Experts Decry 'Judicial Coup' Against Yingluck

[gangrel]

Those people you see on Bangkok streets so called democrats, are paid to be there and demonstrate.

Unsubstantiated nonsense.

Actually I think Thaksin was the best prime minister Thailand had in the last 15 years since I live here.

As he and his nominees have been running Thailand for 11 of those 15 years show perhaps someone else needs to be given a chance.

[dracula]

Those people you see on Bangkok streets so called democrats, are paid to be there and demonstrate.

Unsubstantiated nonsense.

Actually I think Thaksin was the best prime minister Thailand had in the last 15 years since I live here.

As he and his nominees have been running Thailand for 11 of those 15 years show perhaps someone else needs to be given a chance.

Then those, someone else should earn their right to rule via elections not via all kind of coups! Democracy first rule is election!

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[gangrel]

Those people you see on Bangkok streets so called democrats, are paid to be there and demonstrate.

Unsubstantiated nonsense.

Actually I think Thaksin was the best prime minister Thailand had in the last 15 years since I live here.

As he and his nominees have been running Thailand for 11 of those 15 years show perhaps someone else needs to be given a chance.

Then those, someone else should earn their right to rule via elections not via all kind of coups! Democracy first rule is election

Rule of law is the first rule of law.

She was removed for breaking that.

[newcomer71]

All those people insulting lecturers, I would love to see you insult them face to face, not behind a keyboard...

Sad men you are.

[dracula]

Those people you see on Bangkok streets so called democrats, are paid to be there and demonstrate.

Unsubstantiated nonsense.

Actually I think Thaksin was the best prime minister Thailand had in the last 15 years since I live here.

As he and his nominees have been running Thailand for 11 of those 15 years show perhaps someone else needs to be given a chance.

Then those, someone else should earn their right to rule via elections not via all kind of coups! Democracy first rule is election

Rule of law is the first rule of law.

She was removed for breaking that.[/quote

So lawful! When did the laws in Thailand worked independently? Never! The laws are applied to favour the rich as they have the money pay the corrupted judges! And by the way. As a prime minister you have the power and the right to appoint people. This court shitty decision was made based on a stupid constitution interpretation about her not being moral. What else they can say? Even the court admit that She had the right to appoint people in positions.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[pmh2009]

In the end it's all about it's not about whose right or wrong --- It's just about Power and Money for the 1%!!! As is usual in all countries in the world!!! So if you're not in the 1% why bother? ... these things will never change, only the strongest & fittest survive... the 1%!

[tingtongteesood]

Who are they ? Are they Thaksin lovers ( seems so ). Why should we care about their red biased opinions ? They make it sound like Thaksin and cronies were little angel's who never ever did anything wrong. What a load of crap !! Khaosod <deleted> at it's worst.

[ggt]

remove then Prime Minister Samak Sundhornvej from office because of his appearance on a cooking show.

How in Hades...is this grounds for removal from office...was he cooking up corruption?

Sounds like this bunch of Judicial dictators...are making things up as they go along...

[Bluespunk]

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?

Let's face it, it could well be.

[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.

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

Well, up to you. If you put my name in there in that context, I would call a lawyer. Don't believe that your estimation of what constitutes defamation matches with the Thai legal one.

There are thousands of things that might be a huge possibility which might not be, such as somchais wife being a *******, or possibly my old boss being on the *********.

[Bluespunk]

remove then Prime Minister Samak Sundhornvej from office because of his appearance on a cooking show.

How in Hades...is this grounds for removal from office...was he cooking up corruption?

Sounds like this bunch of Judicial dictators...are making things up as they go along...

He lied about receiving it either under oath or in court, can't remember which.

[citizen33]

I'd say that more international experts than not are likely to concur with the view expressed in the OP. The concept of 'juristocracy' has a certain ring to it, and Thailand may well emerge as a modern case study of the 'juridification' of the political sphere (see: Teubner etc). There was a lively debate on this topic in the US following the Florida debacle and the controversial Bush election victory, and I suppose the TVF yellows might find a champion among the academic lawyers on the conservative side of that argument. Overall though, I'd say most see the dangers if the judiciary continually overrides the will of the executive and legislature. Incidentally I think that aspiring black letter lawyers who talk about the absence of a point by point rebuttal of the Constitutional Court's ruling need to appreciate that the debate will centre more on the constitutionality of the present institutions (including the legitimacy of post-coup institutions), the pattern of judgements over a period of time and the political context in which those judgements are made. I'm not a constitutional lawyer and indeed now work in the health field (with an interest in public sector contracts), but I did work for many years in a socio-legal research centre at one of the famous universities mentioned above by a poster seeking to insult Professor Chambers, and can make an informed guess about what former colleagues will think..

[Jonmarleesco]

First we have 'This constant replay of courts issuing ridiculous verdicts may cause people who have believed in Thailand’s democracy to stop believing in it ...'

And then ' [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 ...'

A real contradiction in terms: Chambers's naive idea of a functioning democracy vs a filter for the thinking of the unelected, and absent, leader of the governing party.

It might also be worth Chambers's reviewing the disputed 2000 US presidential election, which was ultimately decided by a US court. And look what the US - and the world - got!

[sojourner007]

NY Times has just reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/world/asia/court-orders-thai-leader-removed-from-office.htm):

"The decision to remove Ms. Yingluck is “total nonsense in a democratic society,” said Ekachai Chainuvati, the deputy dean of the law faculty at Siam University in Bangkok.

“This is what I would call a juristocracy — a system of government governed by judges,” Mr. Ekachai said."

[casualbiker]

remove then Prime Minister Samak Sundhornvej from office because of his appearance on a cooking show.

How in Hades...is this grounds for removal from office...was he cooking up corruption?

Sounds like this bunch of Judicial dictators...are making things up as they go along...

Read this for clarification :

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samak_Sundaravej

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Cricketnut]

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

Then if what you say is true you would have no comment. There is a certain amount of truth in sarcasm...

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Cricketnut]

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)"

Well, up to you. If you put my name in there in that context, I would call a lawyer. Don't believe that your estimation of what constitutes defamation matches with the Thai legal one.

There are thousands of things that might be a huge possibility which might not be, such as somchais wife being a *******, or possibly my old boss being on the *********.

Someone needs to tread carefully. Som na na.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Cricketnut]

remove then Prime Minister Samak Sundhornvej from office because of his appearance on a cooking show.

How in Hades...is this grounds for removal from office...was he cooking up corruption?

Sounds like this bunch of Judicial dictators...are making things up as they go along...

He lied about receiving it either under oath or in court, can't remember which.

Does it really matter! A cooking show for crying out loud.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Cricketnut]

There will be blood

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Too true.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Cricketnut]

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.

A bit like the Nation one could say...

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[casualbiker]

remove then Prime Minister Samak Sundhornvej from office because of his appearance on a cooking show.

How in Hades...is this grounds for removal from office...was he cooking up corruption?

Sounds like this bunch of Judicial dictators...are making things up as they go along...

He lied about receiving it either under oath or in court, can't remember which.

Does it really matter! A cooking show for crying out loud.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

In your mind "just a cooking show " in others a clear breach of ministerial rules AND then lying about it.. actually for a Thaksin affiliated PM ... par for the course!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited May 8, 2014 by casualbiker

[Bluespunk]

remove then Prime Minister Samak Sundhornvej from office because of his appearance on a cooking show.

How in Hades...is this grounds for removal from office...was he cooking up corruption?

Sounds like this bunch of Judicial dictators...are making things up as they go along...

He lied about receiving it either under oath or in court, can't remember which.

Does it really matter! A cooking show for crying out loud.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Yes it was stupid on both sides if it was just about the show or the amount. However he lied about it, god knows why and he got caught out. If he was prepared to cut corners and lie to pocket petty amounts of money he was clearly unfit for the office he held.

[MobileContent]

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

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

Yes that's why the CC is called a kangaroo court. Samak was a bad guy to be honest but he was removed from a cooking show for 3000 Baht? Chuan Lekpai has protested his brother innocence in the late 80's when he decided to walk away with 200 million Baht ++ that he took as a director from Thai Farmers Bank.

Let's see the next election. PTP will be hit badly but BjT, CPP and CT party will clean up the next election and once again will join alliances with the North and Northeast and the Democrats are out once again.

Last time the Bangkok elite had a dislike for Chatchai of Chart Pattana and they removed him by the army.

The North and Northeast should accept that whoever they vote for will not be accepted by the Bangkok elite, except it is the Democrat Party and the godfather from Samui.

[casualbiker]

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

Yes that's why the CC is called a kangaroo court. Samak was a bad guy to be honest but he was removed from a cooking show for 3000 Baht? Chuan Lekpai has protested his brother innocence in the late 80's when he decided to walk away with 200 million Baht ++ that he took as a director from Thai Farmers Bank.

Let's see the next election. PTP will be hit badly but BjT, CPP and CT party will clean up the next election and once again will join alliances with the North and Northeast and the Democrats are out once again.

Last time the Bangkok elite had a dislike for Chatchai of Chart Pattana and they removed him by the army.

The North and Northeast should accept that whoever they vote for will not be accepted by the Bangkok elite, except it is the Democrat Party and the godfather from Samui.

Samak and 3,000b . I don't understand .. he lied about being paid. His salary from both shows was 80,000b. He didn't want to relinquish the shows because he had already been told by Thaksin that he would be PM for only a short time as he (Thaksin) was coming back .. go figure Thaksin was at least right about something!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Crushdepth]

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.

As far as political science and Thailand goes you can take ANU off the list of respectable institutions, they're an embarrassment.

[sirineou]

remove then Prime Minister Samak Sundhornvej from office because of his appearance on a cooking show.

How in Hades...is this grounds for removal from office...was he cooking up corruption?

Sounds like this bunch of Judicial dictators...are making things up as they go along...

He lied about receiving it either under oath or in court, can't remember which.

I am glad to hear that Thailand is so moral and where corruption is repugnant that a PM would be removed for lying about being on a cooking show.

[fab4]

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.

Actually you're the one who's wrong.

The Constitution Court came into being as a a result of the 1997 Constitution. The Court had 15 members, 7 from the Judiciary and 8 selected from a panel. This was disbanded and replaced by a Constitutional Tribunal as a result of the 2006 coup. The Tribunal had 9 members, all from the judiciary. The 2007 Constitution brought the old Constitutional Court back with 9 members, 5 Judges, 2 experts in political science and 2 experts in Law whose terms last 9 years.

So the differences in structure and rules of the Court between the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions are not zero by any means.

Incidentally one judge and one Expert in Law have resigned since it's formation. That means the rest are still throwbacks to the Military Junta that put them there.

Edited May 8, 2014 by fab4

[Bluespunk]

remove then Prime Minister Samak Sundhornvej from office because of his appearance on a cooking show.

How in Hades...is this grounds for removal from office...was he cooking up corruption?

Sounds like this bunch of Judicial dictators...are making things up as they go along...

He lied about receiving it either under oath or in court, can't remember which.

I am glad to hear that Thailand is so moral and where corruption is repugnant that a PM would be removed for lying about being on a cooking show.

He lied about receiving payment. That is he proved himself open to corrupt practises and was unable to follow the law. Not ideal in a PM I'd say.

[gangrel]

remove then Prime Minister Samak Sundhornvej from office because of his appearance on a cooking show.

How in Hades...is this grounds for removal from office...was he cooking up corruption?

Sounds like this bunch of Judicial dictators...are making things up as they go along...

Easy to get that interpretation when the actual occurence as described in italics is false. However, that false premise leads to the false interpretation.

[gangrel]

remove then Prime Minister Samak Sundhornvej from office because of his appearance on a cooking show.

How in Hades...is this grounds for removal from office...was he cooking up corruption?

Sounds like this bunch of Judicial dictators...are making things up as they go along...

He lied about receiving it either under oath or in court, can't remember which.

Does it really matter! A cooking show for crying out loud.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Yes it was stupid on both sides if it was just about the show or the amount. However he lied about it, god knows why and he got caught out. If he was prepared to cut corners and lie to pocket petty amounts of money he was clearly unfit for the office he held.

His unsuitably amply demonstrated by the half dozen other criminal cases he was mired in, with two of them being convictions that he had under appeal.

If he hadn't delayed them all and then croaked, there was the very real possibility he'd have been in prison today.