An editorial at the Bangkok Post states that the charges based on Article 68 of the military junta’s 2007 constitution “are controversial.” That’s a rather mild statement.
A better way of saying it is to observe that the Constitutional Court is a biased and politicized kangaroo court: “a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted” in the interests of the royalist elite.
The Post also observes that “many people are distressed at yet another case which could result in the dissolution of a political party.” Remember when the Constitutional Court said that the case couldn’t possibly lead to this. This misleading nonsense derives from the fact that the court doesn’t actually read the constitution. Rather, the judges simply make things up as they go along.
The Post admits that there is “shock that there is a crisis over a move to amend or change a constitution which everyone agrees is flawed.”
That the “case before the court is unprecedented” is misleading in that there couldn’t possibly be a precedent for something the court has only recently invented. Yet the Post has a point: “courts including the Constitution Court have only considered cases about completed events.” This time, the judges are “to consider and rule on actions that have not been taken.” Not only that, they are to make guesses about plots against the monarchy and its system of government that are supposedly lodged in the minds of those who want to change the junta’s basic law. As the Post observes:
The only bill proposed by the government so far is an amendment to the 2007 constitution which would make it possible to set up some type of constitution drafting assembly. What the CDA might debate or decide is unknown.
Getting this right doesn’t prevent the Post from a mistake on the judiciary:
The courts have alway have been a reliable port in the wildest storms. It is entirely possible to disagree with a verdict, without being disagreeable. What the country needs to hear from political leaders is less rhetoric, more respect.
Both claims are wrong. The courts and most especially the Constitutional Court has been irretrievably biased in favor of the royalist elite. It is only reliable for one side in the political struggles of the last decade. And, as we have shown before, this court is corrupt and only too happy to collude with members of that elite, including in the palace. The court’s politicized decision-making has been central to the political conflicts of the past decade. It is a kangaroo court unworthy of respect.