Experts Decry 'Judicial Coup' Against Yingluck

gangrel · May 8, 2014

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 · May 8, 2014

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 · May 8, 2014

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 · May 8, 2014

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 · May 8, 2014

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 · May 8, 2014

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 · May 8, 2014

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 · May 8, 2014

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 · May 8, 2014

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 · May 8, 2014

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 · May 8, 2014

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 · May 8, 2014

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 · May 8, 2014

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 · May 8, 2014

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 · May 8, 2014

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 · May 8, 2014

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...