Constitutional Court and Corruption Commission strike back
The statement by the Center for the Administration of Peace and Order (Capo) to approach the king in the unlikely event that the cabinet has to step down has gone down badly with the Constitutional Court and the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Capo is trying to interfere with the work of both independent institutions, it has been criticized.
The Court issued a statement yesterday that contradicts the accusation by Capo (the body responsible for enforcing the emergency law that applies to Bangkok) that the Thawil case is beyond its limits (see: Red Shirt rally called off; Capo hopes for king's intervention). Capo speculates about the future and from covert threats, the Court writes. In the unlikely event that Capo's action interferes with the Court's work, it will consider taking legal action against the center.
On Wednesday, the Court will decide whether Yingluck will be given a two-week extension to prepare her defense. The Court is assessing whether she violated the constitution by transferring then-Secretary General Thawil Pliensri of the National Security Council. Indirectly, she would have helped her brother-in-law to the job of head of the national police. If found guilty, she will have to resign and possibly the cabinet or some cabinet members as well.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) also denounces the Capo's statement. The NACC is investigating Yingluck's role as chairman of the National Rice Policy Committee. She allegedly failed to address corruption in the rice mortgage system. In this procedure, the Senate decides whether Yingluck should resign if the NACC finds her guilty. She must cease her work with immediate effect.
Electoral council chairman Supachai Somcharoen also has few good words for Capo. Capo has no authority to order the Electoral Council to rush the call for new elections, he says.
Opposition leader Abhisit asks Yingluck to consider disbanding the Capo because it is not properly fulfilling its duties.
Prime Minister Yingluck says the country is not heading for a political vacuum if the court forces her to resign. A deputy prime minister can replace her.
(Source: Bangkok Post, Apr 19, 2014)
Photo homepage: Meeting of the Capo with top officials. Front left, half framed, Capo CEO Chalerm Yubamrung.
Background
Bangkok Post expects chaotic April month
Prime Minister Yingluck tries to buy time in rice case
Government holds its breath: is the curtain falling today?
Tension rises in political Thailand after Constitutional Court decision
Pheu Thai: There will be no neutral prime minister and the cabinet will not budge
Pronunciation Suthep is wrong; government wants army to respond
Changes can only take place through free elections, the last ones were sabotaged by Suthep and his democratic party, that has to be done first. So no kind of coupe against the chosen sitting Premier.
Changes from a feudal or oligarchic structure to a form of democracy do not go through elections in any country in the world, but through revolution: a revolt of the population against the ruling elite(s) who have nothing to do with the fate of the population…. .
Chris, that's a pretty bold statement. Let's take a look at the list of countries where democracy, after decades of military, oligarchic dictatorship, has gained solid ground through elections:
- Chile
– Argentina
- Bolivia
– Ecuador
- Paraguay
- Uruguay
- Colombia
– Brazil
- Peru
In short, virtually the entire South American continent is now democratic, without revolution.
Back to the drawing board, Chris 😉
Dear Cor
It's not such a bold statement if you don't distort it, as you do. I'm not talking about countries where democracy has taken root AFTER decades of oppression. I am talking about the abolition or disappearance of repression VIA elections. First, the conditions for truly free elections must be 'fought' on the elite, be they civilians or military. South America is full of this struggle. I think that should also happen in Thailand first. Elections under feudal or oligarchic rule solve nothing.
Dear Chris, then you had better leave out the word 'revolution' because a 'revolution is radical change of the political system in a violent way. And that was not the case in any of the Latin American countries. In Nicaragua there was a Sandinista revolution in 1979 when the dictator Somoza was ousted. Unfortunately, today Nicaragua is still the second poorest country (after Haiti) in the Western Hemisphere, so the Sandinista objectives have all failed miserably. There is still a very small wealthy elite, only they are now called Sandinistas.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutie
A revolution does not have to be violent.
Moderator: please no off-topic discussion about South America.
There are plenty of examples in history where a popular uprising has led to results.
For example, the French Revolution with its Trias Politica, as a result of which a democracy could really function. The American Revolution was a result of this French new thinking.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trias_politica
In the Netherlands, under pressure from uprisings in Europe, which threatened to spread to our country, the constitution of 1848 was drawn up.
After the Russian revolution, the Dutch elites in 1917 did not know how fast they had to be to introduce universal suffrage and women's suffrage.
Currently, Thailand, like many South American countries, does not meet the (Trias Politica) standards that a democracy should meet.