Abhisit backs new charter’s Article 5 for conflict resolution

[rooster59]

Abhisit backs new charter’s Article 5 for conflict resolution

By The Sunday Nation

 

 

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said he views the revised Article 5 of the Constitution as more practical for conflict resolution.

 

Article 5 previously had been written to authorise the Constitutional Court to convene the heads of key state agencies such as the government, opposition party, and Army chiefs to find a solution in the event of a stalemate.

 

In the latest change earlier this year, it was revised back to the previous Article 7. Article 5 now states that in cases where no laws apply, an operation to resolve the issue should follow the traditional rule.

 

Abhisit said at a press briefing before Songkran that the convention of the Constitutional Court forming an ad-hoc committee could be too inflexible and could only decide on legal issues.

 

Such a committee was rigid and impractical and could not possibly solve any conflict. He said the stipulation to |follow the traditional rule was more open and could help better to resolve conflicts. 

 

The resolving of a crisis depended more on the conflicting parties’ consensus, the Democrat leader said, adding the mechanism should be something flexible. 

 

Apart from that, Abhisit said in the past Article 7 did not work because the powers-that-be would not give up power to pave the way for conflict resolution.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/30312363

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-04-16

[JAG]

Well yes, presumably the "traditional rule" means the Army will install him.

Likewise, the " powers that be refusing to give up power" presumably refers to the reluctance of successive elected governments to step aside for him...

[yellowboat]

5 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Apart from that, Abhisit said in the past Article 7 did not work because the powers-that-be would not give up power to pave the way for conflict resolution.

Are not conflicts resolved by law and an independent court ?   Is it not the sacred duty of the courts to meet out justice fairly, impartially without political influence of any kind ?  In all these gyrations, the courts and rule of law have never been discussed, just overseeing bodies.  Bodies that would license and monitor journalists in hopes of squelching free speech. 

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

Yellowboat a few days ago there was an article about the junta appointing new judges and it went by without many TV members commenting on it. 3 of the existing constitutional court judges was appointed by the last junta and if I am correct appointed another 2 now. Of the 4 others if I am correct 2 was appointed by a non ellected government. Out of the 9 CC judges 7 have been appointed by juntas or non ellected governments. How can you have justice ?

[Raymonddiaz]

46 minutes ago, SOUTHERNSTAR said:

Yellowboat a few days ago there was an article about the junta appointing new judges and it went by without many TV members commenting on it. 3 of the existing constitutional court judges was appointed by the last junta and if I am correct appointed another 2 now. Of the 4 others if I am correct 2 was appointed by a non ellected government. Out of the 9 CC judges 7 have been appointed by juntas or non ellected governments. How can you have justice ?

judges serve the interests of the army, everybody knows that.

[Stargeezr]

I am not a supporter of the previous Taksin attempts at ruling Thailand with their

bought and paid for type of government, I am surprised to see that they apparently still

have lots of supporters.

Geezer