Why Is The Charter Bill Unconstitutional?

[Gadfly]

The Constitutional Court says that deliberations over the Charter Bill must stop because there is a high likelihood (what you need for an emergency injunction) that it contains provisions that will overthrow the constitutional monarchy. The State Attorney General obviously disagrees.

 

But what provisions of the Charter Bill are unconstitutional and why are they a threat to the constitutional monarchy? Enjoining the parliament from even deliberating (considering) a bill is extraordinary. Emergency inductive relief is almost impossible to get here, but when it is granted, a reason is provided. Commonsense and universal practice tell us that when a court issues such drastic relief, it also issues a decision identifying the issues that justify an emergency injunction so that it has time to can consider those issues further in detail.

 

I can't find anything that identifies those issues in the Thai or English language press. All I see are the old arguments between Thaksin/redshirts vs yellow shirts/dems. This is what I hear at the office and what I read in the press. Thaksin is bad, but that does not mean that legislation that might benefit him challenges the constitutional monarchy. They are two different issues. They are chalk and cheese.

 

Or I hear arguments about who is allowed to seek such relief: any petitioner vs. the attorney general. Interesting arguments, but they still don't go to the heart of the matter.

 

But no discussion or identification of the clauses in this bill that supposedly represent a threat to the constitutional monarchy. Does anyone know what clauses supposedly represent a threat to the constitutional monarchy? Has anyone seen any summary or discussion of the rationale behind the Constitutional Court's ruling and identification of the offensive clauses?

 

I find this astounding. I find it even more astounding that things are so polarized in Thailand that no one asks for such basic information. Its just Reds vs Yellows, No one is asking the court to explain why it made this ruling???

[WorldFun]

good question

[Horneytorney]

gaddy is a red shirt!

[kamui]

good question

 

Maybe they are doing the wrong thing for the right reason? To avoid immediate violence in the streets.

[Gadfly]

gaddy is a red shirt!

 

Because I asked a question?

 

Kamui might be right about their intentions, but I question whether it will work. Others will eventually ask that same question. People aren't stupid. As matters stand now, this injunction seems pretty flimsy, unless there is some sort of rationale they just haven't made public yet.

 

If the tension continues, real red shirts will start to press that question. I know some reporters for the Western Press (say, in the league, of NYT, The Economist, etc.) are starting to ask that question, but giving the Court the benefit of the doubt, thinking they must have decision somewhere that explains why the Court believes this bill challenges the constitutional monarchy.

 

If the Court doesn't have any reason or at least plausible reason for deciding that the bill challenges the constitutional monarchy, you can be certain that real red shirts will be quite vocal in asking this question and drawing attention to the fact the Court had no reason at all for reaching this conclusion. The Western press will raise this issue, embarrassing the Court and Thais, and the Thai elite who support the Court will try to justify it with mumbo jumbo Thai mysticism about how all of this all of this is perfectly legitimate, but Westerners just don't understand Thai thinking. Thai logic is unique and can't be understood through critical questions and by asking impertinent questions. Just believe. I am already starting to hear this line. No one, least of all the Western press, will buy this nonsense. Not this time. And really, not last time either.

 

More troubling, if the Court loses its legitimacy and no compromise is reached, the red shirts will mobilize their supporters. Well, you can see where this is all leading: a repeat of what we saw a bit more than two years ago. But this time, if they don't do a better job of containing things and making real concessions, I suspect it will be much worse. A coup now, military or judicial, will likely be met with very violent opposition. And they won't be able to count on the support on all of the army for support. This could get real nasty if they don't play it straight. I just hope they understand this.

[ThaiHome]

The Constitutional Court says that deliberations over the Charter Bill must stop because there is a high likelihood (what you need for an emergency injunction) that it contains provisions that will overthrow the constitutional monarchy. The State Attorney General obviously disagrees.

 

....I find this astounding. I find it even more astounding that things are so polarized in Thailand that no one asks for such basic information. Its just Reds vs Yellows, No one is asking the court to explain why it made this ruling???

 

 

 

The Amendments being considered are not the issue. These amendments are changing section 291 which deals with how the constitution may be amended. The new amendments are setting up a Constitutional Drafting Assemble (CDA) that will be made up of one member elected from each provinces and 25 (I think, it keeps changing) legal experts selected by Parliament .

 

The petitions the Court agree to review and issued the injunction stopping Parliament from the final vote until they are done, claimed there was no guarantee in the amendments that the CDA will not come up with a new system of government that is not a democracy with the king as the head by changing several sections that state that. The petitions claimed that the proposed CDA will be stacked by the PTP which controls Parliament and will likely have a majority on the CDA and is supported by the UDD of which there are several vocal leaders and factions that support turning Thailand into a republic. This would be a violation of section 68 and it was the petitioners duty bring this to attention of the Constitution Court as stated in the section.

 

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 the 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 act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person. The court has explained why it issued the injunction saying it needed time to review the petitions before the final vote saying a month or so delay will not cause any damage.

 

The main criticism of decision deals with whether the petitions have to go through the Prosecutor General first or if the Court can deal with them directly. The court, in their justification for the injunction, have said they interrupt the words (in Thai) “right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court†to mean “and/or†and they do not have to wait for a motion from the Prosecutor General.

 

In the current amendments, the CDA could in fact come up with an entirely new Constitution the does away with the constitutional monarchy, and some UDD factions have made it clear that is their goal.

 

This is at best just a delaying tactic and all PTP has to do to get around it is to change the wording to specify what sections the CDA is allowed to change.

TH

[Flashermac]

PT to vote against court order

 

 

Pheu Thai executives agreed at a meeting on Monday that the party will vote to defy the Constitution Court's order to delay the third reading of the charter amendment bill, party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said.

 

Mr Prompong said the executives were firm in their opinion that the court had no right to infringe on the legislative branch.

 

Therefore, if a vote was called on the issue in the joint sitting of parliament on Tuesday, Pheu Thai MPs will vote for parliament not to comply with the court's order.

...

 

 

 

My link

[kamui]

PT to vote against court order

 

 

Pheu Thai executives agreed at a meeting on Monday that the party will vote to defy the Constitution Court's order to delay the third reading of the charter amendment bill, party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said.

 

Mr Prompong said the executives were firm in their opinion that the court had no right to infringe on the legislative branch.

 

Therefore, if a vote was called on the issue in the joint sitting of parliament on Tuesday, Pheu Thai MPs will vote for parliament not to comply with the court's order.

...

 

My link

 

So there is another battlefield. Besides the battles in the street, in the parliament and in the media, and behind all this inbetween the Thai elite, it's two major and central Thai institutions fighting against each other. This might have long term consequences, when the legislature is fighting against the judiciary and the other way around. It will add a very unfortunate layer of dysfunction.

[WorldFun]

aim fire shoot

[Flashermac]

My taxi driver last Friday was predicting violence and bloodshed in only a week or so. It's looking like he was right. Got to love PT's ideas of "reconciliation".