Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Author:

Why four court cases could unleash a new crisis in Thai politics

Why four court cases could unleash a new crisis in Thai politics

EXPLAINER Courts due to hear cases on Tuesday on PM Srettha Thavisin, the Move Forward Party, former PM Thaksin Shinawatra and the Senate elections. The future of Thailand’s Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin as well as its leading opposition party looks set to be decided this week in four key court rulings that risk triggering a new political crisis. The courts are due to announce rulings in four cases on Tuesday involving Srettha, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the leading opposition Move Forward Party (MFP), and the election process for a new Senate. Thailand’s politics has been marred for years by a struggle between its military-backed conservative-royalist establishment, and populist and reform parties such as those backed by Thaksin and MFP, leading to mass protests and military coups. “These cases highlight the fragility and complexity of Thailand’s political climate,” ANZ Research said in a note, warning of the potential for renewed protests. What is the prime minister’s case? Srettha, who made a fortune in property before getting into politics, became prime minister last August after Pita Limjaroenrat, who led MFP to victory in the May 2023 elections, was blocked from forming a government. On Tuesday, he faces a decision – or potentially another hearing date – from the Constitutional Court on whether he breached the constitution by appointing someone to his cabinet who had a previous conviction. Srettha, who denies any wrongdoing, could face dismissal if the court rules against him. If he is removed, his Pheu Thai Party would need to propose a new candidate for prime minister and parliament would need to vote on their appointment. What is the case against MFP? A second case could lead to the dissolution of the reformist Move Forward Party (MFP), which won the most seats in last year’s election as well as the largest share of the vote. The Constitutional Court is due to announce its decision – or another hearing – on an Election Commission complaint that alleges MFP broke the law by campaigning for reform of the royal insult law. The party denies any wrongdoing. It dropped its calls for reform after the Constitutional Court ruled in January that the call amounted to an effort to overthrow the monarchy. Its predecessor, the Future Forward Party, was also dissolved by a court ruling after performing strongly in the 2019 election. What about Thaksin? Thaksin, the telecommunications tycoon who dominated Thai politics being removed in a military coup in 2006, returned to Thailand last year after Srettha’s government took office. On Tuesday, a Bangkok criminal court is likely to formally charge him with royal insult in connection with a media interview he gave in 2015. The court will then decide whether to grant bail to Thaksin, who has said he is innocent. “This case has no merit at all,” he told reporters earlier this month. Thailand’s lese-majeste law, one of the world’s toughest, carries a maximum jail sentence of up to 15 years for each perceived insult. The 74-year-old returned to Thailand to a rock star’s reception last August after 15 years of self-imposed exile. And the senators? The Constitutional Court will also deliver a decision on the ongoing selection of a new 200-member Senate, after accepting a petition questioning whether parts of the process, taking place over three successive weeks, were lawful. If the process is cancelled or delayed, it would temporarily extend the term of military-appointed lawmakers who played a key role in forming the latest government, including last year’s manoeuvre that blocked MFP. The current upper house was hand-picked by the military following a 2014 coup that removed an elected Pheu Thai government led by Thaksin’s sister, who still lives in self-imposed exile. The extended process to pick the next Senate began on June 9. Only candidates can vote in the process and they must all be over 40 years old with at least 10 years of experience in their field. Ten candidates will be chosen from each of 20 occupational groups with the results expected on July 2. Adblock test (Why?)

Will India’s Modi break the ice with Pakistan in his third term?

Will India’s Modi break the ice with Pakistan in his third term?

Islamabad, Pakistan –  As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was sworn in for a third time as his country’s leader on June 9, seven counterparts from neighbouring nations joined a very select audience in marking the moment. The setting — a summer evening, with an orangish dusk sky, and handpicked leaders from the region in attendance — carried echoes of Modi’s first oath-taking ceremony as India’s premier in 2014, which was repeated in 2019. But there was one big difference from 2014: Missing from the lineup of visiting leaders was the prime minister of Pakistan. A decade ago, images of Pakistan’s then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif clasping Modi’s hands during his visit to attend the swearing-in event signalled a fresh hope for long-tortured India-Pakistan relations — hope that subsequent setbacks to ties have all but extinguished. Now, as Modi begins his third term in office, with a sharply reduced mandate that has left him dependent on coalition allies to stay in power, analysts expect the Indian leader to pursue a tough posture towards Pakistan, with little incentive to seek any easing in tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbours. “Modi will reach out to regional neighbours, all of whom were invited to his swearing-in.  But not Pakistan,” said Maleeha Lodhi, former Pakistani ambassador to the United Nations, United States and the United Kingdom. “His government is likely to continue its hard line towards Pakistan with which he has shown no interest to engage for the past five years. This is unlikely to change.” And early signs appear to vindicate Lodhi’s assessment. A message and an attack On the very day that Modi took oath, at least nine people were killed and more than 30 injured when a bus carrying Hindu pilgrims in the Reasi district of Indian-administered Kashmir fell in a gorge after it was targeted by gunmen. This was followed by three more incidents within a week in different areas of Indian-administered Kashmir in which security forces engaged with attackers, killing three while seven security personnel were injured. Indian security agencies have blamed Pakistani involvement. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Mumtaz Zahra Baloch rejected the allegations on Thursday, and accused Indian authorities of a “habit of making such irresponsible statements”. “No one takes these allegations seriously,” Baloch said. Still, a day after the attack in Reasi, former Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif tried to rekindle his past bonhomie with Modi. “My warm felicitations to Modi Ji (@narendramodi) on assuming office for the third time. Your party’s success in recent elections reflects the confidence of the people in your leadership. Let us replace hate with hope and seize the opportunity to shape the destiny of the two billion people of South Asia,” the three-time prime minister, and currently a member of the Pakistani parliament, wrote on June 10. The Indian premier, too, responded in kind, acknowledging the message by his former counterpart. “Appreciate your message @NawazSharifMNS. The people of India have always stood for peace, security and progressive ideas. Advancing the well-being and security of our people shall always remain our priority,” he wrote on X. Appreciate your message @NawazSharifMNS. The people of India have always stood for peace, security and progressive ideas. Advancing the well-being and security of our people shall always remain our priority. https://t.co/PKK47YKAog — Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) June 10, 2024 By contrast, the congratulatory message from Pakistan’s current prime minister, Nawaz’s younger brother Shehbaz Sharif, was far more restrained. “Felicitations to @narendramodi on taking oath as the Prime Minister of India,” Sharif wrote from his account. Security concerns After the attack in Reasi on June 9, India’s Home Minister Amit Shah — widely seen as Modi’s deputy — pledged that those behind the attack would not be spared. India has long viewed Pakistan primarily through the prism of its security concerns. India accuses its neighbour of fomenting trouble in Indian-administered Kashmir, as well as of masterminding numerous violent attacks on Indian territory, charges which Islamabad has denied. Ajay Darshan Behera, a scholar of international studies at the Jamia Millia Islamia University in New Delhi, says that India’s policy towards Pakistan hinges on the issue of “terrorism”. “The previous Modi regime aimed to raise the costs for Pakistan for supporting terrorism. If there is no major terrorist attack in Kashmir, this Modi regime will likely maintain a policy of indifference towards Pakistan. It is doubtful that Prime Minister Modi will unilaterally initiate any re-engagement with Pakistan,” he told Al Jazeera. Shaping that approach is the spectre of violence that has always hovered over the relationship when the two sides have attempted peace overtures. Nawaz Sharif was Pakistan’s prime minister when he travelled to India in 2014 to attend Modi’s first oath-taking ceremony [Harish Tyagi/EPA] In late 2015, Modi paid a daylong surprise visit to Pakistan to attend the wedding of then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s granddaughter near Lahore. The visit resulted in hopes that the two countries might be forging a path of reconciliation but merely a week later, a group of attackers entered an Indian Air Force base, killing at least eight Indians, including security personnel. India blamed Pakistan for the incident and demanded that it arrest the perpetrators of the attack. India’s hardened stance towards Pakistan since then, said Lodhi, the former ambassador, had reaped “rich electoral dividends” for Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) — especially during the 2019 Indian elections. “Their Pakistan-bashing makes chances of any India-Pakistan thaw very slim,” she added. Salman Bashir, another senior diplomat and a former Pakistani high commissioner to India, said that India’s current position on Pakistan — effectively, a refusal to talk until its security concerns are addressed — is a relatively cost-free option for Modi, though he added that it might be premature to speculate on the Indian premier’s next steps. “There are no compulsions for Modi to try to mend relations with Pakistan. India stands to gain by continuing its adversarial policy towards Pakistan,” Bashir told Al Jazeera. 2019 turning point When Modi won the second term in the 2019 elections, the election

US falling far behind China in nuclear power, report says

US falling far behind China in nuclear power, report says

The United States is between 10 and 15 years behind China in rolling out next-generation reactors, research institute says. The United States is falling far behind China in nuclear energy, with the world’s largest economy lagging behind the Asian giant by 10 to 15 years in rolling out next-generation reactors, a report has found. China has 27 nuclear reactors under development, with the average reactor taking seven years to come online – far faster than for most other countries, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation said in a report released on Sunday. Between 2008 and 2023, China’s share of nuclear patents increased from 1.3 percent to 13.4 percent and the country now leads in the number of nuclear fusion patent applications, the Washington-based research institute said. Beijing’s rapid rise in the field has been due to a “coherent national strategy” to develop nuclear power, including low-interest financing, feed-in tariffs, and streamlined regulatory approval, the institute said. “China’s government has assigned considerable priority to domestic nuclear reactor construction as part of Beijing’s broader energy strategy,” the report said. “Looking ahead, China appears likely to use this established domestic capacity as a foundation for competitive reactor exports, much as its ‘dual-circulation’ strategy has accomplished in other areas, such as electric vehicles and batteries.” A common narrative that China is “a copier” and the US an “innovator” has encouraged a lackadaisical attitude towards industrial policy, according to the institute. “First, this assumption is misguided because it is possible for innovators to lose leadership to copiers with lower cost structures, as we have seen in many US industries, including consumer electronics, semiconductors, solar panels, telecom equipment, machine tools, and, as noted here, quite possibly, nuclear power. Second, it’s not clear that China is a sluggish copier and always destined to be a follower,” the report said. The US is still the top country for nuclear power generation, ahead of France and China, with its 94 reactors accounting for about one-third of global output. But the country has built only two new reactors in the past decade, both of which arrived years late and billions of dollars over budget. China in December unveiled the world’s first so-called fourth-generation nuclear plant at Shidao Bay in eastern Shandong province. Chinese state media has touted the plant’s reactors, which use gas for cooling instead of pressurised water, as being safer and more efficient than previous generations of nuclear technology. Adblock test (Why?)

Trump’s ‘modern day Salem witch trial’ verdict signals ‘open season’ on former presidents: experts

Trump’s ‘modern day Salem witch trial’ verdict signals ‘open season’ on former presidents: experts

Former President Donald Trump’s trial in Manhattan was a “modern day Salem witch trial” that has opened the floodgates to district attorneys across the nation prosecuting former presidents, experts told Fox News Digital.  “No matter how you twist and warp the traditional role of the prosecutor, it’s always going to have a bad outcome. It’s bad for the legal system. And you now see two DAs — both of whom are Soros, rogue prosecutors — using their office to go after somebody who, if his name had not been Trump, no DA would have even blinked an eye his way. [They are using] the law in a perverted way for purely political reasons,” Heritage Foundation legal fellow Charles “Cully” Stimson told Fox News Digital in a phone interview.  “It doesn’t even pass the laugh test,” he added.  WHO HAS THE ‘KEYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE’? HISTORIAN WITH ACE RECORD CALLING ELECTIONS WEIGHS IN ON TRUMP VERDICT Bragg charged former Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree last year, with Trump pleading not guilty and slamming the case as a “scam.” He was found guilty on May 30 by a Manhattan jury. Trump has maintained his innocence since the verdict, and he has launched an appeal in the case.  Prosecutors needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified 34 business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to former pornography actor Stormy Daniels in the lead-up to the 2016 election to silence her about an alleged affair with Trump in 2006. The House Judiciary, which is chaired by Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, held a hearing Thursday regarding Trump’s prosecution, hearing from four experts on the matter, including Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission Trey Trainor. The committee will hold another hearing next month, one day after Trump is sentenced, when it will host Bragg himself, as well as prosecutor and former DOJ official Matthew Colangelo.  “With his unprecedented politicized indictment of President Trump, Manhattan District Attorney Bragg has opened the door for politically motivated prosecutions of federal officials by state and local prosecutors. Other ambitious state prosecutors have already followed Bragg’s lead and pursued politically motivated indictments of President Trump,” committee Republicans said of the hearing Thursday.  “On April 4, 2023, after campaigning on his experience in investigating President Trump and in response to intense pressure from left-wing activists, Bragg charged President Trump with 34 felony counts for falsifying business records. Falsifying business records is ordinarily a misdemeanor subject to a two-year statute of limitations, which would have expired long ago. While Bragg is systematically downgrading most felonies in Manhattan to misdemeanors, he used a novel and untested legal theory—previously declined by federal prosecutors—to upgrade the charges against President Trump to felonies. Bragg’s case against President Trump has beset by due process and procedural irregularities,” they added.  Fox News Digital spoke to the authors of “Rogue Prosecutors: How Radical Soros Lawyers Are Destroying America’s Communities,” Stimson and fellow Heritage senior fellow Zack Smith, who explained that the role of the district attorney is to prosecute cases and keep the community safe. The pair both agreed in separate interviews that the case was one that weaponized the legal system.  TRUMP GETS WARM RECEPTION AND PILES OF CAMPAIGN CASH DURING SUNNY BLUE STATE SWING “This clearly is essentially a weaponization of the legal system. And I think if we zoom out and look at the 40,000-foot perspective, I think it quickly becomes clear, that if the defendant wasn’t named Donald Trump, this case never would have been brought. And that’s particularly apparent if you look at the other policies and actions Alvin Bragg has taken since he’s been elected District Attorney,” Smith said.  Smith pointed to Bragg’s “day one memo,” back when he took the office in 2022, which detailed that he would not prosecute those charged with low-level misdemeanors and felonies.   TRUMP RILES UP FIERY SWING STATE CROWD IN FIRST RALLY SINCE NEW YORK CONVICTION He pledged “not to prosecute most other misdemeanors there in Manhattan, pledging not to prosecute many low-level felonies, even many serious felony offenses. Or if he did prosecute them, not to seek a sentence of incarceration by default, and often to seek very lenient sentences for individuals accused of even very serious crimes,” Smith said.  “So, I think any reasonable observer would look at this and say, that unless this was Donald Trump being prosecuted, this case wouldn’t have been brought.” Smith explained that while Bragg pursued the lengthy case against Trump, New York City likely suffered as other violent crime continue to play out on the Big Apple’s streets.  TRUMP PROSECUTOR QUIT TOP DOJ POST FOR LOWLY NY JOB IN LIKELY BID TO ‘GET’ FORMER PRESIDENT, EXPERT SAYS “I don’t think it will come as a shock that there’s no shortage of violent crime in New York City today — watch the news, look at the stories that are out there. You’ll see often very violent criminals committing acts and being released back into the community again,” he said.  Stimson penned an op-ed with legal scholar John Yoo this month outlining that the NY v. Trump case effectively declared “open season” for America’s more than 2,300 elected district attorneys to pursue cases against former presidents.  “President Trump’s enemies have been so busy celebrating his conviction in New York last week that they don’t seem to realize what a double-edged sword they’ve unsheathed. Regardless of Trump’s fate on appeal, one or more of the 2,300 elected district attorneys across the country may now feel liberated. They can now pursue former presidents, including President Biden, regardless of the merits of the case, purely for political gain or retribution,” the pair wrote in the op-ed.  TRUMP VERDICT HAS STARTED ‘WAR OF WEAPONIZATION OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM,’ LEGAL EXPERTS WARN Stimson and Yoo pointed specifically to Bragg and Fulton County, Georgia, DA Fani Willis for opening the flood gates to DAs prosecutors pursuing cases against

Republicans back stopgap spending bill into 2025 in anticipation of GOP wins

Republicans back stopgap spending bill into 2025 in anticipation of GOP wins

Republican senators are anticipating GOP wins in the upcoming November elections, enough so that some of the usual opponents are willing to pass a stopgap spending bill in September that would push off appropriations bills until 2025, when a potentially Republican Senate majority and White House could play a part in crafting them.  “I do happen to believe that the continuing resolution that we ought to be looking at come September 30th, when our current spending bills run out of steam, is a spending bill that I think should take us into 2025, probably into March or April of 2025,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told Fox News Digital in a recent interview.  TRUMP SELLS SENATE REPUBLICANS ON PLAN TO WIN OVER WORKERS IN CLOSED-DOOR MEETING The Utah Republican has been a vocal critic against a cycle of continuing spending resolutions and omnibus bills frequently used in recent years to pass the all-important annual appropriations measures. According to him, a move like this would serve to avoid “the possibility of a lame duck omnibus” bill crafted by a Democratic Senate majority under the Biden administration.  He said that such a measure would be “put in place, probably after some pretty significant Republican victories” during the 2024 elections “that will lead to Republicans having control of the Senate next year.” TOOL TO STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT EMPLOYMENT COMES TO SENATE AS BORDER CRISIS RAGES Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., has repeatedly sounded the alarm about returning to a process of regular order, particularly when it comes to appropriations. The continuing resolution suggested by Lee “makes sense to me,” he said, adding that he “absolutely” sees himself pushing for it come September.  The fiscal hawk explained the stopgap spending bill would “slow down the spending up here,” noting that “Anything other than a continuing resolution—folks up here are going to increase the spending.” RIOTER VANDALISM TARGETED AFTER DC STATUES DEFACED: ‘LONG LIVE HAMAS’ “Then, we need a commitment when we come back here to go through some type of regular order on the budget process and then work really hard on being ready for budget reconciliation, assuming we win all three levers.” Republican senators met with former President Trump on Thursday at the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) headquarters in Washington, D.C., with the exceptions of Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who did not attend. The majority of attendees seemed to emerge from the meeting feeling optimistic about Republicans’ odds in the upcoming elections.  FBI DIRECTOR WRAY PRESSED ON 8 ISIS-LINKED BORDER CROSSERS RELEASED INTO US The Senate is currently led by a Democratic majority, with a 51-49 split. But Republicans are looking at a much more advantageous Senate election map than their Democratic counterparts, five of whose incumbent senators are in tough battleground state races. Democrats are also losing three caucus members in Sens. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., and Joe Manchin, I-W.Va. The West Virginia Senate seat is expected to be an easy Republican pick up, with non-partisan political handicapper the Cook Political Report rating it as “Solid Republican.” As for the seats being vacated in Michigan and Arizona, they are both only considered “Lean Democratic.”  Further, Trump has a significant chance of retaking the White House, leading President Biden in polls of several critical battleground states, giving both himself and Republican lawmakers hope.  House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Conservative groups cleared to continue legal fight to protect whales from Biden-backed offshore wind farm

Conservative groups cleared to continue legal fight to protect whales from Biden-backed offshore wind farm

A coalition of conservative organizations have standing to continue fighting a Biden administration wind project in Virginia, a federal judge determined.  However, U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the District of Columbia, a Biden appointee, denied the plaintiff’s petition for a preliminary injunction to halt construction of the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project from going forward.  On Thursday, the plaintiffs withdrew a petition for an expedited appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court for a narrow decision on the injunction but will continue the case to stop the construction, one attorney said.  The plaintiffs sued the Biden administration and Dominion Energy to protect the North Atlantic right whale under the Endangered Species Act.  WHALE OF A LAWSUIT THREATENS TO SWALLOW UP BIDEN GREEN ENERGY AGENDA The plaintiffs are the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the Heartland Institute and the National Legal and Policy Center. The litigation specifically names the Interior Department, the Commerce Department, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the top officials at those agencies that approved the project, as well as Dominion.  OPINION: BACKLASH AGAINST WIND, SOLAR PROJECTS IS REAL, GLOBAL AND GROWING “We made a tactical decision that, timing-wise, it made sense to forego the appeal of Judge AliKhan’s order ruling that we did not show irreparable harm, although she did rule we had standing to sue, which is a high hurdle to meet,” Paul Kamenar, counsel for the National Legal and Policy Center, told Fox News Digital. If the plaintiffs had won on appeal, it would have only been remanded to the judge and taken more time. That would have prolonged arguing the merits of the case, he said.  “By that time, our brief on those merits are already scheduled to be filed in early October, and Dominion has to stop all work anyway from December to next May 2025,” he said. “So, by then, we would have argued our main case and hopefully have a final ruling before next May requiring Dominion to cease any further work for the 2025 season until they do a cumulative impact study.” ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS SUE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT WHALES FROM SHIP COLLISIONS The litigation aims to force Dominion to halt construction on the project until the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management develops a new “biological opinion” that covers verifiable protection against potential harm to the North Atlantic right whale. The lawsuit claims the agencies approved Dominion Energy’s offshore wind project by ignoring procedural errors that would subject the endangered whales to grave harm. Spokespersons for the federal agencies declined to comment on pending litigation.  However, Dominion did not hesitate to be dismissive of the lawsuit.  “We agree with the District Court’s decision, and we stand behind the agency’s approval of the project. The issues raised in this case have no merit,” Dominion spokesperson Jeremy Slayton told Fox News Digital. “The National Marine Fisheries Service performed a thorough environmental review, and the environmental safeguards we have in place for Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) are protective of the environment and marine wildlife.” The judge’s opinion didn’t determine the merits of the larger case about whether the project violates the Endangered Species Act. The ruling dealt with the narrow issue of whether construction would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, which also include residents in the area. The judge accepted the argument from Dominion that the North Atlantic right whales are unlikely to be in the vicinity, but if the whales are seen, construction would be halted. If completed, the project would be the largest of its kind, the plaintiffs contend, consisting of 176 wind turbines, each taller than the Washington Monument just over two dozen miles off the coast of Virginia Beach.