Thailand: Statement of the Assembly for the Defense of Democracy (AFDD)

Statement of the Assembly for the Defense of Democracy (AFDD)

We Oppose the Ruling of the Constitutional Court Intended to Render the 2 February 2014 Election Unconstitutional.

The Constitutional Court has ruled on a matter forwarded to them by the Ombudsman under Article 245 (1) of the Constitution. The matter in question was whether or not the general parliamentary election held on 2 February 2014, in line with the Royal Decree on the Dissolution of Parliament (2013), was constitutional. In a statement announced by the Chief Spokesperson  of the Constitutional Court, the Court commented that there were 28 electoral districts in which there were no candidates who submitted applications to contend in the 2 February 2014 election.  The Court further commented that elections cannot be held in those districts after 2 February because the effect would be that the general election was not held simultaneously on the same day across the kingdom. Therefore, the Court ruled that the 2 February 2014 election was not one that was held simultaneously on the same day throughout the kingdom. The effect of this ruling is to make the Royal Decree on the Dissolution of Parliament (2013), particularly the setting of the date of 2 February 2014 for the election, unconstitutional and in contradiction with Article 108, paragraph two, of the Constitution. It is the view of the Assembly for the Defense of Democracy (AFDD) that this ruling of the Constitutional Court ruling contains the following problems of constitutionality and political legitimacy: 

1. Article 245 (1) of the Constitution of Thailand stipulates that the Ombudsman can propose a matter to the Constitutional Corut when he thinks that there is “any provision of law that begs the question of constitutionality.” Therefore, the substance of the case that the Ombudsman has the discretion to send to the Constitutional Court to consider must be a “provision of law.” But in this case, the clearly visible problem is that the substance of the case is “the holding of the general election.” When the substance of the case is not a “provision of law,” the Ombudsman cannot propose the case to the Constitutional Court, and if the Ombudsman forwards such a matter to the Constitutional Court, it is the duty of the Court to refuse to accept the request for examination. The acceptance of the aforementioned matter by the Constitutional Court is unconstitutional in line with Article 245 (1) and is equivalent to the Constitutional Court singlehandedly amending the Constitution and altering the substance of the permitted cases for examination under Article 245 (1). There is no provision in the Constitution that gives the Constitutional Court the authority to do so.

2. Article 108, paragraph two, of the 2007 Constitution of Thailand prescribes that, “The dissolution of the House of Representatives shall be made in the form of a Royal Decree in which the day for a new general election must be fixed within the period of not less than forty five days but not more than sixty days as from the date of the dissolution of the House of Representatives and such election day must be the same throughout the Kingdom.” The facts show that the election day was set for the same date (2 February 2014) throughout the whole kingdom in the Royal Decree on the Dissolution of Parliament (2013). The aforementioned setting of the date of the general election was therefore constitutional.

But in this case it appears that the Constitutional Court has used evidence of events that occurred after, and were unrelated to the setting of the date of the general election, as the basis of their examination. In other words, the Court used the fact of candidates not being able to register to compete in the election in 28 electoral districts to claim that if a general election was held in these districts after 2 February 2014, it would mean that the general election was not held on the same day simultaneously throughout the kingdom. The Court made this claim even though the Constitution does not mandate that the general election must occur on the same day throughout the whole kingdom. There may be acts of god or other unavoidable incidents which may make holding an election on the same day as the rest of the country impossible in some districts. The Constitution stipulates only that the election day must be “set” to be the same day simultaneously throughout the kingdom. Therefore, the setting of the date was already done constitutionally. 

3. In addition, there is also the fact that, on the whole, the 2 February 2014 election passed in an orderly fashion. The Constitutional Court’s raising of the instances of not being able to register to run for election in some districts as a result of obstruction by some individuals in order to claim that the section of the Royal Decree on the Dissolution of Parliament (2013) that set the date for the general election was unconstitutional was done with the intention to spoil the  election. In addition to having no basis in law, there is an additional problem of interpretation of this ruling. Have the ballots of those people who went to vote on 2 February 2014 been destroyed or not, and under the authority of which Constitutional or other legal provision? 

4. Analyzed from a perspective of political struggle, it can be seen that the obstacle to the election came from the collaboration between the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) and individuals who support the PDRC inside and outside the Parliament, and collaboration between those who are overt and covert in their actions to destroy parliamentary democracy. In addition, the Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) did not act with an intention to work in line with their framework of authority and duty in order to successfully hold elections. Therefore, an effect of the ruling of the Constitutional Court is to prop up opposition to electoral democracy and make it come to fruition. This ruling disregards and neglects the rights of the people: those who hold the authority [in the country] and can express this authority in line with the rules and regulations that are in force. 

5. This cooperation to oppose democracy will continue to create a political vacuum in order to open up the space for an extraconstitutional prime minister and government to come to power, and in order to push forward amendment of the Constitution in a direction that will weaken and devastate electoral democracy. The Assembly for the Defense of Democracy therefore condemns these attempts, those that have occurred and those that will occur in the near future, as antithetical to the basic rights and liberties of the people. 

6. It is clear that from the 2006 coup up until the present, all of the independent agencies and the judiciary have become instruments of a powerful minority group acting in opposition to democracy. This group does so simply because they wish to swiftly destroy their political opponents. This has allowed the independent organizations and the judiciary to become distorted and seized to be used in the service of the destruction of democracy and the economic development of the country for the the sole purpose of causing the nation to become stagnant in a smelly, clogged whirlpool of violent conflict without end. Therefore, it is time for the people to come together to demand that the independent organizations and the judiciary are reformed and checks and balances are established. It is time to demand that these important mechanisms of the country come to be under the supervision of organizations representive of the voice of the majority. The people must take on these important tasks and make these changes come to fruition in the near future. 

7. This method of spoiling elections has progressed for nearly a decade and may cause the nation to fall into a state of violence from which there is no exit. This state will remain until every authority and every side in Thai society comes to respect the equal voting rights of the people. 

The Assembly for the Defense of Democracy would like to assert that the only solution for Thai society at present is to accept the principles of “equality of the people,” “sovereignty belongs to the entirety of Thai people,” “legitimacy of the majority,” and “respect in the rights and liberties of minority voices.” This is necessary to carry out reforms to eradicate the mechanisms that are antithetical to democracy, and before democracy, which is barely holding on at present, is completely destroyed.

Terror, Human Shields, Lies and the BBC

Most people who read this blog or follow me on other social media know that I make my sympathy for Thailand's Red Shirt explicit. I believe that the Red Shirts represent, in the broadest terms, a movement committed to democracy and political rights for all Thais.

What I have no sympathy for whatsoever are acts of terrorism - and the attacks on the PDRC rallies which resulted in the deaths of several children can only be defined as such. 

Thai children on the barricades at a PDRC rally

Regardless of their political affiliation I hope the perpetrators of these vicious acts are arrested and thrown into prison for a very very long time. To equivocate about this reveals no commitment to any kind of progressive or democratic values whatsoever. Firing semi-automatic weapons or grenades into areas where there are unarmed civilians is the kind of thing we've come to expect from Abhisit, Suthep and the Thai Army, not the Red Shirts - one reason why my mind is still very much open as to who committed these acts of terror.

After the terrorist attacks at Ratchaprasong yesterday I tweeted that the PDRC have been using children and families as human shields. I re-emphasised this by stating that the PDRC are using children and families as human shields as a systematic policy. I stand by this.

I was very quickly condemned for tweeting these comments and was accused by persons clearly supportive of the PDRC of colluding with the murder of children. 

Yet it is abundantly clear the PDRC have deliberately and systematically used families and children as "cover" for their rallies, creating events that would attract families into these rallies, wherein the PDRC leaders then engage in routine and repeated hate speech and calls to violence. 

Violent often drunk PDRC guards also patrol the barricades and fringes of these rallies and extort, beat, attack and even torture those whom they deem deserve such treatment. 

After engaging in such actions these "guards" then disappear back into the "family friendly" areas, knowing that the authorities will not risk a fire fight near so many unarmed families and children that may result from pursuing the "guards".

There are literally 100s of photos of children at PDRC protests. There have been images of the children adorned in PDRC regalia sat on the barricades, images of children who've obviously been in the frontline of the protests dealing with the after effects of tear gas, images of children seemingly acting as "close protection" for noted Thai fascist, Suthep Thuagsuban and even video clips of very young Thai children dressed in PDRC garb singing fascist fighting songs.

There is no doubt at all that the PDRC have placed children at the centre of their political struggle. Given Suthep's noted recklessness regarding human life - in 2010 he said that children and Red Shirts who died after troops he'd ordered onto Bangkok's street shot them had "run into the bullets" - I think it is reasonable to assume he has no problem with this. After all Suthep can always run back to one of his luxury hotels when the bullets start flying.

Yesterday UNICEF brought a blast of reason into this terrible series of events and demanded that ALL children be forbidden from attending the PDRC rallies. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Violent fascist rallies are no place for kids - only a dangerous and reckless idiot would think otherwise.

And only someone who is as morally and ethically bankrupt as those terrorists who attacked the PDRC would deny that the PDRC are deliberately placing kids and families in harm's way. 

And for some reason the BBC's Jonathan Head decided to propagate a lie yesterday and claimed, completely falsely, that the children killed at Ratchaprasong were not attending the protest. 

Why he did this - why he failed to do even the most basic work of a journalist and report the facts, however uncomfortable those facts may be - is a question I've asked him but he's refused to answer. Head is shaping up to be a perfect President for the obsequious FCCT.

Let's look at the facts. There's no doubt that the children who died at Ratchaprasong were dressed in PDRC garb and were also behind the rally barricades when they died. There are numerous video clips and photographs that proves that beyond all reasonable doubt (sorry, but I'm not sharing clips of dead children here - you can search and find them yourself).

Yes, to some it may be distasteful to point these facts out. Those same people may also question these facts' relevance to a terrorist attack. 

There may be some basis to that distaste - I understand why someone might find it difficult to read such truths after such a tragedy.

But surely knowingly lying about these tragic events is far far worse.

Those commenting on and analysing Thailand's present crisis must aim for truths however uncomfortable they are. 

There is no place for children at the PDRC rallies. They are not "family friendly" places, there are no "family zones" and to claim these vicious, violent rallies are anything other than fascist hate festivals is a disgraceful and disgusting lie. 

It's time to end the falsehoods about the PDRC rallies that are being circulated by Jonathan Head, PDRC supporting-expats and the PDRC leadership themselves.

Like UNICEF have made clear - the PDRC rallies are not child-friendly places.

UPDATE 2 with VIDEO: On King's birthday Thai royalists threaten to turn Red Shirt street vendor into "fertiliser".

UPDATE 2: We've now found another source of the video of the attack (h/t to "Dan") on the Red Shirt vendor. It's quite clear that the crowd is whipped up into quite a frenzy. Maybe it's only a matter of time before the royalists start hanging people from Bangkok's trees again?

UPDATE: It seems like the video has now been removed. We do, however, have a photo of the vendor being attacked below and the screen grab of the opening frame of the original video. The first picture is from a bizarre Facebook site called "Dislike Yingluck for Concentration Citizen" and includes various death threats by a variety of Thai royalists. One by a Ta Piyawan states in Thai that the vendor should be "detained" and then taken away where, after the royal celebrations, the vendor can suffer some "harsh treatment" and turned into "fertiliser".

As 1000s of Thais gather today in Bangkok to pay homage to the Thai king on his 85th birthday it didn't take long for the more fanatical royalist element to make their feelings known.

A single female street vendor near Kasetsart University had the temerity to sell a few products showing the picture of the elected Thai Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra and to wear some red coloured clothing.

As can be seen from the following video, the vendor was surrounded by an enraged mob who screamed abuse and attempted to damage the vendor's goods.

This is fairly typical behaviour from Thailand's royalists who have a long record of using extreme violence, threats and intimidation against those who dare to dissent against the dominant royalist view.

Luckily, on this occasion, a police officer steps in to protect the woman. In the past, royalists such as the Red Guar, have been involved in terrible massacres such as the one at Thammasat University in 1976.