Usurping constitutional amendment that would allow prime minister to sign foreign treaties without Parliamentary approval is overturned. Regime cries “judicial coup.”
January 8, 2014 (ATN) – The now overturned amendment of article 190 of the Thai Constitution would have allowed the Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to sign foreign treaties without Parliamentary approval – in a dangerous and despotic consolidation of power that was begun under her brother Thaksin Shinawatra. Bangkok’s English newspaper The Nation reported in its article, “Constitutional Court rules against Article 190 amendment bill,” that:
The Constitutional Court Wednesday ruled that the amendment to Article 190 of the Constitution was unconstitutional.
The amendment bill was aimed at allowing the government to sign international deals without having to seek legislative approval on a negotiating framework.
It was to allow the government to bypass the legislature to negotiate any deals except those impacting territorial integrity, sovereignty, relevant laws enacted by Parliament and the opening up of free trade.
The court ruled that the amendment violated Article 68, which prohibited the unconstitutional way of acquiring state power.
While it claims the usurping amendment would not have allowed the prime minister’s office to sign deals involving territorial integrity, sovereignty or the opening of free trade, that is exactly what the current ruling regime under defacto leader Thaksin Shinawatra has been trying to do since first coming into office in 2001.
- In the late 1990’s, Thaksin was an adviser to notorious private equity firm, the Carlyle Group. He pledged to his foreign contacts that upon taking office, he would still serve as a “matchmaker” between the US equity fund and Thai businesses.
- Thaksin was Thailand’s prime minister from 2001-2006. Has since dominated the various reincarnations of his political party – and still to this day runs the country by proxy, via his nepotist appointed sister, Yingluck Shinawatra.
- In 2001 he privatized Thailand’s resources and infrastructure including the nation’s oil conglomerate PTT – much to Wall Street’s delight.
- In 2003, he would commit Thai troops to the US invasion of Iraq, despite widespread protests from both the Thai military and the public. Thaksin would also allow the CIA to use Thailand for its abhorrent rendition program.
- In 2004, Thaksin attempted to ramrod through a US-Thailand Free-Trade Agreement (FTA) without parliamentary approval, backed by the US-ASEAN Business Council who just before the 2011 elections that saw Thaksin’s sister Yingluck Shinawatra brought into power, hosted the leaders of Thaksin’s “red shirt” “United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship” (UDD) in Washington DC.
- Since the 2006 coup that toppled his regime, Thaksin has been represented by US corporate-financier elites via their lobbying firms including, Kenneth Adelman of the Edelman PR firm (Freedom House, International Crisis Group,PNAC), James Baker of Baker Botts (CFR, Carlyle Group), Robert Blackwill (CFR) of Barbour Griffith & Rogers (BGR), Kobre & Kim, Bell Pottinger (and here) and currently Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Partners (Chatham House).
Allowing this regime a freer hand in dealing with an already treasonous collection of entwined foreign interests would only invite more attempts to ram-rod through unpopular destructive free trade deals like the upcoming Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that would effectively resign Thailand’s political and economic sovereignty to Western Fortune 500 corporations. It would also invite more opportunities to entangle Thailand’s sovereignty with unpopular military adventures of the West.
Image: Regime supporters have already begun calling judicial rulings against the regime’s overtly criminal power grab a “judicial coup.” In reality, a court ruling against systematic and repetitive criminality is generally called, “justice.”
For regime supporters, they have already begun the cry of “judicial coup,” with the regime itself sure to follow in a coordinated display of feigned indignation. What is curious is the supposed dedication regime supporters appear to have toward “democracy” and “representation,” versus their support of an amendment that would have usurped the power and authority of their own elected representatives in scrutinizing foreign treaties.
It remains to be seen what, if any, possible defense can be made that explains what otherwise appears to be a classic power grab by a growing and increasingly dangerous tyranny.