It is amazing that His Majesty,
the King of Thailand has given his enlightened personal views that
are so contrary to the hardline self-conceited views of some
omni-potent Political Rulers of Asia - from Singapore to
Nepal.
Perhaps the proud leaders of a self-proclaimed First World
Singapore can take time out to learn from His Majesty, the King of
Thailand :
HM asks courts to solve
crisis
One-party election 'not
democratic'
His Majesty the King has refused requests to invoke Article
7 of the constitution to end the political gridlock,
saying it would be inconsistent with democracy. Instead, he asked
the country's top courts to help solve the crisis. He also
said a single-party election was not democratic.
''Do not abandon democracy,'' he said.
His Majesty said it was wrong to cite Article 7 and seek a royally
appointed prime minister.
''That's not democratic rule. Excuse me for saying this, it's the
kind of administration which disregards democratic rule. It's
unreasonable,'' he said.
The King was speaking to groups of new judges appointed to the
benches of the Supreme Administrative Court and other lower courts
who were granted separate audiences at the Klai Kangwon Palace at
Hua Hin in Prachuap Khiri Khan.
Article 7 has been the focus of demands by the People's Alliance
for Democracy and the opposition Democrat party for the replacement
of caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra by a royally
installed head of government.
His Majesty said Article 7 did not permit the King to exercise
power at whim.
''The article refers to the full effect of the constitutional
monarchy. It doesn't permit the King to do whatever he wishes. If
he did, it would be overstepping his mark, doing something beyond
his authority. That's not democracy,'' he said.
The article does not provide the leeway for the King to issue any
directives for the purpose of manipulation.
''Some people may say King Rama IX likes to do what he wants, but
I've never done that,'' he said.
Since becoming King he had seen the constitution rewritten several
times. He had never used the constitution or the law as a means to
impose his will. If he had done so, the country would have
collapsed a long time ago.
All laws had been properly decreed.
His Majesty said the parliament must have a quorum to
convene. There must be 500 MPs present before the new parliament
could open.
A parliament was not functional until there was a quorum. There may
be attempts to work around it by convening the first meeting
without a quorum.
''But that would be playing it by ear and muddling through,'' he
said.
''You can't play it by ear in governing the country. You can't pass
the buck and try to finish everything in haste. It's not right to
dump it in the King's lap, which is worse,'' His Majesty told the
judges.
People counted on the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, to
uphold justice. They felt the courts were honest and knowledgable
in the application of the law.
''If no one follows the law and righteous administration, the
country will be in a shambles, as we are experiencing now, because
we are short of the 500 MPs.
''It's not workable,'' he said.
He suggested the courts consult with other courts such as the
Administrative Court on what steps should be taken. The courts must
urgently decide, otherwise the country would collapse.
The King said it was a most critical time and the judges must do
their duty.
The judges must consult knowledgable people, fashionably called the
''Nation's Saviours''. He said the term ''rescue the nation'' was
often used but he did not know why the nation had to be rescued
because it has not yet sunk to its demise.
Steps should be taken to prevent the nation from being shattered,
so that people would not need to save it.
He said people across the country and worldwide still had faith in
the Supreme Court judges, who were knowledgable people and had the
determination to save the country in times of distress.
The King seriously advised the
Supreme Administrative Court to intervene in the ''non-democratic''
general election to help the country get through its
difficulties.
Addressing the Supreme Administrative Court judges, the King said
the court should keep watch on
the election because of its quick schedule and possible stalemate
due to lone candidates standing in many constituencies.
An election where sole candidates from a single political party, in
this case the ruling Thai Rak Thai, run in their constituency was
''non-democratic''.
''It is impossible for a democratic election to have one party, one
man. One candidate does not equate with democracy,'' the King
said.
The King said sole candidacies cannot lead to the full membership
of the House because a sole candidate must have support from at
least 20% of all eligible voters in a
constituency.
The issue of a sole candidacy was important because it would never
lead to the full membership of the House.
''If there are not enough elected people, then democratic rule
cannot function,'' the King said.
The King said the court had the right to make its points about the
election because the judges had sworn before him to work for
democracy.
''I ask you not to neglect democracy ... You must look carefully
into administrative issues. If you cannot do it [solve the
problem], then it should be you who resign, not the government, for
failing to do your duty. Carefully review the vows you have made,''
said the King.
By the Thai Standards of Electoral
Legitimacy - do our Single MPs or GRCs in Walk-over Constituencies
hold any legitimacy - when it is not certain if they even have 20%
of the electoral votes ?
