During the chiang mai trip not to see panda, the usual broadcast said the red shirt will eventually gather in Bangkok to submit their petition in person. The anti-petition petition is also being ushered at every corner when possible. Legal discussions flooded the media, depending on what perspective the media would like to represent. Rights based said they can but traditional said they cannot. The petition could not be for the political purposes. The last furtive attempt by the yellow shirts was also political, calling for an appointed PM, had been ruled “not democratic.” We could remember who made the judgement, though.
If the judgement could be made again and the ”not democratic” or undemocratic (I could not remember exactly which one he did said) will utter, what can people do but keep on protesting. Honestly I do not think that the petition was aimed at lifting the sentence because the man has not been jailed. A direct intervention, even if it was underpinned by the right wing principle of the traditional sovereignty and now being used to backlash against them, was obviously unnoticeable in the constitution. The right argued there are norms, but the norms are not in the constitution, even Section 7 of the past constitution said the “norm” could be used, the user did not exercise it last time, despite the previous petition.
Thus, after refusing to give the appointed PM, after the yellow’s petition, it is likely that the undemocratic and unconstitutional verdict could be reiterated. I think the red leaders know that and they would carefully reap anything out of the statement anyway.
Did I sign the petition. no. the part to demand the intervention is obviously to me overtly unconstitutional. If the verdict was considered unjust, an attempt to ask for an undemocratic and unconstitutional intervention intervention for a specific case, is not a solution to me. Similarly, the overthrowing of a government by a coup is unconstitutional, hence, I understand that any person affected by a coup would understand that there is some value to adhere to democratic and constitutional processes. Organizing a petition is constitutional and everybody should respect their right to do so. Saying yes to the proposed statement by the red shirt, bypassing existing democratic system, creating a third standard for politicians is clearly undemocratic and almost illegal. According to any constitution of thailand, no one is [overtly] above the law. If addressing the grievance of the petitioners requires anyone to have an authorized power above the law, it is not a good trade-off.
Hence, it is not a good trade-off for government sponsored anti-petition petition also. It is a waste of investment.
Having said that, I think the next “no” would not hurt.
Filed under: Political Sciences
~Meaw & More~ 