Thread: Court Orders Thai Leader Removed From Office

What's next for Thai economy following Yingluck sacking?
Katie Holliday | @hollidaykatie
Thursday, 8 May 2014 | 12:07 AM ET

Video link to interview of Thitinan of Chula:

The sacking of Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra could lead to further political unrest in the country, economists said, prompting some to review their growth forecasts.

Following months of political turmoil, Thailand's Constitutional Court ruled to remove Yingluck on Wednesday, along with nine other cabinet ministers. Yingluck was found guilty of abuse of power related to the removal of Thawil Pliensri from the post of National Security Council secretary general in 2011.

Global research house Capital Economics said in a note that if a resolution was not found soon, their below consensus 2 percent gross domestic product (GDP) growth forecast for 2014 would come under threat. Meanwhile Japanese investment bank Nomura said the ruling added downside risks to its 2.4 percent growth forecast.

Thai stocks fell 0.3 percent at Thursday's open. The market fell 18 percent between late October and early January this year when the political crisis first came to a head. It has since rebounded 8.5 percent year to date.

"The decision leaves the country's political deadlock firmly in place and there is now a large risk of renewed violence," said Krystal Tan, Asia economist at Capital Economics.

Wednesday's ruling is likely to upset government supporters who will be displeased with Yingluck's ousting. The government's opponents will also be dissatisfied as part of the caretaker cabinet still remains in place.

Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra meets her supporters after the Thai Constitutional Court ruled that she and 9 cabinet ministers are to step down.

In an emergency meeting following the ruling on Wednesday, deputy prime minister and commerce minister Niwattumrong Boonsongpaisan was given the role of acting prime minister.

Moody's Investors Services said the ruling was credit negative because in their view it threatens to prolong the country's political crisis, and makes a near-term compromise solution unlikely.

The credit rating agency, said a prolonged crisis, combined with the risk of further violent protests would negatively affect investor and consumer confidence and increase the downside risks to Thailand's growth outlook for 2014-2015.

"The risk of head on confrontations over the coming days is high, with both government supporters and protesters threatening to stage large-scale rallies. The toll that the political upheaval is taking on the economy is also clearly apparent," added Capital Economics' Tan.

The government's supporters have scheduled a protest for May 10th, while anti-government forces have one planned for May 14th.

Investment bank Nomura said in a note that they don't see a massive escalation of protests by the pro-government Red Shirts as a result of the ruling, but said there were risks if the protests turned violent.

"This could lead to more severe economic implications than [those] embedded in our current baseline," said Nithi Wanikpun, director and head of research at Nomura's Thailand research team.

What now?

According to Capital Economics' Tan, there is mounting pressure on Thai politicians to find a way out of the deadlock, and although a general election has been scheduled for July 20, the opposing parties need to find a path for reform first if the standoff is to be resolved.

Thailand's current account balance showed a deficit for the second straight year in 2013 at $2.8 billion, widening from $1.5 billion the previous year.

But some analysts told CNBC they are poised to delve into Thailand's equity market over the next few weeks despite bearish sentiment.

"We've been looking at the stocks to see if there are opportunities," said Norman Boersma, CIO at Templeton Global Equity Group.

"It's interesting, the stock market usually gets hit but when you look at the [Thai] economy in the past, it hasn't really been impacted as much as you think by this problem. So, in a way, that's an argument that it creates opportunities, because you have fairly stable growth going on. People are expecting a recession again but the last couple times, it didn't really happen," he added.

The latest round of political turmoil in Thailand began in November after the lower house passed a controversial amnesty bill, which critics said could allow former leader Thaksin Shinawatra, brother of Yingluck, to return without serving time in jail. Thaksin fled Thailand in 2008 after being convicted of corruption but remains popular with rural voters; he was ousted by the military as PM in a 2006 military coup.

Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Bangkok to voice opposition to the bill. The bill was eventually rejected by the Senate, but anti-government protests continued and new demands emerged.

You're a bit behind the newsfeed......

They tell me that Gandhi has been shot and it's not looking very good for him.

Originally Posted by can123

They tell me that Gandhi has been shot and it's not looking very good for him.

Suez situation is worrying. I can not imagine what is going to happen next.

We will have a man on the moon by the end of the decade...

Originally Posted by BaitongBoy

We will have a man on the moon by the end of the decade...

In all probability we will but what use is this going to be to poor Mr Gandhi ?

OK, this is continuation to previous thread with exactly same beginning posted on the day Ms. Y was "legally" put aside.

Keep the conversation going on.

Gandhi is dead.

Originally Posted by can123

Gandhi is dead.

Or with Elvis, who I saw in Jomtien last year btw.

RIP thread.

There's something happening here
And what it is ain't exactly clear

There's battle lines being drawn
And nobody's right, if everybody's wrong

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep

^ You know that song was about bars being closed don't you?

Originally Posted by Necron99

^ You know that song was about bars being closed don't you?

No, I did not know that and still don't. Lyrics speak for themselves. This song has universally been used to portray a message...

This song has universally been used to portray a message

, indeed, of a 10 pm curfew and no loitering law on the Sunset Strip..

No, I did not know that and still don't.

Ignorance is bliss for some I suppose.

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Originally Posted by Necron99

You're a bit behind the newsfeed......

No i am not.

Mods, erase this and bring back original thread please. Let's continue this discussion we had there.

fair call , looks like the mods were TOO lazy to clean the original thread and binned the whole thing

UPDATE FLASH.


Ritual to end Yingluck's bad luck

CHIANG MAI - The abbot of Wat Doi Suthep will hold a Visakha Bucha Day ceremony on Tuesday to wipe away the bad fortune for Yingluck Shinawatra.[at]

Well, I know what ritual is required to save Thailand's bad luck.

Thailand's Reverse Revolution

The National Interest Online-2 hours ago
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute

Thailand continues its slow-motion political implosion. The prime minister has been ousted and a new election has been scheduled for July 20, but the latter will settle nothing unless traditional ruling elites are willing to accept a government run by their opponents. If not, the country risks a violent explosion.

Bangkok’s politics have long leaned authoritarian. Once ruled by an absolute monarchy, Thailand has periodically suffered under military rule. Democracy finally re-emerged two decades ago. Nevertheless, the 1997 constitution created institutions of establishment control, such as the Constitutional Court. The monarchy retains outsize (though indirect) influence, and is generally allied with top business and political leaders.

But in 2001, telecommunications executive Thaksin Shinawatra disrupted the system. Campaigning as a populist, he won the votes of Thailand’s neglected rural poor to become prime minister. Those accustomed to ruling were horrified.

Thaksin won again in 2005. Instead of figuring out how to better appeal to the popular majority, his opponents organized the so-called People’s Alliance for Democracy which launched protests to topple his government. The resulting confrontation gave the military an excuse to oust the traveling Thaksin in 2006. The military regime tried him in absentia for alleged corruption and rewrote the constitution before calling new elections.

However, Thaksin’s successor party won a plurality and dominated the resulting coalition.

Thaksin’s opponents, who predominated in Bangkok, launched a wave of demonstrations, blocked Bangkok streets, besieged parliament, surrounded government buildings, and even took over Bangkok’s international airport. The security agencies refused to defend the government and the opposition-controlled courts ousted parliamentarians, including one prime minister, on dubious grounds. Establishment interests then pressured coalition partners to flip to the so-called Democrat Party (DP), which had not won an election since 1992.

When United Front for Democracy (so-called “Red Shirt”) Thaksin supporters flooded into Bangkok to protest the de facto coup, DP Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva no longer supported the people’s right to protest. The military conveniently decided that order must be maintained. The government killed scores and injured thousands of demonstrators, and imprisoned numerous opposition leaders.

But Yingluck Shinawatra, Thaksin’s sister, and her Pheu Thai party won an absolute majority in the 2011 election. So the PAD morphed into the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), led by former DP Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, one of those responsible for the 2010 killings. He demanded elimination of the “Thaksin regime” and organized mobs, which worked full-time to drive Yingluck from office. Their tactics, designed to prevent the government from functioning, reflected a mindset reminiscent of Benito Mussolini and his infamous Black Shirts. Recently Suthep called on the military to “stand by the people” and stage a coup.

In response, Prime Minister Yingluck called new elections, which further angered the opposition. The DP complained that the February poll would be “unfair.” More honestly, opposition activists admitted that they would lose. DP parliamentarian Theptai Seanapong said, “We cannot beat them.” Suthep turned his mobs loose on Election Day, blocking many Thais from voting. His attacks left enough constituencies unfilled to prevent the new parliament from taking office.

In March, the Constitutional Court effectively backed Suthep by invalidating the entire election because its opponents had prevented Thais from voting. Yingluck remained caretaker prime minister with only limited power to govern. Now the Constitutional Court has ousted her over the attempted reassignment of a government official. Suthep and his allies hope to use this ruling to force the installation of a compliant, unelected prime minister.

But leaders of the Red Shirts promised to respond violently to any judicial coup. In March, a former military officer and top Red Shirt threatened to march on the capital with 200,000 armed “guards” if Yingluck was deposed.

In the past, the widely respected king was able to transcend party factions, but he is aged and largely disengaged, while other members of the court have backed Suthep. In contrast, the Crown Prince is thought to lean toward Thaksin.

The political battle is complex, deep-seated, emotional, and personal. Thaksin has been justifiably criticized, but his opponents generate more heat than light. For instance, his corruption conviction, in absentia by a compliant court under a military regime, proves little. One can criticize Thaksin’s populist approach, but political parties around the world commonly adopt a “tax and tax, spend and spend” election strategy. Columnist H.L. Mencken once said an election was an “advance auction sale of stolen goods.” For all the faults of Thaksin’s universal health care program, for instance, it hardly seemed “corrupt.” Perhaps his worst offense was attempting to bloodily suppress the drug trade.

Similarly, Yingluck’s expensive rice support program may be unwise—it has well-nigh bankrupted the government—but also is not corrupt in any classic sense. Anyway, wealthy urban elites who benefited from past Thai government policies have little credibility faulting the rural poor for favoring their interests when voting.

Suthep denounced Yingluck as a tool of her brother, but even if she acted as his agent—his involvement in policy making is real but its extent is unknown—that does not justify the opposition’s Black Shirt tactics. Many Thais supported her because they believed she represented his views.

Ultimately, Suthep and his supporters are most interested in gaining power for themselves. A woman from the south told the New York Times: “We are the middle class, we are educated and we know best.” Some Thaksin opponents suggest abandoning “one man, one vote”. Others forthrightly advocate authoritarian rule or even an absolutist monarchy. Suthep wants to rig the political system through “reform” implemented by an unelected “People’s Council.”

The frustration of Thaksin’s supporters is palpable. Several parliamentarians elected in February—whose selection then was voided by the court—visited Geneva where they spoke with Secretary General of the International Parliamentary Union Anders Johnsson, United Nations human rights officials, and NGO members. The Thai delegation found much sympathy over the obvious assault on democracy, but those outside the country have only limited ability to influence events.

So far, Thailand’s generals have demonstrated no interest in taking control again. Richard Werly of Le Temps observed that the military “tried before and realizes that it can take power but can’t resolve the underlying problems.” Moreover, generals cannot count on the loyalty of soldiers drawn from rural areas, as well as younger officers promoted under Thaksin and Yingluck.

The only real solution can come from the political process. For instance, a Thaksin family withdrawal from politics would help ease political tensions. However, that would be more likely if Thaksin did not fear, with good cause, being targeted by his enemies. Werly suggested that Thaksin may feel he “needs to be involved to protect his investment...otherwise they will come after his money.”

It is even more essential to exclude those who have been employing violence for their own political ends, most notably Suthep and Abhisit. Their role is far more malign. The latter, at least, recently raised the possibility of stepping back as part of his new reform proposal, though the latter also would rig the electoral process in the elite’s favor. Neither should be trusted with power in the future.

Constitutional reform also might ease social conflict. Reducing the central government’s reach and devolving authority to provinces would reduce the winner-takes-all character of Thai politics, something proposed last year by a group of academics and local officials. Rural and urban populations might more easily live together if their futures were not subject to dictates from the other.

Moreover, the Thai people need to rethink the role of politics. A 2004 survey found that respondents leaned “toward majoritarian rather than strictly representative government.” At the same time, they were concerned about “the effect of diverse political views and the threat to harmony of the community posed by politically active groups.” Middle class voters seemed particularly willing to sacrifice democratic values for economic development. Yet social peace and economic growth are more likely to result from a representative, decentralized political system with only limited authority.

There is much to criticize about Thai politicians on all sides. However, it is putative authoritarians like Suthep who most risk plunging Thai society into violence. While there’s still time, the elites should pull their country back from the brink.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire (Xulon). Follow him on Twitter: @Doug_Bandow.

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

the opposition-controlled courts ousted parliamentarians, including one prime minister, on dubious grounds

Two PM's. Now three. What a farce.

Originally Posted by sabang

I know what ritual is required to save Thailand's bad luck

And I think that does not involve military governments.

Some local media for those who do not read Thai. Bit of oddball they are, but consider the issue.

Yingluck Focus: First picture of Yingluck since toppled
Thai Intel News



It had been about a week since Yingluck was toppled from power in Thailand, with about 80% to 90% of global press, such as Wall Street Journal and New York Times, calling her ousting, the result of a “Judicial Coup.” The first picture is of Yingluck taking her son, shopping at Promenade Resort Mall, in Chiang Mai, where Yingluck comes from.

Khao Sod (Source), a Thai newspaper for the grassroots that broke the first picture of Yingluck since topple, says Yingluck looked, “Re-freshed and as beautiful as ever.” Khaso Sod reports many people at the mall, went to greet Yingluck and asked for signature, where, Khao Sod, reported many praised Yingluck for her patience and tolerance, not using violence, against the Suthep’s movement (Called similar to Mussolini’s movement by Cato Institute and Forbes Magazine) protest to outs her, where the protesters often turn to violent and blatantly broke many serious law. Khao Sod quotes a radio station in Chiang Mai, saying Yingluck is a “Hero” of the Thai people.

While Yingluck went shopping, however, perhaps “Spinning A Presentable Face” Thailand’s Central Bank governor, Prasarn, told the Bangkok Post yesterday, quote: “The Thai economy can withstand the prolonged domestic political uncertainties in the short run thanks to the country’s strong fundamentals.”

That political crisis, says Gwynne Dyer, a syndicated columnist in some 50 countries, on May 08, 2014, is about, quote: “If you are trying to get rid of your country’s legitimately elected government, it helps to have the constitutional court, the national anti-corruption commission and the election commission on your side. And Thailand’s constitutional court has come through for the opposition once again: It has just ousted Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and nine of her cabinet ministers for improperly removing a civil servant from office.This is the latest move in an eight-year campaign by the old political establishment and its middle-class supporters in Bangkok to destroy a populist party — twice renamed and currently called Pheu Thai — that has won every election since 2001. The street protests by the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) that have intermittently paralyzed Bangkok since last November get the headlines, but the courts remain an indispensable weapon too.”

And Thailand now?

Thailand Faces Leadership Crisis as Civil War Threatens in Bangkok, says Lindsay Murdoch; Fairfax Media SE Asia Correspondent, on Sunday, May 11, 2014. Lindsey reported: “Supporters of Thailand’s besieged government have warned of civil war as the country’s army chief said the military is ready to act but only as a last resort to end worsening political unrest. Pro-government red shirts leader Jatuporn Prompan told thousands of supporters massing on the outskirts of the Thai capital that if state agencies bend to the demands of anti-government protesters and install their own prime minister, ”we will escalate our fight . . . we will not stand for it”. Since anti-government protesters took to the streets last November, red shirt leaders have urged their supporters to show restraint, fearing confrontation would prompt intervention by the military. Anti-government leader Suthep Thaugsuban, wanted on charges of treason, has set up headquarters with the permission of the army at Government House, Thailand’s seat of power, and is demanding that Thai courts and the Senate appoint a new prime minister by Monday. He warned that if his demand is not fulfilled his movement would do ”something” to make it happen. Mr Jatuporn said appointing an un-elected prime minister ”will inflict crisis on the nation, because the only solution for Thailand is democracy under the king as head of state”. ”I want my voice to be heard by the presidents of three courts and the Senate . . . that you are going to create disaster in the nation,” he said. ”You are going to create a serious crisis that could lead to civil war that no one wants to see.”

Whither justice in Thailand?
The Star
BY KARIM RASLAN
Published: Tuesday May 13, 2014 MYT 12:00:00 AM

A strong and independent judiciary is vital, but so is ‘separation of powers’.

THE happiest day of my life was when I stopped practising as a lawyer. Of course, some would argue that journalism is infinitely grubbier as a profession.

However – at least in South-East Asia – the law has become a moral quagmire, especially when it overlaps with politics.

Elites seem to have forgotten that the “rule of law” is not the same thing as “rule by law”.

This has been amply demonstrated by Yingluck Shinawatra’s ouster as Prime Minister by the kingdom’s Constitutional Court.

Yingluck (sister of the royalist’s bogeyman Thaksin) was accused of “abuse of power”.

Her offence? Replacing the secretary-general of the National Security Council, Thawil Pliensri, with a relative back in 2011.

Earlier this year, the same court nullified the results of the general election held in February.

Yingluck has also been hit by corruption allegations over her government’s controversial rice-buying scheme and could end up with a five-year ban from politics.

Yingluck’s predicament has further divided her already fractious nation.

Critics were delighted, supporters outraged and millions more worried over the country’s future, especially as Thailand’s central bank slashed economic growth forecasts from 3% to 2.7%.

The Constitutional Court (originally set up in 1997) has been incredibly controversial.

It is alleged that many of its decisions – such as dissolving Thaksin’s original “Thai Rak Thai” party in 2007 and removing his successor Samak Sundaravej from the premiership in 2008 – are biased towards Thailand’s royalist establishment.

This has led to accusations by Thaksin’s camp that the Constitutional Court is a mere tool for his rivals to make up for their inability to win at the ballot box.

Or perhaps I am being uncharitable.

Could it be that the justices of the Constitutional Court are noble beings, acting beyond fear and favour? Perhaps they pondered long and hard and came to the conclusion that the cause of justice could only be served by Yingluck’s removal.

Perhaps, but judicial activism – a growing trend in Thailand – is still a risky and dangerous affair.

There’s a reason why justice is supposed to be blind. People lose respect for the courts when judicial decisions are seen to be influenced by political considerations.

No one is denying that a strong and independent judiciary is essential for any democracy.

Call me old-fashioned, however, but I didn’t realise that it was the business of judges to arbitrarily remove or appoint politicians.

“Checks and balances” are important. But so is “separation of powers”.

As unsavoury as some of the successive Thaksinite governments have been, the fact remains that they were all democratically elected.

The way they were removed sets a bad precedent. The injury that has been done to the Thai body politic is more than just offended senses of fair play.

It has shown ordinary Thais – rightly or wrongly – that no public institutions are sacred, that everything and everyone can be manipulated if Bangkok’s courtiers demand it.

Countries are only strong if their people believe in the various organs of their state. There’s no telling how much damage has been done to the faith of ordinary Thais in their constitutional settlement.

Moreover, by being seen to abuse the courts for political ends, Thailand’s establishment has ceded the moral high ground.

Having been repeatedly removed in an unjust manner, the Shinawatras’ many failings have now been magically forgotten in the minds of the masses.

Furthermore, the bankruptcy of their rivals in terms of policies stands exposed.

Why should anyone vote for parties that have to resort to hauling their rivals to court rather than debating them?

I want to be optimistic about Thailand’s future but the odds don’t look good.

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

And Thailand now?

Gone downhill. The world is disgusted with this place and it's petulance, vandalism and childishness. Going further downhill. Investors are looking elsewhere, especially direct Investors as opposed to Traders. Not too sure there is much of Thailand left, in a national sense.

^
There are definite questions about the legal system here and whether it is possible to conduct business with Thailand, especially where millions of Dollars are involved.