Government is out of court
The Constitution Court is the latest hate-object of the demagogue. First it was the yellow shirts on whom he set the dogs of war. Then it was Abhisit as prime minister.
Next it was the turn of the amart oppressing him, the slave.
The Constitution Court is a problem because it sent him down for a spell in chokey. Rather than appeal the case (because he was in the wrong) he wants the court shut down and everything it did to him repealed.
The red shirts who were formed to “restore their democracy” demonstrated because the court judges wanted to examine whether the government could remove the red shirts’ democratic right to appeal directly to the court.
The offensive continued in Mongolia with some outrageous proclamations by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.
Now ex-police officer Chalerm Yoobamrung, with his sparse knowledge of the law, has joined the fray with his Silly Asian bill. This is to do his master’s bidding.
The Democrat Party wrote a counter argument to the PM’s Mongolia embarrassment. Out pops Noppadon Pattama, the exiled ex-PM’s lawyer, calling the Democrats liars. Noppadon is well acquainted with lies. I have followed his court cases. He claimed Thaksin did not need to be corrupt because he was already rich before he got into politics. As a statement, that is possibly true, but it denies human failings.
My turn to attack the court. In 2001 a rich businessman told the court he didn’t know he had paid Bt100 million to give away Bt11 billion to his servants. Of course in office he did not follow the SET indices to see how his rivals were doing or notice that three of his servants were in the top 10 (easily overlooked if you are a busy man). The court voted not to believe him, but he got off anyway.
In the great satellite-swindle case, the court did well. It swept aside all the nonsense, all the family claiming the shares were theirs, even if they did not know how many they had. It rejected the ludicrous “promissory notes” and came to a generous but just conclusion. On the journey, the revelation of abuse of power in promoting the share price – by reducing payments to the public purse and changing the law on foreign ownership for six months only – should have led to the ex-PM not having any worries about where to spend his retirement. But nothing happened.
I am not sure whether this can be credited to the Auditor General or the Attorney General, but one or both of them needs to smarten up their act or switch the patch to the blind eye.
If the court is to go, let us redress the 2001 verdict first and get it right on the rerun.
Richard Bowler
Bangkok
