Taking a Constitutional
In an unprecedented move, the Constitutional Court has demanded that all 15,744,190 voters who chose the Pheu Thai party in the party-list vote in the last election must submit statements to the Court explaining their decision.
The statements must be submitted within 15 days and will be used by the Court in deciding whether parliamentary draft bills to amend the Constitution violate Section 68, which prohibits the overthrow of the democratic system of government with the King as Head of State.
This action follows the Court’s order to each of 416 MPs, Senators and Cabinet Ministers to explain why they voted for the draft bills to amend the Constitution. The draft amendments to Section 282 of the Constitution, which sets out the mechanism for changing the constitution, propose the election of a Constitutional Drafting Assembly and a referendum to ensure that any new constitutional provisions have the support of the majority of the people.
If the Court finds that the draft amendments violate the Constitution, it may order the dissolution of the Pheu Thai Party, the banning of its executives from politics for 5 years and the disenfranchisement of the millions who voted for it.
The Court’s order to Parliament was based on a petition from Maj Gen Chamlong Srimuang, one of the leaders of the People’s Alliance for Democracy. Much legal opinion believes that such petitions must first be vetted by the Office of the Attorney-General, rather than accepted directly to the Court. Nor do legal scholars generally accept that the Court has the power to order parliamentarians to explain themselves to the court, or to suspend parliamentary scrutiny of the bills, which it has also ordered.
The order to voters to explain their votes was in response to another petition filed jointly by the PAD leadership, a person posting on websites with the username ‘i-Pad’, and Akbar Khan, a non-Thai national who claims to be helping the police in lèse majesté prosecutions. Their petition claims that everyone who voted for PheuThai knew in advance that the Party would, once in government, seek to change the mechanism for amending the constitution, which is viewed by anti-government forces as a way of overthrowing the monarchy, exonerating former PM Thaksin Shinawatra and deliberately creating disunity in the land.
‘Pheu Thai voters should come clean and accept that by voting for their party, they were secretly expressing the desire to overthrow the Thai system of democracy with the King as Head of State,’ said a PAD spokesperson. ‘They can deny it all they like, but when the Constitutional Court reads their statements, it will be clear what their true intentions are.’
Legal opinion is even more suspicious of this latest move by the Constitutional Court. One exasperated law professor, requesting anonymity, commented, ‘One, they shouldn’t be accepting petitions like this; two, they have no authority to question citizens about their votes in a secret ballot; and three, how on earth do they think their order can be carried out?’
Many observers have noted that since ballots in Thailand are secret, there should be no way of knowing who the 15,744,190 Pheu Thai voters are. This opens an opportunity for government opponents to masquerade as Pheu Thai voters and ‘confess’ to anti-monarchical motivations.
However, the Constitutional Court has noted that all ballot papers are numbered and this numbered is entered in the electoral records against the name of the voter. Theoretically, therefore, every pro-Pheu Thai vote can be traced back to a voter, although, in addition to taking an inordinate amount of time, this would violate constitutional guarantees of a secret ballot.
In response, the Constitutional Court has commented that some sections of the Constitution are more constitutional than others, and it is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court to decide which these are.
Simply collecting 15,744,190 responses within 15 days is a massive logistical problem. The Court’s order also seems to ignore the fact that an unknown number of these voters may since have died, left the country, abandoned Thai citizenship, been committed to psychiatric institutions, joined the Buddhist clergy or been sent to prison. They may even simply have changed their mind since the election. Many probably don’t even remember how they voted, let alone why.
Others have asked how the Court intends to review 15,744,190 responses and how long this process may delay any decision. The Court has dismissed these concerns. ‘It won’t take us much time at all,’ said a Court spokesperson. ‘After all, we already know what the verdict will be.’
Print version
Send by email
Comments
Great spoof article. However,
Great spoof article. However, I can see this happening with the loony squad at the constitutional court.
‘It won’t take us much time
I thought this was fiction? This line and ...
... make me think that, as you've said yourself several times HG, you're just using their material. But if they're going to put you out of a job, playing the satirists themselves, good for you for using their material, right back at them!
Depriving a man of his livelihood! And why, on earth? Surely they're paid as judges, aren't they? Why begrudge you your daily bread? Ten to one, too, counting their joke writer, Chamlong. What a card he is, eh! He's always grinning whenever I see him in the paper. Just got off a good one at someone else's expense, no doubt.
How can you possibly satirize a bunch of comedians like this? Next they'll all be wearing Groucho Marx masks, won't they?
Actually I'd forgotten their most hilarious "demand". For
Chamlong really went overboard with that one! But it was just too absurd, way over the top! Everyone, but you it seems, HG, had a good laugh and forgot it immediately. I know I laughed ... 'til I cried!
I mean, there hasn't been one of the 416 fooled, one who's thought they were serious, has there? Was there anyone who didn't get the joke? The Bangkok Post hasn't reported even one poor sod come hat in hand seeking to explain his vote in parliament to this game lot that I've seen, and they'd be the first to rib any rube roped in on that one! They love nothing more than to have a chuckle at a parliamentarian's expense.
It's a good thing we all know they're joking, Otherwise there'd be Tahrir Square on Sanam Luang here in Thailand, wouldn't there? With several hundred thousand Thais just like the Egyptians.
But the Puea Thai and the redshirts have explained that in Thailand ... they're not serious ... and even if the joke is on the people, Thais'll all just grin and bear it ... again. Right?
An election doesn't equate
An election doesn't equate into a functioning representative government based on rule of law - history is rife with examples, from Adolf Hitler's rise to power, to Saddam Hussein's window dressing elections, to the US where both candidates work for big banking houses. In fact, if all you can do is continuously cite an election, there is a good chance you don't have a true, representative government.
Peua Thai was voted into office with around 35% of eligible voters backing them - not even close to a majority, and of those that actually bothered to show up and vote, Peua Thai didn't even win a popular majority!
True, it was a little more than their competitors, but all that really proves is that none of the candidates hold a mandate to run the country.
What should be done? That's a tough question, but solving a problem by picking amongst two unqualified solutions is neither tenable, nor wise.
"15 million" voters sounds like a lot, but how many were bought off? How many actually understand what they are doing (even in the West this is a pertinent question), and doesn't the fact that the UDD/PTP has such support despite serial violations of the laws they are bound to uphold and defend prove the electorate functions as an ochlocracy, not a constitutional democracy?
Image: Hard to take PTP/UDD's legitimacy or its supporters seriously when it is so overtly obvious it is a personality cult worshiping a billionaire crook.
Harrison attempts to claim that PTP/UDD supporters know best and that challenging the PTP/UDD is tantamount to saying otherwise - people that wear a convicted criminal billionaire's picture on their shirt while gathering to hear him speak from Dubai for their latest directives indicates they don't know best, and are an easily manipulated personality cult - something a real democracy cannot tolerate to suffer.
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/04/bizarre-us-backed-cult-on-pilgrimage-to.html
Another question worth asking
Another question worth asking is why even bother with checks and balances if the only thing that counts is who voted for who? Harrison seems to merrily skip past this uncomfortable, surely inconvenient fact - that "democracy" is rife with flaws, as noted duly by the Greeks 2,000+ years ago, and as noted by French and American politicians and political thinkers during the age of enlightenment.
You have an executive, legislative, and judicial branch for a reason. PTP/UDD run on the platform that a convicted criminal living abroad runs their agenda. This renders them illegitimate, and in most countries, their eligibility to even run in elections would have been revoked! The courts thus moving against them is a necessary check and balance - regardless how many people voted for them, they are at face value, absolutely illegitimate - and have no one else to blame but themselves - Thaksin's sister as PM? Are you serious?
So to feign this sense of indignation at the courts now, possibly pulling the plug on this disgraceful charade is really something to marvel at - that grown, supposedly intellectually competent adults would wring their hands over this....
No, the alternative is not much better - so come up with an actual solution that is acceptable by at least MOST! If a third party/movement came along simply seeking to solve Thailand's problems pragmatically - like really improving education, infrastructure, and domestic economic capacity, who would argue or oppose it?
The fact is, neither the Democrats nor the PTP are interested in real progress - what we have are two poorly veiled self-serving camps abusing "human rights" "freedom" and "democracy" to prop up their otherwise illegitimate mandates - PTP more so.