Yingluck Government - Critics Doubt Pheu Thai Motive

[webfact]

YINGLUCK GOVERNMENT

Critics doubt Pheu Thai motive

By The Nation

Critics yesterday voiced their suspicions about the ulterior motives behind the proposed move by the Pheu Thai Party to hold a referendum to decide whether the 1997 Constitution or the 2007 version should be used.

Kaewsun Atibodhi, formerly a member of the post-coup Assets Examination Committee, said yesterday that he suspected the move was aimed at paving the way for giving amnesty to fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who was sentenced to jail under the present Constitution, which was drafted after the coup of 2006.

Thaksin is widely seen as the de-facto leader of the Pheu Thai Party, which won an overwhelming majority in the July 3 general elections.

Former judge Manit Jitjanklab, a key member of Pheu Thai's working group on legal affairs, said on Monday that his team came up with the idea of a referendum as a way to prevent the party from being dissolved.

Pheu Thai's two previous incarnations - Thai Rak Thai and People Power Party - were dissolved by court for electoral fraud.

Kaewsun yesterday said he did not think reinstating the 1997 Constitution would help prevent Pheu Thai from being dissolved if it had actually violated the relevant law, particularly the Constitution. It was because the previous charter also called for punishing the violating party with dissolution.

He noted that Thaksin earlier had said he was mistreated by the current Constitution and that he wanted amnesty for politicians punished under the current charter.

Komsan Phokong, a former member of the constitution drafting assembly, yesterday said that holding a referendum to replace the Constitution was against the democratic principle of respect for the minority views.

"I think they are confident of their majority support so they try to rely on the people's votes in deciding what is right or wrong," Komsan said, adding that by going against the rule of law and the principle of respect for minority views, Pheu Thai could cause conflict in the future.

He said that while both constitutions have the penalty of party dissolution, the current charter has an additional penalty of depriving the party executives' electoral rights for five years.

-- The Nation 2011-07-13

[whybother]

If it's just a matter of a Yes/No question, would the PTP get the majority they want?

I doubt it.

[OzMick]

k. Manit should explain how PTP will first form a govt, then organize and carry out a referendum, have the count performed and confirmed, and ratify the changes to the constitution, BEFORE the EC expeditiously carries out its investigation and makes a ruling.

[hammered]

Critics dont like the PTP. No surprise there. Same as critics of the dems dont like the dems. This isnt news and would seem to waste as many column inches as Murdoch does on propaganda.

You cant change the constitution because it will upset minorities is stated by someone who chanhged the constitution without worrying about minorities or whatever. Changing constitution in any country is usually done when a majority agree to it.

This is getting bizarre. Quite why this nonsensical news story is even in the paper is amazing.

Basically, dissolving PTP this time around will lead to utter chaos. If you repeatedly give people no outlet within the system you drive them into desperate places, and if a law causes more problems than it prevents it is time to change the law. Laws that society do not accept are doomed. Lets hope for the sake of the country people at the top can be sensible enough to come to a deal rather than continue the insane bickering with nobody giving a toss about the country. That deal will have to worked out under a PTP government as they won the "let the people decide" election and their enemies must realise and accept this even if it means they have a lot weaker hand and will have to hence give more ground than they get

[whybother]

Critics dont like the PTP. No surprise there. Same as critics of the dems dont like the dems. This isnt news and would seem to waste as many column inches as Murdoch does on propaganda.

You cant change the constitution because it will upset minorities is stated by someone who chanhged the constitution without worrying about minorities or whatever. Changing constitution in any country is usually done when a majority agree to it.

This is getting bizarre. Quite why this nonsensical news story is even in the paper is amazing.

Basically, dissolving PTP this time around will lead to utter chaos. If you repeatedly give people no outlet within the system you drive them into desperate places, and if a law causes more problems than it prevents it is time to change the law. Laws that society do not accept are doomed. Lets hope for the sake of the country people at the top can be sensible enough to come to a deal rather than continue the insane bickering with nobody giving a toss about the country. That deal will have to worked out under a PTP government as they won the "let the people decide" election and their enemies must realise and accept this even if it means they have a lot weaker hand and will have to hence give more ground than they get

Sure. Let them allow parties to cheat, just so people don't get angry.

[hammered]

Critics dont like the PTP. No surprise there. Same as critics of the dems dont like the dems. This isnt news and would seem to waste as many column inches as Murdoch does on propaganda.

You cant change the constitution because it will upset minorities is stated by someone who chanhged the constitution without worrying about minorities or whatever. Changing constitution in any country is usually done when a majority agree to it.

This is getting bizarre. Quite why this nonsensical news story is even in the paper is amazing.

Basically, dissolving PTP this time around will lead to utter chaos. If you repeatedly give people no outlet within the system you drive them into desperate places, and if a law causes more problems than it prevents it is time to change the law. Laws that society do not accept are doomed. Lets hope for the sake of the country people at the top can be sensible enough to come to a deal rather than continue the insane bickering with nobody giving a toss about the country. That deal will have to worked out under a PTP government as they won the "let the people decide" election and their enemies must realise and accept this even if it means they have a lot weaker hand and will have to hence give more ground than they get

Sure. Let them allow parties to cheat, just so people don't get angry.

Everyone cheats but only one side ever gets really punished. This is the message that over the half the country believes including loads of Dem supporters who will admit it. Dont people see this as a problem?

[animatic]

Bottom line Thaksin sees the 2007 charter as:

Having checks and balances he can't get around

So by going back to the '97 he can in someways reset the clock on several cases against him

And he will be back to his old level of control, which is exactly why they wrote the 2007.

There was a referendum and the public picked the '97. Yes. or No.

But he didn't get to control the referendum situation so he wants to redo.

Oh the utter horror of critics criticizing Thaksin's motives through PTP.

Who could imagine such disrespect for such a worthy man of the people.

Meet John Doe.

Edited July 13, 2011 by animatic

[Deez]

Critics dont like the PTP. No surprise there. Same as critics of the dems dont like the dems. This isnt news and would seem to waste as many column inches as Murdoch does on propaganda.

You cant change the constitution because it will upset minorities is stated by someone who chanhged the constitution without worrying about minorities or whatever. Changing constitution in any country is usually done when a majority agree to it.

This is getting bizarre. Quite why this nonsensical news story is even in the paper is amazing.

Basically, dissolving PTP this time around will lead to utter chaos. If you repeatedly give people no outlet within the system you drive them into desperate places, and if a law causes more problems than it prevents it is time to change the law. Laws that society do not accept are doomed. Lets hope for the sake of the country people at the top can be sensible enough to come to a deal rather than continue the insane bickering with nobody giving a toss about the country. That deal will have to worked out under a PTP government as they won the "let the people decide" election and their enemies must realise and accept this even if it means they have a lot weaker hand and will have to hence give more ground than they get

Some good points, but based on your reasoning (laws that society dont accept are doomed) there would be no laws at all in thailand. Thais do not accept any law that doesnt benefit them.

[Crushdepth]

Critics dont like the PTP. No surprise there. Same as critics of the dems dont like the dems. This isnt news and would seem to waste as many column inches as Murdoch does on propaganda.

You cant change the constitution because it will upset minorities is stated by someone who chanhged the constitution without worrying about minorities or whatever. Changing constitution in any country is usually done when a majority agree to it.

This is getting bizarre. Quite why this nonsensical news story is even in the paper is amazing.

Basically, dissolving PTP this time around will lead to utter chaos. If you repeatedly give people no outlet within the system you drive them into desperate places, and if a law causes more problems than it prevents it is time to change the law. Laws that society do not accept are doomed. Lets hope for the sake of the country people at the top can be sensible enough to come to a deal rather than continue the insane bickering with nobody giving a toss about the country. That deal will have to worked out under a PTP government as they won the "let the people decide" election and their enemies must realise and accept this even if it means they have a lot weaker hand and will have to hence give more ground than they get

Sure. Let them allow parties to cheat, just so people don't get angry.

Everyone cheats but only one side ever gets really punished. This is the message that over the half the country believes including loads of Dem supporters who will admit it. Dont people see this as a problem?

The solution is to punish them both. Turning a blind eye to one or another will just perpetuate the problem.

[jayboy]

Bottom line Thaksin sees the 2007 charter as:

Having checks and balances he can't get around

So by going back to the '97 he can in someways reset the clock on several cases against him

And he will be back to his old level of control, which is exactly why they wrote the 2007.

There was a referendum and the public picked the '97. Yes. or No.

But he didn't get to control the referendum situation so he wants to redo.

The call for the restoration of the excellent 1997 constitution - or something very similar - has been called for by many across the political spectrum.

The junta's constitution was written to please the military and other non elected elite elements.The referendum passed not least because the military imposed government had made it clear it would be promulgated no matter what.Even so the close call in the popular vote was a slap in the face to the elite thugs.

[whybother]

Rather than go back to the 1997 version, with all it's flaws, why not just fix the current one.

[jayboy]

Rather than go back to the 1997 version, with all it's flaws, why not just fix the current one.

The 1997 constitution was a model of its kind drafted under the leadership of a highly respected statesman, Khun Anand , not a rigged constitution pushed through by a military junta.Nobody is suggesting the 1997 version shouldn't be adapted to the current situation but the suggestion that the rigged document should be the template is ludicrous.

For those unfamiliar with the background to the 1997 charter there is a paper by James Klein (a prominent foreign critic of Thaksin incidentally) of the Asia Foundation which may be helpful.Sorry I can't provide the link since it's in pdf format but googling will find it easily enough.

Edited July 13, 2011 by jayboy

[yoshiwara]

Reconciliation is purely a propaganda backstop for Thaksin. Amnesty would still leave the convictions in place. Plus if there was a re-investigation it would not be on the basis of re-examining the evidence ( I mean how do you re-visit funneling money through the family chauffeur?) It would be on the basis of process (abuse of). What is sometimes referred to as getting off on a technicality. Also the core element of his crimes were economic not political, so there is a problem there in providing amnesty for thieves and crooks as opposed to politicians. So here comes the constitution issue to provide the necessary backdrop to getting Thaksin off the conviction hook. As you watch the current consitution argument being played out with lots of bullshit 'principles' fluttered about remember it is all about Thaksin. No ifs and no buts.

[hammered]

Critics dont like the PTP. No surprise there. Same as critics of the dems dont like the dems. This isnt news and would seem to waste as many column inches as Murdoch does on propaganda.

You cant change the constitution because it will upset minorities is stated by someone who chanhged the constitution without worrying about minorities or whatever. Changing constitution in any country is usually done when a majority agree to it.

This is getting bizarre. Quite why this nonsensical news story is even in the paper is amazing.

Basically, dissolving PTP this time around will lead to utter chaos. If you repeatedly give people no outlet within the system you drive them into desperate places, and if a law causes more problems than it prevents it is time to change the law. Laws that society do not accept are doomed. Lets hope for the sake of the country people at the top can be sensible enough to come to a deal rather than continue the insane bickering with nobody giving a toss about the country. That deal will have to worked out under a PTP government as they won the "let the people decide" election and their enemies must realise and accept this even if it means they have a lot weaker hand and will have to hence give more ground than they get

Sure. Let them allow parties to cheat, just so people don't get angry.

Everyone cheats but only one side ever gets really punished. This is the message that over the half the country believes including loads of Dem supporters who will admit it. Dont people see this as a problem?

The solution is to punish them both. Turning a blind eye to one or another will just perpetuate the problem.

The trouble is that is exactly what most people think has been going on for years now, and in there lies the problem

[scorecard]

Bottom line Thaksin sees the 2007 charter as:

Having checks and balances he can't get around

So by going back to the '97 he can in someways reset the clock on several cases against him

And he will be back to his old level of control, which is exactly why they wrote the 2007.

There was a referendum and the public picked the '97. Yes. or No.

But he didn't get to control the referendum situation so he wants to redo.

The call for the restoration of the excellent 1997 constitution - or something very similar - has been called for by many across the political spectrum.

The junta's constitution was written to please the military and other non elected elite elements.The referendum passed not least because the military imposed government had made it clear it would be promulgated no matter what.Even so the close call in the popular vote was a slap in the face to the elite thugs.

"...please the militaty..."

You could say that. Others would suggest it was written to try to get closer to a credible situation of what is and what is not appropriate.

Other of course ar demanding a return to the 2006 document.

Personally I believe it needs further big teeth to much more seriously punish vote buying (buyer and seller), false declarations etc., for candidates I would propose that vote buyers when caught are banned from any form of political activity for life and get 12 months compulsory jail, and barred for life from holding a government job, any level, and banned from sitting on govt enterprise boards and committees for life.

For politicians and their staff caught in corruption, compulsory jail at least 2 years, plus must hand back the money plus 50%, plus by law their photos printed full page in at least 10 newspapers for 7 days, plus a summary of the money stolen plus a profile of what that same amount of money could have bought e.g. Three new modern hospitals, five new well equipped air conditioned schools, 50 kilometres of underground train lines and trains, 1,000 kilometres of fast train and equiopment with examples of where this length of train line could have serviced, etc.

[animatic]

Bottom line Thaksin sees the 2007 charter as:

Having checks and balances he can't get around

So by going back to the '97 he can in someways reset the clock on several cases against him

And he will be back to his old level of control, which is exactly why they wrote the 2007.

There was a referendum and the public picked the '97. Yes. or No.

But he didn't get to control the referendum situation so he wants to redo.

The call for the restoration of the excellent 1997 constitution - or something very similar - has been called for by many across the political spectrum.

The junta's constitution was written to please the military and other non elected elite elements.The referendum passed not least because the military imposed government had made it clear it would be promulgated no matter what.Even so the close call in the popular vote was a slap in the face to the elite thugs.

No, they made it clear the public could say yes to the 2007,

or they would start again with a new one.

It wasn't a close call it was a solid win,

more than any parties had ever gotten, even as pre-selected coalitions under one banner.

[scorecard]

Bottom line Thaksin sees the 2007 charter as:

Having checks and balances he can't get around

So by going back to the '97 he can in someways reset the clock on several cases against him

And he will be back to his old level of control, which is exactly why they wrote the 2007.

There was a referendum and the public picked the '97. Yes. or No.

But he didn't get to control the referendum situation so he wants to redo.

Oh the utter horror of critics criticizing Thaksin's motives through PTP.

Who could imagine such disrespect for such a worthy man of the people.

Meet John Doe.

Part quote from Animatic: ".....So by going back to the '97 he can in someways reset the clock on several cases against him ....."

Interesting point - I'll go one step further. If Thaksin was really genuine about 'resetting the clock' to the situation before the coup, then he should be demanding a 'reset' back to the situation before the first ever coup, or at least 'reset' to a situation where the main players are still alive.

[whybother]

Rather than go back to the 1997 version, with all it's flaws, why not just fix the current one.

The 1997 constitution was a model of its kind drafted under the leadership of a highly respected statesman, Khun Anand , not a rigged constitution pushed through by a military junta.Nobody is suggesting the 1997 version shouldn't be adapted to the current situation but the suggestion that the rigged document should be the template is ludicrous.

For those unfamiliar with the background to the 1997 charter there is a paper by James Klein (a prominent foreign critic of Thaksin incidentally) of the Asia Foundation which may be helpful.Sorry I can't provide the link since it's in pdf format but googling will find it easily enough.

But it had it's flaws. So rather than going back to it, why not just fix the one they have?

Why do they so often start from scratch when they come up with their constitutions? Take one that basically works (whether that is the 1997 or 2007 one) and fix the flaws. It's irrelevant how each of them came into being. There are good parts and bad parts in each of them. Even if the 2007 constitution was forced on the people, it doesn't mean it should just be thrown in the bin. Fix it.

At worst, fix the 1997 one before they reinstall it.

The only reason Thaksin and his supporters want the 1997 constitution back - untouched - is because with it he is able to bypass all the checks and balances.

[hammered]

Basically it is up to parliament if they want to change the constitution or ammend it into a previous version or even replace it. Every time there is a coup the unelected coupmeisters rip an old consty up and replace it with a new one, so why wouldnt an elected government be as entitled to do so?

There has been a precedent of referenda established on replaciong/ammending constitutions too and so it would seem right to continue that.

I cant see the problem in all of this as long as it is done properly. Hell if people want to argue it is only to bring back Thaksin they can do so during the referendum camapign. I think it may well backfire on them to make such an arguement, but it will be their democratic right to do so and if enough people agree and dont want to see him back they can reject the whole thing.

[Bkkorupcountry]

Critics dont like the PTP. No surprise there. Same as critics of the dems dont like the dems. This isnt news and would seem to waste as many column inches as Murdoch does on propaganda.

You cant change the constitution because it will upset minorities is stated by someone who chanhged the constitution without worrying about minorities or whatever. Changing constitution in any country is usually done when a majority agree to it.

This is getting bizarre. Quite why this nonsensical news story is even in the paper is amazing.

Basically, dissolving PTP this time around will lead to utter chaos. If you repeatedly give people no outlet within the system you drive them into desperate places, and if a law causes more problems than it prevents it is time to change the law. Laws that society do not accept are doomed. Lets hope for the sake of the country people at the top can be sensible enough to come to a deal rather than continue the insane bickering with nobody giving a toss about the country. That deal will have to worked out under a PTP government as they won the "let the people decide" election and their enemies must realise and accept this even if it means they have a lot weaker hand and will have to hence give more ground than they get

Sure. Let them allow parties to cheat, just so people don't get angry.

Everyone cheats but only one side ever gets really punished. This is the message that over the half the country believes including loads of Dem supporters who will admit it. Dont people see this as a problem?

The solution is to punish them both. Turning a blind eye to one or another will just perpetuate the problem.

I presume that you mean punishing both parties (for cheating, real or alleged)? So let's say both parties get dissolved. What next? Utter chaos and total turmoil. Won't this be worse for the country?

[sirchai]

If it's just a matter of a Yes/No question, would the PTP get the majority they want?

I doubt it.

Thaksin is widely seen as the de-facto leader of the Pheu Thai Party, which won an overwhelming majority in the July 3 general elections.

He isn't just seen as the leader. He is the leader. Full stop. I hope his sister will receive a free tablet PC with a mirror on it.....:jap:

[sirchai]

If it's just a matter of a Yes/No question, would the PTP get the majority they want?

I doubt it.

I think it's time to invent a time machine..................:jap:

[Samuian]

If it's just a matter of a Yes/No question, would the PTP get the majority they want?

I doubt it.

Absolute YES as in landslide electoral success, absolute majority in one go, the second time... someone makes sure nothing is left to chance!

well we'll see... let the show begin!

[whybother]

If it's just a matter of a Yes/No question, would the PTP get the majority they want?

I doubt it.

Absolute YES as in landslide electoral success, absolute majority in one go, the second time... someone makes sure nothing is left to chance!

well we'll see... let the show begin!

Well, they couldn't get a majority in the election ... and that's even with a lot of people saying that they voted for PTP but not because of Thaksin.

So, if a referendum is about returning the 1997 constitution so that "Thaksin's crimes can be whitewashed", I think they will struggle.

Edited July 13, 2011 by whybother

[Bkkorupcountry]

If it's just a matter of a Yes/No question, would the PTP get the majority they want?

I doubt it.

Absolute YES as in landslide electoral success, absolute majority in one go, the second time... someone makes sure nothing is left to chance!

well we'll see... let the show begin!

Well, they couldn't get a majority in the election ... and that's even with a lot of people saying that they voted for PTP but not because of Thaksin.

So, if a referendum is about returning the 1997 constitution so that "Thaksin's crimes can be whitewashed", I think they will struggle.

Any recent elections in any part of the democratic world where a party got a clear majority? I know that the Tories did not get a majority nor did Merkel's CDU (don't know about US politics, it's just a circus anyway).

[RedNIvar]

Any recent elections in any part of the democratic world where a party got a clear majority? I know that the Tories did not get a majority nor did Merkel's CDU (don't know about US politics, it's just a circus anyway).

Yes, Singapore.

[Bkkorupcountry]

Any recent elections in any part of the democratic world where a party got a clear majority? I know that the Tories did not get a majority nor did Merkel's CDU (don't know about US politics, it's just a circus anyway).

Yes, Singapore.

Hahaha. Singapore, democratic? Yes, a one party democracy

[RedNIvar]

Any recent elections in any part of the democratic world where a party got a clear majority? I know that the Tories did not get a majority nor did Merkel's CDU (don't know about US politics, it's just a circus anyway).

Yes, Singapore.

Hahaha. Singapore, democratic? Yes, a one party democracy

Unfortunately, it is officially classified as a democracy. So is whatever system they have here, it is also called democracy...... Go figure.

[Neurath]

Any recent elections in any part of the democratic world where a party got a clear majority? I know that the Tories did not get a majority nor did Merkel's CDU (don't know about US politics, it's just a circus anyway).

Yes, Singapore.

Canada!

I suggest going back to the 1997 constitution and, under it's provisions, re-examining Mr. Thaksin's assets concealment case under the constitutional court. That would be fun.

[whybother]

Any recent elections in any part of the democratic world where a party got a clear majority? I know that the Tories did not get a majority nor did Merkel's CDU (don't know about US politics, it's just a circus anyway).

How is that relevant?