Yingluck ran out of luck - game over


s1221ljc

Senior Member
May 7, 2006
825
1
18
#4
The game, a new one, has just started. Its ridiculous a constitutional court has so much power as to remove a sitting elected prime minister so easily & over such a issue of change of staff apppointment. Maybe its time to revise their constitution again. And in the long run, remove the dominance of the monarchy & all the sycophants, cronies & all...
 

Last edited:

Bukitimah

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2010
1,268
6
38
Singapore
#5
Another sad day to the average Thai people who want peace and normal life. Get all these idiots into jail and have peace for once. If the people cannot decide and need a handful to run their life, then why not the other way around?
 

Yappy

Senior Member
May 30, 2004
1,322
1
38
#6
At least she left in the name of LAW and not otherwise!
 

UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,451
37
48
Singapore
#7
I feel she is ready to go.

Now no more obstacles on both side, I expect red and yellow shirt will slug it out. Then military will step in with a coup, reset everything for another stalemate down the road because the military can't rule legitimately forever, and elections can't settle anything conclusively. The country is basically divided.
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,518
32
48
Pasir Ris
#8
The game, a new one, has just started. Its ridiculous a constitutional court has so much power as to remove a sitting elected prime minister so easily & over such a issue of change of staff apppointment. Maybe its time to revise their constitution again. And in the long run, remove the dominance of the monarchy & all the sycophants, cronies & all...
This is not ridiculous but a very good example of separation of powers in a democratic system. Nobody is above the law.
In other working democracies (emphasis on 'working', not 'self-proclaimed') the procedure is different but the result is the same: a PM doing something illegal must be removed from his job. By accepting the verdict she has the chance to prevent further damage and crisis to the country.
 

NazgulKing

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2009
2,371
3
38
34
#9
This is not ridiculous but a very good example of separation of powers in a democratic system. Nobody is above the law.
In other working democracies (emphasis on 'working', not 'self-proclaimed') the procedure is different but the result is the same: a PM doing something illegal must be removed from his job. By accepting the verdict she has the chance to prevent further damage and crisis to the country.
The Supreme court is staffed by people from the Opposition. :D What Separation of Powers again?
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,699
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#10
Today her opponents used the court to get rid of her. Next, their opponents will use the court to get rid of them. Its a freaking circus show until these bloody politicians (sorry arse excuses for a human being) get their act together and put the country's interest in front of everything else.
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,518
32
48
Pasir Ris
#11
The Supreme court is staffed by people from the Opposition. :D What Separation of Powers again?
This is a different topic then. The initial question was how a court can remove a PM from power.
Looking at the response from the street after the court decision it seems even her own supporters acknowledge the wrongdoing and accept the verdict of the court.
 

NazgulKing

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2009
2,371
3
38
34
#12
This is a different topic then. The initial question was how a court can remove a PM from power.
Looking at the response from the street after the court decision it seems even her own supporters acknowledge the wrongdoing and accept the verdict of the court.
I think everyone is just tired from the months of endless protests.
 

s1221ljc

Senior Member
May 7, 2006
825
1
18
#13
I fully understand the need for & concept of separation of powers, to ensure that executive, legislative & judiciary powers are not vested in a single person or party. But separation does not mean that the judiciary have over-extending powers over the executive as in this case. Thailand is not modelled after American democracy [neither are we]. In a parliamentary democracy (+ constitutional monarchy), shouldn't the prime minister be removed by the parliament [even if a court rules on improprieties, negligence]? Also Is it this kind of lop-sided distribution of powers that helped removed previous Thai prime ministers [one for just being paid for appearing on a tv show :)], that created controversies & ended in civil unrests & military coups? What are elections for, if the final powers rest in the judiciary who are not elected but appointed officials & prime ministers can be removed so easily? What if the judiciary is corrupt? This is just my view, like what's quoted here, though others may disagree.

Quote The decision to remove Ms. Yingluck is “total nonsense in a democratic society,” said Ekachai Chainuvati, the deputy dean of the law faculty at Siam University in Bangkok.

“This is what I would call a juristocracy — a system of government governed by judges,” Mr. Ekachai said.Unquote

Just another reason why I say its so ridiculous. Imagine member of cabinet replaced by the judiciary who then proclaims after he is installed, to bring down the government he is part of :) Mr Thawil is the sec gen of the NSC! And "rushed" does not mean corrupt, although this is hinted at. And is it any wonder why he is removed :)

Quote The court said that Ms. Yingluck was within her rights to remove Mr. Thawil but that the move was rushed, intended to free up another job for a relative of Ms. Yingluck’s and not done according to “moral principles.”

In a stark symbol of the dysfunction of the Thai government, Mr. Thawil was reinstated, on court order, last week, and he told the news media that even while in office, he would continue to support the movement to remove the government. Unquote


This is not ridiculous but a very good example of separation of powers in a democratic system. Nobody is above the law.
In other working democracies (emphasis on 'working', not 'self-proclaimed') the procedure is different but the result is the same: a PM doing something illegal must be removed from his job. By accepting the verdict she has the chance to prevent further damage and crisis to the country.
 

Last edited:

NazgulKing

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2009
2,371
3
38
34
#14
I fully understand the need for & concept of separation of powers, to ensure that executive, legislative & judiciary powers are not vested in a single person or party. But separation does not mean that the judiciary have over-extending powers over the executive as in this case. Thailand is not modelled after American democracy [neither are we]. In a parliamentary democracy (+ constitutional monarchy), shouldn't the prime minister be removed by the parliament [even if a court rules on improprieties, negligence]? Also Is it this kind of lop-sided distribution of powers that helped removed previous Thai prime ministers [one for just being paid for appearing on a tv show :)], that created controversies & ended in civil unrests & military coups? What are elections for, if the final powers rest in the judiciary who are not elected but appointed officials & prime ministers can be removed so easily? What if the judiciary is corrupt? This is just my view, like what's quoted here, though others may disagree.

Quote The decision to remove Ms. Yingluck is “total nonsense in a democratic society,” said Ekachai Chainuvati, the deputy dean of the law faculty at Siam University in Bangkok.

“This is what I would call a juristocracy — a system of government governed by judges,” Mr. Ekachai said.Unquote

Just another reason why I say its so ridiculous. Imagine member of cabinet replaced by the judiciary who then proclaims after he is installed, to bring down the government he is part of :) Mr Thawil is the sec gen of the NSC! And "rushed" does not mean corrupt, although this is hinted at. And is it any wonder why he is removed :)

Quote The court said that Ms. Yingluck was within her rights to remove Mr. Thawil but that the move was rushed, intended to free up another job for a relative of Ms. Yingluck’s and not done according to “moral principles.”

In a stark symbol of the dysfunction of the Thai government, Mr. Thawil was reinstated, on court order, last week, and he told the news media that even while in office, he would continue to support the movement to remove the government. Unquote
Thailand is an oligarchy made to look like a democracy. The reality is that this is a zero sum battle between 2 patronage systems.
 

Bukitimah

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2010
1,268
6
38
Singapore
#15
Unless you are a Thai, otherwise we have no right over how they wish to run their country. To me, it is simply a small group of people controlling the fate of the majority, very sad.

Today, if everyone in Thailand is leading a good life, then who runs it not too bad. With the majority living below world standard and those having power benefiting from the system, if I am a Thai, I won't want this system. What democracy are we talking about when you allow coup after coup, it is a joke!
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,518
32
48
Pasir Ris
#16
What democracy are we talking about when you allow coup after coup, it is a joke!
Democracy has to evolve in the context of each country. The blueprint is a generic concept, but it always requires local implementation. That's the task that the Thai people have to do. It might take more time than in other countries due to their royal legacy and other factors. There is no shortcut.
On the other hand I could also ask: if a political party only gets 65% of the votes but finally occupies 95% of the seats in parliament, isn't this a joke as well?
 

Bukitimah

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2010
1,268
6
38
Singapore
#17
I have not norther to look into their system. Basically, if you set the rules, you play by the rules. You cannot have a coup after you loose.

If you are not given a chance then the majority of the people got to fight it like what happen in Philippine. Not a coup by a small group of jokers.
 

s1221ljc

Senior Member
May 7, 2006
825
1
18
#18
If there are elections & the people voted for their representatives to form a government, it is considered a democratic system, even if it is not perfect. China & Russia are run by those who are not elected by the people & so are considered oligarchs.

There is no perfect democracy, even in the United States. It has been accused of being oligarchy before as those in power are from a small exclusive connected group, from the very rich upper class of society (millionaires/billionaires), graduates from Ivy League universities (Harvard, Princeton etc). I do agree that there are very powerful entrenched patronage systems in Thailand which is one of its main root problem. However patronage is always present, to a greater or lesser extent, in most if not all countries, even in those considered advanced democracies. IMO, with a equally strong & powerful opposition, there tends to be greater tensions, more political struggles & risks of conflicts rather than peace, co-operation & balance.

Thailand is an oligarchy made to look like a democracy. The reality is that this is a zero sum battle between 2 patronage systems.
 

Last edited:

s1221ljc

Senior Member
May 7, 2006
825
1
18
#19
It is not a joke, just that no system is perfect & every system has its pros & cons. Each country has to accept the system that is considered best suited to it & the stage of its political development.

Just for simple illustration. There are 10 positions/seats to be elected to form a government. All the candidates won by a simple majority of 51% & all candidates belong to the same party. Then the party has won 51% of all the votes but 100% of the positions/seats. The 10 elected vote among themselves who would hold what posts. This is our system & basically the system of many countries, with tweaks & variations. There is nothing unusual or weird about this. Unless you can come up with a better system with no downsides :)

....
On the other hand I could also ask: if a political party only gets 65% of the votes but finally occupies 95% of the seats in parliament, isn't this a joke as well?
 

Last edited:
Aug 22, 2006
300
3
18
#20
It is a taboo and serious thing to be making the bold quote below especially if you are in Thailand. You can be put in jail for that.

The game, a new one, has just started. Its ridiculous a constitutional court has so much power as to remove a sitting elected prime minister so easily & over such a issue of change of staff apppointment. Maybe its time to revise their constitution again. And in the long run, remove the dominance of the monarchy & all the sycophants, cronies & all...[/
 

Top Bottom