Pm Threatens To Kill Entire Process

[webfact]

CHARTER AMENDMENTS

PM threatens to kill entire process

By The Nation

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said Sunday the government will abort the charter amendment process if the opposition boycotts it.

Abhsit was referring to the conflicting signals from the Pheu Thai Party. While Chalerm Yoobamrung, a leading Pheu Thai, member declared the party would not support the charter amendments, the Pheu Thai whips said the party would still support the process.

"I see no reason to go on if both the People's Alliance for Democracy and the opposition are opposed to charter amendments. In that case, why should we go on?" the prime minister said when a reporter asked if the coalition and Senate have enough votes to pass the charter amendments.

He said if all sides not agree on the amendments, the government would abort the process.

"We plan to do all these so that all sides could reach an agreement. If the amendments lead to conflicts, we won't do it," the prime minister added.

He said the government would not hold a referendum to let the people choose between the 1997 and the 2007 charters as proposed by the Pheu Thai because such referendum would further delay the amendment process.

He added that the 1997 charter was problematic, leading to the enactment of the 2007 charter.

-- The Nation 2009/10/11

[Thailand]

Sounds like a bit of foot stomping if he does not get his way.

"I see no reason to go on if both the People's Alliance for Democracy and the opposition are opposed to charter amendments. In that case, why should we go on?"

This is Thailand , how could you possibly get all sides to agree, Unless of course a little palm greasing is proffered- much more the Thai way.

[Plus]

The whole point of amendments was to make both sides to agree on them. Everybody else knew that it was useless and it was the politicians pushing for their own benefits, and that the opposing sides do not care one way or another.

Now it's in the open, officially stated positions - they don't need these amendments.

The ball is in proponents court to explain how going forward would bring reconciliation between reds and yellows.

[way2muchcoffee]

The Opposition Party took a lead role in getting constitutional amendments on the parliamentary docket, only to back out at the 11th hour immediately following a phone call from our man in Dubai.

The PAD/NPP always opposed charter amendments.

What is the point of continuing under the current circumstances?

[jasreeve17]

It's a very strange situation... And maybe there's no point in continuing if none of the parties are interested anymore.

I would comment that last week Abhisit said he'd continue regardless of what the other parties say, then the PAD threatened to take to the streets, now Abhisit says, 'oh, well, what's the point...'. - I'm not blaming him, but he does look weak and scared of the PAD threats; that's not good.

[Plus]

It was not only PAD, it was Chalerm speaking on behalf of Thaksin and PTP, too, and the reds demands coming from the streets.

Now they are collecting signatures for reinstalling 97 charter. All of that has happened only in a couple of days.

[Samuian]

It was not only PAD, it was Chalerm speaking on behalf of Thaksin and PTP, too, and the reds demands coming from the streets.

Now they are collecting signatures for reinstalling 97 charter. All of that has happened only in a couple of days.

Now they are collecting signatures for reinstalling 97 charter..

..and we all know what this "turning back of the wheel" would mean...

and why an amendment would not suffice...it could, not work out for someone

very desperate to have the wheel of fortune change direction soon..

reminds me of someone like the "scrooge" character only that this

one was a harmless comic figure and absolutely fiction!

[Artisi]

Abhisit should see who has the b_alls and cancel all further discussions and stick with what they have.

What ever Abhisit does the oppostion will argue against it for no good reason other than to cause trouble on behalf of a convicted criminal.

[jasreeve17]

It was not only PAD, it was Chalerm speaking on behalf of Thaksin and PTP, too, and the reds demands coming from the streets.

Now they are collecting signatures for reinstalling 97 charter. All of that has happened only in a couple of days.

My feeling is that they expect problems from the opposition, have army backing, support from the courts and are prepared to deal with it.

Problems from PAD are more likely to upset their coalition with the army.

Of course, Abhisit is under attack from Newin's group too. I reckon he'd like to keep the PAD onside if he can. Also, it's harder to get the army out to clear the PAD from the streets, much easier to get the army out to clear the reds. So, I stick with my original thought; he's backed down from a potential PAD conflict - IMO that's not good, once Sondhi thinks he's powerful enough (he probably does already...) the political situation will just get worse, if possible. A PM needs to lead, not bow down to a nutter like Sondhi.

[webfact]

Red-shirts to raise 100,000 signatures to sponsor motion to reinstate 1997 charter

Jatuporn Promphan, a red-shirt leader, said Sunday that his movement would raise 100,000 signatures to sponsor a motion to have Parliament reinstate the 1997 Constitution.

He claimed that the red-shirt movement had so far gathered 70,000 signatures.

-- The Nation 2009/10/12

[Artisi]

Red-shirts to raise 100,000 signatures to sponsor motion to reinstate 1997 charter

Jatuporn Promphan, a red-shirt leader, said Sunday that his movement would raise 100,000 signatures to sponsor a motion to have Parliament reinstate the 1997 Constitution.

He claimed that the red-shirt movement had so far gathered 70,000 signatures.

-- The Nation 2009/10/12

another petition, why aim for 100,000 why not millions like last time.

[Cayenne]

Red-shirts to raise 100,000 signatures to sponsor motion to reinstate 1997 charter

Jatuporn Promphan, a red-shirt leader, said Sunday that his movement would raise 100,000 signatures to sponsor a motion to have Parliament reinstate the 1997 Constitution.

He claimed that the red-shirt movement had so far gathered 70,000 signatures.

-- The Nation 2009/10/12

another petition, why aim for 100,000 why not millions like last time.

Because getting signatures calling for the return of Thaksin is an easier sell to the ignorant masses than a call for the 1997 constitution. If you asked the average red shirt on the street what makes the 1997 constitution so special than the 2006 one, you'd most likely get a blank stare followed by something like, "because Thaksin was the prime minister then"

[baht&sold]

STOPPAGE TIME

A charter lesson for 13-year-old boys: Part II

By Tulsathit Taptim The Nation

OUR 13-year-old boy came home to his dad with Constitution-related homework again. The kid had been told earlier that a normal law is like a house rule limiting daily PlayStation time to one hour, whereas a charter is a bigger plan to send him to university, which allows parents to ground him and suspend PlayStation altogether. (online readers, click here for background)

Things were complicated then, but nothing compared to now. Our youngster listened to Thaksin Shinawatra's latest phone-in, and it up-ended his presumed knowledge about Thai constitutions. Readers be warned: Although the following conversation takes place between a man and his son, it touches upon some sensitive, borderline subjects, so, to be on the safe side, keep this article away from your children:

Son: You told me Thaksin virtually destroyed the 1997 Constitution. I don't get it, Dad. Last week, he went on and on about how great it was and why we should get that charter back.

Dad: Honestly, I don't get it ether, kiddo. The 1997 charter practically said you can't be prime minister and businessman at the same time, a rule that Thaksin mocked all the way to the bank. Thaksin wanting that Constitution back is like you agreeing to disavow PlayStation for good.

Son: Maybe he no longer needs PlayStation. Is it possible that he wants to go to university now, metaphorically speaking? People can change.

Dad: But some things never change. He simply may want to be seen as wanting to go to university. It's like you telling me and Mum you want to study hard and will no longer play computer games. In the same breath, you ask for an increased allowance and, behind our backs, use the money to buy drugs.

Son: That's a harsh analogy, Dad. Give the poor guy a break.

Dad: Sure. Okay, let's say he ditches PlayStation for university because PlayStation won't help him get girls, but the university will.

Son: Okay. I get it. Right thing for the wrong reason. Now tell me about the Democrats, Dad.

Dad: They are now in power. That's equivalent to getting the girls. So, they don't need university that much. Remember this, son: At any given time, only the opposition will want a constitutional change. As for the government, why would someone change the circumstances that enabled him to get laid to begin with?

Son: Bhum Jai Thai is in the government and they are itching to amend the charter. Why?

Dad: You will know the answer four years from now, especially if your friends always get the prettier girls. Bhum Jai Thai is like the guy riding along with the owner of a super-cool convertible. This guy won't necessarily get any of the girls who hop in.

Son: They get the NGV bus. Are you saying the project isn't like a sexy lady?

Dad: All I'm saying is, it can get much sexier than that.

Son: Cool. Now where do we put Pheu Thai in this scenario?

Dad: If Thaksin wants to go back to university so he can, well, get the girls again, Pheu Thai, I hate to say it, is someone doing the test on his behalf. As for the red shirts, I have a soft spot for them, but they are only partisan spectators cheering Thaksin on.

Son: What about the yellow shirts? Wait, let me guess: They think Thaksin has got too many girls already.

Dad: You are spot on.

Son: Man, is this all about getting the girls? You mean nobody wants to go to university to learn?

Dad: You know what, kid. Come to think of it, this analogy isn't that far from reality. We love to think of the Constitution as the embodiment of our common values, but a lot of folks out there are treating the charter as something that exclusively determines who gets the power. It's always going to be a debate about whether amendments are anti-Thaksin, or pro-Democrat, and so on. Once you get the power, what do you want next? Of course, the girls.

Son: Do you seriously want me to put that in my homework? The Constitution is something ideal which, however, is to be used as a tool to get under a girl's skirt?

Dad: You asked for my help.

Son: It's the highest law of the land, Dad. You always told me that yourself. Doesn't it deserve a little of our respect?

Dad: Trust me on this, and this is the most important thing I want to tell you: If the 1997 Constitution, said to be our best charter in modern history, received half the respect it deserved, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/10/14...on_30114364.php

-- The Nation 14 Oct 2009

Edited October 14, 2009 by baht&sold

[baht&sold]

The 1997 charter practically said you can't be prime minister and businessman at the same time, a rule that Thaksin mocked all the way to the bank.

If the 1997 Constitution, said to be our best charter in modern history, received half the respect it deserved, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Can't say I agree with Tulsathit Taptim's views all the time but these two points get to the crux of the matter.

Edit to add: Here's hoping for a quiet weekend and next two weeks (no matter how doubtful...)

Edited October 14, 2009 by baht&sold

[Plus]

Red-shirts to raise 100,000 signatures to sponsor motion to reinstate 1997 charter

As far as I understand that would only put the motion on House agenda, it won't force a referendum or anything. If the motion gets defeated in parliament, which it surely will, with PTP not having enough MPs, then the whole exercise will be in vain.

Not that Abhisit would mind wasting some time on letting it go through the due process.

[Thai at Heart]

It was not only PAD, it was Chalerm speaking on behalf of Thaksin and PTP, too, and the reds demands coming from the streets.

Now they are collecting signatures for reinstalling 97 charter. All of that has happened only in a couple of days.

My feeling is that they expect problems from the opposition, have army backing, support from the courts and are prepared to deal with it.

Problems from PAD are more likely to upset their coalition with the army.

Of course, Abhisit is under attack from Newin's group too. I reckon he'd like to keep the PAD onside if he can. Also, it's harder to get the army out to clear the PAD from the streets, much easier to get the army out to clear the reds. So, I stick with my original thought; he's backed down from a potential PAD conflict - IMO that's not good, once Sondhi thinks he's powerful enough (he probably does already...) the political situation will just get worse, if possible. A PM needs to lead, not bow down to a nutter like Sondhi.

If I was Abhisit I would be quite concerned that Sondhi could split his vote quite substantially in important places and give Sondhi a place at the table. We think that Newin is a problem for Abhsit. Just wait if Sondhi was added into the mix.

Newin is relatively easy to deal with in comparison with Sondhi because Sondhi will ask him to provide the impossible or unreasonable without any chance of negotiation.

[Artisi]

Red-shirts to raise 100,000 signatures to sponsor motion to reinstate 1997 charter

Jatuporn Promphan, a red-shirt leader, said Sunday that his movement would raise 100,000 signatures to sponsor a motion to have Parliament reinstate the 1997 Constitution.

He claimed that the red-shirt movement had so far gathered 70,000 signatures.

-- The Nation 2009/10/12

another petition, why aim for 100,000 why not millions like last time.

Because getting signatures calling for the return of Thaksin is an easier sell to the ignorant masses than a call for the 1997 constitution. If you asked the average red shirt on the street what makes the 1997 constitution so special than the 2006 one, you'd most likely get a blank stare followed by something like, "because Thaksin was the prime minister then"

Just tell them Thaksin wants it done - no problem - they can be lead wherever you want.

[DocHolliday]

Red-shirts to raise 100,000 signatures to sponsor motion to reinstate 1997 charter

Jatuporn Promphan, a red-shirt leader, said Sunday that his movement would raise 100,000 signatures to sponsor a motion to have Parliament reinstate the 1997 Constitution.

He claimed that the red-shirt movement had so far gathered 70,000 signatures.

-- The Nation 2009/10/12

another petition, why aim for 100,000 why not millions like last time.

Because getting signatures calling for the return of Thaksin is an easier sell to the ignorant masses than a call for the 1997 constitution. If you asked the average red shirt on the street what makes the 1997 constitution so special than the 2006 one, you'd most likely get a blank stare followed by something like, "because Thaksin was the prime minister then"

Just tell them Thaksin wants it done - no problem - they can be lead wherever you want.

They are like lemmings

[Publicus]

Sheeple is a good nick too I think, for the reds especially.

So all the big wigs in parliament had a grand pow wow just last week or so to agree to the amendments and the process but now there's a grand disarray. Liars and con men all but what else is new?

Agreed the onus is on the clowns out of power. Further, that Abhisit is asserting himself well by kicking the brats out of the sandbox. It's the brats' responsibility if they want to barracade the doors to the house on the outside so they close themselves out.

[xminator]

When is the next election?

[baht&sold]

IF the reds/Puea Thai and ultimately Mr Thaksin 'ever' decide to agree to and 'allow' for transparent constitution chages with a public referendum, that would be step one. Unfortunately Mr Thaksin reportedly stated the original 6 charter clause changes "Doesn't interest the public"....

Now they're spear-heading a push (or perhaps a putsch?) back to the easily manipulated and badly abused 1997 constitution.

This included neutralising or interference of independent bodies like the Constitution Court, the National Commission to Counter Corruption and the Election Commission. These were designed by the '97 charter writers with the hopes that these institutions would be able to keep checks on the government but they were all interfered with. Also the Senate (which was supposed to counter-balance the house) was turned into a government proxy, with many of the senators being spouses or relatives of 'team-player' MPs.

Basically Mr Thaksin thus reds/Puea Thai desire a return to a system of easily manipulated checks-and-balance mechanisms. Also, reverting back to the '97 charter may retroactively/conveniently annul the AEC and other bodies which brought charges to Mr Thaksin. So when's the next election? Perhaps ask on Mr Thaksin's twitter page.

Last, Puea Thai would only win another minority and without a coalition this time they wouldn't last a first vote in Govt and they know it. Therefore, keep your eye on their real plan (to be revealed rather soon most likely...)

Edited October 15, 2009 by baht&sold

[h90]

Red-shirts to raise 100,000 signatures to sponsor motion to reinstate 1997 charter

Jatuporn Promphan, a red-shirt leader, said Sunday that his movement would raise 100,000 signatures to sponsor a motion to have Parliament reinstate the 1997 Constitution.

He claimed that the red-shirt movement had so far gathered 70,000 signatures.

-- The Nation 2009/10/12

another petition, why aim for 100,000 why not millions like last time.

Because getting signatures calling for the return of Thaksin is an easier sell to the ignorant masses than a call for the 1997 constitution. If you asked the average red shirt on the street what makes the 1997 constitution so special than the 2006 one, you'd most likely get a blank stare followed by something like, "because Thaksin was the prime minister then"

Just tell them Thaksin wants it done - no problem - they can be lead wherever you want.

AND 200 Baht.

[jasreeve17]

These nation pieces are worse and worse propaganda day by day... What happened to balanced reporting, or even reporting facts instead of opinion pieces pretending to be facts...

Another thread about the PM, changes to an anti-Thaksin thread. Wow, how boring.

The problem with non-stop pieces cut and pasted by the heavily biased 'newspaper' is that the forum views become lopsided too. Hence, why there has been less and less reasoned debate every since this 'paper' has become heavily involved with ThaiVisa. It's a shame.

[jasreeve17]

Sheeple is a good nick too I think, for the reds especially.

So all the big wigs in parliament had a grand pow wow just last week or so to agree to the amendments and the process but now there's a grand disarray. Liars and con men all but what else is new?

Agreed the onus is on the clowns out of power. Further, that Abhisit is asserting himself well by kicking the brats out of the sandbox. It's the brats' responsibility if they want to barracade the doors to the house on the outside so they close themselves out.

I agree and disagree.

The 'bigwigs' in parliament are useless. All of them on all sides.

But, By doing a 100% reversal Abhisit is hardly asserting himself... I repeat, the week before this press release Abhisit said he will press forward with the charter process regardless of what the other parties do. Then the PAD threatened to take to the streets, and the next day, he did an about turn... Weakness. This is exactly the type of 'leadership' that the Thai people dislike (I said the Thai paople, not me...).

[rixalex]

What happened to balanced reporting

When would that have been then?

[jasreeve17]

What happened to balanced reporting

When would that have been then?

True.

I was more talking about the concept in general, rather than a previously high level of balanced reporting.

The paaper we can't talk about has a variety of pieces with differing views - not all well written, but diversity is present. The nation just seems to be a bit Foxnews style... Which is fine if you like their flavour of vanilla...

[rixalex]

What happened to balanced reporting

When would that have been then?

True.

I was more talking about the concept in general, rather than a previously high level of balanced reporting.

So accepting that there never has been balance, why is it now in particular that it bothers you?

[jasreeve17]

So R, you want to start an argument instead of commenting on the thread... Ummm, no thanks. I'm very bored of posters who hang around looking for arguments...

[animatic]

IF the reds/Puea Thai and ultimately Mr Thaksin 'ever' decide to agree to and 'allow' for transparent constitution chages with a public referendum, that would be step one. Unfortunately Mr Thaksin reportedly stated the original 6 charter clause changes "Doesn't interest the public"....

Now they're spear-heading a push (or perhaps a putsch?) back to the easily manipulated and badly abused 1997 constitution.

This included neutralising or interference of independent bodies like the Constitution Court, the National Commission to Counter Corruption and the Election Commission. These were designed by the '97 charter writers with the hopes that these institutions would be able to keep checks on the government but they were all interfered with. Also the Senate (which was supposed to counter-balance the house) was turned into a government proxy, with many of the senators being spouses or relatives of 'team-player' MPs.

Basically Mr Thaksin thus reds/Puea Thai desire a return to a system of easily manipulated checks-and-balance mechanisms. Also, reverting back to the '97 charter may retroactively/conveniently annul the AEC and other bodies which brought charges to Mr Thaksin. So when's the next election? Perhaps ask on Mr Thaksin's twitter page.

Last, Puea Thai would only win another minority and without a coalition this time they wouldn't last a first vote in Govt and they know it. Therefore, keep your eye on their real plan (to be revealed rather soon most likely...)

Pretty likely all the above.

And the impending change of status quo is quite troubling

in the lack of precisions likely employed...

and thus randomness of probable outcomes.

[rixalex]

So R, you want to start an argument instead of commenting on the thread... Ummm, no thanks. I'm very bored of posters who hang around looking for arguments...

Why so defensive Mr J?

I wasn't trying to start an argument, simply asking a question - practice that i believe is common when engaged in a discussion.

That being that since reporting never has been balanced, why in particular does it trouble you now?

Any particular reason?