Experts Decry 'Judicial Coup' Against Yingluck

By Khaosod Eng.

BANGKOK — Legal experts are calling the Constitutional Court's decision to oust Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra an abuse of judicial power.

In a verdict delivered this afternoon, judges ruled that Ms. Yingluck and some members of her Cabinet unlawfully removed the head of the National Security Council (NSC) in 2011.

For months, supporters of the government have accused the court of collaborating with anti-government protesters in their bid to oust Ms. Yingluck from her caretaker position.

“I think once again we have a judicial coup in Thailand," political science Professor Paul Chambers told Khaosod English, noting that it is not the first time the court has struck down Prime Ministers and political parties allied to Ms. Yingluck's faction.

Over the past decade, the same Constitutional Court has ousted three Thaksin-backed PMs, invalidated two elections won by pro-Thaksin parties, and dissolved two parties that have pledged their allegiance to Mr. Thaksin.

“Thailand has a form of democracy, but there is no real balance or checks," said Professor Chambers, who teaches at Payap University in northern Thailand. "What we have here is juristocracy – the judicial branch is head and heels above the legislative and executive branches of the government, and it’s supported by traditional institutions.”

Professor Chambers said he worries that the Constitutional Court’s decision may further erode people’s faith in the legitimacy of Thailand’s constitutional democracy.

“This constant replay of courts issuing ridiculous verdicts may cause people who have believed in Thailand’s democracy to stop believing in it,” said Professor Chambers.

Chiang Mai University law lecturer Somchai Preechasilpakul also criticised the court's verdict today, which he said reflects the enormous amount of power currently wielded by Thailand's judicial branch.

“The verdict appears to indicate that all Prime Ministers who do not come from the Democrat Party will be eventually removed by the so-called independent agencies,” Mr. Somchai said, citing the removal of former PMs Samak Sundhornvej and Somchai Wongsawat.

“This is a big problem that society should be debating: is it really fair and legitimate to give such independent agencies, who have no connection to the people whatsoever, the power to regulate the politicians, who have a connection to a lot of people through elections?”

Independent Legal advisor Verapat Pariyawong called today's verdict "a full blown version of judicial coup" reminiscent of the 2008 Constitutional Court decision to remove then Prime Minister Samak Sundhornvej from office because of his appearance on a cooking show.

“It is sad to see essentially the same court repeating essentially the same mistakes today,” Mr. Verapat said.

“The 2008 case was one of the principal reasons that led to the rise of an anti-Thaksin government and the 2010 massacre of Redshirts. One can only hope that the political outcome will be different this time. But to be realistic, once the rule of law in the chamber is gone, all is left is probably violence on the street.”

According to Mr. Verapat, now the important question is whether or not the current government will be able to keep the situation on the streets under control.

“[Yingluck] has the unique ability to filter her brother's hot headed thinking, but if she is gone, the situation can change very quickly for the worse,” Mr. Verapat warned.

Source: http://en.khaosod.co.th/detail.php?newsid=1399469258&typecate=06&section=

-- Khaosod English 2014-05-07

If thats the case, then an investigation should be opened and they should be held to account.
Personally, I believe the post 2006, military approved judges, have abused their power.

Really good article by the way

Just maybe if Thaksin was a law abiding society the judicial system would not be "against" him ... not that it is

I would be interested to see what legal experts from outside Thailand think of this as the courts do appear little more than a puppet for the so called elite. The problem with opinions from here is that most are too biased to give a balanced opinion form either side.

This in no way is an exoneration of Yinluck but it seems the courts are only interested in one side of laws

Interestingly enough, none fundament their "expert" opinion citing any facts or arguments.

[Yingluck] has the unique ability to filter her brother's hot headed thinking, but if she is gone, the situation can change very quickly for the worse, Mr. Verapat warned.

More threats from the Reds.

All the more reason to finally get rid of Thaksin once and for all.

Over the past decade, the same Constitutional Court has ousted three Thaksin-backed PMs, invalidated two elections won by pro-Thaksin parties, and dissolved two parties that have pledged their allegiance to Mr. Thaksin.

Or it could be, any and all associated with Thaksin are corrupt criminals and get caught?

Just maybe if Thaksin was a law abiding society the judicial system would not be "against" him ... not that it is

“[Yingluck] has the unique ability to filter her brother's hot headed thinking, but if she is gone, the situation can change very quickly for the worse,” Mr. Verapat warned.

Isn't allowing a convicted criminal/non-elected person rule the country by proxy against the constitution as well ?

I thought the reason she has been given the heave ho is because of conflict of interest and one suspects the conflict of interest she got sacked for is minor compared to the conflict of interest going on between her and her brother...

So where is the technical analysis of the ruling? I see a lot of editorials and commentary but no scholarly analysis. Where are the constitutional scholars? Does a straightforward reading of the constitution plainly forbid certain actions of which the PM is known to have done?

Why doesn't political science Professor Paul Chambers explain precisely why the justices are wrong in their ruling?

'Experts'? What experts? Just more PTP/Red/UDD sour grapes.

Wait until tomorrow when the NACC decides to indict her for negligence in the rice scam. We will get the same judicial coup arguments.

so whats new with this scheming bunch of s***tbags that will stoop to any new low to remove a democratically elected PM

There will be blood

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Some "experts."

Chiang Mai University law lecturer Somchai Preechasilpakul also criticised the court's verdict today,

Another Red stooge from Chiang Mai who regularly writes this Red rubbish for the Nation.

What is that these experts don't understand about corruption and abuse of power?

If thats the case, then an investigation should be opened and they should be held to account.

Personally, I believe the post 2006, military approved judges, have abused their power.

Really good article by the way

No, it's not a really good article. It's an article that you - really, really predictably - happen to agree with. Bring back your sweet pug persona - it made your all-too-predictable posts more amusing.

So where is the technical analysis of the ruling? I see a lot of editorials and commentary but no scholarly analysis. Where are the constitutional scholars? Does a straightforward reading of the constitution plainly forbid certain actions of which the PM is known to have done?

Why doesn't political science Professor Paul Chambers explain precisely why the justices are wrong in their ruling?

Because he's not interested in open-mindedly analysing the situation. He's the sort of academic that forces the facts to fit his own opinion - which is probably why he is where he is and not at Oxford, Yale or the Australian National University.

Professor Chambers, who teaches at Payap University in northern Thailand and is otherwise unemployable outside of Northern Thailand.

Chambers is a nobody Red stooge.

and see as he is directly getting involved in Thai politics, arrest him now/deport him....same as the Indian, Where is the "CAPO" now...the esteemed minster for ear medicine...?

The Desert Rat's parties and it's MPs do have an unfortunate habit of getting caught lying, cheating, stealing etc. etc. and then when they have to pay for their crimes they whinge, bitch, moan etc. etc.

You'd have thought the penny might have dropped by now......

The Desert Rat's parties and it's MPs do have an unfortunate habit of getting caught lying, cheating, stealing etc. etc. and then when they have to pay for their crimes they whinge, bitch, moan etc. etc.

You'd have thought the penny might have dropped by now......

I dont really care what your hymn sheet says but Yingluck was ousted for removing an individual from office who had an allegiance to the other side. Not for lying, cheating, stealing.

Abhisit and Suthep would never be removed from office with 8 cabinet members for such a minor indescretion. Removed for being on a cooking show yet letting the permanent Transport secretary hide 1 Billion Baht in his wardrobe.

Everybody wants reforms but we need to start at the top

Professor Chambers, who teaches at Payap University in northern Thailand and is otherwise unemployable outside of Northern Thailand.

Chambers is a nobody Red stooge.

should have just said a nobody..after a new contract..our very own r.amsterdam..

It was a better reason then a TV show this time.

ok lets sewe some fairness in this, we have the opinion of two red fascists, lets get the opinions of a coule of yellow clowns and then the opinion of 2 totally unbiased people, I guarantee they will be all different. Amazes nme when they use biased drop kicks to get opinions, obviously too lazy to get actual unbiased people involved.

If thats the case, then an investigation should be opened and they should be held to account.

Personally, I believe the post 2006, military approved judges, have abused their power.

Really good article by the way

Yes, well, you would, wouldn't you? You are so red you could paint the walls, and so could this sham 'Professor' who has been trotted out to try to add some gravitas to a no-hope thuggish political 'party'..

Interestingly enough, none fundament their "expert" opinion citing any facts or arguments.

What on earth does all that mean? This is an ENGLISH language forum, not a pidgin English forum.

Professor Chambers, who teaches at Payap University in northern Thailand and is otherwise unemployable outside of Northern Thailand.

Chambers is a nobody Red stooge.

Yes and he needs to remember that it is the job of a criminal court to make sure that criminals do not attain positions of power - this is why it is not only lawful but RIGHT that she was removed. Chambers is a flake who is noticeably employed by a red shirt University - worth checking his degree credentials me thinks!!

I would be interested to see what legal experts from outside Thailand think of this as the courts do appear little more than a puppet for the so called elite. The problem with opinions from here is that most are too biased to give a balanced opinion form either side.

This in no way is an exoneration of Yinluck but it seems the courts are only interested in one side of laws

It's not simply bias that is the problem. Those in Thailand who hold certain opinions on the actions of the judiciary can not freely speak out. Those outside Thailand espouse opinions that can not be published in Thailand.

So where is the technical analysis of the ruling? I see a lot of editorials and commentary but no scholarly analysis. Where are the constitutional scholars? Does a straightforward reading of the constitution plainly forbid certain actions of which the PM is known to have done?

Why doesn't political science Professor Paul Chambers explain precisely why the justices are wrong in their ruling?

Throughout Thaksin's controversial political career he has manipulated everything from fellow politicians, senators and academics to lawyers, journalists and so on. If you research Thaksin on the internet you'll learn the extent of his manipulation of others, such as paying Senators 100,000 baht a month and the equivalent in personal payments to MPs, not necessarily of his own party. He has twisted and deceived and lied at every opportunity. That's his history. Read what many fellow politicians have said about him. There are 1000s of references throughout the net. With that in mind, let me suggest that Thaksin has also paid off Professor Paul Chambers. Its a huge possibility (but not necessarily fact) and it would fit in very firmly with what we know about how Thaksin does business. For example, if we're talking about business, this is a man who has 'huge interests in gold mnes in Uganda', except there is no gold deposits (or very little) in Uganda. So the gold he is selling comes from the West Congo, which is illegally smuggled into Uganda and sold as Ugandan gold. There are massive legal and humane issues associated with this business. But this is a Thaksin business and it is how he works. Everything and everyone can be bought. Unfortunately for him he has failed to buy the judiciary - although he has tried very hard. If he had of managed to buy the judiciary then by now Thaksin would be in complete dictatorial control of Thailand. So thank goodness for the independence and intelligence of the judiciary.

Khaosod has really started to make the rounds with a series of " articles " that frame a firmly established UDD narrative - a narrative that Pheu Thai is zealously pursuing. Predictably, every one of their " experts " are firmly on the UDD side of the universe. Khaosod would have us believe that there are no legal experts who feel that the Constitutional Court has acquitted themselves well. But there are. Only you won't find them in Khaosod's fictional and delusional pages. One could spend more quality time reading the comics. A disgrace to journalism.

Professor Chambers, who teaches at Payap University in northern Thailand and is otherwise unemployable outside of Northern Thailand.

Chambers is a nobody Red stooge.

Spot on - can you imagine him getting a job outside Thailand? Yeah, in some red-neck US state somewhere, maybe ...

This might explain things further - note who funds it ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payap_University

Wow the TVF yellow cheerleading squad have progressed from being small-minded keyboard warriors to being able to denounce legal opinions from professors of law.