Jump to content

Thai Foreign Min: Use of article 44 requires no clarification to foreign countries


webfact

Recommended Posts

Foreign Min: Use of article 44 requires no clarification to foreign countries

BANGKOK, 1 April 2015 (NNT) – The Minister of Foreign Affairs has stressed that Thailand is not required to provide an international explanation if the enforcement of article 44 becomes necessary.


The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gen Tanasak Patimapragorn has said that the international community understands the current situation in Thailand and is glad that Thailand is driving forward its reform according to the roadmap. He added that the overview of the country’s economy is also assured.

He has said that his duty during the past 6 months as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, he has never been asked about the martial law and the article 44's implementations, as the laws do not affect the general public who has not commit any felonies.

Regarding restriction of rights, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that authorities are willing to invite all interested parties to jointly monitor the situation. Due to this, clarification to the international community is not required.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs also said that the past official visits and the confirmation of future visits from ministers of many countries to Thailand demonstrates the confidence and good relations the country still has with those countries.

nntlogo.jpg
-- NNT 2015-04-01 footer_n.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Gen Tanasak Patimapragorn has said that the international community understands the current situation in Thailand and is glad that Thailand is driving forward its reform according to the roadmap"

Yeah, just look at the foreign press to see how well they "understand"...they understand so well that they will join thai army to execute journalist who report the news in a wrong manner...

Are they really so stupid or do they think the thai are stupids?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS
Thailand must return to civilian rule : ICJ


BANGKOK: -- Thailand must lift martial law and return the country to civilian rule instead of invoking arbitrary powers under Article 44 of the interim charter, said an international non-governmental organisation.

In its statement, International Commission of Jurists said that ending Martial Law is a necessary step, but replacing it with Article 44 under the interim charter did not address the serious violations of Thailand's obligations under international human rights law.

It was referring to Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha’s decision to lift the martial law that was imposed shortly before the coup in May. The law has been criticised negatively so he said he would replace with the Article 44.

"Article 44 of the Interim Constitution is drafted so broadly that it could give the head of the junta even greater powers than Martial law," said Wilder Tayler, secretary general of the ICJ.

"Article 44 would allow the head of the NCPO to issue any orders he wishes under the pretext of strengthening public unity and national security, and also deems any such order to be legal and constitutional, removing any possibility of judicial oversight."

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Thailand-must-return-to-civilian-rule-ICJ-30257204.html

nationlogo.jpg
-- The Nation 2015-04-01

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This ICJ is not the International Court of Justice. The International Commission of Jurists was formed in 1952 by German human rights advocates to advocate for the rights of Germans under post-WWII Soviet occupied Germany. How do you like that? Germans objecting to the treatment of its former citizens after they killed over 20 million Russians. Just another useless human rights advocacy agency spawn of the useless UN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

This ICJ is not the International Court of Justice. The International Commission of Jurists was formed in 1952 by German human rights advocates to advocate for the rights of Germans under post-WWII Soviet occupied Germany. How do you like that? Germans objecting to the treatment of its former citizens after they killed over 20 million Russians. Just another useless human rights advocacy agency spawn of the useless UN.

I like it just FINE that they did, in fact. Any group which advocates human rights is just F%*$ING FINE in my book. Unlike you, frankly. I'm tired of the racist, toxic nonsense you post on this forum.

22 posts and you let fly with severe aggression. Would human rights advocates support their cause being pushed by aggression. Doubt it.

Not a good start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's with the reference to post counts by you kool aid drinkers big deal if he has 1 post or 100000 he's entitled to his opinion just like you are, until you become a mod stop acting like you're an authority on this site!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's with the reference to post counts by you kool aid drinkers big deal if he has 1 post or 100000 he's entitled to his opinion just like you are, until you become a mod stop acting like you're an authority on this site!!

Agree.

And in general like your posts

BUT

Please not "kool aid drinkers in every second post. Please!!wai2.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess the ICJ missed that section 44 is part of the Interim Constitution which was formally accepted as law on the 22 of July, 2014. Wasn't it 'obvious' to anyone that lifting Martial Law would make the constitution applicable in all it's "glory" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess the ICJ missed that section 44 is part of the Interim Constitution which was formally accepted as law on the 22 of July, 2014. Wasn't it 'obvious' to anyone that lifting Martial Law would make the constitution applicable in all it's "glory" ?

If people are still subject to military courts for civilian offenses, martial law is still in effect. Giving new powers a number and calling them a an "article" is same same but not really all that different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Regarding restriction of rights, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that authorities are willing to invite all interested parties to jointly monitor the situation. Due to this, clarification to the international community is not required".

They are willing or they are going to ? As much as there is reason to be concerned, he is going on record as "willing" transparency for those who wish to monitor. The way he communicates is off putting, arrogant and defeating of garnering trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just yesterday, Prayuth was calling for the media to explain to foreigners about 44. Today the Minstry that is tasked with matters concerning foreign affairs said "no need". Prayuth may be a tough task master but seem his ministries are ignoring him. Even his FM is not bowing to his instruction to drop the land tax. Perhaps this is better as most time the PM speak off the cuff and make silly judgement call. He maybe just a paper tiger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Foreign Min: Use of article 44 requires no clarification to foreign countries

The foreign minister knows foreign countries will have basically the same view of Art. 44 as they did of martial law...and no amount of "creating understanding" by the Thai govt to foreign govts will help. However, the Thai govt will no doubt be "creating understanding" to foreign govts over the coming days and weeks since the govt routinely does what it says it will not be doing and then blame the flip-flop on a misunderstanding. w00t.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what possibly would need to be "explained" or "clarified" to any foreign government about the situation here.

Everyone/anyone who's paying any attention knows exactly what 44 is, and what kind of government it allows for Thailand.

It's the good ole' "D" word -- If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a DUCK!!!

Edited by TallGuyJohninBKK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The veneer of poorly crafted public announcements, instead of concealing the inadequacies of a ham fisted, thick as a brick and transparently aggressive grasp on power, serves only to highlight the most vulgar, insecure and untrustworthy aspects of them.

I think that most international geo strategic analysts and investors have simply placed Thailand in the category of a country that has significant potential, is having some issues and is presently being led (if you can call it that), by more or less well meaning folks, who are as well intentioned as they are incompetent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what possibly would need to be "explained" or "clarified" to any foreign government about the situation here.

Everyone/anyone who's paying any attention knows exactly what 44 is, and what kind of government it allows for Thailand.

It's the good ole' "D" word -- If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a DUCK!!!

You mean Dictator? giggle.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember well, it was not too long ago when Thailand demanded a greater say in international affairs simply for the reason it deserves it.

Sounds a bit like we want to have the right to judge and comment on all other country's issues, but don't you dare to do the same to us.

Cryness at it's best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One has to admire the stupendous circular thinking of the Junta-led government.

"Regarding restriction of rights, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that authorities are willing to invite all interested parties to jointly monitor the situation."

Okay, the UN will send a human rights commission watchgroup to Thailand to monitor use of Article 44.

BUT

"Due to this, clarification to the international community is not required."

So interested parties visits are not required to be accepted. They already understand so what's the point of any visit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This ICJ is not the International Court of Justice. The International Commission of Jurists was formed in 1952 by German human rights advocates to advocate for the rights of Germans under post-WWII Soviet occupied Germany. How do you like that? Germans objecting to the treatment of its former citizens after they killed over 20 million Russians. Just another useless human rights advocacy agency spawn of the useless UN.

The UN may be deemed useless by some, particularly those that do nothing to advance the protections and rights of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess the ICJ missed that section 44 is part of the Interim Constitution which was formally accepted as law on the 22 of July, 2014. Wasn't it 'obvious' to anyone that lifting Martial Law would make the constitution applicable in all it's "glory" ?

If people are still subject to military courts for civilian offenses, martial law is still in effect. Giving new powers a number and calling them a an "article" is same same but not really all that different.

Ah, you complain about a different interpretation of Interim Constitution article 44, about laws on top of and based on the Constitution.

Personally I think that if 'people' were more cooperative in providing input for the new constitution that would be more worthwhile. Mind you, most members here can't as foreigners are not invited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One has to admire the stupendous circular thinking of the Junta-led government.

"Regarding restriction of rights, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that authorities are willing to invite all interested parties to jointly monitor the situation."

Okay, the UN will send a human rights commission watchgroup to Thailand to monitor use of Article 44.

BUT

"Due to this, clarification to the international community is not required."

So interested parties visits are not required to be accepted. They already understand so what's the point of any visit?

Of course another interpretation would be that while the government believes further clarification not to be necessary, they are willing to invite relevant parties who show sincere interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...