Experts Decry 'Judicial Coup' Against Yingluck

[Publicus]

Education: Bachelor's Degree in Letters (University of Oklahoma); Bachelor's Degree in Spanish (University of Oklahoma); Master of Arts in International Affairs (Ohio University); Master of Arts in Political Science (Ohio University); Ph.D. in Political Science (Northern Illinois University)

Paul has been gathering quite a few degrees. Most of which do not even touch on the field discussed. Political science is not Law. Political science does touch on the field, though. It would have been correct to see a point by point reasoning. I have been here quite a bit longer and follow politics from day one. Besides that I have a degree in law. If I wasn t so busy I d make a point by point reasoning why this decision is correct. For all people of the Sae Khu clan fan club required reading should be roo tan thaksin (one step ahead of Thaksin) vol. I and II. Lest we forget: payap is in Chiang Mai, the place where the Sae Khu clan settled down after moving here from China. Maybe Paul likes his job.

Maybe Dr. Paul has a legitimate point of view based on values that are thought through consciously and deliberately and which are communicated in his teaching and in his published works. I'd be pretty confident Dr Paul also happens to like his job and his choice of physical location, to include the continent.

The article is a legit (if brief) journalism report in anyone's MSM.

You anyway would know that in most jurisdictions a journalism news story is not admissible in a court of law as evidence of any kind in respect of any thing, and you would well know why. Accordingly, why should any lay reader of journalism take a few quotes by anyone in the article to draw broad and sweeping conclusions about anyone quoted in a news story as if it were either sworn testimony or a law school lecture.

It's also fact that when an individual commits to participating in a news story s/he should or probably knows the story is subject to editing to include being reduced. It is also subject to the reporter's treatment of it, all of which are beyond the control of the participant.

The several who criticize Dr Paul and the others who participated in the OP news story would need to recognize through their own individual brainpower that it's a news story and not a law lecture or seminar. If anyone would like, give it and me some time and I'll produce some viable legal analyses of the decision of the Thai court judges as soon as it may become available. You're probably not going to like it however, so perhaps you should be careful what you might wish for.

[Publicus]

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.

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'..

Moonao plays you guys like a fiddle.

And I love every minute and post of it.

[sirineou]

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

Yes, Maybe Kentucky State or Texas...lol...lol.

Oh deary me! Kentucky is a Commonwealth, not a state. I do hope you are not American.

Holly crap Batman the US has 49 states, some one quick remove the 50th star from the flag

[geoman1976]

does Thailand have a vote of confidence in the parliament in case the pm and ruling party is not doing their job? i know the brits do and i love the idea.

[mrtoad]

Chambers has no credibility in this field, another Red Rent Boy, just like Boppe Amsterdam and his ilk.

[mrtoad]

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

Yes, Maybe Kentucky State or Texas...lol...lol.

Oh deary me! Kentucky is a Commonwealth, not a state. I do hope you are not American.

Try to be clever, make sure you get the basics right.

[Publicus]

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

Yes, Maybe Kentucky State or Texas...lol...lol.

Oh deary me! Kentucky is a Commonwealth, not a state. I do hope you are not American.

Holly crap Batman the US has 49 states, some one quick remove the 50th star from the flag

Yes indeed Robin and good on you for noticing that! Yipes, make that the 15th star as KY entered the union of the states in 1792.

As Batman and Robin know, there are four commonwealth states in the United States - Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia. There is no legal difference today,between a state and a commonwealth. The only difference is slight and in the organizational structure of state government in the selection of judges.

A commonwealth has specific checks on the governor's appointment powers of state judges, which are appointed by the governor subject to examination and approval by a separately elected Governor's (Judiciary) Council.

Are you listening Thailand?

Wake up Somchai. You too Sarinya.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

I would be mindful of accusing people of being paid off. Don't forget u are in the hub of the silly defamation suit.

[15Peter20]

This obviously will hurt the Red Shirts propping up Pea Thai, but lets not forget that the main thing the Red Shirts want is the elected party to stay in power, not so much the Prime Minister in particular. After all, during the last successfully held election, people were voting along party lines more than along traditionally held 'cult of personality' lines. People who despised the Dems for their links with the army and its meddling in Thai politics voted PT even if they weren't fully paid up (!?) members of the Shin fan club.

So Yingluck's out. A body blow for PT and the Reds but they will not see this as the tipping point for a 'call to arms' because as anti-Thaksinistas will shortly find out, uppermost in their minds was not the retention of the Shinawatra clan in power, but the retention of an elected government. The sh&t will not hit the fan as far as they are concerned until the actual legally elected government is kicked out. Then there will be a violent backlash, and it would be understandable.

Hang on, I hear the rabid anti-Thaksinistas cry, if the reds just supported the retention of an elected government, would they kick up (or at least threaten to kick up) such a fuss if the elected government was of a Dem persuasion? The facile answer would be 'why not wait and see?'. But that could take a long time. The more salient answer would be 'No, but they wouldn't question the outcome of an election'. Think I'm wrong? Why? They never have before.

[Skywalker69]

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...?

On his way back to Denmark?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Publicus]

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...?

On his way back to Denmark?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Gee now that Yingluck is out, Chalerm is gone, Surapong is removed, who are you guys going to rag, bang and hammer on for your daily good times circle sessions?

I guess poor Jatuporn and Nattawat and Dr T's other sis will get more of your high school trashing of people you don't like than they did before yesterday.

For those over on this barricade, the job just got a lot easier with three major magnets of attraction now out of the picture.

Yesterday's big bust by the judges has already gone bust.

[MaiChai]

But all these PMs removed were puppets of Taksin. If PT were an independent entity with different people in control over the party over time , i would agree they have been unfairly treated . But this is all the manifest of one mans big ego. Even the new interim PM has constantly worked for Taksin in his businesses. This nepotism is not good for the country.

[sirineou]

The Wall Street Journal in an article titled ,

Thailand's Aristocratic Dead-Enders The royalists who can't win an election stage a judicial coup.

said earlier today:

"Royalist forces struck another blow against Thai democracy Wednesday when the country's Constitutional Court staged a judicial coup and removed Prime MinisterYingluck Shinawatra from office. Her supposed crime: having impure motives when she transferred a bureaucrat three years ago. For the third time in a decade, this unaccountable institution controlled by the aristocracy has removed an elected leader for dubious reasons."

further on it went to say:

"The situation would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. The conflict has emboldened extremists on both sides who threaten to start a civil war. That would pit rural parts of the country, particularly in the north, that support the populist Shinawatra family against the pro-royalist urban areas and the south."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304431104579547340574302518

Edited May 7, 2014 by sirineou

[Emptyset]

I notice most of those attacking the ruling aren't pointing out where the ruling was wrong, instead they resort to name calling, inflammatory language, or ad hominem attacks on the judges or those not actually involved in the case.

I wonder why that is?

Having read the thread up to this point, it seems to me that the vast majority of "name calling, inflammatory language, or ad hominem attacks" is by people who wish to discredit the opinions given by the experts in the OP. These people aren't pointing out why the experts are wrong, just trying to disparage their credentials, even to the point of suggesting that Paul Chambers, a well respected name in Thai studies has been paid off by Thaksin. That seems particuarly ridiculous as there's absolutely nothing controversial about what Chambers said - indeed, the overwhelming academic consensus is with him (yes, including those with credentials from Havard - actually the legal expert quoted in the OP is Havard trained, though I wouldn't describe him as independent - ANU and the like).

I'd actually be surprised if there were an academic who studies Thai politics who disagrees with anything Chambers said in the OP, regardless of their overall position on the government. If there's one foreign scholar who doesn't believe that courts have been politicized with the consequence that they have consistently overstepped their legal bounds and put the breaks on legitimate acts of an elected govt ('juristocracy'), I'd like to hear his or her reasoning. Of course, you could find Thai academics who'll justify anything the establishment does, but few scholars from outside of Thailand buy into that as the role of the academic is to try to see things as clearly as possible.

And that this is just another decision amongst a string of similar recent rulings by the court which has been based on "moral" reasoning rather than reference to the law is as clear as day, given the court said as much in their ruling*. See also the rulings on the constitutional amendments, the senate and the 2 trillion baht loan bill. Only those who support the PDRC and let their hatred for Thaksin cloud their judgement seem to disagree. In fact I'm pretty sure most people even on here know deep down that these decisions are absurd, but they want to maintain a pretense that they're on the side of law and the constitution against a 'criminal' government. lol. Come on, why not just admit you hate Thaksin and anything goes if it gets his influence out of Thai politics?

And of course there are plenty of good reasons to hate Thaksin and I agree Thai politics would be much healthier without his influence. This government has been so poor it's hard to defend it or have any investment in whether it stays or goes. Problem is I doubt the other side would be much better. Perhaps even worse. And getting the govt out will necessarily involve massive chaos, upheaval and a retreat from democracy. Anyway, that's the route things are going down already, so it doesn't really matter how I feel about it one way or the other. But I'd hope even if I were for the PDRC, I could still admit that transfering a civil servant wasn't illegal. Neither was trying to amend the constitution. And pushing for a fully elected senate does not constitute an 'attempt to overthrow democracy'. If I supported the PDRC, I guess I'd have to say that the law is pretty much irrelevant at this point and this is the way the game has to be played. Yingluck had to go and if it was necessary for the court to overstep its bounds, so be it. At least that's an honest position.

*'Although such a move was legal, the court ruled, it was done too quickly and without "moral principles". The court also ruled that the nine current cabinet ministers who were in office at the time of the transfer must also step down – among them the labour minister, finance minister and foreign minister, Thai media reported.'

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/07/thai-court-orders-yingluck-shinawatra-resign

[smutcakes]

The big problem is going to start when they try and have the next election. The reds will block some polls like the PDRC did, and the courts will change their minds and not nullify it like they did previously.

[Thai at Heart]

The big problem is going to start when they try and have the next election. The reds will block some polls like the PDRC did, and the courts will change their minds and not nullify it like they did previously.

Well the court and the dems don't care. And the dems and the court have the army to sort it out when inevitably it goes wrong.

[noitom]

Thais making fools of themselves and their systems.

[HerIndoors]

To all the Red Shirt haters posting here ... whether or not Thaksin is corrupt or not is not the point; they are all corrupt. The point is that there is no transparency in legislative and judicial arms of government. Given that the coup makers of 2006 set up this court is it any wonder they would come out with this result. The fact that Thais have permit and to some extent even foster a corrupt legal system gives proof that they have brought all this mess upon themselves. As I have said before, I am not convinced that the Thais are capable of nurturing a functioning democracy as we know it.

[ianf]

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.

I would be mindful of accusing people of being paid off. Don't forget u are in the hub of the silly defamation suit.

Read my post: "Its a huge possibility (but not necessarily fact)"

[gangrel]

To all the Red Shirt haters posting here ... whether or not Thaksin is corrupt or not is not the point; they are all corrupt. The point is that there is no transparency in legislative and judicial arms of government. Given that the coup makers of 2006 set up this court is it any wonder they would come out with this result.

Your red shirt facts are nearly a decade off.

The court was established with the "People's Constitution" of 1997.

[geriatrickid]

To all the Red Shirt haters posting here ... whether or not Thaksin is corrupt or not is not the point; they are all corrupt. The point is that there is no transparency in legislative and judicial arms of government. Given that the coup makers of 2006 set up this court is it any wonder they would come out with this result.

Your red shirt facts are nearly a decade off.

The court was established with the "People's Constitution" of 1997.

Nope, he's right. The current structure and rules were established in 2007. The Court and the Constitution of 1997 were dissolved following the military coup of 2006. I believe that it is a fair statement to say that the majority of the current judges owe their positions to the former military dictatorship.

[Mentors]

Even this Judicial coup can not bring the clock on hold.

The time of the old guards is running out. Big changes ahead.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Mentors

[boomerangutang]

Thank goodness there's one branch of government which is not under the control of the Shinawatre clan.

Note, a couple of days before T was ousted from the PM's chair, he played golf with top army brass. You can bet he had heard rumors of a coup, so was doing what he could to allay it. Didn't work.

[dracula]

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.

It's very good article because it shows how the courts are working in the favour of the Bangkok elites who doesn't want to give up the power. If Americans wouldn't have warned them to accept the results of the election back in 2010, I bet they would have annulled those as well. You can say that PTP has bought votes and the elections were not fair, but be sure that other parties do the same. Those people you see on Bangkok streets so called democrats, are paid to be there and demonstrate. Actually I think Thaksin was the best prime minister Thailand had in the last 15 years since I live here.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[daboyz1]

Conveniently, these 'experts' overlook the simple fact that for two years Yingluck has been a clear proxy for a fugitive criminal, and that should not have been tolerated by the courts. She's lucky to have made it this far, if the courts were draconian, and the result of the verdict means yet another 'judicial coup' against an elected govt, it's only because the elected govt is time and again nothing more than a family proxy. Certainly not in the spirit of democracy.

Bingo. Let's not forget the 5 am amnesty bill for the man in Dubai. I can't help but think that's the real reason for all of this, even though they don't come right out and say that. Thaksin still has another sister (puppet) that he can use as his proxy. I'll be curious to see what her role will be in the future.

[Mentors]

Thank goodness there's one branch of government which is not under the control of the Shinawatre clan.

There are other clans much longer around...

[monkeycountry]

I completely agree - and it is not only the constitution court.

The criminal court where I live always seem to convict criminals, and let non-criminals go free. I have a strong feeling they are completely biased against criminals.

[issanaus]

What I find interesting is that the various incarnations of the Shin Dynasty have repeatedly said that the independent bodies are stacked against it and the selection process for those who hold office is essentially incestuous. If we take this perception as being the driver in their responses then I wonder what changes they sought to make to the situation.

The only thing that comes to mind is the changes that they tried to force through (in very questionable ways) to the composition of the senate, restrictions as to who could be senators(ie family members of the lower house)and ability to hold office for consecutive periods. When you take these two issues in combination it would appear possible that the motivation for what was done/ not done was with the intention of gaining control of the courts which would have removed the checks and balances as well as ensured that if PTP lost control of the lower house they would have been in a position to do exactly what they accused the other camp of doing.

[gabruce]

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?

My opinion. There is no technical analysis because the ruling is legally correct and no real expert wants to look stupid by releasing a technical analysis that has no legal basis.

The defense. I'm not actually PM now. Caretaker PM doesn't count. I didn't do it. I just signed whatever was put in front of me. I did no wrong. Appointing family members to high positions is the right way to run a country.

Personally I was surprised the entire cabinet didn't go because I thought the constitution said that the entire cabinet went if the PM went. That's probably why I'm not a judge.

Personally I think that Thailand needs to develop a little patience. If the Red Shirts in 2010 were a bit patient there would have been elections. On the other hand Central World would have missed a renovation opportunity. If the PDRC were a bit patient - the country might have been bankrupt - but there would have been an election. If the government was a bit patient now and delayed elections by a further 3 months, and allowed a reform referendum, there might be an election.

Okay, reading this now, I think I'm wrong. No answers here.

[gangrel]

To all the Red Shirt haters posting here ... whether or not Thaksin is corrupt or not is not the point; they are all corrupt. The point is that there is no transparency in legislative and judicial arms of government. Given that the coup makers of 2006 set up this court is it any wonder they would come out with this result.

Your red shirt facts are nearly a decade off.

The court was established with the "People's Constitution" of 1997.

Nope, he's right. The current structure and rules were established in 2007. The Court and the Constitution of 1997 were dissolved following the military coup of 2006.

The differences in the "structure and rules" of the Court between the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions?

Zero.

He's wrong and you're wrong.