The Constitutional Court and its work

20 02 2019

Prachatai has an interesting story on the Constitutional Court, well worth reading in full.

The Constitutional Court hasn’t had so much politicized work to do under the military junta, so some have forgotten how central it was to undermining elected governments from 2007 to 2014 and evening engaging in what many saw as a judicial coup in 2008.

But it is the politicized Constitutional Court that now holds the fate of the Thai Raksa Chart Party in its tainted hands.

The Prachatai story includes brief details on some nine cases that have gone against pro-Thaksin Shinawatra parties.

This reminds us that there is a more detailed analysis of the Constitutional Court by Björn Dressel of the Australian National University and Khemthong Tonsakulrungruang of the Faculty of Law at Chulalongkorn University. Coloured Judgements? The Work of the Thai Constitutional Court, 1998–2016,” behind a paywall, is summarized:

Created in 1997 as part of a major constitutional reform, Thailand’s Constitutional Court has since become embroiled in several high-profile political controversies. Since the 2006 coup, because a number of such decisions have favoured one political camp and considering obvious close and long-standing relations between judges and political elites, questions have arisen about the court’s ability to act as an independent arbiter. Is this view justifiable? To answer that question, this article first analyses how the court has behaved across political administrations in 32 high-profile cases since 2001. It then turns to the socio-biographic profile of the bench, the politics of nominations and changes to its composition, particularly since 2006. Finally, the article considers data on participants in classes offered by the Constitutional Court, which makes it possible to better understand the links between Thai political and judicial networks. The analysis finds evidence of politically biased voting patterns and increasingly partisan nominations to the court, though formally appointment procedures are apolitical, which suggests the politicisation of the court and growing ties between judicial and political elites. These findings raise new questions about the public’s perception of the Constitutional Court’s legitimacy and prospects for the rule of law.

Thai Raksa Chart is not in the hands of an unbiased, apolitical court. It is a court that has done the work of royalists, stunting the development of electoral politics.





Updated: Bankrupt PAD

7 01 2018

As widely reported, including in the Bangkok Post, 13 core members/leaders of the People’s Alliance for Democracy face a combined bill of 522 million baht incurred as a court’s decision on compensation to the Airports of Thailand Plc, for losses incurred “by the 10-day closure of Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang airports 10 years ago.”

Apparently, “a legal execution notice sent by prosecutors, who were authorised by the operator of the two gateways, to seek the payments.” This follows a 2011 ruling by the Civil Court upheld by the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court between 2011 and 2017.

This might be good news for those who were outraged by PAD’s illegal actions that led to the judicial coup of December 2008.

But is it? It seems that the PAD leaders will simply declare themselves bankrupt.

The 13 are Chamlong Srimuang, Sondhi Limthongkul, Pipop Thongchai, Suriyasai Katasila, Somsak Kosaisuk, Chaiwat Sinsuwong, Somkiat Pongpaibul, Amorn Amonrattananond, Saranyu Wongkrajang, Samran Rodpetch, Sirichai Mai-ngam, Maleerat Kaewka and Therdpoum Chaidee.

While Sondhi is in jail for another unrelated offense, we guess that the rest have had plenty of time to organize their personal finances.

Criminal lawsuits are continuing.

Update: Confirming our comments above, the PAD group has thumbed its nose at the courts (again). Chamlong “said he cannot find the money to pay, and he had no assets which can be seized.” In any case, he rejects the notion of compensation to Airports of Thailand: “I insist I did nothing wrong. Why was I ordered to pay such a huge sum of money — as if we burned buildings. But we never burned a single building…”. He added that “he does not regret the consequences he now has to face as he did it in the best interests of the country.” His yellow compatriot, Sirichai Mai-ngam simply said: “We have no money. We won’t run away. We won’t pay…”.





Abhisit in the mirror

2 01 2018

PPT is not given to posting support for the military dictatorship, but in the case of criticism received from Democrat Party “leader” Abhisit Vejjajiva, we can’t help it.

2008: Newin and Abhisit as anti-democrat deal-makers, backed by the military

Abhisit is quoted in the Bangkok Post as telling the junta that it “should reflect on what it has promised to deliver to the people as this year is likely to be its last in running the country before a general election takes place…”. Abhisit says the military regime “promised to streamline national administration through reforms and return happiness to the people.” He went on to say that the junta “must conduct a self-evaluation to see if the reforms have made any headway or what it has done to convince people that the country under its rule is moving in the right direction.” He makes two more points: “If the NCPO fails to reflect on its performance, the military takeover will have gone to waste,” and “How the NCPO [junta] goes down in history depends on the NCPO itself…”.

There’s much to be said about this statement. For a start, it is appalling that Abhisit calls on the junta to reflect on its time in power when his own regime violently cracked down on civilian protesters on three occasions, in 2009 and twice in 2010, and he seems never to have truthfully reflected on his own role in a murderous regime. Sure, he’s concocted excuses and blamed others, but that’s self-delusion. This is a person who refuses to look at himself in the mirror.

Abhisit and Suthep as anti-democrats calling for a coup

Second, how the junta does down in history depends on who writes the history. If we look at Abhisit’s time as premier, he’s likely to be remembered as a weak and self-centered politician who could not win elections. Worse, he will be remembered for having boycotted elections and trashed parliament while he and his supporters boosted and cajoled thuggish protesters who brought down several elected governments (2006, 2008, 2013-14) through military and judicial coups. He gained the premiership only through the actions of anti-democratic protesters, politicized courts and the actions of the generals. He will be remembered as an enemy of electoral democracy in Thailand.

In this story it is the anti-democratic Abhisit calling on the military to finish the job it began in 2014 – getting rid of the political party that has been Abhisit’s nemesis. He seems to be projecting the possibility of a Democrat Party in coalition with a military-backed party is some distant “election” if the military can crush and destroy the Puea Thai Party.

At the same time, he reflects the views  – even plagiarizes them – of General Prem Tinsulanonda, another anti-democrat.

Our view is that Abhisit is deeply flawed has little future as a leader of a political party that seeks electoral support, even if he is prepared to lick military boot. He’s so tainted that even the military will have to think twice before washing him off.





Updated: All about the law II

2 04 2017

Bangkok Post editor Umesh Pandey gives some credit to the judiciary – the Central Administrative Court – for having ruled that “the military junta’s moves to take away the three passports held by the former Education Minister, Chaturon Chaisang, was a ‘serious violation’ of …[Chaturon’s] fundamental rights…”.

But he goes way, way too far when he states that the “judiciary is making great strides in bringing about fairness in society…”.

Thailand’s judiciary and its legal processes are somewhere between a joke and feudal. PPT has spent a considerable amount of space highlighting repeated failures and while we don’t expect Pandey to be a regular reader, surely he reads his own newspaper.

On the same day when he is full of praise for the judiciary and its “strides in bringing about fairness,” his colleague Alan Dawson lambasts elements of the judicial system and its double standards.

You might say that the judges are not the whole system, and that’s true, with Pandey slamming elements of it. However, there are now hundreds of cases that have gone to court in recent years that have seen judges fail all reasonable tests of fairness. Think of the scores of lese majeste cases, several cases we mentioned in a previous post, cases against Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban, cases making coups legitimate, a judicial coup, cases against red shirts (and not against yellow shirts), allowing torturers to go free and many, many more.

Being honest, we think the judicial system is now broken beyond repair. We have royalists, the military, the palace and the judges themselves to blame for this sad state of affairs.

Update: A reader puts us onto another Bangkok Post story, where the headline is, NCPO urges Thaksin to stop ‘distorting the truth’. The junta says:

“Mr Thaksin [Shinawatra] should stop harming the country, show restraint and stop distorting information. If Mr Thaksin calls for justice from society, Mr Thaksin should give justice to society, too,” the NCPO spokesman said.

The junta demands that Thaksin stop harming Thailand. Yet it is the junta that distorts truth. It has done so for years now. And, if the junta demands the legal system for Thaksin, how about themselves? Why is it that Section 113 of the Criminal Code doesn’t apply to this bunch of thugs?

Section 113: Whoever, commits an act of violence or threatens to commit an act of violence in order to:

  1. Overthrow or change the Constitution;
  2. Overthrow the legislative power, the executive power or the judicial power of the Constitution, or nullify such power; or
  3. Separate the Kingdom or seize the power of administration in any part of the Kingdom, is said to commit insurrection, and shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life.




A couple of corrections

26 03 2017

On a Sunday, as we read a few stories that continue to keep us glum about Thailand’s prospects for some political progress, as opposed to regression, we came across a couple of stories that appear to us to requires a little corrective attention.

The first is at Prachatai. Kornkritch Somjittranukit has a story on red shirt renegade Wuthipong Kachathamakul or Ko Tee as public enemy no. 1 for the old guys running the military junta. A couple of things bothered us a bit. One was mention of the 2009 Pattaya events without noting the role played by the Democrat Party’s Suthep Thaugsuban and his then new best friend Newin Chidchob who goaded and challenged red shirts with their own blue shirts, many of them being military and police in different clothes.

PDRC shooter

On the 2014 People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) seizure of the Lak Si District Office to prevent the 2 February election, mention is made of a “violent clash with Ko Tee and his supporters from Pathum Thani. The sound of gunfire came from both sides.” The latter is true but ignores something. After that event it was officially stated:

A police forensics director stated that his team’s investigation showed “39 shots have been fired from the position of PCAD protesters, and 3 shots from the direction of pro-election protesters.”

The second story is at the Bangkok Post. Editor Umesh Pandey briefly recounts the actions taken over the past few years as pro-Thaksin election winners were ditched, missing the important 2008 judicial coup. What bothered us was the headline, “Army needs to learn to be neutral.”

While the article doesn’t exactly amount that, the idea that the military could be neutral is baffling in the extreme. The military is now, after more than half a century of pro-monarchy and pro-elite military is firmly attached to the side of privilege, hierarchy, wealth and repression.





Detailing the coup

31 05 2014

Reuters reports a military document, dated 27 December 2013, which sets out “various scenarios of how the [then developing political] crisis could unfold and how the military should respond.”

One of those scenarios outlines what the army could do “if at any time the situation is beyond the control of police.” It says the army would impose a state of emergency or impose martial law. It is added:

The document also provides guidance on how to take power “while acting in a neutral manner,” and how to help mediate between the warring camps.

It does not report whether the document had plans for the coup.

The AP report does say more about the 2014 coup, saying that it doesn’t follow the usual script. It says:

This time, the army moved swiftly across the country, rounding up politicians, activists and academics, most of them “red shirt” supporters of the ousted government, according to multiple interviews with activists, the military and families of the detainees.

The idea that there is a “coup script” has also been mentioned by some academics in op-eds, such as Duncan McCargo at the New York Times. PPT thinks these pundits have short memories or flawed knowledge.

There is no script for military coups. Each has some similarities and some differences, and the script depends on the nature of the social and political forces the military decides to deal with. In the case of the AP claim, round-ups of political opponents outside Bangkok was seen, for example, in 1976. Likewise, the “lack of any timeline for a return to democracy soon” is not new.

AP is correct to observe that the “junta has denied planning the coup in advance.” It does this to make the illegal coup look somehow legal because “planning … a coup is treason…”. Of course, the military is always planning a coup when it is not in power. The puffed up Colonel Blimps at the top are always craving power and dismissive of civilian regimes. The article later notes:

Plans for a full military takeover were already advanced when Prayuth declared martial law on May 20—two days ahead of the coup….

An Army spokesman saying: “There was no planning in advance…” is denied by the facts that it moved especially quickly to decapitate the red shirt movement in the countryside; that was carefully planned. Its work on muzzling the media was also thought through in advance.

As the report notes, in “the north and northeast, where the potential for anti-coup dissent is much greater [than Bangkok, or so it was thought], the military is conducting a more draconian sweep and things have been less transparent.” In Bangkok the “military issues a formal announcement.” In the provinces, “They just show up in a truck and take you away.”

The Army now claims that it decided on a coup when the Constitutional Court “unexpectedly decided to leave a rump of the pro-Thaksin government in power as a caretaker administration…”. The failure of the judicial coup apparently “alarmed the military…”. It is claimed that the caretaker government “couldn’t sign any national security laws.

They were powerless to deal with civil unrest…”. Both claims are wrong, but the failure of the judicial coup seems to be the trigger for the military coup.

Claims in the article that current dictator General Prayuth Chan-ocha “was a reluctant coup-maker” is junta propaganda. As the article notes, he “was part of the junta that seized control of the government in 2006.” He was also “a hardline royalist, opposed to the red shirt movement.” The report should have added that he had earlier been a part of a command structure that implemented plans to massacre of red shirt protesters in 2010.





Thongchai: Thailand needs an election

18 05 2014

Professor Thongchai Winichakul writes for Al Jazeera on Thailand’s ongoing crisis and the crying need for an election as the path out and forward:

On May 7, the Constitutional Court removed Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and a number of her Cabinet ministers from office. This judicial coup was followed by a decision from the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which indicted Yingluck for dereliction of duty in handling a controversial rice-subsidy program. Despite their judicial semblance, both rulings were carried out without any due process of law. They call into question the credibility and impartiality of Thailand’s judicial system in the eyes of the majority of the Thai public.

… The royalists’ relentless scheme to usurp power by undermining the rule of law now threatens to degenerate into civil war.

… Thailand’s onetime budding electoral democracy is now increasingly besieged. A would-be royalist government might attempt to overrule the dissenting public using a combination of force, fear and coercion.

… The royalist conservatives, who are behind the anti-democracy protests, have lost every election since 2000. They are declining in popularity and political legitimacy. However, they continue to dominate the judiciary, the military, the state bureaucracy and universities.

The Senate … is a bastion of the royalist elite. Half of its members are unelected but selected by the judiciary and appointed by the king….

A free, fair and democratic election is the only way out of the current turmoil.

[T]he PDRC and Election Commission continue to obstruct the process in order to delay the vote. Meanwhile, as tensions between the two sides mount, the situation threatens to spiral out of control.

The royalists’ reliance on the military or fear of the draconian lese majesty law … will likely backfire…. Resentment with the royalists and the monarchy has evidently increased on social media, and the number of charges under the lese majesty law spiked in the past few years. The royalists hope the appointment of an unelected prime minister by the king would quell possible unrest. But doing so would validate a widespread belief that the palace was in fact behind the ongoing scheme all along. This puts the future of the monarchy in jeopardy. Since the late 1970s, the king’s charisma has been the linchpin of stability in Thailand. But overreach by the royalists has brought the monarchy’s legitimacy into question. Not long ago, it was unimaginable to even ponder the demise of Thailand’s monarchy. If it comes to an end, the royalist conservatives will only have themselves to blame.

A free, fair and democratic election is the only way out of the current turmoil.

Hard-hitting but full of truths that the royalists fear, ignore and obscure.





Updated: The judicial coup gathers pace

8 05 2014

After the judicial intervention yesterday to oust the prime minister and nine ministers on the flimsiest of grounds and with creative “interpretation” of the constitution, the another royalist “independent” agency has moved rapidly to complete the judicial coup.

The Nation reports that former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra will now “face impeachment in the upper house over a costly rice-pledging scheme in a ruling which could see her banned from politics for five years.”

The National Anti-Corruption Commission has found that “there is enough evidence to indict (Yingluck) and refers (the case) to the Senate…”. Note that even when referring to “enough” evidence, the “NACC … unanimously agreed to indict Yingluck for allegedly having intent to exercise power against Article 178 of the Constitution concerning rice-pledging scheme.”

Section 178 states:

Ministers shall carry out the administration of State affairs in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, laws and the policies stated under section 176, and shall be accountable individually to the House of Representatives for the performance of their duties and shall also be accountable collectively to the National Assembly for the general policies of the Council of Ministers.

The NACC will forward the “enough evidence” to the Senate, which is dominated by royalists, to seek Yingluck’s impeachment. However, because there is only “enough evidence,” the NACC will “further investigate to decide whether to take criminal charge against Yingluck for allegedly dereliction of duty under Section 157 of the Criminal Court and Negligence of duty under the Commission Act BA 2542.”

PPT reckons that the mounting anger at the judicial coup is going to (and should)  become incendiary as the creeping coup rushes to its conclusion.

Update: The Bangkok Post adds to the evidence of how pathetic the judicial/independent agency assault is, stating that Yingluck’s alleged “dereliction of duty … as chair of the National Rice Policy Committee,” was that “[s]he … failed to stop the scheme after it was found to be incurring heavy losses…”. This is about as lame as it gets.

 

 





Updated: More on the Ko Tee lese majeste case

12 04 2014

Over the past week there has been a flurry of stories about lese majeste. PPT has posted on some of these stories about Thailand’s residual feudalism. In this post we focus on a clutch of news stories associated with Ko Tee or Wuthipong Kachathamakul ( โกตี๋ หรือ วุฒิพงศ์ กชธรรมคุณ).

The lese majeste junkies at the Democrat Party were fast out of the rat hole on Ko Tee’s case, using it in the best of the worst traditions of the Party, smearing all their political opponents. Party loudmouth/spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut said the party’s toady “leader” Abhisit Vejjajiva:

had assigned the party’s legal team to lodge complaints with caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Centre for the Administration of Peace and Order director Chalerm Yubamrung and Department of Special Investigation chief Tarit Pengdit to consider taking legal actions against Ko Tee for his controversial interview with the foreign media which were deemed lese majeste.Ko Tee

The party was also lodging “a complaint with the Crime Suppression Division police and to file lawsuits against Ko Tee with the police throughout the country.” Lodging the complaint nationwide is evidence that these hopeless and failed politicians haven’t had a new political idea since the 1940s. Shouting in the cinema, Chavanond bleated that:

Ko Tee’s conduct reflected the negative attitude of several red-shirt leaders and followers towards the Monarchy. Such attitude, he said, is a security threat that authorities concerned cannot just sit idly by but have to take actions to deal with it according to the law.

Abhisit has regularly sought to use the monarchy against political opponents.

The savageness of the attack on Ko Tee, in part, reflect the directness of his comments. It also reflects the fact that Ko Tee is radical in his politics, challenging not just the royalists but sometimes the official United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship.Indeed, the official red shirts have been quick to dump Ko Tee, with Jatuporn Promphan – himself accused of lese majeste several times – disowning him. In the next report quoted below it is stated: “He has said that his group operates on its own and is not loyal to the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship.”

Army boss General Prayuth Chan-ocha hates Ko Tee, and was once said to have set assassins in search of him.

Getting Ko Tee has considerable benefits for the royalists and their anti-democrat movement. At the Bangkok Post it is reported that the police have come under pressure to get him as quickly as possible.

National police chief Pol Gen Adul Saengsingkaew met with army chief Prayuth and “other senior government and security leaders met at a project launch in the far South on Thursday. They agreed on the need to take action against Wuthipong Kachathamkul, alias Ko Tee, during sideline talks.” The event was some kind of Prem Tinsulanonda-initiated interference in the normal work of government. It was reported that “Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda. Gen Prem was not involved in the talks” on Ko Tee. No one believes that little lie.

The Post also reported another lese majeste case “involving Ekaphop Luera, also known as Tang Acheewa,” was discussed by the royalist military bosses.

Thailand’s politics in recent years has seen lese majeste cases spike when the royalists are in power or seeking to topple an elected government. This is clearly another of these situations. PPT’s guess is that the royalist elite is taking the opportunity to de-fang the more independent and threatening of red shirt leaders prior to the conclusion of the creeping judicial coup.

It is reported that: “Pol Gen Adul promised he would take serious action against the two and direct immigration authorities across the country to watch out in case they try to flee the country.” Apparently an arrest warrant is out for Ekaphop, who is “believed to have already fled the country.”

The Democrat Party demanded that Prayuth “go after Ko Tee.” The irony of this is that “Democrat deputy spokeswoman Malika Boonmeetrakul insisted in an interview with the radio programme that security authorities could arrest lese majeste suspects…”.

Of course, it was Mallika who criticized a princess for being an indulgent waste of taxpayer money just a few days ago, but nobody amongst the double standard-toting royalists is going after her because she thought she was criticizing Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. Faithful royalists can drag the monarchy through the political dirt with impunity because they are somehow “protecting the institution.” The political battle is about shoring up the political and economic system that has the monarchy as its keystone, so the monarchy can be used by the royalist side for its political purposes without a peep of complaint from the palace.

According to the report, Ko Tee’s “whereabouts are unknown.” The dopey Democrat Party claims Ko Tee is “under protection of a two-star police officer.”

The Post then makes this remarkable claim: “Ko Tee is also accused of leading red-shirt members in a bloody clash with People’s Democratic Reform Committee members at Lak Si intersection on the eve of the Feb 2 election.” What is the newspaper’s point? Ko Tee did indeed lead red shirts on that day, but it was the anti-democrats who opened fire and were responsible for the bloodshed. The Post appears to being politically biased in the most base manner.

In another report at the Bangkok Post, police are said to have “approved an arrest warrant for the red-shirt hardman on charges of lese majeste.” They reckon he is still in the country. The court that quickly approved the warrant – probably the same one that has repeatedly rejected warrants for royalist anti-democrats – claimed “it had thoroughly considered the evidence submitted by the Crime Suppression Division…”. The police reckon they have a “substantial case…”. In most lese majeste cases, the evidence usually doesn’t matter in the slightest, so all this huffing and puffing is for political impact.

The interview with Ko Tee was widely circulated, causing the government’s Centre for the Administration of Peace and Order to renew “a warning to the public that anyone distributing or forwarding the video would face criminal charges.” They mean people circulating or “liking” the interview can end up in jail on lese majeste charges for 15 years.

The anti-democrat monk Buddha Issara got in on the lese majeste sycophancy by holding a “rally at Kukot police station and offered a cash reward of 500,000 baht for anybody who could arrest or locate the suspect.”

In yet another of many reports at the Bangkok Post, Army chief Prayuth “confirmed that army intelligence is assisting in the search for the suspect.” Remember when Prayuth claimed that it was not the Army’s job to arrest Suthep Thaugsuban for “treason.” It seems that the double standards run exceptionally deep.Prayuth and Suthep

Prayuth acknowledged that “it would be difficult to arrest Mr Wutthipong if he had left Thailand. He said lese majeste offenders usually flee to other countries which view lese majeste as a domestic matter.” Other crimes are domestic too. What the general might have said is that other countries view lese majeste not just as domestic but as a bizarre feudal leftover that is taken seriously pretty much only in Thailand.

Extending the reign of lese majeste terror, Prayuth added that the “army was also in the process of filing complaints with the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission and the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology against radio stations and radio hosts who offend the monarchy.”

PPT looks behind this action, and sees that this lese majeste repression is just another part of the attempt to crush parliamentary and representative politics, just as much as herding the anti-democrats onto the streets was. Watch what the courts do next.

Update: Readers may be interested in Asia Provocateur’s take on these events:

This Thai fascist bloc, who’ve murdered and killed Thai citizens with complete impunity, are notorious for perceiving words to be more dangerous than bullets. The Democrats can order troops to slaughter unarmed Thai civilians and rationalise this as “necessary”. The Thai Army can carry out that slaughter and claim, with a straight face, that it was nothing to do with them. The PDRC have repeatedly tortured, kidnapped and even murdered pro-democracy activists yet their leaders are never held to account or even properly investigated.





Updated: Suthep and the judicial coup

5 04 2014

Suthep Thaugsuban, speaking to the anti-democrats at Lumpini Park as red shirts massed, has declared that it is the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Constitutional Court that will deliver victory for his supporters.

Protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban answers questions during a news conference in BangkokHis demagogic declaration, meant to incense and provoke red shirts, was that once Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra met her”legal” demise, it would be Suthep as “the people’s medium,” who “would nominate a new prime minister for royal endorsement.” Following that he declared a “people’s assembly” would “reform the country by amending the Constitution and relevant laws, before a new election would be organised.”

Indicating his confidence in the judicial coup, Suthep said the “next battle to last about 15 days” and would result in the anti-democrats seizing “sovereignty” for “the people.”

Suthep thundered:

This time we will seize Thailand. The sovereignty belongs to the Thai people and the government has already committed suicide after dissolving the House of Representatives on December 9. We the people have the right to become the sovereign….

Other anti-democrat and Democrat Party leaders supported Suthep and the judicial coup, with Thaworn Senniam declaring the government “will be out of power by the end of the month after the Constitutional Court disqualifies Yingluck…”. Like most anti-democrats and royalists, Thaworn reckons this case will be decided quickly as no new evidence is required.

Update: A reader points out that the Bangkok Post reports that Suthep made other claims:

Suthep said the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) was ready to step in as soon as the judicial axe falls on the current cabinet. “Once we become the sovereign, we’ll seize the assets of the of the Shinawatra family members. We won’t allow them to go abroad. They will need to report to us,” he declared. “We will appoint the prime minister of the people and submit the name to His Majesty, to be countersigned by me.”

It is clear that “demagogue” is an accurate description for Suthep.