Pm Threatens To Kill Entire Process

[animatic]

Certain coalition partners also want changes to benefit their interests,

and are lobbying rather hard for the process to continue.

I seriously doubt Abhisit has any interest in doing more than carrot and stick

with the constitution change issues. I doubt he needs do much more.

[Rumfoord]

I have found one Thai person who has read both and she analysed the differences as being the 2007 enshrined a lot more basic rihgts of the people whihc 1997 left out and that 1997 gave more power to politcal parties while 2007 lessened it. Her worry was that poltiicans would quite happily dump the rights enshrined in 2007.

i have found more than one well educated Thai person who not support the junta constitution.

[hammered]

I have found one Thai person who has read both and she analysed the differences as being the 2007 enshrined a lot more basic rihgts of the people whihc 1997 left out and that 1997 gave more power to politcal parties while 2007 lessened it. Her worry was that poltiicans would quite happily dump the rights enshrined in 2007.

i have found more than one well educated Thai person who not support the junta constitution.

The problem is democratically the junta constitution as you call it remains the only one the people of Thailand have voted on and passed. That was a very clever ploy by the Junta and one they pulled off even though Thaksin supporters campaigned for a no vote. Hence it is actually the only one that could really be described democratically as a people's constitution. That it includes both more and less democratic prinicples than the 1997 one is noticeable. Reality is both are flawed but one was adopted by the people while one wasnt. That sets a standard for future constitutional change. Justr rammking it through parliament is no longer good enough and direct democracy is by basic definition always more democratic than representative democracy so it creates a problem for those arguing for no referendum.

[cmsally]

One of the main problems with the 2007 constitution is the dissolving of the whole party if an executive is guilty of electoral fraud.

I would of thought even the Democrats were not in agreement of that as one day it could turn against them.

Another important one seems to be article 190 whereby treaties have to be passed through parliament before the govt. can sign.

Various articles have pointed out that there is confusion about what is a treaty and what not. One of its sticking points seems to be that it is entangled in the Phear Viharn case. For the democrats to agree with the reform of this article would be hypocritical, it was one of the main attack strategies saying that the opposition determined foreign affairs without parliamentary approval.

It would look a bit strange for the Democrats to do an about turn now and say its OK to amend because they are in power.

[animatic]

I have found one Thai person who has read both and she analysed the differences as being the 2007 enshrined a lot more basic rihgts of the people whihc 1997 left out and that 1997 gave more power to politcal parties while 2007 lessened it. Her worry was that poltiicans would quite happily dump the rights enshrined in 2007.

i have found more than one well educated Thai person who not support the junta constitution.

The problem is democratically the junta constitution as you call it remains the only one the people of Thailand have voted on and passed. That was a very clever ploy by the Junta and one they pulled off even though Thaksin supporters campaigned for a no vote. Hence it is actually the only one that could really be described democratically as a people's constitution. That it includes both more and less democratic prinicples than the 1997 one is noticeable. Reality is both are flawed but one was adopted by the people while one wasnt. That sets a standard for future constitutional change. Justr rammking it through parliament is no longer good enough and direct democracy is by basic definition always more democratic than representative democracy so it creates a problem for those arguing for no referendum.

"Reality is both are flawed but one was adopted by the people while one wasn't."

The one voted on was the 2007.

What is missing is whether those "well educated" Thais redrum found, had:

a ) read BOTH constitutions.

b ) was basing their opposition to the document itself,

and not just the circumstances of it's gestation.

c ) Fully understand that the '97 was NOT voted on by THE PEOPLE,

but was just as arbitrarily handed to them WITHOUT their 'by your leave'.

The 2007 was give a Yes No choice, and the no's have been whining like babies

every since their side lost the REFERENDUM VOTE BY THE PEOPLE OF THAILAND.

All treaties in USA must be passed by the US Senate, nothing unusual about this.

The Sec State and an F.M. can come to an agrement and wording,

but can't sign until the Senate approves it.

Nothing hypocritical about the Dems in opposition saying the PPP FM must follow the rules.

And if the votes are there, then that rule can be changed with a public referendum to pass it.

The basic difference is Noppadom was ignoring the rules, and the Dems are not.

PPP wanted to change the constitution, but not on this point, their point was much more;

Free the 111 prats and king prat himself.

Not exactly looking at the best interests of the nation as a whole.

Edited October 18, 2009 by animatic

[Rumfoord]

The problem is democratically the junta constitution as you call it remains the only one the people of Thailand have voted on and passed. That was a very clever ploy by the Junta and one they pulled off even though Thaksin supporters campaigned for a no vote. Hence it is actually the only one that could really be described democratically as a people's constitution.

har, har. agitator with an narrow minded view point living in a black and white fictional dream world.

first, to campaign for a NO Vote doesn't make those people to Thaksin supporters. a fallacy.

there was a hugh propaganda campaign on all channels for a YES vote. but a open and free discussion of pro and contra was nowhere to be seen. campaigning for a NO Vote was actually illegal. half of the country was still put under martial law by the junta. i have big problem calling that "democratically".

defend it with whatever anecdotical story you may can fabricate. i will tell you that i have met at least one more intelligent Thai person than you in your story who see it the other way and it will be true.

[slimdog]

Another important one seems to be article 190 whereby treaties have to be passed through parliament before the govt. can sign.

Various articles have pointed out that there is confusion about what is a treaty and what not. One of its sticking points seems to be that it is entangled in the Phear Viharn case. For the democrats to agree with the reform of this article would be hypocritical, it was one of the main attack strategies saying that the opposition determined foreign affairs without parliamentary approval.

It would look a bit strange for the Democrats to do an about turn now and say its OK to amend because they are in power.

Just for reference:

On March 18th 2009, Democrat MP, Ratchada Thanadirek introduced a bill to Parliament to allowing the Government to curcumvent Article 190 of the Constitution. After objections from the opposition, the bill passed it's first reading and is currently in the committee stage. It requires two further readings before this bill becomes law.

Details can be found at: http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255203180064

[Plus]

One of the main problems with the 2007 constitution is the dissolving of the whole party if an executive is guilty of electoral fraud.

Similar clause was in 1997 Constitution, too. It was carried over and TRT was dissolved under that clause.

2007 versions leaves courts no leeway, that's the only difference, afaik, and it's not a big deal, as PPP successfully transformed itself into PTP and none of the MPs lost his/her status.

[cmsally]

So in practice they see this article as working against them although it was a major piece of the opposition "noise" against Somchais govt. So just go and adjust it. It is actions such as these that show up the fact that govts and their opposition are incapable of playing using the rules. They are just as guilty of moving the goalposts as any other.

[hammered]

The problem is democratically the junta constitution as you call it remains the only one the people of Thailand have voted on and passed. That was a very clever ploy by the Junta and one they pulled off even though Thaksin supporters campaigned for a no vote. Hence it is actually the only one that could really be described democratically as a people's constitution.

har, har. agitator with an narrow minded view point living in a black and white fictional dream world.

first, to campaign for a NO Vote doesn't make those people to Thaksin supporters. a fallacy.

there was a hugh propaganda campaign on all channels for a YES vote. but a open and free discussion of pro and contra was nowhere to be seen. campaigning for a NO Vote was actually illegal. half of the country was still put under martial law by the junta. i have big problem calling that "democratically".

defend it with whatever anecdotical story you may can fabricate. i will tell you that i have met at least one more intelligent Thai person than you in your story who see it the other way and it will be true.

Yeah whatever strange i dont believe you but whatever

Usual accusations agsinst those you think dont agree with you rather than anyhting substantive but I wouldnt expect more. Attack the messenger and not the message usual stuff

njoy

Edited to add: silly assuning people may not agree with your general line just because they dont accept the party line when that line is ridiculous.

Edited October 18, 2009 by hammered

[animatic]

The problem is democratically the junta constitution as you call it remains the only one the people of Thailand have voted on and passed. That was a very clever ploy by the Junta and one they pulled off even though Thaksin supporters campaigned for a no vote. Hence it is actually the only one that could really be described democratically as a people's constitution.

har, har. agitator with an narrow minded view point living in a black and white fictional dream world.

first, to campaign for a NO Vote doesn't make those people to Thaksin supporters. a fallacy.

there was a hugh propaganda campaign on all channels for a YES vote. but a open and free discussion of pro and contra was nowhere to be seen. campaigning for a NO Vote was actually illegal. half of the country was still put under martial law by the junta. i have big problem calling that "democratically".

defend it with whatever anecdotical story you may can fabricate. i will tell you that i have met at least one more intelligent Thai person than you in your story who see it the other way and it will be true.

Yeah whatever strange i dont believe you but whatever

Usual accusations agsinst those you think dont agree with you rather than anyhting substantive but I wouldnt expect more. Attack the messenger and not the message usual stuff

njoy

Edited to add: silly assuning people may not agree with your general line just because they dont accept the party line when that line is ridiculous.

Wasn't there just some comment about shooting the messenger and someone being a master at it?

If the shoe fits, kick yourself with it.

I remember lots of discussion about the 2007 constitution,

I remember being asked about it. Voting no was everybody's right to do.

The PEOPLE chose to move on with an actual democratic government, and fix the flaws if any later.

A reasonable and prudent decision. Except for the reddened minds of the near future,

reading a overtly fictional subtext into the whole vote that never existed,

until they LOST their seats at the trough.

[cmsally]

It's a fact that many people would have voted Yes because there was such a big Yes campaign. There was not a "No" campaign it simply didn't exist and lord knows what would have happened to someone starting one.

A lot of people simply voted yes because they believed it was the only way to get a general election. They believed there would be no election and an indefinite time frame to army rule if they did not vote yes.

Many people who voted yes for the constitution because of the above then proceeded to vote the PT into power.

[animatic]

Indefinite; as in more time needed to make a constitution people wanted,

which would logically get CLOSER to what THE PEOPLE wanted.

I think most voters just wanted to get over the whole thing ASAP, and voted for that.

What they got was acceptable, a slight update on the 1997 constitution.

With a slight strengthening of Checks and Balances,

which was so obviously needed after '97 was ridden over rough shod so badly.

Yes the PPP was voted into power,

but cheated so badly to be sure of winning, that they got dissolved...

Sometimes if you get what you ask for, you don't get what you want.

PPP being a classic example, not there to run the country well,

but mostly to get Thaksin back and total hegemony over the trough

Edited October 18, 2009 by animatic

[Rumfoord]

It's a fact that many people would have voted Yes because there was such a big Yes campaign. There was not a "No" campaign it simply didn't exist and lord knows what would have happened to someone starting one.

A lot of people simply voted yes because they believed it was the only way to get a general election. They believed there would be no election and an indefinite time frame to army rule if they did not vote yes.

yep, that is right.

[Oberkommando]

It's a fact that many people would have voted Yes because there was such a big Yes campaign. There was not a "No" campaign it simply didn't exist and lord knows what would have happened to someone starting one.

A lot of people simply voted yes because they believed it was the only way to get a general election. They believed there would be no election and an indefinite time frame to army rule if they did not vote yes.

yep, that is right.

What is funny is that the usual suspects here expect us to believe the vote for the 2007 constitution was somehow democratic while it was organised and promoted by a military junta with vested interests.

They really are only kidding themselves.

[h90]

One of the main problems with the 2007 constitution is the dissolving of the whole party if an executive is guilty of electoral fraud.

I would of thought even the Democrats were not in agreement of that as one day it could turn against them.

Another important one seems to be article 190 whereby treaties have to be passed through parliament before the govt. can sign.

Various articles have pointed out that there is confusion about what is a treaty and what not. One of its sticking points seems to be that it is entangled in the Phear Viharn case. For the democrats to agree with the reform of this article would be hypocritical, it was one of the main attack strategies saying that the opposition determined foreign affairs without parliamentary approval.

It would look a bit strange for the Democrats to do an about turn now and say its OK to amend because they are in power.

If I recall it right the party will not dissolved if they kick out the executive and report it to the EC.

It is a bit strange, but might be the only workable thing as vote buying is just everywhere.

What is even more strange that you can found a new party immediately without any problems.

I agree that the 2007 constitution is not the solution but changing it would mean only green light for vote buying.

[h90]

It's a fact that many people would have voted Yes because there was such a big Yes campaign. There was not a "No" campaign it simply didn't exist and lord knows what would have happened to someone starting one.

A lot of people simply voted yes because they believed it was the only way to get a general election. They believed there would be no election and an indefinite time frame to army rule if they did not vote yes.

yep, that is right.

What is funny is that the usual suspects here expect us to believe the vote for the 2007 constitution was somehow democratic while it was organised and promoted by a military junta with vested interests.

They really are only kidding themselves.

But everyone just focus on the parts which punish vote buying. What is wrong with punishment for vote buying?

[cmsally]

The 2007 constitution (can't remember which article) also has some interesting bits to do with the Privy Council and its powers.

All these various bits tie in at some stage and all these posts on here are often way off with regards to what's spinning around with Thai points of view.

I can't remember where I read yesterday, but there was some news about a Thammasat lecturer who was quite vocal against the Privy Council. I seem to remember Thammasat as being more yellow but maybe that is passe.

There's a lot of diatribe on here about pro/anti Thaksin and even PAD (who I think are past their sell by date, except to step on some Democrat toes occasionally). Whereas in the past it was Anupong in the midlle of the sandwich, I believe Abhisit could find himself in the middle of a rather large hamburger, but time will tell.

[hammered]

It's a fact that many people would have voted Yes because there was such a big Yes campaign. There was not a "No" campaign it simply didn't exist and lord knows what would have happened to someone starting one.

A lot of people simply voted yes because they believed it was the only way to get a general election. They believed there would be no election and an indefinite time frame to army rule if they did not vote yes.

Many people who voted yes for the constitution because of the above then proceeded to vote the PT into power.

So maybe we should also guess that many people voted for TRT because they didnt want it. Specious arguement. Nobody ever knows the intent of the voter but that isnt important the vote is.

There was a no campaign in northern and isaan areas by the way, but that is irrelevent. In democracy all that counts is the vote and the 2007 constitution rermains the only constitution passed by the peopel in Thailand whether politcal activisits like it or not similalry TRT (not not Thaksin as this is a parliamentary democracy) remains the only party to ever win half of those who bothered to vote, and of course those who didnt vote dont count same as in the charter vote.

[hammered]

It's a fact that many people would have voted Yes because there was such a big Yes campaign. There was not a "No" campaign it simply didn't exist and lord knows what would have happened to someone starting one.

A lot of people simply voted yes because they believed it was the only way to get a general election. They believed there would be no election and an indefinite time frame to army rule if they did not vote yes.

yep, that is right.

What is funny is that the usual suspects here expect us to believe the vote for the 2007 constitution was somehow democratic while it was organised and promoted by a military junta with vested interests.

They really are only kidding themselves.

And I guess you in your usual superiority are kidding nobody by thinking that a constitution the people voted for under any circumstances is of lesser value than one people never had a say in or never voted for. You create a nice arguement for overthrowinbg elected government though

It would be better if a constitution were voted for by the people while an elected parlaiment were in session but .....

Direct democracy is always without exception more democratic than representative democracy if somewhat difficult to resort to except in single issue votes although the technology is increasinbgly there

Edited to add: the usual shoot the messenger brigade are around;)

Edited October 19, 2009 by hammered

[hammered]

The 2007 constitution (can't remember which article) also has some interesting bits to do with the Privy Council and its powers.

All these various bits tie in at some stage and all these posts on here are often way off with regards to what's spinning around with Thai points of view.

I can't remember where I read yesterday, but there was some news about a Thammasat lecturer who was quite vocal against the Privy Council. I seem to remember Thammasat as being more yellow but maybe that is passe.

There's a lot of diatribe on here about pro/anti Thaksin and even PAD (who I think are past their sell by date, except to step on some Democrat toes occasionally). Whereas in the past it was Anupong in the midlle of the sandwich, I believe Abhisit could find himself in the middle of a rather large hamburger, but time will tell.

I guess you also cant list the extra rights of the people that were included in 2007 over 1997

Both constitutions remain flawed probably fatally but both include things that no true demcoracy advocate would ditch alktho0ugh there are none of that kinhd involved in this hideous poower struggle.

All universities have divided faculty. Thai society is divided

Abhisit is irrelevent in the long game even if as of now he retains the backing needed to be numero uno. Anupong, Prayuth (very important) and co are going to become more and more important and Abhisit, Thaksin etc less.

And as for the low level guns for high such as the rapist and the hero of baan rom khlao well.......

[slimdog]

The 2007 constitution (can't remember which article) also has some interesting bits to do with the Privy Council and its powers.

All articles related to the Privy Council (12 - 25) in the 2007 Constitution are exactly the same as the 1997 Constitution..

[cmsally]

However many articles stress that the 2007 constitution gives power to Head of PC to be regent.

This doesn't necessarily point to the fact that 1997 was any different, but it is an issue that pops up many times. It seems to suggest that there is some different wording or meaning. However both constitutions do revert back to law of succession of (1924?), but it appears the devil is in the detail. Of course you could always roll out the odd tank or two and throw the text book on the fire!

[hammered]

I think people are fully aware of who acts in the transition and that hasnt changed.

Your tank comment could be apt if anyone attempts any shennanignas in the transition or even before. PTP arent rushing every old soldier that favours them into the party as quick as they can for no reason. Suchinda may be a little too toxic for them too touch though The military are going to be even more in control in the coming months and that will be regardless of which little party is in control of the parliament.

[cmsally]

The military aren't exactly well known for all holding hands and singing "Khumbayah" though are they and that could be one of the cruxes of the problem.

[hammered]

The military aren't exactly well known for all holding hands and singing "Khumbayah" though are they and that could be one of the cruxes of the problem.

The military will imho do what best suits them or maybe more precisely what suits those in control of it. Those who dont control it will lose. We have already seen red and yellow Dem and PTP dont have the power to win. That leaves everything in the hands of those with the tanks. That leaves things a little unpredictable. There is one very very powerful general in the military now and his actions will decide everything if games start to get played. Teams red and yelloow at best control a bunch of inactive and aging generals who lack real power. Who those that count owe allegiance to or who they will side with remains to be seen if push comes to shove but there are a lot more than two sides in this mix these days so there could be a fair few losers and even strange alliances.

[h90]

However many articles stress that the 2007 constitution gives power to Head of PC to be regent.

This doesn't necessarily point to the fact that 1997 was any different, but it is an issue that pops up many times. It seems to suggest that there is some different wording or meaning. However both constitutions do revert back to law of succession of (1924?), but it appears the devil is in the detail. Of course you could always roll out the odd tank or two and throw the text book on the fire!

Actually it is a joke to make a new constitution all few years again.

Actually the complete legal system is mess in Thailand, I don't know how this can be ever fixed.