Plan is to rally parliament behind the people’s will to elect Pita Limjaroenrat as Prime Minister

[bannork]

10 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

dont need your help thanks

The government had previously made a new constitution a prerequisite for a general election, but Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha said a vote would go ahead in mid-2017, even if it had to be held under an old constitution.' 

I've told you this before.

Prayuth threatened to use an old constitution if the 2017 one did not pass 

He didn't specify which one but as a junta leader he would obviously choose one benefitting an authoritarian government.

i agree with this

The people had no choice (dont agree, why did they go vote they had a choice )

They had a Hobson's choice:

Vote for the 2017 Constitution with no public criticism/ debate allowed of its contents..

Reject or not vote for the 2017 Constitution and then an unknown previous constitution would be imposed.

That's not a genuine choice, the public have no input/ say in the constitution .

 

[heybruce]

48 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

do you know how to google   because iam look at the article right now

 

you want another clue By Pracha Hariraksapitak

Then you will have no problem providing a link.  That's what credible posters do when they make a claim.

 

You might also explain why anyone would trust the general who promised there would be no coup.

 

Correction:  He promised "this is not a coup".  ????  https://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5734782/thai-coup-not-coup-prayuth-video

Edited July 11, 2023 by heybruce

[bannork]

7 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

yes i know this  i can google    40 %of the people did not vote they made a choice  if  the rest did Not vote !!! it called Passive resistance but this did not happen therefore i have no sympathy  they voted this in by choice

If they did not vote for the 2017 Constitution, Prayuth was going to impose an older, likely a more repressive constitution.

Where is the choice in this devil or the deep blue sea alternatives? 

[MikeandDow]

2 minutes ago, bannork said:

They had a Hobson's choice:

Vote for the 2017 Constitution with no public criticism/ debate allowed of its contents..

Reject or not vote for the 2017 Constitution and then an unknown previous constitution would be imposed.

That's not a genuine choice, the public have no input/ say in the constitution .

 

I really understand what you are saying, but i were Thai  and i had the same choice  i would NOT vote  a previous one is better as none of them hobble thailand as the junta one  and i dont think thailand would be in the mess as it is

I totally agree the thai people should have had there input

but again good or bad  they had a choice

[MikeandDow]

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Then you will have no problem providing a link.  That's what credible posters do when they make a claim.

 

You might also explain why anyone would trust the general who promised there would be no coup.

 

Correction:  He promised "this is not a coup".  ????  https://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5734782/thai-coup-not-coup-prayuth-video

no google your own reseach,  have give you plenty of clues  get off ur laze backside i am not making any claim  just stating facts

Edited July 11, 2023 by MikeandDow

[MikeandDow]

21 minutes ago, bannork said:

If they did not vote for the 2017 Constitution, Prayuth was going to impose an older, likely a more repressive constitution.

Where is the choice in this devil or the deep blue sea alternatives? 

A more repressive constitution ????  i am afraid the only on i can think of is 2017, The 2017 Constitution limits the next government’s ability to formulate its own policy, as it has already provided a list of preferred policy choices. Chapters on the Duty of the State and the Basic Policy Guidelines address a wide range of topics, from religion to national security, from education to environment, from Thai traditional medicine to satellite frequency. Formerly, these used to be policy guidelines with no legal authority. Now these government duties are enforceable in the courts. this is just an example of repressive constitution.

A new government will navigate the roadblocks put in front it by the 2017 Constitution. After a year-long barrage of propaganda, the outcome is the possibility of a crippled and unstable civilian government dictated to by a band of unelected elites. Under the 2017 Constitution, Thailand’s political future does not look promising.

there has been 20 constitution

 

this is happing now and the Thai's voted this in

Edited July 11, 2023 by MikeandDow

[bannork]

6 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

A more repressive constitution ????  i am afraid the only on i can think of is 2017, The 2017 Constitution limits the next government’s ability to formulate its own policy, as it has already provided a list of preferred policy choices. Chapters on the Duty of the State and the Basic Policy Guidelines address a wide range of topics, from religion to national security, from education to environment, from Thai traditional medicine to satellite frequency. Formerly, these used to be policy guidelines with no legal authority. Now these government duties are enforceable in the courts. this is just an example of repressive constitution.

 

there has been 20 constitution

Prayuth could have used the 1959 constitution if the public rejected the 2017 one 

Wikipedia -

A temporary charter was promulgated in February 1959 and remained in place for nine years, even after Sarit's death in 1964. The charter has been called "perhaps the most repressive in Thailand's history."^[19] It granted the premier near absolute power, including the authority to order summary executions.^[26] It banned political parties and called for an appointed unicameral parliament, consisting of 240 mostly military appointees.^[19] It contained only 20 articles, making it the shortest charter in Thai history.

 

 

[MikeandDow]

1 minute ago, bannork said:

Prayuth could have used the 1959 constitution if the public rejected the 2017 one 

Wikipedia -

A temporary charter was promulgated in February 1959 and remained in place for nine years, even after Sarit's death in 1964. The charter has been called "perhaps the most repressive in Thailand's history."^[19] It granted the premier near absolute power, including the authority to order summary executions.^[26] It banned political parties and called for an appointed unicameral parliament, consisting of 240 mostly military appointees.^[19] It contained only 20 articles, making it the shortest charter in Thai history.

 

 

he might have. but they still had a choice  good or bad  that is my point  Thai's are apathetic they voted for. this the outcome is the possibility of a crippled and unstable civilian government dictated to by a band of unelected elites. Under the 2017 Constitution, Thailand’s political future does not look promising.

[chickenslegs]

Quote

"......the political leader’s authorship of four books and asking the Election Commission if this may be construed as the operation of a newspaper under Thailand’s Printing Recordation Act of 2007."

I heard he also sent postcards and letters to his Mother while he was at school in New Zealand. The man is, obviously, unfit for public office.

 

<sarcasm>.

[heybruce]

29 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

no google your own reseach,  have give you plenty of clues  get off ur laze backside i am not making any claim  just stating facts

Provide sources for your claims.  That's what credible posters do.

 

Trolls post lots of claims and tell everyone who questions them to do their own research.

[heybruce]

7 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

he might have. but they still had a choice  good or bad  that is my point  Thai's are apathetic they voted for. this the outcome is the possibility of a crippled and unstable civilian government dictated to by a band of unelected elites. Under the 2017 Constitution, Thailand’s political future does not look promising.

Perhaps Thais understood the situation they were in better than you.

[MikeandDow]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Provide sources for your claims.  That's what credible posters do.

 

Trolls post lots of claims and tell everyone who questions them to do their own research.

i am not giving you anything so just go away

told you not claiming anything just the facts 

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

i am not giving you anything so just go away

told you not claiming anything just the facts 

And we have our answer to the question of credible vs troll.

[onthedarkside]

An abusive personal attack has been removed

[Jackbenimble]

23 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

they voted for the 2017 constution

The current constitution was adopted in 2017. The 105-page, 279-article proposed constitution[2][3] was approved by 61.4 percent of Thai voters with 59.4 percent of the public participating. It allows the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) to appoint an eight to ten person panel who will choose Senators,[4] and includes six seats reserved for the heads of the Royal Thai Army, Navy, Air Force, and Police, plus the military's supreme commander, and defense permanent secretary. The bicameral Parliament could also select a candidate as Prime Minister who is not one of its members or even a politician. Critics suggest it effectively allows the military to control the government whatever the outcome of subsequent elections.

it was amened  constitutional amendment bill passed by parliament on Sept 10 has been issued. It was published in the Royal Gazette on Sunday. The amendments involve Sections 83, 86 and 91 of the 2017 constitution. regaring the election .

 

copy/pasting selective sections of articles off the internet is as miselading as almost anything else that's on the internet. Different viewpoints from different authors saying different things.....on the exact same topic. It doesn't alter the fact that the army re-wrote the constitution and presented it for approval by the Thai populace and after it was approved the ruling junta altered it - an illegal act in any civilised country and met with surprise here but att he time nobody dare oppose them as they were merrily locking people up for disagreeing with them.  Altering it effectively rendered it obsolete and unfit for purpose.  

[Jackbenimble]

21 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

Were you here during the last uprising, that involved hundreds of thousands and lasted many weeks?

been her through 3 coups so best not go there. I was living in an area that American news said was a war zone..........it wasn't. 

[Bangkok Barry]

1 minute ago, Jackbenimble said:

been her through 3 coups so best not go there. I was living in an area that American news said was a war zone..........it wasn't. 

Depends where you were, I suppose.

[kennw]

On 7/11/2023 at 8:17 AM, ikke1959 said:

What irritates me is that the people have clearly stated that they want changes, but that the dinosaurs are doing everything not to accept the choice of the people. They come with media shares, keep investigating as long as possible for a decision, come with new tricks as books now suddenly as media problem.. It seems that even if you appear on TV they can blame you of using the media.. This witchhunt has to be stopped. On the other hand Thursday they hide behind amending section 112. But why is my question.. It is strange that if you kill someone, make terrible traffic accidents, or deal in drugs, the damage to the victims and their families are much bigger than if you do or say something that can be explained as violating section 112 and the punishments are much severe than the " normal" crimes.. Why not accept the cahnge of section 112 or are all senators and MP's blind/? 

It seems that a BBC reporter here in Thailand is pushing stories that seems to be a familiar line in his support of Taksin and his party