CDC to maintain people’s rights to file lawsuit against the government for nonfeasance

[rooster59]

CDC to maintain people’s rights to file lawsuit against the government for nonfeasance

Kitti Cheevasittiyanon

BANGKOK, 6 March 2016 (NNT) - The Constitution Drafting Commission has assured that the new charter will still allow the public to launch legal action against the government for nonfeasance.

CDC spokesman Chatchai Na Chiang Mai said that the charter drafters have added more details to the part of the draft Constitution, which is about the rights and the freedom of the people of Thailand, after having received calls for a clearer provision.

Mr. Chatchai said that the charter drafters have made sure that the people will still have the right to file complaints and lawsuits against any government agencies for nonfeasance.

Regarding community rights, Mr. Chatchai said that the CDC has included in the draft charter a provision, which confirms the people’s right to sign their names in a petition to suggest related state agencies to implement any plan that will benefit their community or to refrain from certain act that may negatively affect them.

He added that the CDC also wrote a provision, which enable people to gather up to set up a consumer organization to protect the rights of consumers.

-- NNT 2016-03-06

[tbthailand]

does "government" include "military"?

[MZurf]

does "government" include "military"?

Exactly. How about the public's right to file lawsuits against juntas?

Oh that's right, I forgot that they have granted themselves an amnesty.

[tbthailand]

does "government" include "military"?

Exactly. How about the public's right to file lawsuits against juntas?

Oh that's right, I forgot that they have granted themselves an amnesty.

well, it suing the military or police is obviously not the goal of this little gem from the military lackeys on the CDC.

it is a rather transparent attempt to give those who lose elections the ability to harass an elected government without the need to use normal democratic measures like elections.

but they should be careful what they wish for .... I foresee a future government led by the appointed, outsider "PM" Prayuth Chan O-cha being sued by red shirts...

of course any such suit will probably go through one of the freshly yellow-packed courts, which would make any suit not filed by "good people" DOA

[Wilsonandson]

The Constitution Drafting Commission has assured that the new charter will still allow the public to launch legal action against the government for nonfeasance.

The public didn't choose the present government. Can the public take the current government to court for having no say what so ever in who runs the country and how their paid taxes are spent? Edited March 6, 2016 by Wilsonandson

[chainarong]

First cab off the rank is the Prayut Governments section 44 rule, and the re- adjustment programme , both are designed to stifle any debate or offer any constructive opinions other than those of the Junta inspired propaganda machine and let's not forget our Students, legal action for harassment and invasion of privacy, only because the Junta is so frightened of the consequences the last time when they met on the street....................................

[bangrak]

Hmm, for 'nonfeasance', is it, only? Not for 'malfeasance' then, possibly...?

[halloween]

does "government" include "military"?

Exactly. How about the public's right to file lawsuits against juntas?

Oh that's right, I forgot that they have granted themselves an amnesty.

well, it suing the military or police is obviously not the goal of this little gem from the military lackeys on the CDC.

it is a rather transparent attempt to give those who lose elections the ability to harass an elected government without the need to use normal democratic measures like elections.

but they should be careful what they wish for .... I foresee a future government led by the appointed, outsider "PM" Prayuth Chan O-cha being sued by red shirts...

of course any such suit will probably go through one of the freshly yellow-packed courts, which would make any suit not filed by "good people" DOA

Is it difficult to understand that non-supporters of the elected government are STILL citizens of the nation, and that they have the right to make suggestions and object to government decisions OTHER than by elections, and that such interaction is the basis of democracy? Your all-or-nothing attitude is what leads to division and violence.

[tbthailand]

does "government" include "military"?

Exactly. How about the public's right to file lawsuits against juntas?

Oh that's right, I forgot that they have granted themselves an amnesty.

well, it suing the military or police is obviously not the goal of this little gem from the military lackeys on the CDC.

it is a rather transparent attempt to give those who lose elections the ability to harass an elected government without the need to use normal democratic measures like elections.

but they should be careful what they wish for .... I foresee a future government led by the appointed, outsider "PM" Prayuth Chan O-cha being sued by red shirts...

of course any such suit will probably go through one of the freshly yellow-packed courts, which would make any suit not filed by "good people" DOA

Is it difficult to understand that non-supporters of the elected government are STILL citizens of the nation, and that they have the right to make suggestions and object to government decisions OTHER than by elections, and that such interaction is the basis of democracy? Your all-or-nothing attitude is what leads to division and violence.

blah blah blah blah...

same running off at the mouth as always... no thought required.

BTW, non-supporters of the elected government is another way to say anti-democrats. And yes, if you don't believe in democracy, then it is easy to see how adding the ability for the "good people" who always lose elections to sue a government that they don't like is a great "feature" of a military-junta-written constitution.

Now run along and find a general to hug, ... good boy....

[Reigntax]

does "government" include "military"?

Exactly. How about the public's right to file lawsuits against juntas?

Oh that's right, I forgot that they have granted themselves an amnesty.

well, it suing the military or police is obviously not the goal of this little gem from the military lackeys on the CDC.

it is a rather transparent attempt to give those who lose elections the ability to harass an elected government without the need to use normal democratic measures like elections.

but they should be careful what they wish for .... I foresee a future government led by the appointed, outsider "PM" Prayuth Chan O-cha being sued by red shirts...

of course any such suit will probably go through one of the freshly yellow-packed courts, which would make any suit not filed by "good people" DOA

Is it difficult to understand that non-supporters of the elected government are STILL citizens of the nation, and that they have the right to make suggestions and object to government decisions OTHER than by elections, and that such interaction is the basis of democracy? Your all-or-nothing attitude is what leads to division and violence.

blah blah blah blah...

same running off at the mouth as always... no thought required.

BTW, non-supporters of the elected government is another way to say anti-democrats. And yes, if you don't believe in democracy, then it is easy to see how adding the ability for the "good people" who always lose elections to sue a government that they don't like is a great "feature" of a military-junta-written constitution.

Now run along and find a general to hug, ... good boy....

His amnesty may protect him from actions while in government but may not be so favourable for losses or damages incurred post coup.

I for one, would love to see him and the junta dragged in and out of court for the remainder of his life for compensation for the damage his self imposed rule has caused. And throw in a few some summons for reattitude adjustmnt.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Reigntax

[tbthailand]

does "government" include "military"?

Exactly. How about the public's right to file lawsuits against juntas?

Oh that's right, I forgot that they have granted themselves an amnesty.

well, it suing the military or police is obviously not the goal of this little gem from the military lackeys on the CDC.

it is a rather transparent attempt to give those who lose elections the ability to harass an elected government without the need to use normal democratic measures like elections.

but they should be careful what they wish for .... I foresee a future government led by the appointed, outsider "PM" Prayuth Chan O-cha being sued by red shirts...

of course any such suit will probably go through one of the freshly yellow-packed courts, which would make any suit not filed by "good people" DOA

Is it difficult to understand that non-supporters of the elected government are STILL citizens of the nation, and that they have the right to make suggestions and object to government decisions OTHER than by elections, and that such interaction is the basis of democracy? Your all-or-nothing attitude is what leads to division and violence.

blah blah blah blah...

same running off at the mouth as always... no thought required.

BTW, non-supporters of the elected government is another way to say anti-democrats. And yes, if you don't believe in democracy, then it is easy to see how adding the ability for the "good people" who always lose elections to sue a government that they don't like is a great "feature" of a military-junta-written constitution.

Now run along and find a general to hug, ... good boy....

His amnesty may protect him from actions while in government but may not be so favourable for losses or damages incurred post coup.

I for one, would love to see him and the junta dragged in and out of court for the remainder of his life for compensation for the damage his self imposed rule has caused. And throw in a few some summons for reattitude adjustmnt.

The military, and this junta in particular, mongers threats, intimidation, torture, and murder... Although I firmly believe in justice and human rights, I would not feel too sorry for Khun GoHok if he got a taste of his own medicine...

[phoenixdoglover]

What good are lawsuits when the justice system routinely takes 5 to 10 years, or more, to resolve cases?

At the moment, the CDC, with assistance from NNT, are engaged in daily spin. This raises my skepticism.

[jayboy]

does "government" include "military"?

Exactly. How about the public's right to file lawsuits against juntas?

Oh that's right, I forgot that they have granted themselves an amnesty.

well, it suing the military or police is obviously not the goal of this little gem from the military lackeys on the CDC.

it is a rather transparent attempt to give those who lose elections the ability to harass an elected government without the need to use normal democratic measures like elections.

but they should be careful what they wish for .... I foresee a future government led by the appointed, outsider "PM" Prayuth Chan O-cha being sued by red shirts...

of course any such suit will probably go through one of the freshly yellow-packed courts, which would make any suit not filed by "good people" DOA

Is it difficult to understand that non-supporters of the elected government are STILL citizens of the nation, and that they have the right to make suggestions and object to government decisions OTHER than by elections, and that such interaction is the basis of democracy? Your all-or-nothing attitude is what leads to division and violence.

Agreed at least in part.But if a group of rich and powerful elites ( in a country beset by terrible inequality) refuse to accept the results of elections and frustrate the people's' will through military force or directed judicial intervention, then it is surely they that are the all or nothing merchants.

Opposition to the government in power is of course healthy.It implies a need to reform and modernise - but this the Democrats seem unwilling to do this.

[Srikcir]

nonfeasance - the failure to act where action is required whether willfully or in neglect.

So it will be the court, and ultimately the the Constitutional Court that will decide moment to moment whether the elected government is acting or reacting properly by whatever standards it decides.

What's the sense in even having an elected government if the court is essentially the government? But maybe that's the whole idea.

[rubl]

Is it difficult to understand that non-supporters of the elected government are STILL citizens of the nation, and that they have the right to make suggestions and object to government decisions OTHER than by elections, and that such interaction is the basis of democracy? Your all-or-nothing attitude is what leads to division and violence.

blah blah blah blah...

same running off at the mouth as always... no thought required.

BTW, non-supporters of the elected government is another way to say anti-democrats. And yes, if you don't believe in democracy, then it is easy to see how adding the ability for the "good people" who always lose elections to sue a government that they don't like is a great "feature" of a military-junta-written constitution.

Now run along and find a general to hug, ... good boy....

His amnesty may protect him from actions while in government but may not be so favourable for losses or damages incurred post coup.

I for one, would love to see him and the junta dragged in and out of court for the remainder of his life for compensation for the damage his self imposed rule has caused. And throw in a few some summons for reattitude adjustmnt.

The military, and this junta in particular, mongers threats, intimidation, torture, and murder... Although I firmly believe in justice and human rights, I would not feel too sorry for Khun GoHok if he got a taste of his own medicine...

That's fine. May he be accompanied by our favorite criminal fugitive and his clone.

"CDC to maintain people’s rights to file lawsuit against the government for nonfeasance"

Time we saw an English version of the now probably near final draft of the Charter to be examined and amended and with further input to be incorporated. Doesn't really move fast now does it? I'm still of the opinion the 2007 charter should have been the starting point.

[halloween]

Is it difficult to understand that non-supporters of the elected government are STILL citizens of the nation, and that they have the right to make suggestions and object to government decisions OTHER than by elections, and that such interaction is the basis of democracy? Your all-or-nothing attitude is what leads to division and violence.

blah blah blah blah...

same running off at the mouth as always... no thought required.

BTW, non-supporters of the elected government is another way to say anti-democrats. And yes, if you don't believe in democracy, then it is easy to see how adding the ability for the "good people" who always lose elections to sue a government that they don't like is a great "feature" of a military-junta-written constitution.

Now run along and find a general to hug, ... good boy....

No thought required? Well, here's one for you - in a multi-party democracy (you know, outside the USA) it is quite common for the governing party to receive less than 50% of the vote. Are the majority then anti-democrats? Does that majority, or even a minority, have no right to seek interaction with the governing party because they didn't vote for them? Where have I heard that before?

Try reading the OP again. The topic is related to the period after an democratic government is elected.

[tbthailand]

Is it difficult to understand that non-supporters of the elected government are STILL citizens of the nation, and that they have the right to make suggestions and object to government decisions OTHER than by elections, and that such interaction is the basis of democracy? Your all-or-nothing attitude is what leads to division and violence.

blah blah blah blah...

same running off at the mouth as always... no thought required.

BTW, non-supporters of the elected government is another way to say anti-democrats. And yes, if you don't believe in democracy, then it is easy to see how adding the ability for the "good people" who always lose elections to sue a government that they don't like is a great "feature" of a military-junta-written constitution.

Now run along and find a general to hug, ... good boy....

No thought required? Well, here's one for you - in a multi-party democracy (you know, outside the USA) it is quite common for the governing party to receive less than 50% of the vote. Are the majority then anti-democrats? Does that majority, or even a minority, have no right to seek interaction with the governing party because they didn't vote for them? Where have I heard that before?

Try reading the OP again. The topic is related to the period after an democratic government is elected.

you haven't made any relevant point, Mister Pumpkin Head.

The law is yet another lever for the unelected and the perennial losers to wield power over a neutered elected government.

I would have thought you had cottoned-on to the game plan by now.

[wabothai]

the courts would be overwhelmed and if they do their sworn job there would hardly be any government left.

Be careful what you wish for charter drafters.

[Acharn]

does "government" include "military"?

Probably not. And then there's Article 44.

[halloween]

Is it difficult to understand that non-supporters of the elected government are STILL citizens of the nation, and that they have the right to make suggestions and object to government decisions OTHER than by elections, and that such interaction is the basis of democracy? Your all-or-nothing attitude is what leads to division and violence.

blah blah blah blah...

same running off at the mouth as always... no thought required.

BTW, non-supporters of the elected government is another way to say anti-democrats. And yes, if you don't believe in democracy, then it is easy to see how adding the ability for the "good people" who always lose elections to sue a government that they don't like is a great "feature" of a military-junta-written constitution.

Now run along and find a general to hug, ... good boy....

No thought required? Well, here's one for you - in a multi-party democracy (you know, outside the USA) it is quite common for the governing party to receive less than 50% of the vote. Are the majority then anti-democrats? Does that majority, or even a minority, have no right to seek interaction with the governing party because they didn't vote for them? Where have I heard that before?

Try reading the OP again. The topic is related to the period after an democratic government is elected.

you haven't made any relevant point, Mister Pumpkin Head.

The law is yet another lever for the unelected and the perennial losers to wield power over a neutered elected government.

I would have thought you had cottoned-on to the game plan by now.

Oh, I understand your paranoid fantasy conspiracy theories. But if you read the OP you will find the first sentence contains the word "still". It doesn't mean a distillation device or a lack of motion, it means that existing rights will be maintained. It is NOT something new, or a plot to cripple governments.

Any more to say about why those who don't vote for the elected government are 'anti-democrats'?

[tbthailand]

blah blah blah blah...

same running off at the mouth as always... no thought required.

BTW, non-supporters of the elected government is another way to say anti-democrats. And yes, if you don't believe in democracy, then it is easy to see how adding the ability for the "good people" who always lose elections to sue a government that they don't like is a great "feature" of a military-junta-written constitution.

Now run along and find a general to hug, ... good boy....

No thought required? Well, here's one for you - in a multi-party democracy (you know, outside the USA) it is quite common for the governing party to receive less than 50% of the vote. Are the majority then anti-democrats? Does that majority, or even a minority, have no right to seek interaction with the governing party because they didn't vote for them? Where have I heard that before?

Try reading the OP again. The topic is related to the period after an democratic government is elected.

you haven't made any relevant point, Mister Pumpkin Head.

The law is yet another lever for the unelected and the perennial losers to wield power over a neutered elected government.

I would have thought you had cottoned-on to the game plan by now.

Oh, I understand your paranoid fantasy conspiracy theories. But if you read the OP you will find the first sentence contains the word "still". It doesn't mean a distillation device or a lack of motion, it means that existing rights will be maintained. It is NOT something new, or a plot to cripple governments.

Any more to say about why those who don't vote for the elected government are 'anti-democrats'?

still, as still in this draft... OK, go ahead and break it down for the 97 constitution and the last junta constitution... I'll be waiting. This draft has removed many rights of communities and individuals, and the wording "still" is meant to imply that people still have rights to address grievances with the government but it is really just smoke/mirrors/distractions from the amazing restrictions of rights. And surely this article will allow people to sue governments which the PTB don't like and cases against governments which th PTB like will be summarily dismissed. That is a well-worn path over the last 10 years of Thai justice.

Your point about anti-democrats, now you are just back to making up fake strawman arguments and asking others to defend them. First of all, your multi-party example left out the fact that the winner of the majority vote/seats still needs to form an effective coalition to govern which means that the government does represent the majority. The fact that you omit that is either evidence of your total ignorance (which I doubt) or a dishonest attempt to support an unsupportable argument, not to mention to make an argument that doesn't apply to this country.

[halloween]

No thought required? Well, here's one for you - in a multi-party democracy (you know, outside the USA) it is quite common for the governing party to receive less than 50% of the vote. Are the majority then anti-democrats? Does that majority, or even a minority, have no right to seek interaction with the governing party because they didn't vote for them? Where have I heard that before?

Try reading the OP again. The topic is related to the period after an democratic government is elected.

you haven't made any relevant point, Mister Pumpkin Head.

The law is yet another lever for the unelected and the perennial losers to wield power over a neutered elected government.

I would have thought you had cottoned-on to the game plan by now.

Oh, I understand your paranoid fantasy conspiracy theories. But if you read the OP you will find the first sentence contains the word "still". It doesn't mean a distillation device or a lack of motion, it means that existing rights will be maintained. It is NOT something new, or a plot to cripple governments.

Any more to say about why those who don't vote for the elected government are 'anti-democrats'?

still, as still in this draft... OK, go ahead and break it down for the 97 constitution and the last junta constitution... I'll be waiting. This draft has removed many rights of communities and individuals, and the wording "still" is meant to imply that people still have rights to address grievances with the government but it is really just smoke/mirrors/distractions from the amazing restrictions of rights. And surely this article will allow people to sue governments which the PTB don't like and cases against governments which th PTB like will be summarily dismissed. That is a well-worn path over the last 10 years of Thai justice.

Your point about anti-democrats, now you are just back to making up fake strawman arguments and asking others to defend them. First of all, your multi-party example left out the fact that the winner of the majority vote/seats still needs to form an effective coalition to govern which means that the government does represent the majority. The fact that you omit that is either evidence of your total ignorance (which I doubt) or a dishonest attempt to support an unsupportable argument, not to mention to make an argument that doesn't apply to this country.

Still the paranoid conspiracy theory based on what you think will be written. Well done. But its a bit rich claiming a long-standing right of the people is "yet another lever for the unelected" or "really just smoke/mirrors/distractions" of something yet to be published.

Do you remember writing "BTW, non-supporters of the elected government is another way to say anti-democrats." Perhaps not.

So I don't suppose you remember PTP winning a majority of the seats with less than 50% of the vote? (Are we going to have another stupid argument about the meaning of majority?) PTP did form a coalition, but they certainly didn't NEED TO, it just increased their voting margin. Are those who voted for the many other parties really "anti-democratic"?

[jaywalker]

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

Churchill

[tbthailand]

you haven't made any relevant point, Mister Pumpkin Head.

The law is yet another lever for the unelected and the perennial losers to wield power over a neutered elected government.

I would have thought you had cottoned-on to the game plan by now.

Oh, I understand your paranoid fantasy conspiracy theories. But if you read the OP you will find the first sentence contains the word "still". It doesn't mean a distillation device or a lack of motion, it means that existing rights will be maintained. It is NOT something new, or a plot to cripple governments.

Any more to say about why those who don't vote for the elected government are 'anti-democrats'?

still, as still in this draft... OK, go ahead and break it down for the 97 constitution and the last junta constitution... I'll be waiting. This draft has removed many rights of communities and individuals, and the wording "still" is meant to imply that people still have rights to address grievances with the government but it is really just smoke/mirrors/distractions from the amazing restrictions of rights. And surely this article will allow people to sue governments which the PTB don't like and cases against governments which th PTB like will be summarily dismissed. That is a well-worn path over the last 10 years of Thai justice.

Your point about anti-democrats, now you are just back to making up fake strawman arguments and asking others to defend them. First of all, your multi-party example left out the fact that the winner of the majority vote/seats still needs to form an effective coalition to govern which means that the government does represent the majority. The fact that you omit that is either evidence of your total ignorance (which I doubt) or a dishonest attempt to support an unsupportable argument, not to mention to make an argument that doesn't apply to this country.

Still the paranoid conspiracy theory based on what you think will be written. Well done. But its a bit rich claiming a long-standing right of the people is "yet another lever for the unelected" or "really just smoke/mirrors/distractions" of something yet to be published.

Do you remember writing "BTW, non-supporters of the elected government is another way to say anti-democrats." Perhaps not.

So I don't suppose you remember PTP winning a majority of the seats with less than 50% of the vote? (Are we going to have another stupid argument about the meaning of majority?) PTP did form a coalition, but they certainly didn't NEED TO, it just increased their voting margin. Are those who voted for the many other parties really "anti-democratic"?

now you are on the verge of trolling. But that is normal for you.

The point that you don't seem to grasp is this lever being one of many. You think that there is no reason to see how such levers will be used in the future, and that is apparently because you ignore how effectively the levers of the 2007 constitution were used to bring down multiple governments elected by the people.

And no, I do not recall the 97 or even the 2007 constitution allowing for individuals to sue the government in this way. But you can certainly take this opportunity to prove me wrong. It's happened before, it will surely happen again.

Do you remember writing "BTW, non-supporters of the elected government is another way to say anti-democrats."

yes, I certainly do. And it is still an accurate statement in reply to your post. So what is your problem? Besides the fact that you have nothing meaningful to say about it....

As for your bouncing around on the topic of parliamentary politics, now that you are back to concrete examples, are you going to tell me that you can not understand how a party can win nearly 50% of the popular vote (48/7%) and end up with just over 50% of the legislative seats (52%)? There is nothing terrible in that. It's how voting systems sometimes work. As you note yourself, the PTP formed a coalition and after that point the elected government represented the majority in every sense of the word.

Your denial of the term "anti-democratic" can most likely be chalked up to your love of the junta.