Democrat Party's Charter Decision A Severe Setback

[webfact]

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT

Charter turmoil

By THE NATION

Published on January 27, 2010

BANGKOK: -- The Democrat Party's decision yesterday to opt out of moves to amend the Constitution has dealt a severe setback to the campaign spearheaded by the smaller coalition parties.

But the upset parties will not go empty-handed, as the Democrats will likely try to appease them by allocating the midyear budget to their constituencies and projects.

The alliance of smaller parties has claimed the support of at least 95 MPs, which is enough to file a motion seeking charter changes. But to ensure passage of any changes, backing from at least half of the two Houses of Parliament is required.

Parliament has been divided into four major groups on this issue: the ruling Democrat Party, the opposition Pheu Thai Party, the smaller coalition and opposition parties and senators.

The Democrats have made it clear they have no interest in seeking changes to the charter. Pheu Thai has said it will not join the move and prefer the reinstatement of the 1997 Constitution, which was abolished after the September 19, 2006 military coup.

The smaller parties are keen on "fixing" the Constitution, especially the clauses that would make constituencies smaller, with one MP from each of them. The members of the Senate have split on this matter, with about 60 per cent of them lukewarm towards any tampering with the present statute.

The smaller coalition parties have also agreed to revise Article 190 to give the government greater leeway in making international treaties, and they plan to put the two issues in the same motion. At present, the administration needs parliamentary endorsement before it enters into such pacts.

The Democrats' decision not to co-sponsor a motion to seek a charter rewrite has definitely disappointed their fellow coalition partners, but it remains uncertain if any or all of them will withdraw from the government.

Certain leaders from the smaller parties reminded the Democrats of their promise to back constitutional changes when persuading them to help form the Democrat-led government.

Charnchai Chairungrueng, leader of the coalition Puea Pandin Party, said the coalition's smaller parties were waiting for the Democrats to follow the "gentlemen's agreement".

"A man who fails to keep his word will be spurned by his friends," he said.

Before the Democrats came up with their decision Newin Chidchob, a powerful figure in the coalition Bhum Jai Thai Party, said whatever it would be, the smaller coalition partners would still proceed with plans to seek a charter rewrite.

"At this moment, people who like and dislike the Democrat Party all feel uncomfortable. They just wonder why the Democrats are so afraid [of constitutional amendments]," Newin said.

Bhum Jai Thai leader Chaovarat Chanweerakul said now that the Democrats had allowed their MPs to vote freely on the constitutional-amendment issue, other coalition parties would start doing the same with other motions in Parliament.

The Democrat Party's executive board resolved at a recent meeting not to support a constitutional rewrite. Later in the day, the party's MPs voted 82-48 to voice opposition to changes to the clauses on constituency size, said Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, the Democrat leader.

Abhisit said he was not afraid the smaller coalition parties might leave the Democrat-led coalition after the party's decisions.

The prime minister appears to have a tough job keeping the coalition together while maintaining the party's stance of favouring larger constituencies. However, Abhisit has shown no fear of a possible House dissolution. His insistence on a replacement for the Bhum Jai Thai's deputy public health minister, Manit Nop-amornbodi, was clear proof of that.

One coalition figure said the disagreement within the coalition would not lead to its imminent collapse. However, if certain coalition partners remain revengeful, they may try to "get even" with the Democrats during the next censure debate - and the targeted Democrat ministers may end up receiving fewer votes from those parties.

The smaller coalition parties are expected to stay on board, because that serves them better than pulling out to face an uncertain future. A coalition leader once said the partners were not ready for a new general election, as they were less prepared than Pheu Thai.

There is also the supplementary budget of Bt300 billion for government projects. To remain in power means the coalition parties still have a say in directing funds to their pet projects, which in the end will help improve their chances in the next election.

Within the coalition's core party, severe differences were evident at the meeting of the Democrat MPs.

Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban told the meeting the party needed support from the smaller coalition partners to remain in power to fight against fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

He suggested Abhisit dissolve the House before the censure debate, because he was afraid other coalition partners might refuse to back Democrat ministers during the no-confidence vote.

Chuan Leekpai, the party's chief adviser, disagreed. He said the government's survival should not come at a cost to the Democrat's dignity.

"We won't die if we are not in the government. We were in the opposition for a long time, and no one [in the party] died," said Chuan, a former party leader and prime minister.

-- The Nation 2010-01-27

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[animatic]

The changes proposed are not likely the issue for the dems,

as much as once Pandoras box is opened, lord knows what will come out.

Once things are actually being debated and on the table,

small changes like porkbarrel earmarks in USA terms,

can be inserted and free passes for things intended to

make it harder to be corrupt.Which for smaller parties translates to

harder to make the money to become a big party, and then gain control themselves.

Edited January 27, 2010 by animatic

[webfact]

Countdown to House dissolution: Somsak

By The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Democrat decision to reject the charter rewrite has triggered the countdown to dissolve the House, Somsak Prissanananthakul of Chart Thai Pattana Party said on Wednesday.

"Even though the prime minister has the sole discretion on the House dissolution, the countdown for government's life has begun," he said.

Somsak said he had anticipated the Democrat decision because of their apparent reluctant in the past year to push for charter amendments.

The motion for charter rewrite already had sufficient votes of endorsement but the Democrats would have to brace for the future of the coalition alliance, he said.

All political parties are always ready for a snap election and the Democrats might have to be prepared for any eventuality since the junior coalition parties might allow a free vote on the censure debate, he said.

"Watch closely. Changes are inevitable and I am not saying this as a bargaining chip," he said.

Chart Thai Pattana leader Chumpol Silapa-archa confirmed the motion for charter rewrite would cover two proposed amendments.

Chumpol said the charter debate would proceed as planned and that it would not have any impacts on the governmental work.

He said the upcoming censure debate is a separate issue which should not be linked to the charter debate.

Bhum Jai Thai deputy leader Boonjong Wongtrairat voiced disappointment at the Democrat decision, saying his party had never gone back on its pledges.

Boonjong said the Democrats did not live up to their pledge to push for charter amendments, which they gave in exchange for his party's support for the coalition alliance.

He added his party would await for the Democrats to formally notify their decision before deciding whether to cast a free vote in the censure debate.

-- The Nation 2010-01-27

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[Insight]

Well done Dems for not supporting these very dubious amendments. Can anybody highlight how these amendments will benefit everyday Thai voters? One amendment is a reversal of the policy put in place to prevent another Preah Vihear debacle - sounds very suspect.

Shame about what it may end up costing them. Who can call the Democrats thin-skinned now?

[hammered]

It is pretty rare that a party opts for what they see as a principled position that risks a quick return to opposition over short term expediency and a longer time in government. Kudos to the Dems for doing this. Of course a return to smaller constituencies as many have pointed out does lead to increased power of vote buying money and as most Thai people thought even under the current system that this money affected election outcomes (source the Asia institute survey) this would have gotten worse. Interesting to see how everyone else now plays this one.

It is by the way about setting the rules by which the game will be played and we now see at least 4 different sides at play and probably a fifth unnoticed one. Quite how these will realign if they do will be interesting. The coaltion allies as they are known and the shadowy creators of the government have now started to split from the Dems or maybe more correctly the Dems have split away from them. This was entirely predictable from the formation of this government

[animatic]

Somsaks first instinct is a threat of dissolution and of chaos.

Right on schedule.

Newin used much more measured and thoughtful tones in his last comment.

No doubt some plan will be implemented to 'induce' the obstreperous little parties

to see the light, but they make the threats to get a bigger piece of the play nice pie.

Is this guy Banharn Jr...?

Edited January 27, 2010 by animatic

[xminator]

I doubt the coalition partners are ready to jump back to PT. A quick head count shows PT need support from fewer of the coalition partners then the Democrats. So what will Abhsit choose? Asking the voters for confidence (dissolution) or step back to opposition? Or just plain reject to play by parliamentary rules...

[boris52]

Ill be glad to see the back of this corruption ridden, rat infested, power hungry, pathetic excuse for a government.

Hopefully the smaller parties pile on the pressure and force a house dissolution, and return the power back to the people.

[webfact]

PM rules out House dissolution

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva on Wednesday voiced optimism that he could pacify his coalition partners related to the Democrat decision to reject charter amendments.

"I am organising a meeting with coalition partners so that I can explain the reasons behind the decision on charter rewrite," he said.

-- The Nation 2010-01-27

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[boris52]

Translation:

Coalition parties: we want more money.

Abhisit: ok ok ok, i know you don't respect me, i know you don't give 2 hoots about this government but for the sake of clinging on to power for myself and the power hungry groups i represent, ill give however much money you need to keep me in power.

[Siripon]

Translation:

Coalition parties: we want more money.

Abhisit: ok ok ok, i know you don't respect me, i know you don't give 2 hoots about this government but for the sake of clinging on to power for myself and the power hungry groups i represent, ill give however much money you need to keep me in power.

If he wanted to cling onto power, he would have followed Suthep in recommending the Democrats support the coalition partners.

Much easier than risking defections or votes against in a censure debate.

A brave and noble decision by the Democrats amidst a sea of self interested old style politicians.

[animatic]

Follow the money, nothing else matters for these small parties.

Respect never entered into it a bit, none starter, end of story.

[scorecard]

Ill be glad to see the back of this corruption ridden, rat infested, power hungry, pathetic excuse for a government.

Hopefully the smaller parties pile on the pressure and force a house dissolution, and return the power back to the people.

I think you mean return power to the gang of thieves.

[Old Man River]

Ill be glad to see the back of this corruption ridden, rat infested, power hungry, pathetic excuse for a government.

Back to the days when money speaks. When everything was available for a price. When wives companies were in vogue. You want this contract? Ok, what % do I get? Yes, those were the good old days, weren't they?

[hammered]

There is a certain analysis that by making this decision and very candidly Abhisit has closed a crack that Thaksin and his allies have been trying very hard to open. Im obviously not talking about the coalition.

[Insight]

There is a certain analysis that by making this decision and very candidly Abhisit has closed a crack that Thaksin and his allies have been trying very hard to open. Im obviously not talking about the coalition.

Am I right in believing the amendments the partners want the same ones Samak wanted a few years ago?

[hammered]

There is a certain analysis that by making this decision and very candidly Abhisit has closed a crack that Thaksin and his allies have been trying very hard to open. Im obviously not talking about the coalition.

Am I right in believing the amendments the partners want the same ones Samak wanted a few years ago?

It is very easy to forget that when in power PPP didnt dare really push the constitutional ammnedment as it was a red line.

The two suggested changes arent what those that see/saw it as a red line worry about but any push for constitutional change is going to set off potentially big worries in certain circles.

Now does the coalition survive or not, and what comes after that if it indeed collapses which may not be as near happening as some think.

[Dap]

Who are you kidding? The people never had any power.

Ill be glad to see the back of this corruption ridden, rat infested, power hungry, pathetic excuse for a government.

Hopefully the smaller parties pile on the pressure and force a house dissolution, and return the power back to the people.

[mythBuster]

The reason why the DP is so afraid is simple. They need the courts. They tend to lose elections. They need judges to ban parties, to send prime ministers home and to block votes on huge contributions paid to them by corrupted businessmen who hold strategic NPL's. As the judges are brave (and corrupted and do what they are told), they will reward the DP handsomely while stealing victories, property and jailing people on the other side of the political spectrum. It makes quite a difference if you lose an election and can still be awarded a seat through the court which enables you to oversee a huge spending program from which you benefit heavily or get nothing.

The fact that the Nation which is close to the DP and the yellow shirts believes that the coalition parties will allocated huge sums of money to spend freely in their hometowns makes it even more of a sham. If anyone needs an answer why Thailand does not catch up with the developed world ask the courts.

[animatic]

Trying to get pork AKA funding and projectys to send back to you homes state / district / province

is an age old political perogative and expectation for all politicians. If they didn't do that,

there would be little reason to elect them.

This is of course about the little partys squeezing more cash and jobs for themselves

during crunch time for the Dems and Thaksin. To some extent it will have short term benefits

for them as cash, but they really need the BIG benefits of charter changes,

but the country does not need this at all.

Edited January 27, 2010 by animatic