NLA VP agrees with having Constitutional Court resolve political crises

[webfact]

NLA VP agrees with having Constitutional Court resolve political crises

BANGKOK, 19 January 2016 (NNT) - The Vice President of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) has expressed his support for including in the new constitution a mechanism to resolve political crises through the Constitutional Court.

NLA Vice President Surachai Liengboonlertchai spoke of the move by the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) to empower the Constitutional Court to resolve political conflicts. He agreed with the provision, saying that such a mechanism should be put in place to prevent future conflicts from escalating into military intervention.

He suggested that the CDC stipulate clearly who can submit pleas to the Constitutional Court and establish a credible process of judicial review that is accepted by all sides.


-- NNT 2016-01-19

[Mango Bob]

It's just another way for the Rich and Richer to bring back their boys back into power when they lose an election.

[Reigntax]

There is nothing that can stop future military intervention. Too much money and protection of the little empires are far more important to some than any benefit for the country.

[rubl]

It's just another way for the Rich and Richer to bring back their boys back into power when they lose an election.

There is already another topic with the Amply Rich scheming to return and do just that.

[Srikcir]

"such a mechanism should be put in place to prevent future conflicts from escalating into military intervention."

The implication being that without such a mechanism military intervention will continue.

Very clear threat. Thanks for the advanced notice.

[phoenixdoglover]

To be fair, if the process described in the Constitution does not resolve a political impasse, then the Constitutional Court should be empowered to make rulings, with the strong principle of "constitutionality" foremost.

The fairness of the Court is another matter altogether. So if the Court can intervene in unresolved matters of the NLA, Cabinet and PM, then it is also reasonable that the NLA, with a sufficient super-majority, should be able to impeach and remove Court justices. This provides the necessary check against a judiciary run amok.

However, even with that decision making power clearly outlined in the Constitution, the military is not adequately constrained. The Constitution should be clear about the role of the Armed Forces, their exclusion from politics, and their prohibition against government rule. The only internal role for the military should for security and lifesaving in the event of a declared national emergency. Such declaration could not be made by the military itself.

This last paragraph is entirely unreasonable in the Thai historical context.

Edited January 19, 2016 by phoenixdoglover

[JAG]

Since this chap did not achieve his eminent position through campaigning in and winning an election, it is hardly surprising that he supports an en-elected body, unaccountable to the voters, ousting an elected government is it?

Edited January 19, 2016 by JAG

[candide]

Interestingly when Greece had it's parliamentary problems in August 2015 the Supreme Court appointed one Judge as Interim Prime Minister to lead the country to the general elections a month later. Al legally, all democratically.

It was because party leaders failed to agree to organise a coalition government. Not because a mob wanted to overthrow a government resulting from an election, which is generally the definition of "political crisis" in Thailand.

Edited January 19, 2016 by candide

[metisdead]

Off topic deflection posts about what happened in the past elections have been removed. This is about a mechanism should be put in place to prevent future conflicts from escalating into military intervention.

[sjaak327]

It seems you deleted quite a few posts that did address future conflict resolution. And why this isn't a good idea.

[rubl]

Yes, like I asked "like in 2010 and 2013?"

As for normal democratic way "let's have elections" well that seems the normal approach in functioning democracies. The shenanigans around the 2006 elections showed clearly how easily determined criminals can corrupt the vulnerable democratic system when the people don't know about democracy more than 'oh, elections'. The 2014 elections were going the same way.

"people vote for me, and your rice pledge bill will be paid", "blanket amnesty bill, only for the right people of course", former MoFA suggest the military declare Martial Law so his master's party can have their election.

Democracy in Thailand?

The 2014 elections were sabotaged I'm sure you recalled. The problem is not that Thailand wasn't a functioning democracy, the framework for that was in place. The problem is that some people refuse to accept election result and subsequent policy.

They have the luxury to be able to oppose those results by breaking laws in that framework with total immunity and backing of the military.

Indeed, the 2014 elections were to be sabotaged like the 2011 elections with a renewed appeal to vote for that Amply Rich criminal fugitive and his darling Isaan rose. Elections, thanks for voting, please go home, we've got a blanket amnesty for the right people (i.e. WE) and a 2.4 trillion Baht loan to push through. Don't call us, we might call you.

You mean the amnesty bill that didn't pass and never actually became law at any point in time rubl ? What about those amply rich criminals currently running the show. Their amnesty doesn't only cover past transgressions but future transgressions as well. With extraordinary powers I might add.

By the way, that amnesty bill wasn't just for WE, that is better done by the current lot...

The blanket amnesty bill which was pushed through parliament. That bill which suddenly covered 2004 till 2013-08-09. That bill where even red-shirts started to wonder about 'their' government. That bill Pheu Thai party list MPs and UDD leaders had to explain to their red-shirts as 'of course only for the right people and by the way now you need first to protect your government from those other baddies'.

Yes, that blanket amnesty bill. With Ms. Yingluck imploring the protesters to go home because not all done yet (and the possibility of the Senate seeing no one objecting accepting the bill), with "it's up to the Senate", with suddenly the debat/vote in the Senate moved forwards, with a Senate Speaker desperately trying to get a quorum for the right vote.

That 'democratic' amnesty bill which would even have absolved Ms. Yingluck's RPPS scam.

So, a charter with a court being able to intervene when politicians make a mess of it. Sounds good with the right limitations.

[sjaak327]

You mean the amnesty bill that didn't pass and never actually became law at any point in time rubl ? What about those amply rich criminals currently running the show. Their amnesty doesn't only cover past transgressions but future transgressions as well. With extraordinary powers I might add.

By the way, that amnesty bill wasn't just for WE, that is better done by the current lot...

The blanket amnesty bill which was pushed through parliament. That bill which suddenly covered 2004 till 2013-08-09. That bill where even red-shirts started to wonder about 'their' government. That bill Pheu Thai party list MPs and UDD leaders had to explain to their red-shirts as 'of course only for the right people and by the way now you need first to protect your government from those other baddies'.

Yes, that blanket amnesty bill. With Ms. Yingluck imploring the protesters to go home because not all done yet (and the possibility of the Senate seeing no one objecting accepting the bill), with "it's up to the Senate", with suddenly the debat/vote in the Senate moved forwards, with a Senate Speaker desperately trying to get a quorum for the right vote.

That 'democratic' amnesty bill which would even have absolved Ms. Yingluck's RPPS scam.

So, a charter with a court being able to intervene when politicians make a mess of it. Sounds good with the right limitations.

No it does not. And you conveniently seem to forget that Yingluck dissolved parliament effectively ending the situation. Of course the people I spoke off in the since deleted post suddenly weren't really defending the constitution, they wanted to amend it without any electoral mandate whatsoever.

That was of course also the reason why they sabotaged the elections and a subsequent new election made unnecessarily by the coup.

I fail to see how the constitutional court would have prevented all of this.

[rubl]

You mean the amnesty bill that didn't pass and never actually became law at any point in time rubl ? What about those amply rich criminals currently running the show. Their amnesty doesn't only cover past transgressions but future transgressions as well. With extraordinary powers I might add.

By the way, that amnesty bill wasn't just for WE, that is better done by the current lot...

The blanket amnesty bill which was pushed through parliament. That bill which suddenly covered 2004 till 2013-08-09. That bill where even red-shirts started to wonder about 'their' government. That bill Pheu Thai party list MPs and UDD leaders had to explain to their red-shirts as 'of course only for the right people and by the way now you need first to protect your government from those other baddies'.

Yes, that blanket amnesty bill. With Ms. Yingluck imploring the protesters to go home because not all done yet (and the possibility of the Senate seeing no one objecting accepting the bill), with "it's up to the Senate", with suddenly the debat/vote in the Senate moved forwards, with a Senate Speaker desperately trying to get a quorum for the right vote.

That 'democratic' amnesty bill which would even have absolved Ms. Yingluck's RPPS scam.

So, a charter with a court being able to intervene when politicians make a mess of it. Sounds good with the right limitations.

No it does not. And you conveniently seem to forget that Yingluck dissolved parliament effectively ending the situation. Of course the people I spoke off in the since deleted post suddenly weren't really defending the constitution, they wanted to amend it without any electoral mandate whatsoever.

That was of course also the reason why they sabotaged the elections and a subsequent new election made unnecessarily by the coup.

I fail to see how the constitutional court would have prevented all of this.

Ms. Yingluck didn't end the 'blanket amnesty bill' issue by dissolving the House. The bill could have been picked up again after 180 days. One of the reasons a quick election was deemed necessary even if the military had to be asked to declare martial law to be able to hold elections. Democratically and so.

Anyway, regarding the topic I guess we can agree to disagree. Democratically so.

[sjaak327]

You mean the amnesty bill that didn't pass and never actually became law at any point in time rubl ? What about those amply rich criminals currently running the show. Their amnesty doesn't only cover past transgressions but future transgressions as well. With extraordinary powers I might add.

By the way, that amnesty bill wasn't just for WE, that is better done by the current lot...

The blanket amnesty bill which was pushed through parliament. That bill which suddenly covered 2004 till 2013-08-09. That bill where even red-shirts started to wonder about 'their' government. That bill Pheu Thai party list MPs and UDD leaders had to explain to their red-shirts as 'of course only for the right people and by the way now you need first to protect your government from those other baddies'.

Yes, that blanket amnesty bill. With Ms. Yingluck imploring the protesters to go home because not all done yet (and the possibility of the Senate seeing no one objecting accepting the bill), with "it's up to the Senate", with suddenly the debat/vote in the Senate moved forwards, with a Senate Speaker desperately trying to get a quorum for the right vote.

That 'democratic' amnesty bill which would even have absolved Ms. Yingluck's RPPS scam.

So, a charter with a court being able to intervene when politicians make a mess of it. Sounds good with the right limitations.

No it does not. And you conveniently seem to forget that Yingluck dissolved parliament effectively ending the situation. Of course the people I spoke off in the since deleted post suddenly weren't really defending the constitution, they wanted to amend it without any electoral mandate whatsoever.

That was of course also the reason why they sabotaged the elections and a subsequent new election made unnecessarily by the coup.

I fail to see how the constitutional court would have prevented all of this.

Ms. Yingluck didn't end the 'blanket amnesty bill' issue by dissolving the House. The bill could have been picked up again after 180 days. One of the reasons a quick election was deemed necessary even if the military had to be asked to declare martial law to be able to hold elections. Democratically and so.

Anyway, regarding the topic I guess we can agree to disagree. Democratically so.

It indeed could have, all well within the rules mandated by the then active constitution. If the Thai electorate didn't agree with the amnesty bill, it would have had the chance to vote for other parties, after all just one (1) party decided to not contest in those elections.

Except for that one party, who apparently does not take democracy or their voters seriously, all the rest did, democracy in action.

But no, the reason for the coup wasn't the amnesty bill (how could it, since the current amnesty arrangement is much, much worse), the reason was to prevent the Thai electorate from having a say.

Now we all know the <deleted> that follows, vote buying, education in certain specific parts of Thailand and corruption.

At least with measures like this, the Thai electorate can be bypassed without having to stage a coup, democracy 'Thai style' .

[scorecard]

It's just another way for the Rich and Richer to bring back their boys back into power when they lose an election.

How about a structured comment with specific arguments. Seems you just aim to be negative.

[metisdead]

Off topic waffling posts and replies have been removed:

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.