Posted 2012-02-06 16:39:32
 Moruya, on 2012-02-06 15:58:37, said:
webfact, on 2012-02-06 15:45:25, said:
Yingluck to have Kittirat defend decrees in Constitution Court
The Nation
BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Yinguck Shinawatra said Monday that the Cabinet assigned Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Kittirat Na-ranong to defend two executive decrees in the Constitution Court.
The court decided Monday to review the constitutional status of the decrees and summoned Yingluck or a representative to testify on February 15.
Yingluck said she would visit provinces that day so the Cabinet resolved to have Kittirat testify to the court.
 -- The Nation 2012-02-06
It must be a Shinawatra trait to run away instead of facing the music. Guess her helicopter can't fly at lunchtimes.
That's a bit unfair. With former finance minister Korn Chatikavanij also asked to appear, having Finance Minister Kitirat Na-ranong to represent the government makes sense. PM Yingluck didn't even need an excuse 
Posted 2012-02-06 17:10:19
Reasonableman, on 2012-02-06 15:16:09, said:
sparebox2, on 2012-02-06 14:39:19, said:
Moruya, on 2012-02-06 14:27:33, said:
Reasonableman, on 2012-02-06 14:20:39, said:
Apparently, for some, a government majority is the same as a mandate to run the country as a dictatorship, and every opposition move is viewed as a threat to "topple" it. This type of us-versus-them thinking will make sure that Thailand will remain in its current predicament for the foreseeable future.
Correct. It's like a guy who buys a footbal club and thinks there are no rules that apply to him.
So to prevent such dictaorship, maybe we should change the election rules.
Who ever win the majority be opposition.
The loosing part be the government and PM
In this way, the PM will have to be careful, because what ever he wants may be over-ruled by opposition (who own most seats).
A national government is responsible for governing the whole country in the interests of its entire population, not just some parts of the country and parts of the population. It is not the absurd win-all, lose-all game, as you suggest. Thailand is inhabited by the Thai people, all of whom deserve a fair shake, regardless of how they expressed their voting preferences.
And just remember this government did not get a single seat in the the southern part of Thailand. Few in Bangkok or the northwest. It power came from a highly financed voting machine in the the Northeast where canvasseres were paid for the number votes the ruling party got and villagers in many cases were instructed who to vote for. Hardly democratic!
#28
CalgaryII
Posted 2012-02-06 17:22:22
whybother, on 2012-02-06 13:59:32, said:
CalgaryII, on 2012-02-06 13:14:07, said:
sparebox2, on 2012-02-06 12:56:00, said:
CFourt already acted. Soon the PT party will be shut down bacause they will be founf guilty.
Much cleaner than the GOOD coup.
And that is what the UDD/RS call a 'Judicial coup".
It is clear to many with the Opposition taking this Parliamentary challenge to the court, instead of dealing with it in Parliament, is the cover they hope will obscure their actual intent ..... to have a coup by other means.
No-one is fooled by their self-righteous protestations about illegalities.
Certainly sparebox2 isn't.
This oppositional manuevering is exactly why there is all the pressure to revamp the constitution. It was designed by the coup perps to enable them to do it again.
The rationale supporting Constitutional review issued by a Parliamentary Panel, attests to this Opposition Judicial manuever, namely:
.the present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.
Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organisations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy, the panel said.
Independent organisations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.
Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.
#29
CalgaryII
Posted 2012-02-06 17:33:07
Just because the PTP have a majority, doesn't mean they can side step parliament - which is what they are trying to do with an emergency decree.
Yes they can, to a degree.
Overdoing it could cost them at the next election.
But that is the beauty of the Thai Parliamentary system, as of other Commonwealth nations....With a parliamentary majority they can overide the Opposition and they would scream is dictatorial, but Cest la Vie, better that the USA Congressional stalemate.
The Opposition can point out their disagreement, and perhaps gain electoral favor...or not.
The electorate expects this Govt. to act.
Right now, Oppositional judicial activism smacks of obstructionism and trying to prevent the electoral choice of doing what they were elected for.
The efforts of the Opposition and their affiliates to prevent and intimidate this Govt. from acting on its' electoral mandate is obvious to one and all.......especially those who elected this Govt.
To persist in this obstructionism is done at their own peril. The only people who cheer them on, are their own minority, electoral constituancies.
Plus, their baggage of using judicial stuff in the past for political purposes hangs heavy in the air.
#30
CalgaryII
Posted 2012-02-06 17:42:22
Reasonableman, on 2012-02-06 14:20:39, said:
Apparently, for some, a government majority is the same as a mandate to run the country as a dictatorship,
Many people don't like it that in a parliamentary system, a majority is a big deal, and can be used to act aggresively.
And the electorate will decide at the next election if they approve.
But to follow the Opposition lead in screaming dictatorial armageddon in this instance, is over-the-top.
It is normal for the opposition to magnify everything they attack the Govt. with, but this needs to be put in perspective.
What is dictatorial to some, is considered good by others.....in this case the electoral majority. Many of those are saying, "It is about time this Govt. gets off its ass and does something, without letting the Opposition obstruct and intimidate them"
#31
CalgaryII
Posted 2012-02-06 17:46:13
A national government is responsible for governing the whole country in the interests of its entire population, not just some parts of the country and parts of the population. It is not the absurd win-all, lose-all game, as you suggest. Thailand is inhabited by the Thai people, all of whom deserve a fair shake, regardless of how they expressed their voting preferences.
And there is nothing happening to the contrary.
The Opposition would like to suggest otherwise, but that would be expected from them.
#32
CalgaryII
Posted 2012-02-06 17:57:23
And just remember this government did not get a single seat in the the southern part of Thailand. Few in Bangkok or the northwest. It power came from a highly financed voting machine in the the Northeast where canvasseres were paid for the number votes the ruling party got and villagers in many cases were instructed who to vote for. Hardly democratic!
The PTP definitely has a problem getting seats in the South. Critics of Abhi. would say he has trouble getting votes and seats anywhere, other than the South....but that would be unfair. He got a few.
I wonder which highly financed machine was more highly financed....in the NE or South or .............
And there we have the vote buying thing again. Trying to beatifically and with self-righteous indignation accuse one side of it.
Just doesn't fly....that dawg dont hunt....Doesn't compute......etc., etc.
Edited by CalgaryII, 2012-02-06 18:07:05.
Posted 2012-02-06 18:17:18
CalgaryII, on 2012-02-06 17:22:22, said: whybother, on 2012-02-06 13:59:32, said:
HOW will any decision on this cause this government to be kicked out? The only possible thing it would do is point out that the government is doing things illegally. If the people decide at the next election that they don't want a government to do things illegally and they don't get voted back in, do you consider that democratic?
[/indent]
Yes!
So, no problem with the Democrats asking the courts if it is legal.
If it's illegal the people will decide how they feel at the next election. If the Democrats didn't ask the courts then no one would know if it was legal or not, which I suppose the PTP would prefer.
Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com
Posted 2012-02-06 18:23:35
CalgaryII, on 2012-02-06 17:33:07, said: Just because the PTP have a majority, doesn't mean they can side step parliament - which is what they are trying to do with an emergency decree.
Yes they can, to a degree.
Overdoing it could cost them at the next election.
But that is the beauty of the Thai Parliamentary system, as of other Commonwealth nations....With a parliamentary majority they can overide the Opposition and they would scream is dictatorial, but Cest la Vie, better that the USA Congressional stalemate.
The Opposition can point out their disagreement, and perhaps gain electoral favor...or not.
The electorate expects this Govt. to act.
Right now, Oppositional judicial activism smacks of obstructionism and trying to prevent the electoral choice of doing what they were elected for.
The efforts of the Opposition and their affiliates to prevent and intimidate this Govt. from acting on its' electoral mandate is obvious to one and all.......especially those who elected this Govt.
To persist in this obstructionism is done at their own peril. The only people who cheer them on, are their own minority, electoral constituancies.
Plus, their baggage of using judicial stuff in the past for political purposes hangs heavy in the air.
They can override the opposition in parliament. They can bypass parliament in an emergency when decisions need to be made quickly.
This isn't an emergency so they shouldn't be bypassing parliament.
Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com
#35
CalgaryII
Posted 2012-02-06 18:41:49
So, no problem with the Democrats asking the courts if it is legal.
The problem is with their preferred judicial MO instead of Parliamentary debate and opposition.
I haven't kept count, but this latest judicial activism by the Opposition is just one more initiative in a long list of doing so.
But underlying it all, is the past use by these people of the judiciary to achieve political goals, including their efforts to validate their coup - initially via a coup constitution followed up by getting judicial blessings exonerating their undemocratic power grab.
Every time the Opposition runs to the courts, or these other independent groupings they built into their coup constitution, it smacks of obstructionism to electoral mandates and of undemocratic, ulterior motives to undo election results.
The electoral majority is not amused....the Opposition minority constituancies are.
Just let the dam_n Government govern, and ready yourself to fight the next election.
Not complicated
#36
CalgaryII
Posted 2012-02-06 18:46:00
This isn't an emergency so they shouldn't be bypassing parliament.
Ms. Y and Co. think otherwise.
If the Opposition disagrees, get after 'em in Parliament, and quit the chicken-shit judicial pleading to save them from these bad PTP people.
Running to the judges a little like poor picked on Johnie running to mama and papa!
But we must keep in mind the main motive - undemocratic as it is.
Respecting electoral results and the choice of the people would be much better option than asking Judges to negate them.
Edited by CalgaryII, 2012-02-06 18:48:16.
Posted 2012-02-06 20:40:37
CalgaryII, on 2012-02-06 18:41:49, said:
So, no problem with the Democrats asking the courts if it is legal.
The problem is with their preferred judicial MO instead of Parliamentary debate and opposition.
I haven't kept count, but this latest judicial activism by the Opposition is just one more initiative in a long list of doing so.
But underlying it all, is the past use by these people of the judiciary to achieve political goals, including their efforts to validate their coup - initially via a coup constitution followed up by getting judicial blessings exonerating their undemocratic power grab.
Every time the Opposition runs to the courts, or these other independent groupings they built into their coup constitution, it smacks of obstructionism to electoral mandates and of undemocratic, ulterior motives to undo election results.
The electoral majority is not amused....the Opposition minority constituancies are.
Just let the dam_n Government govern, and ready yourself to fight the next election.
Not complicated
OK - help me with some counting. How many debates has YIngluck had with Aphisit?
How many debates has the givernment allowed to take place?
Posted 2012-02-06 20:42:03
CalgaryII, on 2012-02-06 18:46:00, said:
This isn't an emergency so they shouldn't be bypassing parliament.
Ms. Y and Co. think otherwise.
If the Opposition disagrees, get after 'em in Parliament, and quit the chicken-shit judicial pleading to save them from these bad PTP people.
Running to the judges a little like poor picked on Johnie running to mama and papa!
But we must keep in mind the main motive - undemocratic as it is.
Respecting electoral results and the choice of the people would be much better option than asking Judges to negate them.
So, a financial situation that has been in place since 1997, through the TRT terms, the PPP term, the Dems term and 6 months of the TRT term is now an emergency?
#39
CalgaryII
Posted 2012-02-06 20:55:15
Moruya, on 2012-02-06 20:40:37, said:
CalgaryII, on 2012-02-06 18:41:49, said:
So, no problem with the Democrats asking the courts if it is legal.
The problem is with their preferred judicial MO instead of Parliamentary debate and opposition.
I haven't kept count, but this latest judicial activism by the Opposition is just one more initiative in a long list of doing so.
But underlying it all, is the past use by these people of the judiciary to achieve political goals, including their efforts to validate their coup - initially via a coup constitution followed up by getting judicial blessings exonerating their undemocratic power grab.
Every time the Opposition runs to the courts, or these other independent groupings they built into their coup constitution, it smacks of obstructionism to electoral mandates and of undemocratic, ulterior motives to undo election results.
The electoral majority is not amused....the Opposition minority constituancies are.
Just let the dam_n Government govern, and ready yourself to fight the next election.
Not complicated
OK - help me with some counting. How many debates has YIngluck had with Aphisit?
How many debates has the givernment allowed to take place?
Politicians typically avoid debates when they are in a commanding lead.
Politicians clamouring for debates are those desperate to make up lost ground.
During an election, everyone plays to their strengths.
I don't blame Ms. Y one bit. The media was generally in Abhi's corner. She could have annihalated (sp?) him, and the next day the media would have glorified Abhi....it would have been no-win for Ms. Y.
The amount of debates the Government has allowed, is how many they want to allow.
And if the voting public begin to question this, I am sure the Govt. would take note. To have the Opposition complain about it, is not sufficient for a change of pace in this instance.
Posted 2012-02-06 21:33:27
CalgaryII, on 2012-02-06 18:46:00, said:
This isn't an emergency so they shouldn't be bypassing parliament.
Ms. Y and Co. think otherwise.
If the Opposition disagrees, get after 'em in Parliament, and quit the chicken-shit judicial pleading to save them from these bad PTP people.
Running to the judges a little like poor picked on Johnie running to mama and papa!
But we must keep in mind the main motive - undemocratic as it is.
Respecting electoral results and the choice of the people would be much better option than asking Judges to negate them.
I don't get it. On one hand you're arguing that the Democrats should debate in the parliament, and on the other you're saying it's OK that the government are not.
You really should get you story straight.
Posted 2012-02-06 21:58:21
CalgaryII, on 2012-02-06 17:22:22, said:
whybother, on 2012-02-06 13:59:32, said:
HOW will any decision on this cause this government to be kicked out? The only possible thing it would do is point out that the government is doing things illegally. If the people decide at the next election that they don't want a government to do things illegally and they don't get voted back in, do you consider that democratic?
So if you had your loved ones you wouldn't mind if their killers was not only not charged with the crimes since they were MP's but allowed to rule - and bypass more laws - on the basis of getting votes in an election...even when there are laws against murder in the books?
Posted 2012-02-06 22:02:34
I wonder if Calgaryll would have been protesting if the previous government declared all Red Shirts as non-citizens, animals if you so will, and then marched them all into gas-chambers?
I mean, if they disapprove this strong hand good guy democratic rule - that Calgaryll likes - they could just vote them out the next election, if they perceived the action as illegal.
Back outside fantasy-land illegal acts need to be dealt with right away and no election can white-wash them.
Posted 2012-02-06 23:22:44
CalgaryII, on 2012-02-06 13:37:20, said:
Can't quite make out whether you are in favor of independent judicial review or not. Am I confused, or are you?
The Opposition is running to the courts and these constittutional independent organizations at every opportunity.
Their purpose is to undermine the Govt. with the intent exactly how sparebox2 suggested.
They have a number of these little time-bomblets planted already. They hope these organizations rule in their favor. Their actions suggest to me that they like their chances, as in all likelyhood these entities have not yet been cleansed of the coup appointees.
If I was them I would do the same, as going to the People either via elections or Parliamentary actions have not gotten them anywhere.
What they fail to recognize however, is that the Thai Political landscape has changed since their last 2006 coup.
There will be no more freebies. The majority Thai electorate has become thoroughly politicized. Should any of these judicial actions threaten Ms. Y's Govt. as the Opposition hopes, all hell will break loose.
I see you are still naive abut the coup. The democrats were the third government after the coup. The army had nothing to do with appointing the ministers. And as the polls show the population was more satisfied with the Democrat ministers than the are with the ones on the current merry go round.
The courts are the same as in many other countries Canada and the States for example. They can and will stop illegal actions. You can debate it until you are blue in the face but if it is not legal the courts will stop you.
If you are so worried about them going to court why don't you push for them to try more reasonable methods.
Perhaps you might want to take a look at what is good for Thailand rather than what is good for Thaksin. You would find a world of difference.
Posted 2012-02-06 23:31:43
webfact, on 2012-02-06 15:45:25, said:
Yingluck to have Kittirat defend decrees in Constitution Court
The Nation
BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Yinguck Shinawatra said Monday that the Cabinet assigned Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Kittirat Na-ranong to defend two executive decrees in the Constitution Court.
The court decided Monday to review the constitutional status of the decrees and summoned Yingluck or a representative to testify on February 15.
Yingluck said she would visit provinces that day so the Cabinet resolved to have Kittirat testify to the court.
-- The Nation 2012-02-06
Now let me get this straight she declared a executive decree and has to send some one else to defend it.
She is out busy visiting the providence's. I wonder if that includes the southern ones.
Posted 2012-02-06 23:40:13
CalgaryII, on 2012-02-06 17:22:22, said:
whybother, on 2012-02-06 13:59:32, said:
CalgaryII, on 2012-02-06 13:14:07, said:
sparebox2, on 2012-02-06 12:56:00, said:
CFourt already acted. Soon the PT party will be shut down bacause they will be founf guilty.
Much cleaner than the GOOD coup.
And that is what the UDD/RS call a 'Judicial coup".
It is clear to many with the Opposition taking this Parliamentary challenge to the court, instead of dealing with it in Parliament, is the cover they hope will obscure their actual intent ..... to have a coup by other means.
No-one is fooled by their self-righteous protestations about illegalities.
Certainly sparebox2 isn't.
This oppositional manuevering is exactly why there is all the pressure to revamp the constitution. It was designed by the coup perps to enable them to do it again.
The rationale supporting Constitutional review issued by a Parliamentary Panel, attests to this Opposition Judicial manuever, namely:
.the present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.
Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organisations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy, the panel said.
Independent organisations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.
Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.
You have to remember that CalgaryII definition of democracy is any thing goes if you are i the majority. Legality dosen't count. Also he believes that it is OK to buy Democracy. I still think he comes from a third world country in Africa where any thing goes and is having a hard time adjusting to some people not only wanting good government but trying to get it with out the fear of death.
Posted 2012-02-06 23:50:55
CalgaryII, on 2012-02-06 18:41:49, said:
So, no problem with the Democrats asking the courts if it is legal.
The problem is with their preferred judicial MO instead of Parliamentary debate and opposition.
I haven't kept count, but this latest judicial activism by the Opposition is just one more initiative in a long list of doing so.
But underlying it all, is the past use by these people of the judiciary to achieve political goals, including their efforts to validate their coup - initially via a coup constitution followed up by getting judicial blessings exonerating their undemocratic power grab.
Every time the Opposition runs to the courts, or these other independent groupings they built into their coup constitution, it smacks of obstructionism to electoral mandates and of undemocratic, ulterior motives to undo election results.
The electoral majority is not amused....the Opposition minority constituancies are.
Just let the dam_n Government govern, and ready yourself to fight the next election.
Not complicated
I am confused it is executive decree that is being challenged. Why if you want the parliament to debate it so badly did they not bring it up in Parliament instead of by passing Parliament?
Your idea of democracy is what ever the PM wants just make a executive decree and don't worry about what Parliament wants or dosen't want.
They try to claim it is a emergency but when the floods were ruining thousands of peoples life's they did not consider that a emergency.
Posted 2012-02-07 00:04:25
hellodolly, on 2012-02-06 23:40:13, said:
You have to remember that CalgaryII definition of democracy is any thing goes if you are i the majority. Legality dosen't count. Also he believes that it is OK to buy Democracy. I still think he comes from a third world country in Africa where any thing goes and is having a hard time adjusting to some people not only wanting good government but trying to get it with out the fear of death.
Well, 4 years to plunder the country's coffers is a pretty short time, even without any harrassment from courts and opposition.
In Africa you can at least claim electoral fraud and send your goons on a last minute shopping spree when the voters kick you out in the next election, but here in Thailand... ?
Posted 2012-02-07 05:23:53
CalgaryII, on 2012-02-06 20:55:15, said:
Moruya, on 2012-02-06 20:40:37, said:
CalgaryII, on 2012-02-06 18:41:49, said:
So, no problem with the Democrats asking the courts if it is legal.
The problem is with their preferred judicial MO instead of Parliamentary debate and opposition.
I haven't kept count, but this latest judicial activism by the Opposition is just one more initiative in a long list of doing so.
But underlying it all, is the past use by these people of the judiciary to achieve political goals, including their efforts to validate their coup - initially via a coup constitution followed up by getting judicial blessings exonerating their undemocratic power grab.
Every time the Opposition runs to the courts, or these other independent groupings they built into their coup constitution, it smacks of obstructionism to electoral mandates and of undemocratic, ulterior motives to undo election results.
The electoral majority is not amused....the Opposition minority constituancies are.
Just let the dam_n Government govern, and ready yourself to fight the next election.
Not complicated
OK - help me with some counting. How many debates has YIngluck had with Aphisit?
How many debates has the givernment allowed to take place?
Politicians typically avoid debates when they are in a commanding lead.
Politicians clamouring for debates are those desperate to make up lost ground.
During an election, everyone plays to their strengths.
I don't blame Ms. Y one bit. The media was generally in Abhi's corner. She could have annihalated (sp?) him, and the next day the media would have glorified Abhi....it would have been no-win for Ms. Y.
The amount of debates the Government has allowed, is how many they want to allow.
And if the voting public begin to question this, I am sure the Govt. would take note. To have the Opposition complain about it, is not sufficient for a change of pace in this instance.
You contradict yourself
|
|
0
