Constitutional Court: Thailand’s traditional elite “Legal Control Tool”

Introduction:

Most expert on Thailand says, the Thai justice system, where the constitutional court plays a key role in Thai politics, is the primary tool for the Bangkok Traditional Elite Establishment’s control of Thailand.

Yet while most neutral observer agree, many do not!

  • When Human Rights Watch’s Thailand researcher, says the Thai Constitutional Court, is abusing powers, Bangkok Post should have noticed.
  • When the Thai Commission to Develop the Rule of law, says the Thai Constitutional Court, is abusing powers, Bangkok Post should have noticed.
  • When a group of about 400 MPs and Senators, says the Thai Constitutional Court, is abusing powers, Bangkok Post should have noticed.
  • When the Thai Truth Commission, in charged of Thailand’s reconciliation, says the Thai Constitutional Court, should be “Especially Careful” in its use of powers, Bangkok Post should have noticed.
  • When one after another highly credible academic and law expert, says the Thai Constitutional Court have breached the “Separation of Powers” between the judiciary, administrative and the legislative branch, Bangkok Post should have noticed.
  • When even Thailand’s most influential newspaper, Thai Rath, that Bangkok Post often translate its key article for Bangkok Post readers to read, says the Thai Constitutional Court, have created a new constitution on their own to govern Thailand, the Bangkok Post should have noticed.

Yet while the likes of Bangkok Post reject all common sense, and does its duty in supporting the Elite Establishment, If that saying above is true, the Elite is now running into a dead end road.

The Thai Elite, no longer has the street muscle it once had and it can not win elections. And Coup is no longer accepted, by both the Thais and the globe. What ever rulings it makes against Democracy and the elected government, Democracy is on a march in Thailand.

That march towards Democracy is over-coming the past.

  • The past is, Thailand’s justice system, have played a key role in Thailand’s political conflict since the Thai King called on judges, in a speech five months before the coup to resolve a pending constitutional crisis. Since then, courts have voided an election won by Thaksin’s party, disbanded two parties linked to him, disqualified about 200 of his allies, sentenced him to jail and seized US$1.6 billion of his wealth.

(Up-Dated) A coup had occurred, by Prayuth. The coup came after a combination of Suthep, former security chief of Abhisit lead protest and judicialization, remdered the Yingluck government not able to function. That un-able to function, coupled with opposing protest, from Suthep and the Reds, lead army chief to attempt to broker a deal, but he failed, and as a result took control. Sunsequent news from Suthep, says he an Prayuth have been working together to topple Yingluck. Prayuth deny the charges. The constitutional court, had greatly made the Yingluck government not able to function, such as stopping its investment plans and ruling against Senators who voted to amend the military constitution.

(Up-Dated) Perhaps, the Constitutional Court judges, engulfed and corrupted by power, “insanely” ruled that Thailand’s infrastructure spending, including High Speed Rail System, was un-constitutional, giving the reason that, quote: “Thailand still had roads that are un-paved by asphalt, and that High Speed Rail System, is against the Thai King’s sufficiency economy theory.

1)

Poll says Amend Constitution

Yingluck have won an election for about 2 years now. In her election campaign, she said one of her main objective, was to amend the constitution. And the result of the election is, she won a landslide.

From that campaign election promise and the result of the election, Yingluck said in parliament, on declaring her government’s policy, that she will amend the constitution.

In sum, the election result, gave Yingluck the mandate to amend the constitution.

  • What no one counted on, was the court reaction, stopping the constitutional amendment, starting in 2012.

That court reaction, apart from running against the election mandat, is also running against current poll, where the latest poll of the Thais, agree with amending the constitution.

  • ABAC Poll, on the 7th of March Found:

วันที่ 07 เมษายน พ.ศ. 2556 เวลา 14:47:24 น.

สำนักวิจัยเอแบคโพล มหาวิทยาลัยอัสสัมชัญ เผยผลสำรวจความคิดเห็นของประชาชน กรณีศึกษาตัวอย่างกลุ่มประชาชนอายุ 18 ปีขึ้นไป ใน 17 จังหวัดของประเทศ จำนวนทั้งสิ้น 2,298 ตัวอย่าง ตั้งแต่วันที่ 1-6 เมษายน 2556 พบว่า ประชาชนที่ศึกษาถึงการแก้ไขรัฐธรรมนูญฉบับปัจจุบัน ร้อยละ 44.5 เห็นด้วยว่า เป็นช่วงเวลาที่เหมาะสม หากรัฐธรรมนูญฉบับปัจจุบันจะถูกแก้ไข ร้อยละ 29.8 ไม่เห็นด้วย และร้อยละ 25.7  ไม่แน่ใจ ขณะที่ ร้อยละ 41.7 เห็นด้วยว่า รัฐบาลบริหารงานยากลำบาก ภายใต้รัฐธรรมนูญฉบับนี้

(44.5% say this is the right time to amend the constitution, 29% disagree and 25% unsure)

นอกจากนี้ พบว่า ร้อยละ 67.3 กังวลว่า การแก้ไขรัฐธรรมนูญ อาจทำให้เกิดความขัดแย้งรุนแรงตามมา และร้อยละ 70.1 เห็นด้วยกับการยกเลิก ส.ว.สรรหา โดยที่คิดว่า ส.ว. ต้องมาจากการเลือกตั้งโดยประชาชนเท่านั้นถึงจะเป็นตัวแทนของประชาชนอย่างแท้จริง ร้อยละ 62.3 เห็นด้วยกับ รัฐธรรมนูญฉบับปัจจุบันที่คุ้มครองสิทธิเสรีภาพขั้นพื้นฐานของประชาชนดีอยู่แล้ว

(76% say they worry amending the constitution will lead to great division, 70% agree that appointed senators should be abolish because senators should come from the people, 62% says current constitution guarantees human rights adequately.)

  • And apart from that poll, countless polls and research on Thailand, says about 70% to 80% of the Thai people wants Democracy, leaving about 20%, wanting some form of a dictatorship.

Clearly, the majority of the people of Thailand, is against the anti democracy Elite establishment.

What the constitutional court is doing, in blocking the amendment, is going against the will of the Thai people. That road, by the court, is a “Dead-End Road.”

2)

First Road Block

But, while having the people’s support, Yingluck’s ran into a road block, on amending the constitution, with the first time, being  in July of 2012.

In Thailand, if you know Thailand, the most powerful newspaper is Thai Rath, and that is because its circulation, in the many millions a day is the biggest in Thailand and unlike most newspapers that target a specific group of Thais-Thai Rath is read by a cross-section of the Thai society, from top to bottom.

Thai Rath, from my long observation, has always been part of the Thai establishment, but a “Soft Traditionalist Conservative. On the front page of Thai Rath, everyday is a column by “Mae Luk Chan.”

“Mae Luk Chan” is undoubtedly, Thailand’s “most powerful, influential and most read columnist.”

The following is Thai Intel’s brief translation, on what “Mae Luk Chan” has to say about the situation with the Constitutional Court.

  • Powerful Indicator:

80 years after democracy, Thailand continues to look for full democracy, where the people holds the power.

Since it can not be found, it is the duty of the Thais who love democracy, to fight for it, untill they find it.

But today, just to amend the military constitution, to wash away the poison of the military coup, can not be done, stopped and no need try.

That is because the Constitutional Court have blocked it, with heavy equipment.

Originally, Mae Luc Chan look at the world from the positive side, and pushed for parliament to delay the amending the military constitution, as ordered by the Constitutional Court.

That is to give the Constitutional Court time to investigate the complaint if the amending of the military constitution, will destroy the “Constitutional Monarchy System” or not, with transparency and straight judgement.

That is because when the Constitutional Court have heard of the argument, the Constitutional Court will have to rule that there is no threat to the system of “Constitutional Monarchy” because the amending process is according to the law, in every angle.

However, after mae Luk Chan hearing of the latest from a Constitutional Court judge head, Wassan, there are signals of “danger.”

Mae Luk Chan will give a few examples of what he said.

“When look at the way they are going to amend the constitution, they will amend every section of the constitution,” says Wassan.

Mae Luk Chan will have to disagree with Wassan here, in that the amending does not involved every section.

Also, the amending process involves the election of Thais to be represented in the amending process and finally, let the people of Thailand, vote to accept the amended constitution or not.

This is in accordance with Democracy, on all accounts.

If you asked, where is there anything about the destruction of the “Constitutional Monarchy System?”

Wassan says, “While the amending process forbid touching the clauses about the Monarchy, but if those elected to amend it change it, what are we to do?”

Mae Luk Chan humble tells the Constitutional Court’s Wassan, not to use an overly active imagination.”

That is because, in the amending process, it is clearly stated that the sections about the Monarchy can not be touch.

With such an “Iron Clad” prohibition, those elected to amend the constitution, can not touch it.

Wassan also gave a stern warning toYingluck’s Pheu Thai Party, that instead of arguing with the Constitutional Court, it should go and argue with those who petitioned the Constitutional Court.

“With the case to disband the Thai Rak Thai Party, instead of preparing the case against the Attorney General office, they did not, and the result is the disbandment of the Thasi Rak Thai Party,” said Wassan.

Mae Luk Chan wants to inform all, that in the Thai Rak Thai Party disbandment case, fighting or not fighting the disbandment case makes no differences, because Thai Rak Thai was going to be disbanded no matter what.

That is because the Constitutional Court, used the proclamation of the 2006 coup, to go back before the proclamation, and disband the Thai Rak Thai Party, which is not in accordance with proper Rule of Law.

For Wassan to bring up the Thai Rak Thai disbandment case, bodes ill for the Constitutional Court.

Meaning, there is the last words by Wassan.

“Someone like me does not seek revenge, but I do not forget easily,” says Wassan

When people of Wassan stature says something like that, “it is dangerous.”

3)

Judicial Coup

Just a brief background, that the Thai Constitutional Court, in that 2012 move to block the amendment of the constitution,  have breached the separation of powers between the legislative, judicial and administrative branch and ordered parliament to stop the amending the military constitution, in what many say, is a “Judicial Coup.”

Parliament, back by laws, says it can ignore the Constitutional Court, but citing a hope for a compromise, Parliament delay the process, in what the House Speaker said is to give every side opportunity to step back, from a confrontation.

Most political analyst in Thailand says the Constitutional Court move, is part of setting the rationale to disband Yingluck‘s political party, in what most analyst say will plunge Thailand into a civil war, as millions of supporters of Yingluck will take to the street protesting.

Other press wise, Bangkok Post and the Nation, being part of the Thai establishment and supports Abhisit, came out to supports the Constitutional Court. The Thai Elite establishment, link the constitutional amendment, to attempt to grant Thaksin Amnesty. The same attitude, that the constitutional issue is about Thaksin, is also what global press with close link to the Thai establishment and Abhisit, like Reuters believe.

But to most, the constitutional court action is clearly, a “Judicial Coup.”

Robert Amsterdam

  • Judicial Coup, Redux: The Case for Impeaching Thailand’s Constitutional Court

On June 1, 2012, Thailand’s Constitutional Court took the extraordinary step of issuing an injunction, quickly shown to have violated the law and exceeded the bounds of the Court’s constitutional authority,1 ordering the National Assembly to cease all deliberations on a proposed amendment to the 2007 Constitution, pending a review of the amendment’s constitutionality. The injunction was issued on the same day when a few hundred activists from the so-called People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), in cooperation with members of the opposition Democrat Party, blockaded all roads to Thailand’s parliament, preventing the House of Representatives from meeting to debate a controversial “Reconciliation Act.” The previous two meetings of the House had been disrupted by the PAD’s threat to storm the halls of the National Assembly, and by the intemperate outbursts of Democrat Party members of parliament, some of whom physically assaulted the House Speaker and other parliamentarians. Once again, the PAD, the Democrat Party, and the Constitutional Court have teamed up to delegitimize the democratic process, prevent the representatives of the Thai people from fulfilling their legislative functions under the Constitution, and lay the groundwork for the removal of a duly elected and legally constituted government, whether by military force (as in 2006) or by judicial intervention (as in 2008).

Given the frequency with which the Constitutional Court has infringed upon the Thai people’s right to elect their own governments, and the scandalous nature of its two most recent rulings, this report makes the case for the removal of each of the Court’s justices, under the impeachment powers that the Constitution reserves for Thailand’s Senate. Aside from the immediate necessity of preventing another “judicial coup,” the restoration of the rule of law simply cannot take place so long as the country’s highest court is composed of judges who make so little pretense of independence and impartiality, and act with such blatant disregard for the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

The document below, released today by Amsterdam & Partners, outlines the history and the rationale for the impeachment of Thailand’s Constitutional Court.

4)

“And” Means “Or”

For Yingluck, only a year earlier she won an election landslide on a promise to amend the military constitution. But on July of 1012, the constitutional court, have stopped the amendment process, and Yingluck party faced disbandment.

And where did the constitutional court “GOT” the power from? Well, the constitutional court judge, decided that the word “AND” in the constitution, means “OR” are gave itself, unilateral power on all matter related to the constitution, meaning, it does not have to go through the attorney general office, but can accept cases, directly from anyone.

The Constitutional Court website even says the court must go through the general Attorney’s Office, and the anniversary book of the court says the same thing. The court, simply erased its website and recalled those books.

  • Saksith Saiyasombut writes in his blog:

At the center of this controversial decision by court (to stop Parliament constitutional amendment process) is Article 68 of the 2007 Constitution. Here is the original passage with two unofficial translations – pay close attention to the second and third paragraph:

Part 13: Rights To Protect the Constitution

Section 68. A person is prohibited from using the rights and liberties provided in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic rule with the King as the Head of the State as provided by this Constitution; or to acquire power to rule the country by means other than is provided in the Constitution.

Where a person or political party acts under paragraph one, the witness thereof has the right to report the matter to the Prosecutor General to investigate the facts and to submit a request to the Constitutional Court for decision to order cessation of such act without prejudice to criminal proceedings against the doer of the act.

If the Constitutional Court decides to order cessation of the said act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order dissolution of that political party.

In case of order dissolution of that political party by the Constitutional Court under paragraph three, the leader of the dissolute Party and the member of the board of executive committee under paragraph one are prohibited the right of election for five years from the date of the order by the Constitutional Court.

“Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007, B.E. 2550 (2007)“, unofficial translation by IFES Thailand and the Political Section and Public Diplomacy Office of the US Embassy Bangkok. (PDF)

Part 13: Right to Protect the Constitution

Section 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such actwithout, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes the dissolution order under paragraph three, the right to vote of the President and the executive board of directors of the dissolved political party at the time the act under paragraph one has been committed shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date the Constitutional Court makes such order.

“Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007, B.E. 2550 (2007)“, unofficial translation by the Asian Legal Information Institute

All three versions say that an Attorney General (or here a “Prosecutor General”) is to be contacted by those filing a petition, who then submits this case to the Constitutional Court for review. However, so far reportedly only one petition has gone through the Attorney General, while the rest seems to have skipped him and have gone directly to the court.

This all comes down to the fine semantic details of the second paragraph: can the entire process, from receiving a petition to submitting the case to the Court, be only done by the Attorney General? Or to put it another way: can the petitioner contact the Attorney General, but also go directly to the Court to launch a motion? The Constitutional Court apparently chose the latter interpretation.

However, critics say this is a (intentional) misinterpretation and a political interference:

The Constitution Court has been accused of acting outside its jurisdiction when it ordered parliament to suspend vetting of the charter amendment bill.

The Pheu Thai Party and legal experts yesterday were gearing up for impeachment proceedings against the court’s judges whom they claim violated the constitution as they had no right to take up protest petitions without a final opinion by the Office of the Attorney General. (…)

Legal expert and former senator Panas Tassaneeyanond agreed the court’s order was unconstitutional. ”The action can be deemed a violation of the charter as it is meddling in administrative power. I call on the public to sign a petition to impeach the judges under Section 270 of the constitution,” Mr Panas wrote on his Facebook page on Friday.

He said under the principle of the supremacy of parliament, the House does not have to follow the Constitution Court’s order to suspend vetting of the bill.

“Constitution Court under fire over charter bill vote“, June 3, 2012

These are a few voices against the move by the Constitutional Court (e.g. political commentator Nattakorn Devakula, the Nitirat group and many, many more) but the consensus is that Article 68 has been wrongly interpreted.

The Constitutional Court itself is unimpressed by the impeachment calls and its president has clarified its decision, citing the motives of the petition (“questioning the legality of the push to amend the charter”), while ignoring the Attorney General’s role in this process – but most of all being concerned that “there is no guarantee that charter provisions on the monarchy would not be amended,” revealing where the priorities are for them.

The government and its coalition parties have 15 days (since this past weekend) to clarify and defend their proposed amendments to the constitution, while it is deliberating to defy the court-ordered suspension and push the bills ahead anyways (albeit in some other way) or to call it a break let things cool down over the summer recess, as suggested by Abhisitand considered by Pheu Thai.

The contents of the Reconciliation Bills, which give a blanket amnesty for all wrongdoings done by everybody in the past years while sacrificing justice for the victims of the political crisis for the sake of “national unity”, need to be debated.

However, the Constitutional Court’s interference into the debate that is being fought at all fronts, fears of a “judicial coup” have come up that could befall the current Pheu Thai-led government with the same fate of its previous incarnation in 2008 by yet another re-politicized institution that is not meant to be politicized.

5)

A New Civil War

The problem for the Elite Establishment is that Thailand in 2012, because of the constitutional court, verged on a crisis again. And the fact is, again, the Elite establishment, does not have the street muscle or the ability to win election. And now, in March of 2013, again, it has thrown Thailand, into a crisis mode.

BBC Reports:

13 July 2012

  • Thai court to rule on new constitution plan

Friday’s ruling could spark a new wave of political protests in Bangkok

Thailand’s constitutional court is set to issue a ruling on Friday which could spark a new round of political unrest.

Judges will decide whether efforts by the ruling Pheu Thai party to draft a new constitution are legal. Those opposed to constitutional amendments argue that the process could undermine Thailand’s revered monarchy.

If the judgement goes against Pheu Thai, the court could also dissolve the party – a move which correspondents say may trigger mass demonstrations.

The BBC’s Jonah Fisher in Bangkok says that Pheu Thai’s supporters would almost certainly rally against what they already see as interference in the democratic process.

A year ago Pheu Thai won more than half the seats in the general election with Yingluck Shinawatra becoming prime minister.

She is the sister of deposed former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Although a decision to disband Pheu Thai may not bring her down, the constitutional court has already disbanded parties linked to her brother Thaksin twice in the past five years.

Security is reported to be heavy at the court ahead of the hearing.

Mr Thaksin was ousted by the military in a September 2006 coup and is now living in self-imposed exile in Dubai.

Rivalry between his supporters and opponents, known as red shirts and yellow shirts, has been a frequent cause of political unrest in the country.

The yellow shirts were behind the huge street protests that led up to the military coup of September 2006 and the ones two years later which led to Mr Thaksin’s allies being forced from power.

In April 2010, the red shirts occupied Bangkok’s historic and commercial districts in an attempt to topple the government. The demonstrations turned violent when the army tried to disperse protesters; at least 90 people were killed in clashes in total.

6)

Constitutional Court Judge Thinking 

It is incredible, how 9 judge of the constitution court, can take Thailand to the brink of civil war, and nothing can be done.

Increasingly, Thais of all side, apart from the Elite establishment and its press, are becoming highy critical of the constitutional court. Most Thais sees the constitutional court judge as bordering on insanity, for example, on translation the word “AND” to mean “OR.”

  • In understanding the constitutional court, NNT reports:

BANGKOK, 18 March 2013 (NNT) – The Constitution Court has faced harsh criticism from Puea Thai party, Chat Thai Pattana party, and some senators, after the Constitution Court president admitted that the rulings to disqualify former Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and to dissolve political parties were, in his word, “careless”.

Constitution Court President Wasan Soipisuth said, in a seminar organized by the court, that the court procedures that led to the ruling in 2008 to disqualify former Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej relied too much on individual judges’ personal opinions, and failed to clearly establish what the facts were before making a decision on the legality of the acts of persons involved.

Mr Wasan also said that the ruling to dissolve the Palang Prachachon and Chart Thai Pattana parties was “necessary in order to avoid political chaos”.

Mr Wasan’s remark was heavily criticised by Chart Thai Pattana party’s spokesman Watchara Kannikar, who accused the Constitution Court of basing its verdict on its own disputable opinion that the Chart Thai Pattana party was a potential cause of “political chaos”.

Puea Thai party’s deputy spokesman Jirayut Huangsap asked that the Constitution Court judges be summoned to House Committee on Judicial Affairs to explain what happened before the ruling.

Meanwhile, Senator Ruangkrai Leekijwattana asked the Constitution Court to show responsibility for its mistake, and suggested that if all the Constitution Court judges agree with Mr Wasan that the ruling did not follow proper procedures, the court should rectify its erroneous verdict.

7)

Second Road Block

After stopping Parliament in July of 2012, currently, in March of 2013, Yingluck is attempting to amend the military constitution again, after a long break from about July of 2012.

As with in July of 2012, the constitutional court has accepted a petition to stop the amendment again. But this time, issued no injunction for the process to stop.

The Constitutional Court decided to proceed with a trial in the complaint against Parliament President Somsak Kiatsuranont and 311 coalition MPs and senators who supported Article 68 amendment. The proposed amendment seeks to restrict the people’s right to submit petitions to the Constitutional Court via the Office of the Attorney-General only, alleged that the amendment would violate the charter as the Constitutional Court had earlier ruled that it had the power to receive complaints from the public directly. Somchai also alleged that the amendment to Article 68 was planned with ulterior motives.

Making most noise at objecting to the constitutional change is the appointed senators, who would loose their position.

  • Paiboon, an appointed senator of the so-called Group of 40 Senators, said if the Constitutional Court ruled that an amendment to Article 68 was unconstitutional, MPs and senators who voted for the amendment, might be regarded as having violated the charter. Senator Paiboon Nititawan yesterday warned that coalition MPs and pro-government senators might be removed from office for enacting a bill to amend Article 68 of the Constitution. He said the parties of the MPs might be dissolved and the senators might be removed from office.

9)

Yingluck Not Backing Down

With Yingluck, increasingly assertive, and not backing down from the Elite Establishment, there is nowhere for the Elite to go but back down.

Again, the Elite establishment lacks the street muscle of the past and cannot win elections. The only way out for the establishment, is to compromise with Yingluck.

The battle, between Yingluck and the Elite, increasingly is about legal issues, where the Elite will have a hard time explaining the situation to the Thai people.

  • But Pichit Chuenban, a legal expert of the Pheu Thai, said Constitutional Court judges themselves would face a criminal probe for violating the charter by accepting the complaint against Somsak and the 311 other defendants.

Pichit alleged that the Constitutional Court judges who voted to try the case had violated the defendants’ rights to receive a fair trial by indicating in their decision on Wednesday that the amendment appeared to be wrong.

Pichit said Article 40 guaranteed the rights of defendants to receive fair trial so the Constitutional Court judges apparently violated the article.

Pichit said the court’s decision to proceed with the trial was also tantamount to a violation of the power of the legislative branch that has the authority to enact laws.

Pichit said the Pheu Thai might file complaints against the Constitutional Court judges with the Administrative Court and the courts of justice.

Pheu Thai MP from Ubon Ratchathani, Somkid Chueakong, said he and his colleague Worachai Hema would file a complaint with the police at Thung Song Hong Police Station today against the Constitutional Court for abusing its power. It was interfering in the legislative branch’s power while it should not have accepted to rule in the case filed by Somchai.

9)

World Justice Report

When Thai Intel started the blog about 2 years ago, one of the first report was on the Songkhla-Network of senior and highly influential Thai judges that is linked to Prem, the privy council to the Thai king-through their shared time in the Songkhla province in Southern Thailand.

There is a great deal of writings about the Thai justice system, being highly politicized over the years, with a “Judicialization” of Thailand to go after those who are against the Thai establishment.

The evidence supporting the sheer twisting the rule of law to support the Thai establishment and going after its opposition-is massive and well documented.

The problem in Thailand, is not that people do not know that there is a “Double Standard” in the Thai justice system, however. But the problem is that there are many in Thailand, who sees that the “Rule of Law” has no place in Thailand.

In fact, the royalist, elite and military rulers of Thailand says it plainly and openly, and gets a great deal of support, when they say that, quote: “Democracy, Liberty, Justice, and human rights are non-Thai values.”

How does one teach, those that do not believe in justice, to see the importance of it-is the question a society like Thailand needs to address. Furthermore, it is not a just a Thailand specific question. This question, applies to a great many country and a great many people of this globe.

The following is from the Thailand summary of the World Justice Report:

  • Compared with other lower middle-income countries, Thailand performs relatively well, obtaining high marks on absence of crime (ranking 20th globally), and effectiveness of the criminal justice system (ranking 24th). However, some areas require further attention. Civil conflict and political violence remain significant problems (ranking 64th). Corruption is a challenge, particularly within the police. The Thai civil justice system is characterized by government influence and lengthy duration of cases. Access to official information is limited (ranking 62nd).

10)

A Net-Work Court

Again, one of the first post at Thai Intel, started about 2008, was about the “Songkhla Network” of senior judges in Thailand, linked to the Privy to the Thai King Prem. The judges are called part of the the Songkhla Network, for serving duty in Songkhla, where Prem is from.\Prem, is of course the head of the Thai establishment, that is anti Thaksin.

Through Prem’s net-work, the strings are pulled on the Thai courts, system wide, including the Constitutional Court judges.

  • And apart from Prem, after all is said and done, two factors should be noted.

First; People, who later became Thailand’s constitutional court judge, took part in meetings to prepare for the staging of the 2006 coup, and second; people close to Abhisit’s Democrat Party, later became constitutional court judge.

The 2007 Military Constitution mandated that the Constitution Court consists of 9 justices, who serve for nine-year terms, meaning, they are entrenched, and meant to be there long-term, to control Thailand.

Three justices are elected by a general assembly of Supreme Court judges by secret ballot from their own ranks. Two justices are elected by a general assembly of Administrative Court judges by secret ballot from their own ranks. Four justices (two experts in the field of law and two experts in the administration of state affairs) are nominated by a selection committee and confirmed by the Senate.

What the above indicates, is a Constitutional Court that is disconnected from the people, the nature of a dictatorial system, and second, the inter-locking and self supporting and self serving of Senators and the judges, locking away power among themselves.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s