Govt Dominance Over CDC Feared: Opposition Whip

[Lite Beer]

Govt dominance over CDC feared: opposition whip

The Nation

Opposition whip Narit Khumnurak on Thursday voiced concern about the coalition's dominance to form the Constitution Drafting Assembly, seen as a key to the outcome for the charter rewrite.

"I don't completely trust in the government because certain elements might try to dominate the CDC formation," he said.

Narit said even though the coalition pledged to have charter writers elected from 77 provinces, he was still concerned that the CDC elections could be rigged to ensure the pro-government outcome.

He reminded the government to push for charter amendments designed to serve the public.

He said an ulterior motive to amend the charter to rescue one man, fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, would end up fuelling the political volatility.

Pheu Thai MP Phiraphan Phalusuk said the main coalition party would move ahead in sponsoring a motion to amend Article 291 of the Constitution, paving way for the CDC formation to takc charge of the rewriting process.

Article 291 precribes for Parliament to take charge of charter amendments. The provision must be amended in order to waiver and transfer the sole mandate of Parliament to the CDC.

Phiraphun said he expected the CDC to be formed within the current House session. The CDC would be based on the one formed to draft the 1997 charter.

The CDC, to be known as CDC 3, will comprise elected writers from all 77 provinces and appointed professionals and legal experts, he said.

The first CDC was formed to take charge of the 1997 charter. The second CDC was formed for the 2007 Constitution.

The main coalition party resolved on Tuesday to activate the charter rewrite but allowed the government to have a final say on the timing.

-- The Nation 2011-12-22

[Fookhaht]

Cool! Another constitution! This makes #18, right?

A few interesting tidbits from Wikipedia...[source llink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Thailand]

"Thailand has had 17 charters and constitutions, reflecting the high degree of political instability and frequency of military coups faced by the nation. After successful coups, military regimes abrogated existing constitutions and promulgated new ones.

"The 1997 Constitution, often called the "People's Constitution," was considered a landmark in terms of the degree of public participation involved in its drafting as well as the democratic nature of its articles. It stipulated a bicameral legislature, both houses of which were elected. Many human rights were explicitly acknowledged for the first time, and measures were established to increase the stability of elected governments.

"Thailand's current constitution was promulgated in 2007, replacing an interim constitution promulgated in 2006 after an army-led coup. The 2007 Constitution was written by a junta-appointed group of drafters, but was approved by a public referendum. Prior to the referendum, the junta passed a law making it illegal to publicly criticize the draft."

Edited December 22, 2011 by Fookhaht

[airconsult]

Cool! Another constitution! This makes #18, right?

A few interesting tidbits from Wikipedia...[source llink: http://en.wikipedia....ion_of_Thailand]

"Thailand has had 17 charters and constitutions, reflecting the high degree of political instability and frequency of military coups faced by the nation. After successful coups, military regimes abrogated existing constitutions and promulgated new ones.

"The 1997 Constitution, often called the "People's Constitution," was considered a landmark in terms of the degree of public participation involved in its drafting as well as the democratic nature of its articles. It stipulated a bicameral legislature, both houses of which were elected. Many human rights were explicitly acknowledged for the first time, and measures were established to increase the stability of elected governments.

"Thailand's current constitution was promulgated in 2007, replacing an interim constitution promulgated in 2006 after an army-led coup. The 2007 Constitution was written by a junta-appointed group of drafters, but was approved by a public referendum. Prior to the referendum, the junta passed a law making it illegal to publicly criticize the draft."

You forgot the very thinly veiled suggestion from the generals at the time..... paraphrased - If the new constitution is not accepted by the voters, then we cannot hold an election....

[Moruya]

Democrats: "We are concerned that certain parties may try to dominate the process."

Pheu Thai: "We will base the new one on the 1997 version"

I think the Dems are right already..........

[Fookhaht]

Democrats: "We are concerned that certain parties may try to dominate the process."

Pheu Thai: "We will base the new one on the 1997 version"

I think the Dems are right already..........

Face it, Thailand only needs two constitutions: one for each major party.

Every time the power of government switches to a new party, just use that constitution. Automatic.

Would save a lot of blood, sweat, tears and referendums, wouldn't it?

Edited December 22, 2011 by Fookhaht

[Moruya]

Democrats: "We are concerned that certain parties may try to dominate the process."

Pheu Thai: "We will base the new one on the 1997 version"

I think the Dems are right already..........

Face it, Thailand only needs two constitutions: one for each major party.

Every time the power of government switches to a new party, just use that constitution. Automatic.

Would save a lot of blood, sweat, tears and referendums, wouldn't it?

Can't argue with that too much! Ha ha!

What they really need is for the Constitution to be administered by a higher office that is out of reach of MPs. Although thinking about it I would take most areas of governance away from this chimpanze's tea party of a government.

[hammered]

It is noticeable that the democrats didnt mind at all when an unelected government chosen by a military junta chose a cda but have a sudden worry when an elected government will do the same.

[whybother]

It is noticeable that the democrats didnt mind at all when an unelected government chosen by a military junta chose a cda but have a sudden worry when an elected government will do the same.

That might have something to do with the military putting a CDC together to write a constitution that enforced the checks and balances, whereas the PTP want to put a CDC together to get their boss off criminal charges.

[Fookhaht]

It is noticeable that the democrats didnt mind at all when an unelected government chosen by a military junta chose a cda but have a sudden worry when an elected government will do the same.

That might have something to do with the military putting a CDC together to write a constitution that enforced the checks and balances,

Get real.

The current military-instigated constitution pushed the military further out of the checks-and-balance process. That was their purpose, and it was transparent. Your spectacles have to be really foggy to have missed that one.

[whybother]

It is noticeable that the democrats didnt mind at all when an unelected government chosen by a military junta chose a cda but have a sudden worry when an elected government will do the same.

That might have something to do with the military putting a CDC together to write a constitution that enforced the checks and balances,

Get real.

The current military-instigated constitution pushed the military further out of the checks-and-balance process. That was their purpose, and it was transparent. Your spectacles have to be really foggy to have missed that one.

Do you mean the part that leaves the lower/middle promotions in the military to decide rather than putting them in the politicians hands? Yes ... real bad, that one.

[Fookhaht]

It is noticeable that the democrats didnt mind at all when an unelected government chosen by a military junta chose a cda but have a sudden worry when an elected government will do the same.

That might have something to do with the military putting a CDC together to write a constitution that enforced the checks and balances,

Get real.

The current military-instigated constitution pushed the military further out of the checks-and-balance process. That was their purpose, and it was transparent. Your spectacles have to be really foggy to have missed that one.

Do you mean the part that leaves the lower/middle promotions in the military to decide rather than putting them in the politicians hands? Yes ... real bad, that one.

No, the other 99% part.

You can find even some nourishment in a garbage can. Likewise, you can always find a morsel of evidence to support your delusion in a sea of contradictory information.

[whybother]

No, the other 99% part.

You can find even some nourishment in a garbage can. Likewise, you can always find a morsel of evidence to support your delusion in a sea of contradictory information.

Show me a clause in the 2007 constitution that your talking about so I know what you're talking about ... otherwise you're just sounding like the standard "It's bad because they did it" crowd.

[Fookhaht]

No, the other 99% part.

You can find even some nourishment in a garbage can. Likewise, you can always find a morsel of evidence to support your delusion in a sea of contradictory information.

Show me a clause in the 2007 constitution that your talking about so I know what you're talking about ... otherwise you're just sounding like the standard "It's bad because they did it" crowd.

I'm not going to do your homework for you, but just a couple of things below to get you started on your much-needed research. A simple search on TV alone will remind you of the drawbacks of this ill-begotten document.

In the following points, make note that the 2007 constitution is as infamous for things it left out (from the 1997 constitution) as for the things it added:

1. The 2007 constitution did away with an elected senate; resorting to an appointed senate.

2. The 2007 constitution provided amnesty to the military junta for staging the September coup

3. The National Human Rights Commission requested to present suggestions on what human rights clauses would be enshrined in the new constitution, but the request was rejected by the drafters. CDC chairman Prasong Soonsiri claimed that the Commission had "no time to listen to everyone." CDC member Pairoj Phromsarn claimed "there will be no end" to deliberation if everyone were allowed to give suggestion

4. Guidelines from the junta included those from General Saprang Kalayanamitr, junta assistant secretary-general,who noted that military coups against the government "should never be ruled out." The abrogated 1997 constitution had outlawed coups.s

5. The way in which the constitution was foisted upon the public defied all principles of a democratic process: The military junta-appointed Constitution Drafting Assembly unanimously approved the draft in July 2007, despite a lot of public controversy about several clauses. The junta passed a law making it illegal to publicly criticize the draft. The restrictions against opposition to the draft were criticized by human rights bodies. “Even if amended to allow for ‘factual’ campaigning on the referendum, it is clear that the main purpose of the law is to intimidate and silence persons who don’t share the official view,” the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said. The ban against campaigning against the constitution was enforced. In July, 20 soldiers and 10 policemen raided the house of a politician and seized anti-charter t-shirts, banners, documents, and recorded speeches. Police also raided the Duang Prateep Foundation of former Senator Prateep Ungsongtham Hata and confiscated 4,000 posters which carried the message “It’s not illegal to vote against the draft constitution."

In addition to safeguards of the 1997 constitution trashed, the way in which this constitution came to birth was from a defiled conception: from the junta's strict self-protectionist warnings to the framers, to the final unabashed promotion of the military government during the one-sided referendum campaign: Apparently, you were no where Isaan where huge billboards, erected by the military government proclaimed: "Love the King. Care about the King. Vote in a referendum. Accept the 2007 draft charter," thereby equating opposition to the referendum as a tacit opposition to Thailand's monarchy.

Shame on anyone who supports the ill-begotten constitution of 2007.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Fookhaht

[pisico]

Democrats: "We are concerned that certain parties may try to dominate the process."

Pheu Thai: "We will base the new one on the 1997 version"

I think the Dems are right already..........

Face it, Thailand only needs two constitutions: one for each major party.

Every time the power of government switches to a new party, just use that constitution. Automatic.

Would save a lot of blood, sweat, tears and referendums, wouldn't it?

One Charter for the party in office and another one for the opposition when it is in power.

TIT. Remember the popular line: "Same, same but different."

[pisico]

No, the other 99% part.

You can find even some nourishment in a garbage can. Likewise, you can always find a morsel of evidence to support your delusion in a sea of contradictory information.

Show me a clause in the 2007 constitution that your talking about so I know what you're talking about ... otherwise you're just sounding like the standard "It's bad because they did it" crowd.

I'm not going to do your homework for you, but just a couple of things below to get you started on your much-needed research. A simple search on TV alone will remind you of the drawbacks of this ill-begotten document.

In the following points, make note that the 2007 constitution is as infamous for things it left out (from the 1997 constitution) as for the things it added:

1. The 2007 constitution did away with an elected senate; resorting to an appointed senate.

2. The 2007 constitution provided amnesty to the military junta for staging the September coup

3. The National Human Rights Commission requested to present suggestions on what human rights clauses would be enshrined in the new constitution, but the request was rejected by the drafters. CDC chairman Prasong Soonsiri claimed that the Commission had "no time to listen to everyone." CDC member Pairoj Phromsarn claimed "there will be no end" to deliberation if everyone were allowed to give suggestion

4. Guidelines from the junta included those from General Saprang Kalayanamitr, junta assistant secretary-general,who noted that military coups against the government "should never be ruled out." The abrogated 1997 constitution had outlawed coups.s

5. The way in which the constitution was foisted upon the public defied all principles of a democratic process: The military junta-appointed Constitution Drafting Assembly unanimously approved the draft in July 2007, despite a lot of public controversy about several clauses. The junta passed a law making it illegal to publicly criticize the draft. The restrictions against opposition to the draft were criticized by human rights bodies. “Even if amended to allow for ‘factual’ campaigning on the referendum, it is clear that the main purpose of the law is to intimidate and silence persons who don’t share the official view,” the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said. The ban against campaigning against the constitution was enforced. In July, 20 soldiers and 10 policemen raided the house of a politician and seized anti-charter t-shirts, banners, documents, and recorded speeches. Police also raided the Duang Prateep Foundation of former Senator Prateep Ungsongtham Hata and confiscated 4,000 posters which carried the message “It’s not illegal to vote against the draft constitution."

In addition to safeguards of the 1997 constitution trashed, the way in which this constitution came to birth was from a defiled conception: from the junta's strict self-protectionist warnings to the framers, to the final unabashed promotion of the military government during the one-sided referendum campaign: Apparently, you were no where Isaan where huge billboards, erected by the military government proclaimed: "Love the King. Care about the King. Vote in a referendum. Accept the 2007 draft charter," thereby equating opposition to the referendum as a tacit opposition to Thailand's monarchy.

Shame on anyone who supports the ill-begotten constitution of 2007.

Plus 1.

The billboards to which you make reference in your post are a matter of record and history. Reminds us of the times when Phibunsongkhran in 1938 ruled the country.

Never mind facts and/or uncensored historical events; the "usual suspects" will defend oligarchies and why it was necessary to rid the country of that monster.

Sometimes, when their OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) kicks in (which is 24/7) sounds as if they are talking about Stalin or Pol Pot.

They prefer to rant away instead of taking their meds.

Their reaction to my comment will be telling...

[sparebox2]

elected senate : If they buy their vote, these will be bad sanators

appointed senate : If they come from good highly educated oversea background, these will be good sanators

OK, what about 30/70 split. 30 elected & 70 appointed. This is be the perfect match.

[Orac]

elected senate : If they buy their vote, these will be bad sanators

appointed senate : If they come from good highly educated oversea background, these will be good sanators

OK, what about 30/70 split. 30 elected & 70 appointed. This is be the perfect match.

The problem with appointed senators is who should appoint them. The only way they would have some sort of democratic mandate would be if they were appointed by the government of the day either directly or indirectly through a government sponsored body which would somewhat defeat the object.

[sparebox2]

elected senate : If they buy their vote, these will be bad sanators

appointed senate : If they come from good highly educated oversea background, these will be good sanators

OK, what about 30/70 split. 30 elected & 70 appointed. This is be the perfect match.

The problem with appointed senators is who should appoint them. The only way they would have some sort of democratic mandate would be if they were appointed by the government of the day either directly or indirectly through a government sponsored body which would somewhat defeat the object.

Leave the job to the army. They did the appointment well.

[whybother]

I'm not going to do your homework for you, but just a couple of things below to get you started on your much-needed research. A simple search on TV alone will remind you of the drawbacks of this ill-begotten document.

In the following points, make note that the 2007 constitution is as infamous for things it left out (from the 1997 constitution) as for the things it added:

1. The 2007 constitution did away with an elected senate; resorting to an appointed senate.

2. The 2007 constitution provided amnesty to the military junta for staging the September coup

3. The National Human Rights Commission requested to present suggestions on what human rights clauses would be enshrined in the new constitution, but the request was rejected by the drafters. CDC chairman Prasong Soonsiri claimed that the Commission had "no time to listen to everyone." CDC member Pairoj Phromsarn claimed "there will be no end" to deliberation if everyone were allowed to give suggestion

4. Guidelines from the junta included those from General Saprang Kalayanamitr, junta assistant secretary-general,who noted that military coups against the government "should never be ruled out." The abrogated 1997 constitution had outlawed coups.s

5. The way in which the constitution was foisted upon the public defied all principles of a democratic process: The military junta-appointed Constitution Drafting Assembly unanimously approved the draft in July 2007, despite a lot of public controversy about several clauses. The junta passed a law making it illegal to publicly criticize the draft. The restrictions against opposition to the draft were criticized by human rights bodies. “Even if amended to allow for ‘factual’ campaigning on the referendum, it is clear that the main purpose of the law is to intimidate and silence persons who don’t share the official view,” the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said. The ban against campaigning against the constitution was enforced. In July, 20 soldiers and 10 policemen raided the house of a politician and seized anti-charter t-shirts, banners, documents, and recorded speeches. Police also raided the Duang Prateep Foundation of former Senator Prateep Ungsongtham Hata and confiscated 4,000 posters which carried the message “It’s not illegal to vote against the draft constitution."

In addition to safeguards of the 1997 constitution trashed, the way in which this constitution came to birth was from a defiled conception: from the junta's strict self-protectionist warnings to the framers, to the final unabashed promotion of the military government during the one-sided referendum campaign: Apparently, you were no where Isaan where huge billboards, erected by the military government proclaimed: "Love the King. Care about the King. Vote in a referendum. Accept the 2007 draft charter," thereby equating opposition to the referendum as a tacit opposition to Thailand's monarchy.

Shame on anyone who supports the ill-begotten constitution of 2007.

OK. Agreed on the 50/50 senate. Score ONE to you.

Amnesty. Of course they did. Would you expect them to have a coup and then go to jail and let everything go back to what it was? I'm not agreeing with the coup, but just being realistic that they would give themselves amnesty.

Human Rights clauses. Did the 1997 constitution have Human Rights clauses? Has any Thai constitution had Human Rights clauses?

Yes. The constitution was "foisted" on the people. That doesn't make the constitution bad.

Now what was the bad 99% again?