Jump to content

Blog Prue

A blog by Prue in General

  • entries
    28
  • comments
    0
  • views
    987

Thai court rewards criminality

Prue

Entry posted by Prue ·

141 views

 Share

Thai court rewards criminality
By Awzar Thi

Column: Rule of Lords

Published: December 04, 2008

Font size: smalltype_btn.pnglargetype_btn.pngHong Kong, China — History repeated itself in Thailand this week when a top court for the second time in as many years dissolved the biggest political party, along with two of its partners, and effectively banned its leader and executive members from politics. The Constitutional Court, which inherited the job from an interim tribunal that issued a similar order against the former ruling party last May, unanimously disbanded the three coalition partners in accordance with section 237 of the 2007 Constitution. Under this remarkable clause, which an unelected panel wrote into the charter on behalf of the 2006 coup makers, political parties must be dissolved if it can be shown that they failed to prevent electoral offences from occurring in their ranks. In football, this would be the equivalent of a rule that if one player gets a red card, the whole team is disqualified from the league, with the captain and coach sent into early retirement. The ruling allowed the political extremists, who had brought thousands of human shields to occupy the airports for a week, to declare victory and go home in time for the king’s birthday on Friday. Irrespective of the formal grounds for the sentence, in timing and content it has been perceived as endorsing the extremists’ ideology and goals. In effect, the court has indicated that while vote buying cannot be tolerated, hijacking public facilities, vandalizing property, shooting at people and vehicles, illegally detaining fellow citizens, attacking state officers and setting up a proxy police force not only can be tolerated but can even be rewarded. Perhaps appropriately, the verdict was handed down with pro-government demonstrators outside calling the judges stooges, forcing them to change venue and smashing a generator to shut off their electricity supply. The aggressive public attacks on the court and its personnel are unusual for Thailand, and speak not only to the intensity of the current conflict but also to how far vested interests have drawn the judiciary into the fray. The judges insisted that having found the politicians guilty of wrongdoing they had no alternative other than to dissolve the three parties. But is this true? Could they not, in principle at least, have done otherwise? One problem is that the court was called to decide on a narrow legal question that was itself predicated upon a series of other significant political and judicial events over the last couple of years. As has been customary in Thailand, the top courts did nothing in response to the 2006 military takeover, and allowed themselves to be used for its purposes. The May 2007 judgment tacitly endorsed the regime, and the court that sat this week was set up under the regressive Constitution that followed in its wake. This September, in an equally surreal judgment, it sacked the prime minister for cooking on television. The court could not contradict the earlier rulings. Nor could it call into question the contents of the section upon which the fate of the government hung, and which the Parliament had been set to amend last month. But that does not mean that it had no alternative. Judges around the world have often refused to rule on pressing political questions, aware that to do so would damage the fragile public confidence in their work and threaten their integrity. Perhaps the most significant case of this sort in recent years was that which handed George W. Bush his first term as U.S. president. Although the Supreme Court then made itself responsible for sorting out the mess caused by ballot problems in Florida, four dissenting judges warned that it had been dragged into an issue that it could not satisfactorily resolve and to which it did not belong. One of them, Justice Stephen Breyer, recounted an important lesson from history to explain why. In 1876, a panel was established to figure out who had won that year’s presidential election. Five of the 15 members were judges. They were expected, as in so many things in Thailand these days, to lend an air of impartiality and fairness. One of the justices cast the deciding vote. The losing party accused him of accepting bribes, and he was widely lambasted. But whether he was dishonest or not is beside the point for the purposes of the historical lesson, Breyer made clear. What matters was that the presence of the judges did not give the panel more legitimacy. “Nor did it assure the public that the process had worked fairly, guided by the law,” he wrote. “Rather, it simply embroiled Members of the Court in partisan conflict, thereby undermining respect for the judicial process.” History has vindicated Breyer and his dissenting peers. Public esteem of the U.S. Supreme Court has slipped to perhaps its lowest level in decades, as a result of the judgment in favor of Bush over Al Gore, and other judgments since. The court may have put someone in government, but as in 1876 it did not give credibility to that person or government. It merely brought more censure and dispute to its own doors. Thailand’s Constitutional Court has again taken someone out of government, but it too has not added credibility to anyone or anything. Instead, it has once more played the fool, and once more made a mockery of the justice that it purportedly represents. Did it have an alternative? Of course it did. It could, and should, simply have refused to decide. That it didn’t is not for want of an alternative. It’s because it wasn’t looking for one. -- (Awzar Thi is the pen name of a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission with over 15 years of experience as an advocate of human rights and the rule of law in Thailand and Burma. His Rule of Lords blog can be read at http://ratchasima.net)

 

Thai court rewards criminality

By Awzar Thi

»ÃÃÇѵÔÈÒʵÃìä´é«éÓÃÃÂÃÕ¡¤ÃÑé§àÃ×èõØÅÒ¡ÒÃÈÒÅÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭¢Ã§ä·Â

ä´é·Ó¡ÒÃÂغ¾Ãä¡ÒÃàÃ×ç·ÕèãË­è·ÕèÊØ´ÃÇö֧ÃÕ¡Êç¾ÃäÃèÇÃÃÑ°ºÒÅ

áÅÃËéÒÃËÑÇ˹éÒ¾ÃäáÅáÃÃáÒúÃÔËÒâç¾ÃäÂØè§à¡ÕèÂǡѺ¡ÒÃàÃ×ç

ÈÒÅÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭«Öè§ä´é¶Ù¡Ê׺·Ã´Ë¹éÒ·Õè¨Ò¡µØÅÒ¡ÒÃÈÒÅÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭ªÑèǤÃÒÇ

·Õèä´éÇÔ¹Ô¨©ÑÂáÅÃÊÑè§Âغ¾Ãää·ÂÃÑ¡ä·ÂàÃ×èÃà´×ù¾ÄÉÀÒ¤ÃàÃ×èûշÕèáÅéÇ

ä´éŧõÔà»ç¹àá©Ñ¹·ì㹡ÒÃÂغ¾ÃäÃèÇÃÃÑ°ºÒÅ 3 ¾Ãä

¨Ò¡¡Ò÷ӼԴÃÒµÃÒ 237 ¢Ã§ÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭»Õ 50

µÒÃÃÒµÃÒ·Õè¹èÒ·Ö觹Õé«Öè§à¢Õ¹¢Öé¹â´Â¤³ÃºØ¤¤Å·ÕèäÃèä´éÃÒ¨Ò¡¡ÒÃàÅ×áµÑé§

áÅÃà¢Õ¹㹹Òâç¡ÅØè÷Õè¡Ã÷ӡÒÃÃÑ°»ÃÃËÒÃ

¾Ãä¡ÒÃàÃ×çµéç¶Ù¡Âغ¶éÒ»ÃÒ¡¯ãËéàËç¹ÇèÒ¾ÃääÃèÊÒÃÒö»éç¡Ñ¹¡Ò÷ӤÇÒüԴ¢Ã§¡ÃÃá

ÒúÃÔËÒþÃä·Õèà¡ÕèÂǡѺ¡ÒÃàÅ×áµÑé§

¶éÒà·Õº¡Ñºà¡ÃÊì¿ØµºÃÅáÅéǹÕè¤×á®ÃÃàºÕº·ÕèÇèÒ¶éҹѡàÅè¹ä´éãºá´§

·Ñ駷Õèö١µÑ´ÊÔ·¸Ôì¨Ò¡ÅÕ¤ ÃÇ÷Ñ駡ѻµÑ¹·ÕÃáÅÃâ¤êª¶Ù¡ÊÑè§ãËéà¡ÉÕ¹¡èùÃÒÂØ

¤Ó¾Ô¾Ò¡ÉÒ¹Ñé¹ÂÔ¹ÂÃÃãËé¾Ç¡·ÕèËÑÇÃعáç·Ò§¡ÒÃàÃ×ç·Õè¹Ó¤¹ä»ËéÃÃÅéÃÃ

ʹÒúԹÊØÇÃóÀÙÃÔÃÂÙè˹Öè§ÃÒ·ÔµÂìÊÒÃÒö·Õè¨Ã»ÃáÒȪѪ¹ÃáÅáÅѺºéÒ¹·Ñ¹

Çѹà©ÅÔþÃê¹Ãì¾ÃÃÉҢçã¹ËÅǧ¾Ã´Õ

â´ÂäÃè¤Ó¹Ö§¶Ö§ÇèÒ¤ÇÒüԴá·é¨ÃÔ§¹Ñ鹤×ÃÃÃäÃáµè´Ù¨Ò¡¨Ñ§ËÇÃàÇÅÒáÅÃà¹×éÃËÒ¹Ñé¹

Ãѹ¶Ù¡ÃçÇèÒà»ç¹¡ÒÃÃѺÃçÃشáÒóìáÅÃà»éÒËÃҢç¡ÅØèÃËÑÇÃعáç

¼Å·Õèà¡Ô´¢Ö鹤×ÃÈÒŹÑé¹ä´éáÊ´§ãËéàËç¹ÇèÒã¹¢³Ã·Õè¡Òë×éÃàÊÕ§¹Ñé¹äÃèä´é¶Ù¡ÂÃÃÃѺ

áµè¡ÒûÅé¹ (hijack) ʶҹ·Õè/ÊÔè§ÃӹǤÇÒÃÊôǡ¢Ã§ÊÒ¸ÒóÃ

¡Ò÷ÓÅÒ·ÃѾÂìÊÔ¹ áÅáÒÃÂÔ§à¢éÒä»ã¹¼Ù餹áÅÃÂÒ¹¾Ò˹Ã

¡Òáѡ¢Ñ§¾ÅàÃ×ç´éÇ¡ѹàçẺ¼Ô´¡®ËÃÒ ¡Òúء¨Ùèâ¨Ãà¨éÒ˹éÒ·Õè¢Ã§ÃÑ°

áÅáÒõÑ駡ç¡ÓÅѧµÓÃǨà»ç¹µÑÇá·¹¢Ã§µ¹àç¹Ñé¹

¹Ã¡¨Ò¡ÈÒŨÃÂÃÃãËéà¡Ô´¢Öé¹ä´éáÅéÇÈÒÅÂѧµºÃÒ§ÇÑÅãËéàÊÕÂÃÕ¡´éÇÂ

ºÒ§·ÕÃÒ¨¨Ãà»ç¹¡ÒäÇëôéÇ«éÓ·Õè¤Ó¾Ô¾Ò¡ÉÒ¹Ñ鹨ö١»ÃóÒôéÇÂ

¼Ùé»Ã÷éǧ˹éÒÈÒÅ áÅüÙé¾Ô¾Ò¡ÉÒ¡çÊäÇèö١»ÃóÒÃÇèÒà»ç¹ËØè¹àªÔ´

áÅö١ºÑ§¤ÑºãËéà»ÅÕè¹ʶҹ·ÕèáÅ÷ÓÅÒÂà¤Ã×èç¼ÅԵ俿éÒ

à¾×è÷ӡÒûԴÃúºä¿¿éÒ

¡ÒáèáǹÈÒÅáÅÃà¨éÒ˹éÒ·ÕèÃÂèÒ§¡éÒÇÃéÒÇÃѹ¼Ô´¸ÃÃôÒÊÓËÃѺ»ÃÃà·Èä·Â

äÃèÇèÒ¨ÃËÃÒ¶֧¤ÇÒÃÃعáç¢Ã§¤ÇÒâѴáÂé§ ËÃ×áÒ÷Õè¼Ùéä´éàÊÕ¼ŻÃÃ⪹ì

ä´é´Ö§àÃÒ¡Ãúǹ¡ÒÃÂصԸÃÃÃà¢éÒÃÒà¡ÕèÂÇ¢éç¡Ñº¡ÒõèÃÊÙé¤ÃÑ駹Õé

µØÅÒ¡ÒÃÈÒÅÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭¹Ñé¹ä´éÇÔ¹Ô¨©ÑÂáÅéÇÇèÒ

¹Ñ¡¡ÒÃàÃ×ç¹Ñé¹ä´é¡Ã÷ӤÇÒüԴÈÒÅÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭¡çäÃèÃÕ·Ò§àÅ×áÃ×è¹

¹Ã¡¨Ò¡ÊÑè§Âغ¾Ãä·Ñé§ 3 ¾Ãä áµè¹Ñè¹Ãѹ¨ÃÔ§ËÃ×Ã?

¾Ç¡à¢ÒäÃèÊÒÃÒö·Õè¨Ãà»ÅÕ蹤ÓÇÔ¹Ô¨©ÑÂËÃ×Ã?

ÃÂèÒ§¹é÷ÕèÊØ´¡ç´éÇÂËÅÑ¡¨ÃÃÂÒºÃó

»Ñ­ËÒ˹Õ觡ç¤×ÃÈÒŹÑé¹ä´é¶Ù¡áµè§µÑé§ãËéÃҵѴÊÔ¹¤´Õ¤ÇÒÃ

·Õèâ´ÂµÑÇÃѹàçáÅéǶ١ÇÔ¹Ô¨©Ñ¨ҡà˵ءÒóì·Ò§¡ÒÃàÃ×ç

áÅä´Õ¤ÇÒõèÒ§æ·Õèà¡Ô´¢Öé¹µèÃà¹×èçÃÒà»ç¹ÅӴѺã¹Ã´ÕµÊç»Õ·Õè¼èÒ¹ÃÃ’

ÈÒÅÊÙ§ÊØ´¹Ñé¹äÃèä´é·ÓÃÃäÃàÅÂà¾×èÃâµéµÃº¡Ò÷ÓÃÑ°»ÃÃËÒÃ

¢Ã§·ËÒÃàÃ×èÃ»Õ 2549 «Ö觡çäÃè¼Ô´¨Ò¡»ÃÃླÕä·Âã¹Ã´Õµ

áÅÃÂѧÂÔ¹ÂÃÃà»ç¹à¤Ã×èçÃ×ÃãËé¶Ù¡ãªé㹡Ò÷ÓãËéÃѹºÃÃÅØà»éÒËÃÒÂ

¡ÒõѴÊÔ¹à´×ù¾ÄÉÀÒ»Õ 2550 à»ç¹¡ÒÃÃѺÃç༴稡ÒÃâ´Â»ÃÔÂÒÂ

áÅÃÈÒÅ·ÕèÇÔ¹Ô¨©Ñ¤´ÕÃÒ·ÔµÂì·Õè¼èÒ¹ÃÒ¹Õé¡ç¶Ù¡µÑé§ÃÒ¨Ò¡ÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭

·ÕèÅéÒËÅѧ áÅÃàÃ×èÃà´×ù¡Ñ¹ÂÒ¹·Õè¼èÒ¹ÃÒ¡çÃÕ¡ÒõѴÊÔ¹·ÕèäÃè¹èÒà»ç¹¨ÃÔ§ä´é¤×áÒÃäÅè¹Ò¡ÃѰù

µÃÕÃáà¾ÃÒÃä»·ÓÃÒ¡ÒÃÃÒËÒÃÃáâ·Ã·Ñȹì

ÈÒÅÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭äÃèÊÒÃÒö¨ÃÇÔ¹Ô¨©Ñ¤´ÕµèÒ§¨Ò¡¤ÓÇÔ¹Ô¨©Ñ¤ÃÑ駡èùæ áÅÃäÃèÊÒÃÒö¨ÃµÑ駤ӶÒÃà¡ÕèÂǡѺº·ºÑ­­ÑµÔ·Õè¨ÃµÑ´ÊÔ¹¤ÇÒÃÃÂÙèÃô¢Ã§ÃÑ°ºÒÅ «Öè§ÃÑ°ÊÀÒ¾ÂÒÂÒèÃá¡éä¢àÃ×èÃà´×ù·ÕèáÅéÇ

áµè¹Ñé¹äÃèä´éËÃÒ¶֧ÇèÒÈÒÅäÃèÃÕ·Ò§àÅ×áÃ×è¹ ¼Ùé¾Ô¾Ò¡ÉÒã¹âÅ¡

ä´éà¤Â»¯Ôàʸ¡ÒþԾҡÉÒ¤´ÕàÃ觴èǹ·Õèà¡ÕèÂǡѺ¡ÒÃàÃ×ç

áÅõÃÃ˹ѡ´ÕÇèÒ¡ÒþԾҡÉÒ¤´Õ¤ÇÒùÑé¹æÃÒ¨·ÓãËé

¤ÇÒÃàª×èÃÃÑ蹢ç»ÃêҪ¹·Õèà»ÃÒúҧ㹡Ãúǹ¡ÒÃÂصԸÃÃùÑé¹

¶Ù¡·ÓÅÒ áÅÃÃÒ¨¤Ø¡¤ÒäÇÒë×èõç¢Ã§¾Ç¡à¢Ò

¤´Õ·ÕèÊӤѭ·Õè¤ÅéÒ¤ÅÖ§¡Ñ¹¤×ä´Õ·ÕèÇÔ¹Ô¨©Ñ George W. Bush

ªèǧà·ÃÃáá·Õèà»ç¹»ÃøҹҸԺ´Õ

¶Ö§áÃéÇèÒÈÒÅÊÙ§ÊØ´¨ÃÃѺ˹éÒ·Õè·Õè¨Ãá¡é䢻ѭËÒ·Õèà¡Ô´¢Ö鹨ҡ

ºÑµÃàÅ×áµÑ駷Õè¿ÅÃÃÔ´éÒ áµèÃÕ¼Ùé¾Ô¾Ò¡ÉÒ 4 ¤¹·ÕèäÃèàËç¹´éÇÂ

ä´éàµ×ùäÇéÇèҾǡà¢Òä´é¶Ù¡ÅÒ¡à¢éÒÃÃ’ÃÕÊèǹ㹻ѭËÒ

·ÕèäÃèÊÒÃÒö¶Ù¡á¡éä´éÃÂèÒ§¹èÒ¾Ãã¨áÅÃà»ç¹·ÕèæäÃèãªè¾Ç¡à¢Ò

¤ÇÃà¡ÕèÂÇ¢éç ˹Öè§ã¹¹Ñé¹ Justice Stephen Breyer ä´é¹ÓàÃ×èçã¹Ã´Õµ

·Õè¤ÇÃà»ç¹º·àÃÕ¹ÃÒøԺÒÂãËé¿Ñ§

ã¹»Õ 1876 ÃÕ¤³Ã·Ó§Ò¹¶Ù¡µÑ駢Öé¹à¾×èÃÃҵѴÊÔ¹ÇèÒã¤Ãà»ç¹¼Ù骹Ã

㹡ÒÃŧªÔ§µÓá˹觻ÃøҹҸԺ´Õ

ËéÒã¹15 ÊÃÒªÔ¡à»ç¹¼Ùé¾Ô¾Ò¡ÉÒ ¾Ç¡à¢Ò¶Ù¡¤Ò´ËÇѧ(àËÃ×ùã¹àÃ×çä·ÂËÅÒÂæàÃ×èçµÃ¹¹Õé)

·Õè¨ÃãËé¤ÇÒÃà·Õ觵çáÅÃäÃè½Ñ¡ã½è½èÒÂã´

˹Öè§ã¹¼Ùé¾Ô¾Ò¡ÉÒÃáàÊÕ§ãËé¡Ñº¼Ù骹à áÅþÃä·Õèá¾é

¡ç¡ÅèÒÇËÒÇèÒà¢ÒÃѺÊÔ¹º¹ áÅÃà¢Ò¡ç¶Ù¡»ÃóÒÃÃÂèÒ§¡ÇéÒ§¢ÇÒ§

áµèäÃèÇèÒà¢Ò¨Ã«×èÃÊѵÂìËÃ×ÃäÃè¹Ñé¹äÃèãªèà»ç¹»ÃÃà´ç¹

áµè¡ÒÃÃéÒ§¹Õé¡çà¾×èÃà»ç¹º·àÃÕ¹

Breyer ¡ÅèÒÇÃÂèÒ§ªÑ´à¨¹ÇèÒ·ÕèÊӤѭ¤×áÒ÷ÕèÃÕ¼Ùé¾Ô¾Ò¡ÉÒÃÇÃÃÂÙè㹤³Ã´Ñ§¡ÅèÒÇäÃèä´é·ÓãËé¤

³Ã¹Ñé¹ÃÕ¤ÇÒêú¸ÃÃÃÃÒ¡¢Öé¹

& quot;áÅÃäÃèä´éËÃÒ¶֧ÇèÒÃѹ¨ÃãËé¤ÇÒÃàª×èÃÃÑ蹡Ѻ»ÃêҪ¹ÇèÒÃѹà»ç¹¡Ãúǹ¡Ò÷ÕèµÃ§

仵çÃÒáÅùӷҧâ´Â¡®ËÃÒÂ" à¢Òä´éà¢Õ¹äÇé "áµè·Õèá¹èæ¤×à Ãѹ¹ÓãËéºØ¤ÅҡâçÈÒÅà¢éÒä»ÃÕÊèǹÃèÇáѺ¤ÇÒâѴáÂ駢ç¾Ãä¡ÒÃàÃ×ç «Ö觺èù·ÓÅÒ¤ÇÒùèÒàª×èö×âç¡Ãúǹ¡ÒÃÂصԸÃÃÃ"

»ÃÃÇѵÔÈÒʵÃìä´é¾ÔÊÙ¨¹ìÇèÒ Breyer áÅüÙé·ÕèäÃèàËç¹´éǹÑ鹤Դ¶Ù¡

áÅäÇÒÃà¤ÒþµèÃÈÒÅÊÙ§ÊØ´ã¹ÊËÃÑ°ÃàÃÃÔ¡Òã¹¢³Ã¹Ñé¹

µ¡µèÓ¶Ö§¢Õ´ÊØ´ã¹Ãú 10 »Õ «Öè§à¡Ô´¨Ò¡¡ÒäӾԾҡÉÒ·ÕèÃá¨Ãà¢éÒ¢éÒ§ Bush ÃÒ¡¡ÇèÒ Gore

ÈÒÅÃÒ¨Êè§ã¤Ã¡çä´éà¢éÒ仺ÃÔËÒûÃÃà·Èáµèã¹»Õ 1876

ÈÒÅäÃèä´éÊÃéÒ§¤ÇÒùèÒàª×èö×õèúؤ¤ÅËÃ×ÃÃÑ°ºÒŹÑé¹

¾Ç¡à¢Òä´é¹ÓàÃÒ¡ÒõÔàµÕ¹áÅâéþԾҷÃÃ’ÃÂÙè˹éÒ»Ãõ٢ç¡Ãúǹ¡ÒÃÂصԸÃÃÃà·èÒ¹Ñé¹

ÈÒÅÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭¢Ã§ä·Â¹Ñé¹ä´éàÃҺؤ¤ÅÃá¨Ò¡ÃÑ°ºÒÅ

áµèà¢Ò¡çäÃèä´éà¾ÔèäÇÒùèÒàª×èö×ÃãËé¡Ñºã¤ÃËÃ×ÃÃÃä÷Ñ駹Ñé¹

áµè¡ÅѺ¡Ñ¹¾Ç¡à¢Òä´éáÊ´§º·ºÒ·à»ç¹µÑǵš

áÅÃä´é·ÓãË颺ǹ¡ÒÃÂصԸÃÃùÑ鹶١ÅéÃàÅÕ¹

¾Ç¡à¢ÒÃÕ·Ò§àÅ×áÃ×è¹äËÃ? á¹è¹Ã¹

¾Ç¡à¢ÒÊÒÃÒö·Õè¨à áÅäÇÃ¨à »¯Ôàʸ¡ÒÃãËé¤ÓÇÔ¹Ô¨©ÑÂ

áÅ÷ÕèäÃè·Ó¡çäÃèãªèÇèÒµéç¡ÒèÃãËéÃÕ·Ò§àÅ×áÃ×è¹

áµè·ÕèäÃè·Óà¾ÃÒÃäÃèµéç¡ÒÃãËéÃÕ·Ò§àÅ×áàÅÂ

(Awzar Thi à»ç¹¹Òûҡ¡Ò¢Ã§ÊÃÒªÔ¡¢Ã§ Asian Human Rights Commission à¢ÒÃÕ»ÃÃʺ¡ÒóìÃÒ¡¡ÇèÒ 15 »Õ㹡ÒÃʹѺʹعÊÔ·¸ÔùØɪ¹áÅÃrule of law ¢Ã§»ÃÃà·ÈäÃ凁þÃèÒ

bn38.gifbn38.gifbn34.gif

 Share

0 Comments

Recommended Comments

Prue

Thai court rewards criminality
By Awzar Thi

Column: Rule of Lords

Published: December 04, 2008

Font size: smalltype_btn.pnglargetype_btn.pngHong Kong, China — History repeated itself in Thailand this week when a top court for the second time in as many years dissolved the biggest political party, along with two of its partners, and effectively banned its leader and executive members from politics. The Constitutional Court, which inherited the job from an interim tribunal that issued a similar order against the former ruling party last May, unanimously disbanded the three coalition partners in accordance with section 237 of the 2007 Constitution. Under this remarkable clause, which an unelected panel wrote into the charter on behalf of the 2006 coup makers, political parties must be dissolved if it can be shown that they failed to prevent electoral offences from occurring in their ranks. In football, this would be the equivalent of a rule that if one player gets a red card, the whole team is disqualified from the league, with the captain and coach sent into early retirement. The ruling allowed the political extremists, who had brought thousands of human shields to occupy the airports for a week, to declare victory and go home in time for the king’s birthday on Friday. Irrespective of the formal grounds for the sentence, in timing and content it has been perceived as endorsing the extremists’ ideology and goals. In effect, the court has indicated that while vote buying cannot be tolerated, hijacking public facilities, vandalizing property, shooting at people and vehicles, illegally detaining fellow citizens, attacking state officers and setting up a proxy police force not only can be tolerated but can even be rewarded. Perhaps appropriately, the verdict was handed down with pro-government demonstrators outside calling the judges stooges, forcing them to change venue and smashing a generator to shut off their electricity supply. The aggressive public attacks on the court and its personnel are unusual for Thailand, and speak not only to the intensity of the current conflict but also to how far vested interests have drawn the judiciary into the fray. The judges insisted that having found the politicians guilty of wrongdoing they had no alternative other than to dissolve the three parties. But is this true? Could they not, in principle at least, have done otherwise? One problem is that the court was called to decide on a narrow legal question that was itself predicated upon a series of other significant political and judicial events over the last couple of years. As has been customary in Thailand, the top courts did nothing in response to the 2006 military takeover, and allowed themselves to be used for its purposes. The May 2007 judgment tacitly endorsed the regime, and the court that sat this week was set up under the regressive Constitution that followed in its wake. This September, in an equally surreal judgment, it sacked the prime minister for cooking on television. The court could not contradict the earlier rulings. Nor could it call into question the contents of the section upon which the fate of the government hung, and which the Parliament had been set to amend last month. But that does not mean that it had no alternative. Judges around the world have often refused to rule on pressing political questions, aware that to do so would damage the fragile public confidence in their work and threaten their integrity. Perhaps the most significant case of this sort in recent years was that which handed George W. Bush his first term as U.S. president. Although the Supreme Court then made itself responsible for sorting out the mess caused by ballot problems in Florida, four dissenting judges warned that it had been dragged into an issue that it could not satisfactorily resolve and to which it did not belong. One of them, Justice Stephen Breyer, recounted an important lesson from history to explain why. In 1876, a panel was established to figure out who had won that year’s presidential election. Five of the 15 members were judges. They were expected, as in so many things in Thailand these days, to lend an air of impartiality and fairness. One of the justices cast the deciding vote. The losing party accused him of accepting bribes, and he was widely lambasted. But whether he was dishonest or not is beside the point for the purposes of the historical lesson, Breyer made clear. What matters was that the presence of the judges did not give the panel more legitimacy. “Nor did it assure the public that the process had worked fairly, guided by the law,” he wrote. “Rather, it simply embroiled Members of the Court in partisan conflict, thereby undermining respect for the judicial process.” History has vindicated Breyer and his dissenting peers. Public esteem of the U.S. Supreme Court has slipped to perhaps its lowest level in decades, as a result of the judgment in favor of Bush over Al Gore, and other judgments since. The court may have put someone in government, but as in 1876 it did not give credibility to that person or government. It merely brought more censure and dispute to its own doors. Thailand’s Constitutional Court has again taken someone out of government, but it too has not added credibility to anyone or anything. Instead, it has once more played the fool, and once more made a mockery of the justice that it purportedly represents. Did it have an alternative? Of course it did. It could, and should, simply have refused to decide. That it didn’t is not for want of an alternative. It’s because it wasn’t looking for one. -- (Awzar Thi is the pen name of a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission with over 15 years of experience as an advocate of human rights and the rule of law in Thailand and Burma. His Rule of Lords blog can be read at http://ratchasima.net)

 

Thai court rewards criminality

By Awzar Thi

»ÃÃÇѵÔÈÒʵÃìä´é«éÓÃÃÂÃÕ¡¤ÃÑé§àÃ×èõØÅÒ¡ÒÃÈÒÅÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭¢Ã§ä·Â

ä´é·Ó¡ÒÃÂغ¾Ãä¡ÒÃàÃ×ç·ÕèãË­è·ÕèÊØ´ÃÇö֧ÃÕ¡Êç¾ÃäÃèÇÃÃÑ°ºÒÅ

áÅÃËéÒÃËÑÇ˹éÒ¾ÃäáÅáÃÃáÒúÃÔËÒâç¾ÃäÂØè§à¡ÕèÂǡѺ¡ÒÃàÃ×ç

ÈÒÅÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭«Öè§ä´é¶Ù¡Ê׺·Ã´Ë¹éÒ·Õè¨Ò¡µØÅÒ¡ÒÃÈÒÅÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭ªÑèǤÃÒÇ

·Õèä´éÇÔ¹Ô¨©ÑÂáÅÃÊÑè§Âغ¾Ãää·ÂÃÑ¡ä·ÂàÃ×èÃà´×ù¾ÄÉÀÒ¤ÃàÃ×èûշÕèáÅéÇ

ä´éŧõÔà»ç¹àá©Ñ¹·ì㹡ÒÃÂغ¾ÃäÃèÇÃÃÑ°ºÒÅ 3 ¾Ãä

¨Ò¡¡Ò÷ӼԴÃÒµÃÒ 237 ¢Ã§ÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭»Õ 50

µÒÃÃÒµÃÒ·Õè¹èÒ·Ö觹Õé«Öè§à¢Õ¹¢Öé¹â´Â¤³ÃºØ¤¤Å·ÕèäÃèä´éÃÒ¨Ò¡¡ÒÃàÅ×áµÑé§

áÅÃà¢Õ¹㹹Òâç¡ÅØè÷Õè¡Ã÷ӡÒÃÃÑ°»ÃÃËÒÃ

¾Ãä¡ÒÃàÃ×çµéç¶Ù¡Âغ¶éÒ»ÃÒ¡¯ãËéàËç¹ÇèÒ¾ÃääÃèÊÒÃÒö»éç¡Ñ¹¡Ò÷ӤÇÒüԴ¢Ã§¡ÃÃá

ÒúÃÔËÒþÃä·Õèà¡ÕèÂǡѺ¡ÒÃàÅ×áµÑé§

¶éÒà·Õº¡Ñºà¡ÃÊì¿ØµºÃÅáÅéǹÕè¤×á®ÃÃàºÕº·ÕèÇèÒ¶éҹѡàÅè¹ä´éãºá´§

·Ñ駷Õèö١µÑ´ÊÔ·¸Ôì¨Ò¡ÅÕ¤ ÃÇ÷Ñ駡ѻµÑ¹·ÕÃáÅÃâ¤êª¶Ù¡ÊÑè§ãËéà¡ÉÕ¹¡èùÃÒÂØ

¤Ó¾Ô¾Ò¡ÉÒ¹Ñé¹ÂÔ¹ÂÃÃãËé¾Ç¡·ÕèËÑÇÃعáç·Ò§¡ÒÃàÃ×ç·Õè¹Ó¤¹ä»ËéÃÃÅéÃÃ

ʹÒúԹÊØÇÃóÀÙÃÔÃÂÙè˹Öè§ÃÒ·ÔµÂìÊÒÃÒö·Õè¨Ã»ÃáÒȪѪ¹ÃáÅáÅѺºéÒ¹·Ñ¹

Çѹà©ÅÔþÃê¹Ãì¾ÃÃÉҢçã¹ËÅǧ¾Ã´Õ

â´ÂäÃè¤Ó¹Ö§¶Ö§ÇèÒ¤ÇÒüԴá·é¨ÃÔ§¹Ñ鹤×ÃÃÃäÃáµè´Ù¨Ò¡¨Ñ§ËÇÃàÇÅÒáÅÃà¹×éÃËÒ¹Ñé¹

Ãѹ¶Ù¡ÃçÇèÒà»ç¹¡ÒÃÃѺÃçÃشáÒóìáÅÃà»éÒËÃҢç¡ÅØèÃËÑÇÃعáç

¼Å·Õèà¡Ô´¢Ö鹤×ÃÈÒŹÑé¹ä´éáÊ´§ãËéàËç¹ÇèÒã¹¢³Ã·Õè¡Òë×éÃàÊÕ§¹Ñé¹äÃèä´é¶Ù¡ÂÃÃÃѺ

áµè¡ÒûÅé¹ (hijack) ʶҹ·Õè/ÊÔè§ÃӹǤÇÒÃÊôǡ¢Ã§ÊÒ¸ÒóÃ

¡Ò÷ÓÅÒ·ÃѾÂìÊÔ¹ áÅáÒÃÂÔ§à¢éÒä»ã¹¼Ù餹áÅÃÂÒ¹¾Ò˹Ã

¡Òáѡ¢Ñ§¾ÅàÃ×ç´éÇ¡ѹàçẺ¼Ô´¡®ËÃÒ ¡Òúء¨Ùèâ¨Ãà¨éÒ˹éÒ·Õè¢Ã§ÃÑ°

áÅáÒõÑ駡ç¡ÓÅѧµÓÃǨà»ç¹µÑÇá·¹¢Ã§µ¹àç¹Ñé¹

¹Ã¡¨Ò¡ÈÒŨÃÂÃÃãËéà¡Ô´¢Öé¹ä´éáÅéÇÈÒÅÂѧµºÃÒ§ÇÑÅãËéàÊÕÂÃÕ¡´éÇÂ

ºÒ§·ÕÃÒ¨¨Ãà»ç¹¡ÒäÇëôéÇ«éÓ·Õè¤Ó¾Ô¾Ò¡ÉÒ¹Ñ鹨ö١»ÃóÒôéÇÂ

¼Ùé»Ã÷éǧ˹éÒÈÒÅ áÅüÙé¾Ô¾Ò¡ÉÒ¡çÊäÇèö١»ÃóÒÃÇèÒà»ç¹ËØè¹àªÔ´

áÅö١ºÑ§¤ÑºãËéà»ÅÕè¹ʶҹ·ÕèáÅ÷ÓÅÒÂà¤Ã×èç¼ÅԵ俿éÒ

à¾×è÷ӡÒûԴÃúºä¿¿éÒ

¡ÒáèáǹÈÒÅáÅÃà¨éÒ˹éÒ·ÕèÃÂèÒ§¡éÒÇÃéÒÇÃѹ¼Ô´¸ÃÃôÒÊÓËÃѺ»ÃÃà·Èä·Â

äÃèÇèÒ¨ÃËÃÒ¶֧¤ÇÒÃÃعáç¢Ã§¤ÇÒâѴáÂé§ ËÃ×áÒ÷Õè¼Ùéä´éàÊÕ¼ŻÃÃ⪹ì

ä´é´Ö§àÃÒ¡Ãúǹ¡ÒÃÂصԸÃÃÃà¢éÒÃÒà¡ÕèÂÇ¢éç¡Ñº¡ÒõèÃÊÙé¤ÃÑ駹Õé

µØÅÒ¡ÒÃÈÒÅÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭¹Ñé¹ä´éÇÔ¹Ô¨©ÑÂáÅéÇÇèÒ

¹Ñ¡¡ÒÃàÃ×ç¹Ñé¹ä´é¡Ã÷ӤÇÒüԴÈÒÅÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭¡çäÃèÃÕ·Ò§àÅ×áÃ×è¹

¹Ã¡¨Ò¡ÊÑè§Âغ¾Ãä·Ñé§ 3 ¾Ãä áµè¹Ñè¹Ãѹ¨ÃÔ§ËÃ×Ã?

¾Ç¡à¢ÒäÃèÊÒÃÒö·Õè¨Ãà»ÅÕ蹤ÓÇÔ¹Ô¨©ÑÂËÃ×Ã?

ÃÂèÒ§¹é÷ÕèÊØ´¡ç´éÇÂËÅÑ¡¨ÃÃÂÒºÃó

»Ñ­ËÒ˹Õ觡ç¤×ÃÈÒŹÑé¹ä´é¶Ù¡áµè§µÑé§ãËéÃҵѴÊÔ¹¤´Õ¤ÇÒÃ

·Õèâ´ÂµÑÇÃѹàçáÅéǶ١ÇÔ¹Ô¨©Ñ¨ҡà˵ءÒóì·Ò§¡ÒÃàÃ×ç

áÅä´Õ¤ÇÒõèÒ§æ·Õèà¡Ô´¢Öé¹µèÃà¹×èçÃÒà»ç¹ÅӴѺã¹Ã´ÕµÊç»Õ·Õè¼èÒ¹ÃÃ’

ÈÒÅÊÙ§ÊØ´¹Ñé¹äÃèä´é·ÓÃÃäÃàÅÂà¾×èÃâµéµÃº¡Ò÷ÓÃÑ°»ÃÃËÒÃ

¢Ã§·ËÒÃàÃ×èÃ»Õ 2549 «Ö觡çäÃè¼Ô´¨Ò¡»ÃÃླÕä·Âã¹Ã´Õµ

áÅÃÂѧÂÔ¹ÂÃÃà»ç¹à¤Ã×èçÃ×ÃãËé¶Ù¡ãªé㹡Ò÷ÓãËéÃѹºÃÃÅØà»éÒËÃÒÂ

¡ÒõѴÊÔ¹à´×ù¾ÄÉÀÒ»Õ 2550 à»ç¹¡ÒÃÃѺÃç༴稡ÒÃâ´Â»ÃÔÂÒÂ

áÅÃÈÒÅ·ÕèÇÔ¹Ô¨©Ñ¤´ÕÃÒ·ÔµÂì·Õè¼èÒ¹ÃÒ¹Õé¡ç¶Ù¡µÑé§ÃÒ¨Ò¡ÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭

·ÕèÅéÒËÅѧ áÅÃàÃ×èÃà´×ù¡Ñ¹ÂÒ¹·Õè¼èÒ¹ÃÒ¡çÃÕ¡ÒõѴÊÔ¹·ÕèäÃè¹èÒà»ç¹¨ÃÔ§ä´é¤×áÒÃäÅè¹Ò¡ÃѰù

µÃÕÃáà¾ÃÒÃä»·ÓÃÒ¡ÒÃÃÒËÒÃÃáâ·Ã·Ñȹì

ÈÒÅÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭äÃèÊÒÃÒö¨ÃÇÔ¹Ô¨©Ñ¤´ÕµèÒ§¨Ò¡¤ÓÇÔ¹Ô¨©Ñ¤ÃÑ駡èùæ áÅÃäÃèÊÒÃÒö¨ÃµÑ駤ӶÒÃà¡ÕèÂǡѺº·ºÑ­­ÑµÔ·Õè¨ÃµÑ´ÊÔ¹¤ÇÒÃÃÂÙèÃô¢Ã§ÃÑ°ºÒÅ «Öè§ÃÑ°ÊÀÒ¾ÂÒÂÒèÃá¡éä¢àÃ×èÃà´×ù·ÕèáÅéÇ

áµè¹Ñé¹äÃèä´éËÃÒ¶֧ÇèÒÈÒÅäÃèÃÕ·Ò§àÅ×áÃ×è¹ ¼Ùé¾Ô¾Ò¡ÉÒã¹âÅ¡

ä´éà¤Â»¯Ôàʸ¡ÒþԾҡÉÒ¤´ÕàÃ觴èǹ·Õèà¡ÕèÂǡѺ¡ÒÃàÃ×ç

áÅõÃÃ˹ѡ´ÕÇèÒ¡ÒþԾҡÉÒ¤´Õ¤ÇÒùÑé¹æÃÒ¨·ÓãËé

¤ÇÒÃàª×èÃÃÑ蹢ç»ÃêҪ¹·Õèà»ÃÒúҧ㹡Ãúǹ¡ÒÃÂصԸÃÃùÑé¹

¶Ù¡·ÓÅÒ áÅÃÃÒ¨¤Ø¡¤ÒäÇÒë×èõç¢Ã§¾Ç¡à¢Ò

¤´Õ·ÕèÊӤѭ·Õè¤ÅéÒ¤ÅÖ§¡Ñ¹¤×ä´Õ·ÕèÇÔ¹Ô¨©Ñ George W. Bush

ªèǧà·ÃÃáá·Õèà»ç¹»ÃøҹҸԺ´Õ

¶Ö§áÃéÇèÒÈÒÅÊÙ§ÊØ´¨ÃÃѺ˹éÒ·Õè·Õè¨Ãá¡é䢻ѭËÒ·Õèà¡Ô´¢Ö鹨ҡ

ºÑµÃàÅ×áµÑ駷Õè¿ÅÃÃÔ´éÒ áµèÃÕ¼Ùé¾Ô¾Ò¡ÉÒ 4 ¤¹·ÕèäÃèàËç¹´éÇÂ

ä´éàµ×ùäÇéÇèҾǡà¢Òä´é¶Ù¡ÅÒ¡à¢éÒÃÃ’ÃÕÊèǹ㹻ѭËÒ

·ÕèäÃèÊÒÃÒö¶Ù¡á¡éä´éÃÂèÒ§¹èÒ¾Ãã¨áÅÃà»ç¹·ÕèæäÃèãªè¾Ç¡à¢Ò

¤ÇÃà¡ÕèÂÇ¢éç ˹Öè§ã¹¹Ñé¹ Justice Stephen Breyer ä´é¹ÓàÃ×èçã¹Ã´Õµ

·Õè¤ÇÃà»ç¹º·àÃÕ¹ÃÒøԺÒÂãËé¿Ñ§

ã¹»Õ 1876 ÃÕ¤³Ã·Ó§Ò¹¶Ù¡µÑ駢Öé¹à¾×èÃÃҵѴÊÔ¹ÇèÒã¤Ãà»ç¹¼Ù骹Ã

㹡ÒÃŧªÔ§µÓá˹觻ÃøҹҸԺ´Õ

ËéÒã¹15 ÊÃÒªÔ¡à»ç¹¼Ùé¾Ô¾Ò¡ÉÒ ¾Ç¡à¢Ò¶Ù¡¤Ò´ËÇѧ(àËÃ×ùã¹àÃ×çä·ÂËÅÒÂæàÃ×èçµÃ¹¹Õé)

·Õè¨ÃãËé¤ÇÒÃà·Õ觵çáÅÃäÃè½Ñ¡ã½è½èÒÂã´

˹Öè§ã¹¼Ùé¾Ô¾Ò¡ÉÒÃáàÊÕ§ãËé¡Ñº¼Ù骹à áÅþÃä·Õèá¾é

¡ç¡ÅèÒÇËÒÇèÒà¢ÒÃѺÊÔ¹º¹ áÅÃà¢Ò¡ç¶Ù¡»ÃóÒÃÃÂèÒ§¡ÇéÒ§¢ÇÒ§

áµèäÃèÇèÒà¢Ò¨Ã«×èÃÊѵÂìËÃ×ÃäÃè¹Ñé¹äÃèãªèà»ç¹»ÃÃà´ç¹

áµè¡ÒÃÃéÒ§¹Õé¡çà¾×èÃà»ç¹º·àÃÕ¹

Breyer ¡ÅèÒÇÃÂèÒ§ªÑ´à¨¹ÇèÒ·ÕèÊӤѭ¤×áÒ÷ÕèÃÕ¼Ùé¾Ô¾Ò¡ÉÒÃÇÃÃÂÙè㹤³Ã´Ñ§¡ÅèÒÇäÃèä´é·ÓãËé¤

³Ã¹Ñé¹ÃÕ¤ÇÒêú¸ÃÃÃÃÒ¡¢Öé¹

& quot;áÅÃäÃèä´éËÃÒ¶֧ÇèÒÃѹ¨ÃãËé¤ÇÒÃàª×èÃÃÑ蹡Ѻ»ÃêҪ¹ÇèÒÃѹà»ç¹¡Ãúǹ¡Ò÷ÕèµÃ§

仵çÃÒáÅùӷҧâ´Â¡®ËÃÒÂ" à¢Òä´éà¢Õ¹äÇé "áµè·Õèá¹èæ¤×à Ãѹ¹ÓãËéºØ¤ÅҡâçÈÒÅà¢éÒä»ÃÕÊèǹÃèÇáѺ¤ÇÒâѴáÂ駢ç¾Ãä¡ÒÃàÃ×ç «Ö觺èù·ÓÅÒ¤ÇÒùèÒàª×èö×âç¡Ãúǹ¡ÒÃÂصԸÃÃÃ"

»ÃÃÇѵÔÈÒʵÃìä´é¾ÔÊÙ¨¹ìÇèÒ Breyer áÅüÙé·ÕèäÃèàËç¹´éǹÑ鹤Դ¶Ù¡

áÅäÇÒÃà¤ÒþµèÃÈÒÅÊÙ§ÊØ´ã¹ÊËÃÑ°ÃàÃÃÔ¡Òã¹¢³Ã¹Ñé¹

µ¡µèÓ¶Ö§¢Õ´ÊØ´ã¹Ãú 10 »Õ «Öè§à¡Ô´¨Ò¡¡ÒäӾԾҡÉÒ·ÕèÃá¨Ãà¢éÒ¢éÒ§ Bush ÃÒ¡¡ÇèÒ Gore

ÈÒÅÃÒ¨Êè§ã¤Ã¡çä´éà¢éÒ仺ÃÔËÒûÃÃà·Èáµèã¹»Õ 1876

ÈÒÅäÃèä´éÊÃéÒ§¤ÇÒùèÒàª×èö×õèúؤ¤ÅËÃ×ÃÃÑ°ºÒŹÑé¹

¾Ç¡à¢Òä´é¹ÓàÃÒ¡ÒõÔàµÕ¹áÅâéþԾҷÃÃ’ÃÂÙè˹éÒ»Ãõ٢ç¡Ãúǹ¡ÒÃÂصԸÃÃÃà·èÒ¹Ñé¹

ÈÒÅÃÑ°¸ÃÃù٭¢Ã§ä·Â¹Ñé¹ä´éàÃҺؤ¤ÅÃá¨Ò¡ÃÑ°ºÒÅ

áµèà¢Ò¡çäÃèä´éà¾ÔèäÇÒùèÒàª×èö×ÃãËé¡Ñºã¤ÃËÃ×ÃÃÃä÷Ñ駹Ñé¹

áµè¡ÅѺ¡Ñ¹¾Ç¡à¢Òä´éáÊ´§º·ºÒ·à»ç¹µÑǵš

áÅÃä´é·ÓãË颺ǹ¡ÒÃÂصԸÃÃùÑ鹶١ÅéÃàÅÕ¹

¾Ç¡à¢ÒÃÕ·Ò§àÅ×áÃ×è¹äËÃ? á¹è¹Ã¹

¾Ç¡à¢ÒÊÒÃÒö·Õè¨à áÅäÇÃ¨à »¯Ôàʸ¡ÒÃãËé¤ÓÇÔ¹Ô¨©ÑÂ

áÅ÷ÕèäÃè·Ó¡çäÃèãªèÇèÒµéç¡ÒèÃãËéÃÕ·Ò§àÅ×áÃ×è¹

áµè·ÕèäÃè·Óà¾ÃÒÃäÃèµéç¡ÒÃãËéÃÕ·Ò§àÅ×áàÅÂ

(Awzar Thi à»ç¹¹Òûҡ¡Ò¢Ã§ÊÃÒªÔ¡¢Ã§ Asian Human Rights Commission à¢ÒÃÕ»ÃÃʺ¡ÒóìÃÒ¡¡ÇèÒ 15 »Õ㹡ÒÃʹѺʹعÊÔ·¸ÔùØɪ¹áÅÃrule of law ¢Ã§»ÃÃà·ÈäÃ凁þÃèÒ

bn38.gifbn38.gifbn34.gif

Link to comment
TiiNoi

it's a tragic day for democracy in Thailand.

It's known that politics isn't a 'clean' business in any administration but I'm sorry to say Sis, having been reading your posts and other reports, I don't think there was really any other outcome to be expected...it's a shame.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
×
  • Create New...