Popular Post webfact Posted February 24, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 24, 2020 Legal experts fault charter court's interpretation of law in Future Forward dissolution case By The Nation FFP supporters react to the court's verdict at the party's headquarters on Friday. Dozens of law lecturers at Thammasat University on Monday (February 24) issued a joint statement expressing their objection to the Constitutional Court’s ruling to disband the Future Forward Party and bar its executives from politics for 10 years on the grounds that the party received illegally a loan of Bt191 million from its leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit. The 36 lecturers said the judges did not interpret the law correctly and warned that the current political conflict could only be resolved through accurate and fair interpretation of the laws. They did not agree with the court's verdict, the lecturers said, which stated that a political party is barred from borrowing money. A judicial body blow to democracy Thai security affairs adviser lashes out at US response to dissolution of Future Forward First, they argued that a political party is not a public juristic person, because they could not exercise public power. Political parties are more like corporates or charity foundations which do not have public power. Political parties can only propose policies under the international benchmark and the Thai law system. Previous rulings on cases by the Thai Administrative Court were in line with this international practice. “Therefore, political parties could borrow money ,” said the law lecturers. The legal experts said political parties can borrow money like corporate firms and there was no need to have a separate law giving them the authority to borrow. The court’s verdict says political parties can do what only the law allows them to do when there is no such specific law. On the second point, they did not agree with the court's reasoning that given the interest rate on the loan was lower than the market rate, it should not be considered a loan. The law lecturers argued that lower interest rate charge was not an unusual practice in the market, the rate charged depended on an agreement between the borrower and lender. Therefore, the low-interest loan is not a donation which is stated in section 66 of the Organic Act on Political Parties. It is a debt that the political party needs to pay back. On the third point, section 72 of the Organic Act on Political Parties which prohibits political parties to receive unlawful money ,or deemed being originated from illegal activities, could not be applied to this case. The maximum donation of Bt10 million a year per donor under section 66 does not relate to section 72, the two sections must be applied separately unless there is clear evidence that the money was unlawfully acquired or originated from illegal activities, the law lecturers said. Therefore, violation of section 66 cannot be the reason for dissolving the political party. Fourthly, the intention to dissolve a political party, as practiced internationally, is to protect the democracy and the constitution in guarding a democratic political system from the threat of dictatorship. The dissolution of political party can be applied only when it is proven that a political party or a political group is intended on toppling a democratic political system or the constitution. By principle of law , the Constitutional Court must limit its power in ruling on cases involving political party dissolution. Dissolution must be the last resort and should be imposed only when a political party has committed serious wrong-doing that could not be protected by the freedom of expression principle. " If there is no clear evidence, the court has to limit its own power," said law experts. “We believe that the prolonged political conflict could be resolved by accurate law interpretation and justice . Democracy could survive if law professionals do their duties without prejudice and people jointly find a way out of conflict with proper reasons and patience,” they say in the statement jointly signed by the 36 law lecturers, which noted that their opinions did not represent the views of Thammasat University’s Law Faculty. Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30382755?utm_source=homepage_hilight&utm_medium=internal_referral -- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2020-02-25 Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post YetAnother Posted February 24, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 24, 2020 4 minutes ago, webfact said: The 36 lecturers said the judges did not interpret the law correctly nothing to do with interpreting the law correctly in a banana republic 9 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post smedly Posted February 24, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 24, 2020 in recent weeks this country seems to be going down the s h I tter on multiple levels it really is disturbing and that is on top of all the normal type s h I t that we have seen for the last 6 years it really can't go on like this They hate westerners because we know and call it I think Thai people will eventually get it 6 million people right now must be very p issed off The junta thinks they don't matter - I honestly think that is a grave error and I can understand why 6 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post smedly Posted February 24, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 24, 2020 36 minutes ago, YetAnother said: nothing to do with interpreting the law correctly in a banana republic when foreign diplomats from the US EU and others around the world voice their opinion on such matters openly and in public then Thailand needs to pay attention Thailands response sounded like it came from a classroom of 6 year olds - unbelievable they are obviously out of their depth and will pay for their childish ignorance 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobodysfriend Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 What most people seem to forget : Thailand has a ( pseudo ) democracy , but first of all , it is a Monarchy . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post madmitch Posted February 25, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 25, 2020 Legal experts are not under pressure from above to make the "correct" decision. We know where this decision came from and it wasn't just from the judges. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post rkidlad Posted February 25, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 25, 2020 Very sad when you see a government doing all this and then getting angry when other people refuse to play along with it. It shows you how out of depth they are and how they'll do anything to cling to power. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowboat Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 5 hours ago, webfact said: Democracy could survive if law professionals do their duties without prejudice and people jointly find a way out of conflict with proper reasons and patience,” It is the only way it will survive. The Thai people must be able to voice their opinion. Many to this day are afraid to talk about politics. Thank god for Thammasat University. The current judges should be ashamed of themselves pandering to the whims of the wealthy and powerful. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwill Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Don't worry these professors will come out in a few days saying they were wrong or get jailed or disappear. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkerN Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 (edited) All of which is interesting, but completely nullified by one phone call. Edited February 25, 2020 by ParkerN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcsmith Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 2 hours ago, nobodysfriend said: What most people seem to forget : Thailand has a ( pseudo ) democracy , but first of all , it is a Monarchy . I don't think it really qualifies to be called a democracy at this point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holy cow cm Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 I think more Thai law legal experts need to come forth same as these 36. They are professors of law and how could all of them be wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot123 Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 7 hours ago, nobodysfriend said: What most people seem to forget : Thailand has a ( pseudo ) democracy , but first of all , it is a Monarchy . No, its a military (I use the term military very loosely) D "the fact I can't even say the word emphasis that fact". Thai history is very interesting especially the start date for coups being as old as BKk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now