- Posted January 23, 2014 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
WANCHAI POINTS OUT EMERGENCY DECREE VIOLATES CONSTITUTION. SITUTATION IS NOT YET WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS DEFINITION
Wanchai Sornsiri, Chairman of the Senate’s Human Rights Commission, disclosed on Jan 22, 2014, that issuance of the Emergency Decree was unlawful. Is there an emergency in the current situation? Is there a threat to national security? Is there terrorism, use of war weapon, arson or people’s inability to maintain livelihood? In his opinion, the definition of an emergency decree is that there must be a threat to the “state,” and that is different than a threat to a “government.” The current situation is a threat that has an impact only on the government or the Prime Minister. Average people are not affected. Therefore, just the definition of whether or not there is an emergency is already not within the scope of the decree.
In addition, Section 9 and 11 of the Decree give the Prime Minister authority to issue an injunction to prohibit people from leaving their residence, traveling, using enclosed construction, publishing and reporting news. The question is what if there is misappropriation of power? Suppose people in a small political party want to campaign and criticize the government but there is an order to prohibit them from leaving their homes. This will certainly affect them. He also opines that the Decree violates the Constitution Section 181 (4) that prohibits a caretaker government from using state personnel. He questions the government’s appointments of Capt. Chalerm Yubamrung, the Labor Minister, and the Police Chief in the Center for Peace Maintenance during a time like this. These individuals belong to the state. Is there advantage or disadvantage for the caretaker government to appoint these people to do the job? Does the government need to get permission from the Election Commission before enforcing this