives the enforcement officers and judges far more discretion and therefore power in how they interpret them. This is very different to the Civil or Common Law practices in most expats will be familiar with.

However, it doesn't mean that PTP should say how the laws are interpreted, or that laws must always favor them, or that they are above the law. Failing to respect the law, and adhering to the correct procedures when it doesn't suit him have been a characteristic of all Thaksin's political party vehicles. He just can't, won't or doesn't want to learn that lesson.

[harkish]

Funny to take the Bush v Gore SC decision as an example - a case where the conservative majority went against their past jurisprudence and ideology of states rights to overturn a state's right to determine their choice for president - all so that they could put in place the president the Supreme Court conservative majority preferred. Ah, but I guess that should be the point of what we are seeing with the CC and NACC processes - one of them, to be determined through behind-closed-door discussions, will decide to kick out Yingluck, twisting things somehow so that they can also justify kicking out the rest of the cabinet, all so a new 'neutral' PM can be appointed.

Anyone who doesn't believe this is what will happen can, one month from now, point out to me how wrong I was.

[The stuttering parrot]

We'll sutep will never have to worry about any of this

The great peoples medium is above the law so he never have to face a court.

But thanks mr bias nation for the American history lesson.

[rickirs]

I always am entertained by foreigners who attempt to draw paralells with US political history to their own country's political (mis)events:

"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."

Some Background. The US electorial college that elects the President is not affected by the overall national total votes received by any one presidential candidate. Most of the 50 states award all electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives "relative" majority (just the highest vote count-can be less than 50%) of the state's total popular vote. Each state's electorial count is then gathered in the electorial college. There any candidate who receives an absolute majority (more that 50%) of all electoral votes nationally wins the Presidential election.

In the 2000 election GW Bush won a relative majority of 48.8% of the vote in Florida that would have given him all the state's electorial votes in the electorial college by a slim a margin of 1,784 votes. A subsequent automatic machine recount reduced his margin to only 327 votes. Bush's win in Florida would give him an absolute majority in the electroial college and the Presidency. Gore then exercised his right for a manual recount but only in four Florida counties that traditionally vote Democratic and should have given more votes for Gore. However, Florida law also required all counties to certify their election returns to the State within seven days of the electionand the manual recounts could notmeet this deadline. The State Republican Secretary of State then certified Bush as the winner in compliance with the mandated deadline. Her decision was challenged in the Florida Supreme Court by a 4-3 vote and ordered a statewide manual recount be completed before certification could be completed. In a further challenge by the Democrats, the U.S. Supreme Court (highest court in the US) voted 5-4 to discount the late manual recount. Among some of the Court's rationale was that the validity of "hanging chads" as votes followed a nonstandard and contradictory process involving personal decisions by numerous individuals even within the same county.

So it is incorrect to say that the US Supreme Court elected the US President. It would be correct to say that the State of Florida did give Bush the necessary electorial votes for an absolute majority in the electorial college to become President. Since 2000 the State of Florida has gone from manually hole punched ballots to voter ink-marked ballots that are machined read. Computers can produce official election results within a couple days. While there are still discrepencies in mismarked cards (ie., use of a slash or "x" instead of filling in the circle next to a candidate) , voter "intent" is easier to quickly discern and standardize by human review. In the following two Presidential elections the State of Florida has not had a repeat of the 2000 voter mess.

The Thai Government, CMPO, and the Election Commission need to learn from election issues to further improve and refine the electorial process necessary for assuring a democratic election and elected government.

[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 '.

Actually if you removed the chip from your shoulder and looked at recent cases objectively you would realise that the problem is the judges interpretation of " the law is whatever we say it is '.

It doesn't matter what the PTP says, the power is with the judges, and don't they (and others) know it.

No chips on my shoulder, French Fries are fattening.

[waza]

​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.

Did you state that same opinion when abhisit removed the Police Chief illegally? Hence the "unprecedented" remark. abhisits does it, nothing happens, a Shinawatra does it, democracy is on a knife edge.

It's so obvious it's almost amusing.

Good to see that Fab4 is still hard at work with his fabrications, still misleading the members with false information..

"The Central Administrative Court ruled yesterday that former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's order in 2009 to dismiss then-national police chief Patcharawat Wongsuwan should be revoked....... The court found that the Police Commission later resolved that Patcharawat did not commit any severe disciplinary wrongdoing in connection with the deadly police crackdown on anti-government protesters on October 7, 2008. The court ordered the former prime minister to have Patcharawat reinstated within 60 days after the final verdict is made.... In October 2009, Abhisit, who was then prime minister, ordered the dismissal of Patcharawat, who was national police chief in October 2008 when police cracked down on protesters gathering near the Parliament. The protesters had rallied against then-prime minister Somchai Wongsawat."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Court-faults-Abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief-30228115.html

"It's so obvious it's almost amusing."

[moonao]

The laws sanctity must be respected, first and foremost, by the judges.

[Thai at Heart]

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

Incredible

Moving a civil servant to benefit ones own family and ensure a 'friend" is in a key position where you want him to be.

Incredible - that PTP never bothered to learn the rules, regulations and procedures for doing things properly. Or maybe the detail was lost as this move was just one of many to get "the right family members and friends" into the right positions?

Well, why has no one ever bothered to put in a proper qualification process to tighten up these appointments?

Because they have always been dodgy grace and favour connected appointments. Its a problem yes, to appoint a family member to the civil service like this, but you reckon this is the first time it ever happened?

[Thai at Heart]

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

Well it can't be quite true that breaking any law leads to dismissal. That is too extreme. Something leading to corruption of the system must be the reason.

But there must also be a legal way to move a civil servant surely. To not have that would be ridiculous.

[Thaddeus]

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

Incredible

Moving a civil servant to benefit ones own family and ensure a 'friend" is in a key position where you want him to be.

Incredible - that PTP never bothered to learn the rules, regulations and procedures for doing things properly. Or maybe the detail was lost as this move was just one of many to get "the right family members and friends" into the right positions?

Well, why has no one ever bothered to put in a proper qualification process to tighten up these appointments?

Because they have always been dodgy grace and favour connected appointments. Its a problem yes, to appoint a family member to the civil service like this, but you reckon this is the first time it ever happened?

Most likely isn't the first time, but wouldn't trying to make it the last be an improvement?

[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

Well it can't be quite true that breaking any law leads to dismissal. That is too extreme. Something leading to corruption of the system must be the reason.

But there must also be a legal way to move a civil servant surely. To not have that would be ridiculous.

Much as we said when Clinton was impeached for not admitting he was cheating on the wife, when sandbagged under oath during a completely different reason for a deposition. Butt hat was purely personal affairs, not so ridiculous when it is in office doing clan business for increasing clan control of the country.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app