Thailand’s government legal defense strategy

When it comes right down to it, attacking the plaintiff’s credential as a defense says a lot about the defendant. Diversionary tactics are not uncommon when there is no real defense for a crime. It is nothing more than a delaying tactic meant to put off the inevitable. It is like being bit by a baby cobra and then questioning if the cobra was indeed old enough to properly bite, completely forgetting the fact baby cobras are just as deadly as adult cobras.

In no uncertain terms Thailand’s ruling party  the People Power Party (PPP) is in a world of trouble, and all of it self induced. Attacking the credentials and legality of people who assembled the case against the PPP in many cases is a last resort legal approach. This is done to try to have the case thrown out on a technicality, but the PPP are using it first. This strategy is a bit confusing and suggests the PPP have little else to defend themselves with. The fact that the court accepted the case suggests this approach may be dead in the water, but stranger things have happened. There have been cases that have been thrown out like this, however not this high of a profile case, and not with all the man hours dumped into it. The issue is this case was handed off to a second body when the first body’s mandate expired. That is the basis of the PPP strategy.

However in typical PPP fashion, even following simple straight forward instructions seems nearly impossible and extremely embarrassing when viewed from outside. It does leave people wondering what the mental capacity of this person is, and even more so wondering about the mental capacity of the person who installed them in that post. The Constitution clearly stipulates that a minister has to suspend his/her duties if a court accepts to hear a criminal court case against them. Yet this little snip from the news reads;

Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee said Monday that he would continue working as the finance minister despite the court’s decision to accept a lawsuit against him.

He said the Council of State would be asked Tomorrow to rule if he could hang on to the position after the Supreme Court decides to proceed with the trial of the special lottery case.

The PPP does seem to have difficulties with rules and laws, and this is just another example. Is there any wonder why they want to change the constitution, and on the back side why extradition treaties with other countries have not been updated in decades.

In another country any politician would have left office to deal with this for more than one reason. First you would expect the ability to do Ministerial work would be hindered as personal problems would not allow you to focus (unless you plan to skip town anyway just before the verdict). The second reason it is just the moral and ethical thing to do. However as this government lacks morals and ethics, they stick around even when the Constitution says step down. It does truly make you wonder what form of logical process is going on in there heads.


4 Responses to Thailand’s government legal defense strategy

  1. not pad by any chance are ya? never see such biased opinion and for what its worth thailands been in an embarrassed state since the coup

  2. Avatar A.J. - concerned and taking deep breaths..
    A.J. - concerned and taking deep breaths.. says:

    Having read ‘Thaksin Shinawatra signature of violence’ and ‘Thailand’s government legal defense strategy’, all I can say is that for any decent Thai citizen (with access to ‘unbiased information’), every single minute from now on is mentally-challenging at the highest level.

    Total mindfulness (Sati) may sound too religious and even boring, but it’s undeniably the most essential tool.

    May all at Makkawan and at home be equipped with that tool…

  3. Avatar Black Jack
    Black Jack says:

    I would love to hear John’s unbiased opinion and
    wisdom on the subject.

    Exactly as the article suggests, the pro-Thaksin camp
    defends itself, if not with violence, then with
    technicality. Also the weapon of mass distraction, viz.
    ambiguity.

    Case in point, the comment “Thailand’s been in an
    embarassed state since the coup, ” is so “unbiased”
    and ambiguous that I had trouble keeping my lunch down.
    Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of the military either.

    I shouldn’t be surprised since Thai-language webboards
    are infested with superficial, ambiguous comments
    lamenting the glory of Thaksin and his puppets too.
    I normally ignore them.

    How can a sane person dispute a statement like,
    “Thaksin’s fart smells good”? OK, I’ve taken it
    to an ridiculous extreme but all the same, trying explain
    otherwise would take more effort than I care to spend.

  4. listen mate thaksin ‘ramped up’ thailand whether you face up to that fact or not. lets see how how your mob go about making things better. the worlds watdhing.