Yud Saeng-Utai Memorial Seminar

Sorry, was not able to catch the early review of early constitutions on “The King” but panelist  discussion on increasing power of the king through revision of the constitution had prevailed despite the initial attempt to impose check and balance for exercising the sovereign power. The best take by a non-legal person at a seminar with the speed of light…
The King Can Do No Wrong: An explanation

Yud’s explained that the king cannot exercise his sovereign power on his own. There must be an institution (a parliament, a prime minister or a court) countersigning and be accountable for ‘his’ action. In fact in many country modern monarchy interpret the king or the queen’s action as merely ceremonial. The king can do no wrong, in Yud’s explanation, also can be interpreted as the king can do nothing. As his ceremonial action must be introduced, countersigned and be responsible for for by other parties under the constitution.  thus, it is also explained why, according to the 1992 constitution and other constitutions,  the king “shall be enthroned in a position of  revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action.” The logic, according to Yud if the king do nothing (legally or politically), then the king cannot be exposed to any accusation. The government, the Parliament or the Court that countersign for the king, however, shall be subject to any action or accusation respectively.

Assessment of the Regain of the Power

The base line for this analysis was pre BE 2511 constitutions and post  2511 ones. The most extreme one that King Rama VII seemed not to prefer was issued in June BE 2475, one of the many aspects to control and balance the power was to limit his veto right to only seven days. After that, a law can be enacted even without his signature. Since then, the changes in constitutions on The King session reflected ambiguous changes that could contribute to less participation from the Parliament. Panelists discussed that the latest one drafted in  1997 by ‘people’s process’), which was said to be the most democratic constitution, was the one that the right can set new standards on “The King” in democratic constitution and they were passed to the 2550 one as well.

Some legal points that a Panelist (Dr. Worajet Pakheerat)  noted:

•  Veto Power   The king can withhold a draft law from seven days in the draft constitution presented by the People’s Party to initially 90+30 days plus at least 2/3 of vote from the parliament in the 1992 to the  present constitution.   Dr. Worajet viewed  that this give the King more chance  to exercise his discretion over legislative process. Plus, in my opinion, this veto right has been promoted to hint political implications.

The 1991  constitution mentioned:

Section 93. After a bill has been approved by the National Assembly, the Prime Minister shall present it to the King for singature within thirty days as from the date he receives such bill, and it shall come into force as an Act upon its publication in the Government Gazette. 

Section 94. If the King refuses His assent to a bill and either returns it to the National Assembly or does not return it within ninety days, the National Assembly must re-deliberate such bill. If the National Assembly resolves to reaffirm the bill with the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of existed members of both Houses, the Prime Minister shall present such bill to the King for His signature once again. If the King does not sign and return the bill within thirty days, the Prime Minister shall cause the bill to be promulgated as an Act in the Government Gazette as if the King had singned it.  (emphasis mine)

The 1997 constitution:

Section 94. If the King refuses His assent to a bill or an organic law bill and either returns it to the National Assembly or does not return it within ninety days, the National Assembly must re-deliberate such bill. If the National Assembly resolves to reaffirm the bill with the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of existing members of both Houses, the Prime Minister shall present such bill to the King for signature once again. If the King does not sign and return the bill within thirty days, the Prime Minister shall cause the bill to be promulgated as an Act in the Government Gazette as if the King had signed it . (emphasis mine)

The 2007 constitution:

Section 151. If the King refuses His assent to a bill and either returns it to the National Assembly or does not return it within ninety days, the National Assembly must reconsider such bill. If the National Assembly resolves to reaffirm the bill with the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of existing members of both Houses, the Prime Minister shall present such bill to the King for signature once again. If the King does not sign and return the bill within thirty days, the Prime Minister shall cause the bill to be promulgated as an Act in the Government Gazette as if the King had signed it.

Yet, there is a section I do not understand in the 2007 constitution read:

Section 153. In the case where the term of the House of Representatives expires or the House of Representatives is dissolved, the draft Constitution Amendment or all bills to which the King has refused His assent or which have not been returned by the King within ninety days, shall lapse. (emphasis mine)

It was not mentioned in the seminar but I just found reading it. Actually may be they would need more time to elaborate.

Right to name an heir 

2007 constitution: Section 23. In the case where the Throne becomes vacant and the King has already appointed His Heir to the Throne under the Palace Law on Succession, B.E. 2467, the Council of Ministers shall notify the President of the National Assembly. The President of the National Assembly shall then convoke the National Assembly for the acknowledgement thereof and shall invite such Heir to ascend the Throne and proclaim such Heir King.

Later the “people’s constitution” adopt the whole sections in Section 23

Right to amend the Palace Law on succession
1997 and 2007 constitutions:  

The Amendment of the Palace Law on Succession, B.E. 2467 shall be the prerogative of the King. At the initiative of the King, the Privy Council shall draft the Palace Law Amendment and shall present it to the King for His consideration. When the King has already approved the draft Palace Law amendment and put His signature thereto, the President of the Privy Council shall notify the President of the National Assembly for informing the National Assembly. The President of the National Assembly shall countersign the Royal Command. The Palace Law Amendment shall come into force upon its publication in the Government Gazette.

Worajet noted that the National Assembly that countersign the Royal Command do not have any participation in drafting or reviewing it. In case there must be any accountability question, should or must the National Assembly be responsible or accountable for what it did not do? Worajet also note the word “acknowledge.”

There are many more interesting bits of information and I have taken note. Probably the next post would be bit and piece left out from previous constitutions (the pre BE 2511) and the super legal discussion that even a space between two clause matters, and how to interpret Section 7 and the origin of Section 7. Panelists note that the attempt to negotiate more balance power of the constitution as a mechanism to control ruling power represented by the People’s Party in BE 2474 has been tampered in each writing of new constitutions.

I am sorry if I did not calculated all BE to Common Era. I will try to do better next time and thanks to translation of Constitutions used:
1991:http://www.parliament.go.th/files/library/b05-b.htm
1997:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1997_Constitution_of_Thailand#CHAPTER_VI:_The_National_Assembly
2007:http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/1.html#C02

Filed under: Security, constitution, constitutional monarchy, monarchy, sovereign power, thailand

Yud Saeng Utai 100th Birthdate Memorial Lecture on “The King Can do No Wrong”

Fah Diew Kan Press and Winyuchon Press with several lecturers at Faculty of Law, Thammasat University will present monarchy related sections and explanation from Yud’s textbook. Expect critical interpretation of rights and roles of the monarch under Democracy which was totally different that popular views that offered few years back, from Yud’s textbook and probably speakers.

 

The event will be held at room lecture room  222, Faculty of Law at Thaprachan campus from 1 pm.

Filed under: Security

A Policy that Invoked Nationalism (Update 23 June 08)

Nopadol Patama, Minister of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the agreement of Preah Vihear will not alter or compromise Thailand’s sovereignty. Bangkok Post published his statement:

“The minister of foreign affairs deserves flowers instead of brickbats,” Mr Noppadon said, adding that “not a single square centimetre” of Thai soil was lost during recent negotiations with Cambodia.

He said Cambodia had drawn up two maps, one of the temple and the other of the adjacent area.

Mr Noppadon said the Cambodians will present only the temple map in their upcoming request to Unesco. The second map, which includes the disputed boundary, will not be an issue and thus Thailand has not yielded any territory, he said.

Thaikadi Research Center of Thammasat University stated a counter statement that the agreement will further weaken Thailand’s position in bilateral borderline agreement with Cambodia. It will also make Thailand lose certain part of the land originally belong to Thailand in BE 2505 Cabinet Resolution. ( Further statement of ML Walwipha can be found at, of course, the Manager, at http://www.manager.co.th/QOL/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9510000071752)

In another part of the news (in red) was a letter by Sonthi Limtongkul to the Supreme Commander about the negotiation under Thaksin’s government that will jeopardize certain area of dispute sea borderline between Thai and Cambodia. It was a statement that “matter” for PAD’s patriotic supporters.

UPDATE

Charnvit Kasetsiri explained why Preah Vihear belongs to Cambodia here  Citing the International Court of Justice ruling and King Rama V’s decision to sacrifice the minority to keep the majority (of land, more or less?)  during the colonial era, Preah Vihear was agreed by Siam and the French colonial power to belong to Laos at that time. Charnvit also illustrated how Preah Vihear issue had been used to mobilized nationalism in Field Marshal P. Pibulsongkram regime.

Ji Ungpakorn also published an article with Prachatai, confirming that Preah Vihear belong to Cambodia. 

Filed under: Political Sciences, borderline dispute, Post colonialism, Preah Vihear, ultra nationalism

Dissolve the Parliament. What a Proposal!!

Dissolve the Parliament. What a Proposal!!

Bangkok Post reported

Army chief Gen Anupong Paojinda has advised Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej to think seriously about dissolving the House to end the turmoil on the streets of the capital.

Gen Anupong, who joined top-level security officials at the Army Club to monitor the People’s Alliance for Democracy’s protest march yesterday afternoon, told Mr Samak he should explore the House dissolution option, a source said. This was because the PAD demonstrators had declared victory by laying siege to Government House.

Clearing the decks would allow the people to “make a new decision” at a fresh general election.

While Matichon reported otherwise:

รายงานข่าวจากกองทัพบกแจ้งว่า ในการหารือระหว่างนายสมัคร สุนทรเวช นายกรัฐมนตรี และรัฐมนตรีว่าการกระทรวงกลาโหม พล.อ.อนุพงษ์ เผ่าจินดา ผู้บัญชาการทหารบก (ผบ.ทบ.) พล.ท.ประยุทธ์ จันทร์โอชา แม่ทัพภาคที่ 1 และ พล.ต.อ.พัชวาท วงษ์สุวรรณ ผู้บัญชาการตำรวจแห่งชาติ (ผบ.ตร.) ที่สโมสรทหารบก เมื่อวันที่ 20 มิถุนายนที่ผ่านมานั้น มีการหารือและประเมินสถานการณ์ที่กลุ่มพันธมิตรปิดล้อมทำเนียบรัฐบาล และเรียกร้องให้นายสมัครลาออก โดย พล.อ.อนุพงษ์กล่าวกับนายสมัครว่า ไม่ต้องลาออก และขอให้ทำงานบริหารชาติต่อไป โดยทหารจะคอยเป็นกำลังใจให้ ไม่ต้องห่วงว่าทหารจะออกมาทำอะไรทั้งสิ้น และเห็นว่า ยังไม่มีความจำเป็นที่จะต้องประกาศใช้ พ.ร.ก.ฉุกเฉิน เพราะเจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจยังควบคุมสถานการณ์ไว้ได้ (my emphasis and translation)  [… Army Chief Gen. Anupong Paochinda said to Mr. Samak not to resign and urge him to continue running the country. The army will encourage him. He mentioned the PM will not have to worry for any action by the army and that the Emergency decree is unnecessary a the moment because the police is able to control the situation.]

What is wrong with this techno-bureaucrats is they don’t actually think that general people are capable of making democratic decision. Moreover, would they be prepare to accept a single party government, a mutation of Thai Rak Thai and People’s Power Party altogether.

The nominee still has a lot to do, clearing and cleaning the ways before a new general election. Plus, I do not know if he want to personally want to linger on. Plus the cases of party dissolution, the 111 TRT members, the tax evasions and the corruption cases pending for investigations still do not provide satisfactory results.

Still a call for premature election is such an democratically absurd idea. People already have elected the government. Whether PAD supporters like it or not or whether some member still have pending Election Committee investigation, the ruling party and its allies were elected by the majority of the eligible voters, even those voters will not, cannot or do not come to reaffirm their political wills on the street in Bangkok.

Recently the politic on the street has become a reliable and acceptable democratic tool but there is a huge different between abusive mob-rule and exercise of one’s democratic political right on the street.

Filed under: Political Sciences, cabinet, military

Winning or Losing (Bangkok popularity)?

No I do not think the government and it advisory board failed.

I went to a workshop meeting today and an accuse of Bangkokian participants to leave early is to avoid or take detour against the multiple marches and blockade by PAD.

Well, they boasted as victory of non-violence to called for the PM to resign but how can Bankokians tolerate traffick congestion, rumors about violence by the crowd control police and that foreign investors will pack and leave (Bangkok Post’s commentary: Pack and run)

I would avoid the Big Mango right now, however, because of the unpredictability factor. Madness is alright, even good for business because it eliminates competition. But – and it is a crucial but – there must be some pattern to the chaos. Some fundamental thread no matter how unsound or devious that helps people keep track of the shambles and limit the endless possibilities of how the whole thing might culminate into a worth-a-gamble number.

Look at the current situation. It is a prescription for anarchy.

The worst part of the political wrangling is that it is a proxy war. Most of the actors have their hands tied, if not by law (the barring from politics of the former TRT execs) then by dogma or public sentiment (the army should not overtly stage another coup), or simply by a practical question: who would join a protest if it’s held to serve a personal purpose?

So these main actors are advancing their causes through nominees.

Yes, nominees are marching on the street. A thin line between a march to uphold an institution to overthrown the others or even on another. Yet I believe that people behind Samak, if it is according to the commentary, will not urge him to use violence, despite how much the march will provoke, unless they would be extremely provocative. To curb popularity of PAD with Bangkokians and entrepreneurs, they can sit and let people gather to block the roads to government’s building for awhile and continue their “information” campaign through the media. It is rather useless to use mob-against-mob in Bangkok.

They might plan to wear people who join the protest out by giving them bad names (like weapons had be smuggled to be used against security force , etc.) rather than confronting the mob head on with violence when the world is watching an when they did not have the cable tv that broadcast the mob banned all over the country so that people will not immediately know if the mob would be beaten back with tear gas and stuff.

Well, at least the mob will linger for a while, again. The anti PAD could use their radio and website broadcast to stir and confirm undemocratic and negative features of PAD core leaders.

In the meantime, prepare your travel arrangement around that area in advance and see if they will start to move to block the semi-useless parliament.

Filed under: Political Sciences, anti thaksin, anti-samak, bangkok, PADs, political nominee, protest

A Part of History?

Guess where…

Filed under: Political Sciences

Strikes!

There are many reports about strikes and protests these day. Bangkok Post headline “Trucker Strike” in the headline, then Farmers block road in garlic price protest and Nidhi Eoseewong said something about pressuring policy makers through protest in “Space race.” Other protests I heard of is paddy farmers and cabbage growers.

It is likely that according to Nidhi (op.cit.) “Public streets are one such type of “space”. They are quite effective, too, when used to generate pressure – again a given in the process of negotiation.”

I hope that all protesters for their causes will not branded “PAD supporters” to destabilized the government.

While PAD might protest for their “ideology,” other that protest for their real livelihood should not be ignored.

Filed under: Political Sciences

Hints and Allegations

Disclaimer: Since the Sanam Luang People Council claimed that they are insufficiently presented in mainstream media and much of PAD were featured in PAD-streams (PADcast?) and non PAD-streams, and the new website of Thai-grassroots (formerly “hi-Thaksin”). The posts displaying, citing or referring to the sources do not mean that I agree or disagree with the materials or “ideology” (if there are any) presented by the following sources (also PAD or otherwise.) The posts were intended to show that there were people that think different and no matter how we personally view them, they will think different.
——————————————————————————————————————

To deny and question symbolic representation of the institution used by PAD, Thai grassroots presented several articles questioning the “abuse” of symbols such as yellow shirt, a blue scarf worn by Sonthi L. and Chitlada drinking water. The council announced that it intended to “[…]seek clarification from the office of HM’s Personal Affairs and the Royal Household Bureau. Currently, the academic division of the council is assigned to draft letters of inquiry to the agencies in charge. […]”

The website also features a video clip of broadcasted royal speech inMay 1992 with headline “May 1992: Phor Luang led the anti coup movement” The clip was posted on 22 May 2008. It also show the entrance of member of the privy council at that time, including Prem and two targeted audiences of the royal speech.

The burden of proof is now shifted to PAD and its supporters, particularly Sonthi L., who was demanded by Thai-grassroots to publicly announce the source of scarf and justify the manipulation of other related symbols. If the letter to the royal household bureau were actually posted, even silence or an answer would not benefit the PAD movement.

However, Chatupon Phromphan (Partylist, PPP) said he was rather partial to the inquiry. “[…] It is believed that the majority of people understand what is right and what has been going on. [We] should not question [about the scarf and other symbols.] The matter is too sensitive to be questioned. it should be believed without any questions [doubts] that the institution do not involve. THe more we question, there will be doubt and PAD will probably be benefited.[…]” (เพราะเชื่อว่าขณะนี้ประชาชนส่วนใหญ่รับรู้ว่าอะไรเป็นเรื่องที่ถูกต้อง เรื่องราวเป็นมาอย่างไรอยู่แล้ว จึงไม่ควรที่จะตั้งคำถาม เพราะประเด็นดังกล่าวเป็นเรื่องที่อ่อนไหวเกินกว่าที่จะตั้งคำถามได้ ซึ่งสามารถเชื่อได้เลยโดยที่ไม่ต้องตั้งคำถามว่า สถาบันไม่มีส่วนเกี่ยวข้องอย่างแน่นอน ยิ่งหากไปตั้งคำถามก็จะก่อให้เกิดข้อสงสัยขึ้นมา” แล้วจะกลายเป็นว่าไปเข้าทางของกลุ่มพันธมิตรฯเสียมากกว่า”)

While PAD creates myths, Thai-grasroots and Sanam Luang People’s Council try to demythify and distance PAD from its “symbolic” partnership. Yet, the two movement still strongly rely on manipulation of the untouchable. If PAD “fight for the king”, the Thai-grassroot’s ‘public transcript’ also appeared to say so in its website but it gives many hints to hidden ones.

Filed under: Free speech, Political Sciences, hi thaksin, politics, thailand

Draft: Artificial Rain

Filed under: Ideas, Political Sciences, Something To Remember

Sanam Luang Under Reported

I accidentally turned on to FM 92.80 and listened to latter section of two people hyde parking against PAD and Prawes (too much about Prawes for today). It was obvious that the Sanam Luang side was under reported, and not much recap of what had been said or discussed there were presented in the sites I read. Probably it was good for them to be featured in the mainstream media. I was trying to find the “thai grassroot “ and found many websites and blogs that feature manuscripts or recap of broadcast from Sanam Luang.

For broaden views, those Sanam Lunag voices, Taxi radio  and NewSkyThailand should also be included in mainstream media. At least some agencies would like to send someone to see what it’s like.

Thai free news offers portion of live VDO clips, the one I selected the link mentioned unequal media representation here.

Filed under: Ideas, anti PADs, taxi radio, Thai grassroot, thaksin lovers