If law is the law

[rayan]

Hi Ink,

We could go on with this for a long time, and still have different ideas, but as stated the lawmakers in all countries manipulate the law in their countries to fit in on their agendas. Forget military coups etc look at the facts on Clinton who was a politician at the time of his actions, and Thaksin. The lawmakers of these countries both manipulated the law to fit in with their countries agendas. Do not talk about coups etc look at facts on both these people everything that was done to them was done by the lawmakers of their countries. Both knew what they were doing so they both must face the consequences of their doings.it has nothing to do with coups it has to do with the law. What you have stated in your reply to me is that the US is a Civilized country and Thailand is not. This is not a very nice thing to say about ones own country, and you should be ashamed of saying something like that "Clinton was not in the same political environment Thaksin was (is) in addition to him being in what is considered the planet’s most successful democracy with proper and progressive checks and balances, faults and weaknesses and all. Clinton was not hatefully overthrown by a military coup. The constitution was not shredded and new “military dictated" is this not what you said.Once again I say look at both cases with yur eyes open was this not a manipulation of law? All you have done is read what is in front of you, but have you went deeper into the papers, and read the small print. If you would have done so you would see that all documents have clauses. Just like all documents have other documents that have amendments to them. So you read one document that you think is correct, and you present it, but someone produces another one that over rides yours.

I am not a chauvinist is this not the case in this beautiful country for if not them I have been living in the wrong country for a long time maybe longer than you. I would love to see a woman PM. I think that this is what this counrty needs just like England had the Iron Lady. She done a good job. Nobody blew any argument. That is your opinion, or anybody elses who wants to agree with you as everybody is entitled to their opinions. Yes it is still my opinion that she should do jail time for she is still as guilty as her husband for it takes two too tango.

Yes a considerable portion of my post refers to “what if this” or “what if that”, because you have to try and look at both sides of the fence. Like I stated above you read articles 4655/2533, and 4655/2533, but you only scratched the surface of these papers how many are in existence, and don't say only one. Nobody said forget the law in Thailand for if you done that then whatever laws are in place would not exist so it would not be wise to do something like that.
You say "What role should this play in our lives?" Unfortunately it has played a big part in most lives here in Thailand. It has turned Thais against each other, should it be bothers against brothers, sisters against sisters etc it is very sad. Why can't we all just get along, and put our differences behind us for the sake of our country and families. THE END BYE BYE

[news man]

Dear,
I would like to remind that in democratic system, juge make decission up to his obsolute persoinal right. Then he/she take the active law or laws to support his/her decission.
If there is no law to support the decission and this rulling become affective, it will become the new law until other law concell it power. THis process is in common law system that apply in Thailand today.

[davidb98]

hi news man....

OK, in some ways I think you are right, and wrong

judges may form an opinion in their minds and then work through the existing base of statutes and precedences from past decisions to discover if their opinion is supported

when they are doing this, if they discover any issues that are not completely covered then they may choose to make a ruling on that item and then use that ruling with the other existing law to justify their decision

in fact, its apparent that the Supreme Court in 4655/2533 did believe they needed to rule on the status of the FIDF and presumably then used that as part of the basis for a decision they made at the time

the thing is, judges have to be vry careful when they make these rulings, because in common law, once a ruling is made then it is a precedent that must be used in every other case that arises in whatever court until its over-ridden either by themselves or a higher court

so, judges are not as free to come to arbitrary decisions as you would imply, but they may, if they are careful, make new rulings which then become part of common law

it is interesting that in the current case the judges found it necessary to make rulings to complete their case as follows (with voting numbers against each:

9-0 - The 1999 anti-corruption act is effective.

9-0 - Appointment of Assets Examination Committee is constitutional with authority to investigate cases.

9-0 - Financial Institutions Development Fund, the land seller, is a government agency.

6-3 - The prime minister has oversight of FIDF.

5-4 - Thaksin Shinawatra violated the 1999 anti-corruption act.

7-2 - Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra is not guilty and her arrest warrant will be cancelled.

7-2 - The Ratchadaphisek land plot and transaction money will not be confiscated.

9-0 - Thaksin is sentenced to a two-year jail term.

it is the third ruling that is of interest here.... the question is, was the Supreme Court ruling 4655/2533 ignored or did the Constitution (sub-court) think they can over-ride that decision?

by the way, if this is now a precedent I guess it means that no MP can buy any land from either a government or independent juristic entity... so no MP can buy any land from anyone!

just for interest I also mention that the decision in the case regarding Khun Samak being paid for his cook shows also raises a similar issue, because, apparently the court ruled that being a contractor is equivalent to being employed (to match the words needed for his conviction)... I imagine a lot of businesses are quite nervous because they believed that labour laws for employed people did not cover contractors.....

there will still be some interesting twists before this is done

[Ink]

Hi Ink,

We could go on with this for a long time, and still have different ideas, but as stated the lawmakers in all countries manipulate the law in their countries to fit in on their agendas.

I disagree to a larger extent than I agree with this statement. Lawmakers and "judges" are supposed to study the law, know the law and ensure cases are tried within the extent of the law. They are not supposed to have any other agenda other than to see that "everyone's rights" are protected in all judiciary proceedings. Every single person accused must be considered innocent until proven guilty, that includes me, you and / or a Prime Minister and his wife. We do not have laws so they can be used against people. The idea of having laws is so people's rights are protected, even when they are accused of a crime.

Forget military coups etc look at the facts on Clinton who was a politician at the time of his actions, and Thaksin. The lawmakers of these countries both manipulated the law to fit in with their countries agendas. Do not talk about coups etc look at facts on both these people everything that was done to them was done by the lawmakers of their countries. Both knew what they were doing so they both must face the consequences of their doings.it has nothing to do with coups it has to do with the law.

We cannot dismiss the coup. Who do you think is leading this? Who do you think is the CNS? Out of all the allegations and charges and years of cooking up rumor, why do you think they only tried Thaksin with just one case in court? It is because the military and all their super dooper team of legal eagles comprised of Thaksin's opponents could not find and evidence of to support any other charges. They think they have it in this land case. But many "in the legal profession" also found the case to be groundless. To dismiss the coup is to dismiss an important factor to reach a conclusion of convenience. The fact is there are vast differences between Clinton and Thaksin situations. You are assuming (again) Thaksin knew he was breaking the law. You don't know that. So, let's get way from that. You are also dismissing there is a team of lawyers looking at the law to make sure he wasn't. The existence of 4655/2533 alone already provided legal ground for his position in this land case.

What you have stated in your reply to me is that the US is a Civilized country and Thailand is not. This is not a very nice thing to say about ones own country, and you should be ashamed of saying something like that.

I said no such thing. Again, read carefully. What I said is written right here for all to see. I made a reference that the US is the most stable democracy while Thailand is in a political madness where democracy is concern. I stand behind every word of it. If truth is derogatory to you, that's just too bad.

"Clinton was not in the same political environment Thaksin was (is) in addition to him being in what is considered the planet’s most successful democracy with proper and progressive checks and balances, faults and weaknesses and all. Clinton was not hatefully overthrown by a military coup. The constitution was not shredded and new “military dictated".........

This is, in fact, what I said. Read it again. There is nothing said about Thailand not being "civilized".

All you have done is read what is in front of you, but have you went deeper into the papers, and read the small print. If you would have done so you would see that all documents have clauses. Just like all documents have other documents that have amendments to them. So you read one document that you think is correct, and you present it, but someone produces another one that over rides yours.

Yes, in fact I did read 4655/2533 that is in front of me. Out of almost 100,000 Supreme Court rulings, there is only "one" ruling on the status of FIDF "with no clauses, small prints, or amendments". There is no evidence of any other Court ruling on FIDF that would over ride 4655/2533. If you know of one, please share. If not, 4655/2533 is what we have.

I am not a chauvinist is this not the case in this beautiful country for if not them I have been living in the wrong country for a long time maybe longer than you. I would love to see a woman PM. I think that this is what this country needs just like England had the Iron Lady. She done a good job. Nobody blew any argument. That is your opinion, or anybody elses who wants to agree with you as everybody is entitled to their opinions.

Again, read carefully. I didn't say you are a chauvinist. I said your view that Pajamarn is found not guilty because she is a woman is chauvinist. This is after you having said if she was tried in a different court she would be found guilty. This is why you blew this argument, and that is my opinion.

Yes a considerable portion of my post refers to “what if this” or “what if that”, because you have to try and look at both sides of the fence. Like I stated above you read articles 4655/2533, and 4655/2533, but you only scratched the surface of these papers how many are in existence, and don't say only one.

The court's verdict centered around a specific law, Section 100, which made relevance 4655/2533. These are areas of concern. I mentioned there are almost 100,000 Supreme Court rulings. The exact number is 98,772 and 3 of these rulings specifically addressed FIDF as a private enterprise by how it is administered and by status as ruled by the Court.

Nobody said forget the law in Thailand

You did! You said..

"forget the law as you know it there are hidden entities that you don't know about, and hidden agendas."

The possibility that there could be hidden agendas is precisely why we cannot forget and dismiss the law, just as we cannot forget and dismiss 4655/2533.

When I rhetorically asked what role it should play in our lives, it is to say that it should play a role in our lives in the way that it is intended, not in the way that it is being referenced to manipulate us. And it will not do that unless "we" take it upon ourselves as citizens of this kingdom to know the law and not "forget" or "dismiss" it just leave it to the authority to tell us it is this way or it is that way. The law is written for all of us to understand and live by it, not for the authority to use it to manipulate us. That is the role that it should play. It is when we forget it and dismiss it that we allow ourselves to be manipulated into turning against one another, brother against brother and sister against sister. We cannot reconcile our differences and get along if we continue make conscious decisions to become ignorant about the laws that govern our lives. We allow that manipulation in doing so..

[Ink]

Hello Rayan,
I neglected to add one other relevent point..

We cannot look at both side of the fence by saying what if this or what if that. We have to look at them within the context of the written law governing that fence.

[Ink]

Dear,
I would like to remind that in democratic system, juge make decission up to his obsolute persoinal right. Then he/she take the active law or laws to support his/her decission.
If there is no law to support the decission and this rulling become affective, it will become the new law until other law concell it power. THis process is in common law system that apply in Thailand today.

Hello News Man,
We are discusing specific laws, Section 100 and 4655/2533, not progressive law system in general. If there is a ruling that over rides 4655/2533, it has not been made part of public information anywhere and as citizens, we have the absolute right to demand to be informed of such law if it exists. If not, this verdict is politically motivated. Thaksin is in the spot light in the case. But the law itself concerns all of us.

[news man]

Dear Ink,
I beleive that this verdict is politically motivated. Do u believe? If most of thailand beleive that, This judgment become political motivated. This is the spirit of the law. We study this theory in first year in university.

[Ink]

Dear Ink,
I beleive that this verdict is politically motivated. Do u believe? If most of thailand beleive that, This judgment become political motivated. This is the spirit of the law. We study this theory in first year in university.

Hello News Man,
Then I'm not sure I understand why you seem to have put little importance on the tree knowing the forest is made of trees. It's pretty obvious how I view the verdict. Since you studied law, perhaps you can help shed light on the 3 Supreme Court rulings (one is 4655/2533) I mentioned in my response to Rayan. Your familiarity with the the law could help to make it even more clear FIDF is not a State enterprise that would fall under the description in Section 100. Here are those rulings...


1486/2549
In this ruling, the Supreme Court recognize that the Council of Ministers issued a resolution stating the laws and regulations governing State enterprises do not apply in a joint enterprise between the FIDF and a private enterprise that results in the FIDF holding more than 50% share. The Court made its ruling in this case with recognition of action taken by the Council of Ministers.

This would mean that, as a major share holder, the FIDF would still be regulated by rules that apply to private enterprises rather than State enterprises. Administratively and functionally, FIDF is not a State enterprise.

8792/2544
In this ruling, the Supreme Court recognize that the Ministry of Finance has issued a resolution exempting private financial institutions that became State enterprises by way of the FIDF holding more than 50% share from having to be administered and governed under the rules and regulations that apply to State enterprises. The Court made its ruling in this case with recognition of action taken by the Ministry of Finance.

This would also mean that, as a major share holder, the FIDF would still be run as a private enterprise. Administratively and functionally, FIDF is not a State enterprise.

4655/2533
The Supreme Court ruled that FIDF is an independent and distinct juristic body from the central administration of the government with its own rights and purposes within the boundary of its laws.

This ruling supports 8792/2544 and 1486/2549. The Court’s 4655/2533 has made FIDF a private enterprise 11 years before the Ministry of Finance issued the exemption in 1486/2444 and 16 years before the Council of Ministers agreed with the Ministry of Finance’s resolution to exempt FIDF from being administered as a State enterprise in 8792/2544. Since FIDF is not a State enterprise, holding more than 50% share in a venture would make that venture a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the central administration with its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations within the boundary of its objectives.

It would appear that by the Supreme Court’s multiple rulings, FIDF is not a State enterprise by law, by administration or by function.

[davidb98]

Ink... thank you again

is there a requirement on the judges to release the reasoning behind their verdicts?

is there a requirement that this be released and made available to the defendant before he must lodge an appeal?

do you believe that Thaksin's defending counsel will be fully aware of the facts you have discovered?

in the list of judgements from this case it seems that the judges made a determination that the FIDF is a government agency

do you know what precedence rules we would normally expect to operate?

[NCFC]

Hi Ink

Well you are probably a very busy person, but you might be interested to take your post to the Thaivisa web forum, which is a hotbed of PAD support. It would be very interesting to see the generated response. There are many Nation journalists posting there, all in support of PAD.

NCFC