Yingluck Government - Critics Doubt Pheu Thai Motive

[gregb]

Changing the constitution without a valid reason (and "we don't like it" does not constitute a valid reason) would render the government illegitimate. If there are specific areas that need to be addressed there are procedures for amending it, but they each need to be justified point by point.

When the new charter was written, the charter writers put each element in there for a very specific reason. If you are going to amend them, you need to justify the reasons for each specific amendment. You can not wholesale change the law because it suits your purpose of whitewashing a criminal.

Throwing out a constitution in its entirety is a coup, and such an action would justify bringing in the military to defeat those attempting it. The constitution is the highest law of the land. It stands higher than any elected official, no matter what kind of popular support they may have.

The only way to reinstate the 1997 constitution wholesale is with another coup. Is that what the red supporters are truly advocating? My how the tables have turned...

[scorecard]

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.

Depends on what 'goodies' are offered.

Maybe a guaranteed permanent reduction in the cost of pork and eggs and gasoline and diesel to pre paymaster days, free conversion to LPG gas for taxi drivers, and special credit card with 1,000,000 instant cedit limit so taxi drivers can all rush out and buy new cars, back-up credit card for farmers, plus special purpose credit card with limit of 1,000,000Baht for all factory workers, free pole dancing lessons for all red shirt ladies, one off pay rise for all old graduates so that they get the balance between their first pay rate and the guaranteed 15,000 start salary for new graduates, a reinforcement of the 'everybody will be rich in six months' promise, and to be fair two free tablet PCs as a compensation for those folks unfortunate enough to live in an area where there is either no electricity or no internet signal.

But solid progress on education reform will not be mentioned.

Edited July 13, 2011 by scorecard

[whybother]

Depends on what 'goodies' are offered.

Maybe reduction in the cost of pork and eggs and gasoline and diesel, free conversion to LPG gas for taxi drivers, and special credit card with 1,000,000 instant cedit limit so taxi drivers can all rush out and buy new cars, back-up credit card for farmers, plus special purpose credit card with limit of 1,000,000Baht for all factory workers, free pole dancing lessons for all red shirt ladies, one off pay rise for all old graduates so that they get the balance between their first pay rate and the guaranteed 15,000 start salary for new graduates, a reinforcement of the 'everybody will be rich in six months' promise, and to be fair two free tablet PCs as a compensation for those folks unfortunate enough to live in an area where there is either no electricity or no internet signal.

But solid progress on education reform will not be mentioned.

I didn't realise all of those things were available under the 1997 constitution.

[rixalex]

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

Perhaps by those across the political spectrum who stand to gain from its inherent lack of strength in keeping power in check.

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.

Amuses me how it's always made to sound (by some), like the threat of the constitution "being promulgated no matter what" really scared the bejibbies out of people and got them voting the way the elite wanted.

It's a weaker version of the argument that people only voted PTP for fear of the red shirts taking to the streets.

Face it, people voted for the 2007 constitution because they were happy enough with it, not because of fear of what would happen if they didn't.

[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).

How is that relevant?

Only in so far as you keep harping on about "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"

There are very few elections whereby one party actually gets a majority except where only one or two parties are contesting.

[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?

Only in so far as you keep harping on about "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"

There are very few elections whereby one party actually gets a majority except where only one or two parties are contesting.

But we are talking about a referendum to re-install the 1997 constitution. Other countries aren't relevant.

Most people that wanted Thaksin back would have voted for PTP. There were also people that would have voted for PTP that don't want Thaksin back.

Going back to the 1997 constitution would be widely seen as allowing Thaksin to come back.

If the PTP can't get a majority in the election (heavily based around Thaksin), they're unlikely to get a majority in a referendum that will bring Thaksin back with his crimes whitewashed.

[scorecard]

Depends on what 'goodies' are offered.

Maybe reduction in the cost of pork and eggs and gasoline and diesel, free conversion to LPG gas for taxi drivers, and special credit card with 1,000,000 instant cedit limit so taxi drivers can all rush out and buy new cars, back-up credit card for farmers, plus special purpose credit card with limit of 1,000,000Baht for all factory workers, free pole dancing lessons for all red shirt ladies, one off pay rise for all old graduates so that they get the balance between their first pay rate and the guaranteed 15,000 start salary for new graduates, a reinforcement of the 'everybody will be rich in six months' promise, and to be fair two free tablet PCs as a compensation for those folks unfortunate enough to live in an area where there is either no electricity or no internet signal.

But solid progress on education reform will not be mentioned.

I didn't realise all of those things were available under the 1997 constitution.

I guess you missed the point of my attempt at wit, deliberately.

[scorecard]

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

Perhaps by those across the political spectrum who stand to gain from its inherent lack of strength in keeping power in check.

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.

Amuses me how it's always made to sound (by some), like the threat of the constitution "being promulgated no matter what" really scared the bejibbies out of people and got them voting the way the elite wanted.

It's a weaker version of the argument that people only voted PTP for fear of the red shirts taking to the streets.

Face it, people voted for the 2007 constitution because they were happy enough with it, not because of fear of what would happen if they didn't.

I was here. I watched all of this carefully. I totally agree: "Face it, people voted for the 2007 constitution because they were happy enough with it, not because of fear of what would happen if they didn't".

Or, put it another way, many people saw it as a well balanced and appropriate step forward and in the right direction.

Or, put it another way, many people saw the content as sorely needed, to prevent one person from gaining so much control / to prevent any person from being able to easily buy their way into power / to prevent one person from being able to so easily intimidate and brush aside the checks and balances.

[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).

How is that relevant?

Only in so far as you keep harping on about "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"

There are very few elections whereby one party actually gets a majority except where only one or two parties are contesting.

But we are talking about a referendum to re-install the 1997 constitution. Other countries aren't relevant.

Most people that wanted Thaksin back would have voted for PTP. There were also people that would have voted for PTP that don't want Thaksin back.

Going back to the 1997 constitution would be widely seen as allowing Thaksin to come back.

If the PTP can't get a majority in the election (heavily based around Thaksin), they're unlikely to get a majority in a referendum that will bring Thaksin back with his crimes whitewashed.

Point taken

[lannarebirth]

I have a different take on this. Most of Thaksin's crimes would still be recognized under the 1997 Constitution. I think he wants to roll back to take away the amnesty the coup leaders gave themselves in the 2007 Constitution. If he can get those Army A-holes swinging in the wind I'm sure he believes he can convert them 100% to his way of thinking.

[steveromagnino]

It will never be phrased as 'do you want the 1997 constitution which would enable Thaksin to come back'

it would be in font size 200 on every red poster across Thailand....

vote for the 1997 constitution written by the people and completely reflective of Thai culture and upholding this and that and the best thing ever*

or

vote for the lousy one the military forced you to choose in 2007

* and coincidentally might make all charges against Thaksin disappear by negating the legality of the proceedings against him (not that he is actually innocent, just that the court was not legitimate) - in font size 2.

[wolfmanjack]

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

I doubt it.

Any constitutional changes should require a 2/3rds majority vote. a simple majority should not be able to change something as important as a constitution.

[hammered]

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

I doubt it.

Any constitutional changes should require a 2/3rds majority vote. a simple majority should not be able to change something as important as a constitution.

The precedent in Thailand is simple majority of those voting. Last time 58% of the under 70% who voted. Or there is the other precedent. Have a coup and immediately ditch the consititution. If taking the democratic route it will be up to parliament to decide on what vehicle is needed to change the constitution. Technically they can do it themselves

[whybother]

The precedent in Thailand is simple majority of those voting. Last time 58% of the under 70% who voted. Or there is the other precedent. Have a coup and immediately ditch the consititution. If taking the democratic route it will be up to parliament to decide on what vehicle is needed to change the constitution. Technically they can do it themselves

When they changed the constitution recently (in parliament), didn't the need a 2/3 majority of both houses? Of course that's different to a referendum.

[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!

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.

Maybe... I asked some staff around if they knew the difference between the previous and the new Constitution they wouldn't have a clou, not of ANY interest!

And here is plenty of "land" to manipulate, see the election result!

And see how many, many of the facts are simply turned around and twisted by the "red army"... it's not a good sign combined with the rude tactics, force the army to move... and then say "see it's a dictator ship, it's a military junta" and make the world believe that the wolf is really a sheep... turned into a wolf by the evil opponents, these folks have gone a long way for their master, they will go the whole nine yards - I am convinced!

Cause there is much, much more on the agenda, not much in the open yet, cause it could be charged as LM... well, well, well....

let's see if he will succeed, I don't think so, but it will cause a lot of pain and suffering to a whole lot of people as well as to this country, someone claims he "loves soooo much"!

[Samuian]

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?

Only in so far as you keep harping on about "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"

There are very few elections whereby one party actually gets a majority except where only one or two parties are contesting.

But we are talking about a referendum to re-install the 1997 constitution. Other countries aren't relevant.

Most people that wanted Thaksin back would have voted for PTP. There were also people that would have voted for PTP that don't want Thaksin back.

Going back to the 1997 constitution would be widely seen as allowing Thaksin to come back.

If the PTP can't get a majority in the election (heavily based around Thaksin), they're unlikely to get a majority in a referendum that will bring Thaksin back with his crimes whitewashed.

Yep and that attempt to whitewash is only the beginning, say the overture to the first act, why (Nattawut, Noppadon & friends) are all so mad in and behind it.... well they could be the Generals or Vize-Presidents of tomorrow's new autocratic yxzland.. well, well, well... not to forget that soemone feels badly hurt and must have at least a chest full with rancor!

Edited July 14, 2011 by Samuian

[Samuian]

The precedent in Thailand is simple majority of those voting. Last time 58% of the under 70% who voted. Or there is the other precedent. Have a coup and immediately ditch the consititution. If taking the democratic route it will be up to parliament to decide on what vehicle is needed to change the constitution. Technically they can do it themselves

When they changed the constitution recently (in parliament), didn't the need a 2/3 majority of both houses? Of course that's different to a referendum.

Well, both former puppet goverment swere at it, but ran out of time or had the yellow shirts in their necks..

[Khun Jean]

I have a different take on this. Most of Thaksin's crimes would still be recognized under the 1997 Constitution. I think he wants to roll back to take away the amnesty the coup leaders gave themselves in the 2007 Constitution. If he can get those Army A-holes swinging in the wind I'm sure he believes he can convert them 100% to his way of thinking.

You where in Thailand when the coup happened?

It was their constitutional duty to take over. The country was without a government and no election date was set.

what else should have been done? Thaksin as caretaker forever?

Did you see the people on the street? Didn't you see people react relieved when the military took over to establish order again, just for a while so a new government could be established? Was a shot fired?

Did Thaksin's proxy party not win the elections, didn't they screw everything up (Samak, Thaksin brother in law)?.

etc. etc.

[lannarebirth]

I have a different take on this. Most of Thaksin's crimes would still be recognized under the 1997 Constitution. I think he wants to roll back to take away the amnesty the coup leaders gave themselves in the 2007 Constitution. If he can get those Army A-holes swinging in the wind I'm sure he believes he can convert them 100% to his way of thinking.

You where in Thailand when the coup happened?

It was their constitutional duty to take over. The country was without a government and no election date was set.

what else should have been done? Thaksin as caretaker forever?

Did you see the people on the street? Didn't you see people react relieved when the military took over to establish order again, just for a while so a new government could be established? Was a shot fired?

Did Thaksin's proxy party not win the elections, didn't they screw everything up (Samak, Thaksin brother in law)?.

etc. etc.

Yes I was. I make no judgement regarding the coup makers. Speaking for myself I was extremely grateful that the Army removed that cancer on Thai society. That doesn't mean that this government won't go after them if they think they can get some political mileage out of it. Personally if they are going to rehash all these illegalities, which I'm in favor of, I think the start point should be the 2001 Assets Concealment Trial and not the coup.

[jdinasia]

lanna --- POO (point of order) ----

It wasn't the military's constitutional duty, but they did see it as a duty under their oath.

The Thai military does not take an oath to uphold the constitution. The military swears loyalty to the King and the Nation but not to any document or government.

[siampolee]

jdinasia.

My commission was sworn to our or my ""Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the second when I was commissioned in the 1960,s"" Not the government nor the War Office or the Admiralty

One presumes that same crirteria has been copied and is applied here in Thailand, Sovereign person rather than political entities..

Edited July 14, 2011 by siampolee

[snawa]

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.

well said!

[rubl]

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.

well said!

I was trying to ignore Jayboy's post, but it's getting difficult.

Whereas I agree the part on absolving the coup makers/players in the new constitution was glaringly undemocratic, the rest of the new constitution didn't seem too bad. No changes during PM Samak/Somchai governments and only minor improvements during the PM Abhisit government, all properly voted for and approved by House and Senate.

The inclusion of 'non elected elite' and 'elite thugs' suggests a closed mind to reality and a minimal chance of reconciliation or even trying to. Speaking in absolute terms tends to do that

Edited July 14, 2011 by rubl

[whybother]

... No changes during PM Samak/Somchai governments ...

The yellow shirts might have had a little bit to do with that.

But agree with the rest of you your sentiment.

What is it that is actually wrong with the current constitution? Yes, it was brought in by the coup government, but what about the content. What is wrong with the content?

Edited July 14, 2011 by whybother