Frontal attack by Pheu Thai on Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court has no respect for the constitution and the rule of law. It is constantly trying to expand its power.
Three board members of Pheu Thai yesterday made this not sickening reproach to the high court, which has the task of guarding the constitution. The former ruling party had mobilized the media to state its position on the case currently pending before the Court, namely the validity of the February 2 elections.
According to PT, the Court has no jurisdiction to deal with that case. She motivates this as follows. The case was brought before the Ombudsman at the request of a lecturer in law from Thammasat University, but the Ombudsman is only allowed to refer cases relating to laws to the Court.
But actually that argument is being dragged into the hair, because PT and the red shirts do not trust the Court or the other independent bodies, such as the Electoral Council and the National Anti-Corruption Commission. They would be out to cheat the government. For example, the Electoral Council is accused of neglecting its task.
PT board member Apiwan Wiriyachai says that while Pheu Thai recognizes the authority of the Court, when the Court violates the constitution, the party is not obliged to abide by a ruling of the Court. So that can be fun, because Pheu Thai – and not only this party – expects the Court to get a big line through the elections.
Today the Court hears the Ombudsman, the chairman of the Electoral Council and Prime Minister Yingluck (somewhat disabled because she sprained her ankle last week and is transported in a wheelchair). It is not known when the die will be cast. At least not today. It can remain unsettled in political Thailand for a long time.
(Source: Bangkok Post, March 19, 2014)
For decades, political parties have been trying – in the absence of the will to compromise with other parties on major and minor political matters – to claim their right before all kinds of bodies such as the courts and all kinds of other – in themselves independent – institutions. Their statements have political implications. The side that loses at one of these instances is always angry, does not acknowledge the verdict or says in advance (if it is obvious that they are going to lose) that they will not accept any verdict. These 'independent' institutions have been politicized PRECISELY because of the impotence of the existing political parties. Through the back rooms, the power blocs try to get as many friendly people as possible into important seats, which only increases and does not decrease politicization.
I think you are exaggerating a bit, dear Chris. The fact that the 'independent institutions', such as the Constitutional Court, the Electoral Council and the NACC (the National Anti-Corruption Committee) are seen as non-independent but as politicized, is only after the military coup of 2006 and the established constitution of 2007. That is not only what some political parties say, but also many academics and other interested parties, such as my person.
Bangkok Pundit, a well-informed website, outlines four scenarios for the coming period:
1 Yingluck will remain in office until the February 2 elections are concluded or completely new elections are held. The latter is my preference, if the Democrats also participate again.
2 Yingluck resigns and one of her deputy prime ministers takes over
3 A new prime minister is appointed from negotiations between Yingluck and Suthep
4 Yingluck is deposed in a legal coup and a new prime minister is appointed (by whom?)
1 and maybe 2 could be accepted by the red shirts, but 3 probably not and 4 definitely not. Looks like it's going to be 4 and then we'll have the puppets dancing….
If the “T-family” were to have any interest in the country, 2 would be the appropriate choice.
I suspect that if these relatives were to withdraw from the political squabble, the Democrats would immediately be ready to sit down with Pheu Thai to find a solution to the impasse.
However, I suspect that this will remain wishful thinking.
Unfortunately…
Tino, isn't it likely that there will be a 'legal coup' followed by entirely new elections? In the meantime, a substitute prime minister from the PT camp. I don't see that option listed, but seems quite plausible to me. Anyway, never a dull day.
I hate the word "legal coup".
In a booklet entitled “Corruption and democracy in Thailand”, published in 1994 (10 years ago), based on research, three steps were mentioned to control corruption in this country:
1. the formal channels for checking civil servants and politicians must be improved considerably;
2. the pressure of the public, of the people, must increase. The authors write: we cannot expect the (top) officials and the politicians who now benefit from the corrupt political system to reform themselves;
3. more education of the population in order to exert moral and political pressure to eradicate corruption.
Fortunately, there is (slight) improvement on point 1. Abhisit and Suthep have to answer for murder in court; a number of red-shirt leaders have been accused of terrorism. The former governor of Bangkok (a Democrat) had to resign because of corruption, the elections for the current governor will most likely have to be held again. Multi-party politicians have been banned from politics for five years.
And rightly so. No legal coup. Just justice.