None Of 111 Banned Politicians Will Become Next PM, Says Chalerm

[webfact]

None of 111 banned politicians will become next PM, says Chalerm

THE NATION

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung rejected the possibility that a member of the "House Number 111" group of banned politicians would become premier after the five-year prohibition is lifted in May.

The 111 banned members of the defunct Thai Rak Thai party "are all capable", he said. "But how would they become MPs? Who will resign [to make way] for them? However, the decision to appoint any of them ministers is the prime minister's. I can't comment on that."

It would also be unreasonable for Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to dissolve the House of Representatives just to facilitate their entry to Parliament, he said.

On amending the Constitution, Chalerm said that while he realised the Pheu Thai Party had made it a policy priority, the government had only been in power for four months. It was for the majority to decide, he said.

Opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday that he agreed with the Election Commission (EC) chairman's idea of holding a referendum on Constitution amendments, either before or after changes are drafted.

However, he said, Article 190 had already been changed once to suit the work of the administrative branch of government. Any new change would need a good reason. Article 190 concerns the requirement that parliamentary approval be obtained before the government makes any agreement with a foreign country.

EC chairman Apichart Sukhagga-nond yesterdayon Friday suggested holding a referendum on whether the Constitution should be amended before the drafting process begins.

"I believe a referendum should be held on the issue," he said, voicing concern that changing the charter without consulting the people could trigger political turmoil.

Apichart said he did not want to comment on specific charter amendments, including a proposal to curb the mandate of independent organisations. He urged parties concerned to put public before vested interests.

EC member Sodsri Satayathum said a referendum on charter change, if held, would be the first one organised under the Constitution. Previous referenda were held under provisions of the suspended 1997 charter.

Sodsri said a referendum could ask voters to approve or reject an amended charter in its entirety, or to vote on specific provisions.

A referendum could end the quarrel between proponents and opponents of charter change, she said, adding that all sides should factor in anticipated consequences of charter amendments before drawing their conclusions.

For example, a rewrite of Article 309 might have an impact on judicial decisions involving Thaksin Shina-watra, she said. If the change were successful and helped Thaksin, this would likely lead to a rekindling of the conflict centred on the former PM, further polarising society, she said.

Chart Thai Pattana Party leader Chumpol Silapa-archa said yesterday on Friday the government should initiate and lead the charter-rewriting process within the current House session.

"The government should sponsor the motion to amend the charter," he said.

Chumpol disagreed with the idea of postponing the rewrite until August, as draft amendments would take eight to 12 months to complete.

He suggested the government nominate a respected figure to head the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) to boost confidence in the rewriting process and make it more credible. The formation of the CDA to take charge of charter change would be the best option and acceptable to all sides, Chumpol said.

"Charter change will not fuel political conflict if the government makes it clear that the change is not meant to help Thaksin," he said.

He said his party would support charter amendments related to the repealing of punishment by party dissolution, the senatorial nomination process and independent organisations.

Chart Thai Pattana adviser Somsak Prissanananthakul also called on the government to speed up the charter change, arguing that the Constitution was spawned by the 2006 coup.

Meanwhile, the former chairman of the National Legislative Assembly, Prasong Soonsiri, said he believed those supporting charter change did so not for the benefits of the majority of Thais but solely for the benefit of politicians.

-- The Nation 2011-12-24

[renaissanc]

It doesn't matter what strategy Thaksin chooses, if he comes back without going to jail, there will be constant demonstrations against him and his government. Such will be the mess that even Niribu will decide to change its orbit and avoid Earth.

[ServeUncutUncle]

But their Sisters can and will maybe.

[hanuman1]

Kudos to Abhisit for backing a referendum on constitutional change, even though the current constitution exists as a result of the threat of force during the last coup.

The more the people are brought into the political sphere, the more of a sense of ownership they have and the less resentment of political change. Seems like a relatively good way to promote peaceful outcomes.

[lannarebirth]

Kudos to Abhisit for backing a referendum on constitutional change, even though the current constitution exists as a result of the threat of force during the last coup.

The more the people are brought into the political sphere, the more of a sense of ownership they have and the less resentment of political change. Seems like a relatively good way to promote peaceful outcomes.

Wasn't the current constitution voted on in a referendum as well?

[hanuman1]

Kudos to Abhisit for backing a referendum on constitutional change, even though the current constitution exists as a result of the threat of force during the last coup.

The more the people are brought into the political sphere, the more of a sense of ownership they have and the less resentment of political change. Seems like a relatively good way to promote peaceful outcomes.

Wasn't the current constitution voted on in a referendum as well?

If it was, I sit corrected.

[lannarebirth]

Kudos to Abhisit for backing a referendum on constitutional change, even though the current constitution exists as a result of the threat of force during the last coup.

The more the people are brought into the political sphere, the more of a sense of ownership they have and the less resentment of political change. Seems like a relatively good way to promote peaceful outcomes.

Wasn't the current constitution voted on in a referendum as well?

If it was, I sit corrected.

There's so much crap and "he said, she said" to keep track of it's easy to forget specifics. I know I do sometimes. Frankly, I'm getting a bit burned out on it all, which I guess is the objective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_constitutional_referendum,_2007

[jaiyen]

What is the point of a referendum in Thailand when the voters are paid to to vote for something they know sweet FA about and the results are rigged and there is no transparency ??

[rixalex]

Kudos to Abhisit for backing a referendum on constitutional change, even though the current constitution exists as a result of the threat of force during the last coup.

There was no threat of force, there was a referendum in which the people freely voted. Yes the military installed government at the time, did encourage people to vote yes, but in a manner little different from how any government would, and i'm sure no different from how this current government will be encouraging people, if and when they organise one.

[rixalex]

What is the point of a referendum in Thailand when the voters are paid to to vote for something they know sweet FA about and the results are rigged and there is no transparency ??

I don't recall people being paid to vote in a certain way during the last referendum, nor do i recall it being rigged. Please expand.

[hellodolly]

What is the point of a referendum in Thailand when the voters are paid to to vote for something they know sweet FA about and the results are rigged and there is no transparency ??

BINGO We have a winner.

To even suggest it would be the peoples choice is to show that one does not understand Thais.

As long as they can have 500 baht in there hand now they will vote to bring Thaksin back today. The same voter given 500 baht to have Thaksin not come back would vote to not have him come back.

[ballpoint]

Of course he says that. He's expecting the next PM to be himself.

[animatic]

'The Peoples Constitution' was no more handiwork of 'The People' than the 2007 one or the one before it. The political class and assorted 'intelectuals' did this taking into account the same overriding concerns, social Kow Tow, need to make Face through money and power, and dislike of change that always ruin a Thai constitutional redux.

The 2007 was put together by mostly civilians at the direction of the army to 'put a functional constitution together that can limit political graft more effectively'.

They put it to referendum, as a Yah or Nay vote, with limits on the absolute BS. that would have been thrown at it by those not wanting it. Because most clearly they want graft to get ahead in financial their social/political/personal plans. Granted; ' they don't know any better...'

All that did was limit the total lies, to less lies and false rumors of such, and more towards some form of balance. Many who lost perks in the process disagree loudly. Of course telling the people the exact meaning of the changes between '97 and the new constitution would not favor those political vested interests in the long or short run. So they muddied the water as much as they dared.

But the people had been given exact copies of the constitution to read and discuss, well before. And the news papers were filled with explanations of the constitution. So they were as informed as any Thai populace for that referendum, and likely better than many before them.

The only leg to stand on those that want it replaced have is,

that the army organized some the civilians to create it.

But that is seemingly enough for them to throw 2007 out, at least in the minds and schemes, and demand a return to one that CLEARLY DID NOT WORK counter acting their schemes. Peoples constitution, or not '97 was INEFFECTUAL at delivering what the people NEEDED.

And would be yet again of reinstated.

Yes send the choice to look at the 2007 to a referendum

and see how it fairs, but beyond that, stand pat.

No doubt Chalerm is positioning himself as Thaksins right hand at the controls.

An 'illness' can get Yingluck to resign early, and then a prearranged vote to move Chalerm up a rung, done before opposition can even protest loudly. And instantly the new cabinet filles to the brim with the 111 in fast rotations to make up for lost time. Each with the Liege Lord on speed dial on their provided encrypted phones.

.

Edited December 24, 2011 by animatic

[Trouble]

What is the count now? 17 or so Constitutions since 1932? The Thai politicians will never get it right. Each time a new constitution has been written it is for the benefit of those who have taken power. Maybe the politicians should just make it a class project for a group of college students as they would probably get a better product. With over 190 countries in the world there should be sufficient examples of good and bad constitutions. Thai constitutions are all about control of the masses and opposition political parties.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Trouble

[hanuman1]

Kudos to Abhisit for backing a referendum on constitutional change, even though the current constitution exists as a result of the threat of force during the last coup.

There was no threat of force, there was a referendum in which the people freely voted. Yes the military installed government at the time, did encourage people to vote yes, but in a manner little different from how any government would, and i'm sure no different from how this current government will be encouraging people, if and when they organise one.

No threat of force? I don't think those tanks, APC's and machine-gun toting soldiers where having a scheduled parade in BKK the day they seized control of the country. Such scenes may have been edifying for you, but most would understand them as a threat of force. Otherwise, why didn't the generals just drive up in their Mercs and BMWs? Maybe they didn't fancy paying for the petrol

[scorecard]

Kudos to Abhisit for backing a referendum on constitutional change, even though the current constitution exists as a result of the threat of force during the last coup.

There was no threat of force, there was a referendum in which the people freely voted. Yes the military installed government at the time, did encourage people to vote yes, but in a manner little different from how any government would, and i'm sure no different from how this current government will be encouraging people, if and when they organise one.

No threat of force? I don't think those tanks, APC's and machine-gun toting soldiers where having a scheduled parade in BKK the day they seized control of the country. Such scenes may have been edifying for you, but most would understand them as a threat of force. Otherwise, why didn't the generals just drive up in their Mercs and BMWs? Maybe they didn't fancy paying for the petrol

Misleading at least, actually downright dishonest, the tanks etc were not on the streets on the day people votes on the referendum about he constitution..

[Skywalker69]

Of course he says that. He's expecting the next PM to be himself.

Spot on!!!

[geriatrickid]

If I may borrow from the legal dictionary although initially an american legal position, it has gained acceptance around the world in various forms;

" The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine (also known as the Derivative Evidence Doctrine) is a rule in criminal law that makes evidence that was derived from an illegal search, arrest or interrogation inadmissible. In other words, the evidence (the “fruit”) was tainted due to it coming from the illegal search and seizure (the “poisonous tree”). Under this doctrine, not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also all evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence. The courts deem such evidence tainted fruit of the poisonous tree."

In this case, the constitution came about as the result of an illegal, act, a military coup. As such the constitution, no matter how well written, is the tainted fruit of a poisonous tree. Appreciably, there will be some that will say that PM Abhisit fostered the constitutional change, but the fact is that he had no electoral mandate to do so. The Democrats never received a mandate in an election to form the government. The Democrats came to power through the political manipulations and not by popular vote. Hence, the Democrat sponsored constitution will forever be considered tainted.

If there are those that believe that the current constitution is valid, then that constitution should be put to the people to allow them to decide. If they vote yes, then by all means keep that constitution.

[rixalex]

Kudos to Abhisit for backing a referendum on constitutional change, even though the current constitution exists as a result of the threat of force during the last coup.

There was no threat of force, there was a referendum in which the people freely voted. Yes the military installed government at the time, did encourage people to vote yes, but in a manner little different from how any government would, and i'm sure no different from how this current government will be encouraging people, if and when they organise one.

No threat of force? I don't think those tanks, APC's and machine-gun toting soldiers where having a scheduled parade in BKK the day they seized control of the country. Such scenes may have been edifying for you, but most would understand them as a threat of force. Otherwise, why didn't the generals just drive up in their Mercs and BMWs? Maybe they didn't fancy paying for the petrol

Nothing edifying about the coup for me, and it wasn't the threat of force that enabled the coup, it was force itself.

The 2007 constitution was another matter. The people voted on it, and enough of them said yes. No force involved, threatened or otherwise.

[hellodolly]

'The Peoples Constitution' was no more handiwork of 'The People' than the 2007 one or the one before it. The political class and assorted 'intelectuals' did this taking into account the same overriding concerns, social Kow Tow, need to make Face through money and power, and dislike of change that always ruin a Thai constitutional redux.

The 2007 was put together by mostly civilians at the direction of the army to 'put a functional constitution together that can limit political graft more effectively'.

They put it to referendum, as a Yah or Nay vote, with limits on the absolute BS. that would have been thrown at it by those not wanting it. Because most clearly they want graft to get ahead in financial their social/political/personal plans. Granted; ' they don't know any better...'

All that did was limit the total lies, to less lies and false rumors of such, and more towards some form of balance. Many who lost perks in the process disagree loudly. Of course telling the people the exact meaning of the changes between '97 and the new constitution would not favor those political vested interests in the long or short run. So they muddied the water as much as they dared.

But the people had been given exact copies of the constitution to read and discuss, well before. And the news papers were filled with explanations of the constitution. So they were as informed as any Thai populace for that referendum, and likely better than many before them.

The only leg to stand on those that want it replaced have is,

that the army organized some the civilians to create it.

But that is seemingly enough for them to throw 2007 out, at least in the minds and schemes, and demand a return to one that CLEARLY DID NOT WORK counter acting their schemes. Peoples constitution, or not '97 was INEFFECTUAL at delivering what the people NEEDED.

And would be yet again of reinstated.

Yes send the choice to look at the 2007 to a referendum

and see how it fairs, but beyond that, stand pat.

No doubt Chalerm is positioning himself as Thaksins right hand at the controls.

An 'illness' can get Yingluck to resign early, and then a prearranged vote to move Chalerm up a rung, done before opposition can even protest loudly. And instantly the new cabinet filles to the brim with the 111 in fast rotations to make up for lost time. Each with the Liege Lord on speed dial on their provided encrypted phones.

.

If Yingluck had to resign as PM would they not have to call a general election for a new one.

I know that is not how it works but what would be the difference between that and Abhist neither one would be voted in by the people.

Double standards.

[rixalex]

The Democrats came to power through the political manipulations and not by popular vote.

No party comes to power by popular vote, nor without "political manipulations", unless fortunate enough to win an outright majority - and even then there may have been "tricks" involved. Just look at the last election for evidence of that.

Hence, the Democrat sponsored constitution will forever be considered tainted.

The Democrats had nothing to do with "sponsoring" the 2007 constitution.

If there are those that believe that the current constitution is valid, then that constitution should be put to the people to allow them to decide. If they vote yes, then by all means keep that constitution.

I don't believe they will be given that choice. A new constitution will be put to the people, that restores some of the loop-holes of the 1997 version, that politicians have been missing. That is what this is all about. Nothing to do with moving the country forward, or helping those in need, just all about a power game.

[TAWP]

If I may borrow from the legal dictionary although initially an american legal position, it has gained acceptance around the world in various forms;

" The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine (also known as the Derivative Evidence Doctrine) is a rule in criminal law that makes evidence that was derived from an illegal search, arrest or interrogation inadmissible. In other words, the evidence (the “fruit”) was tainted due to it coming from the illegal search and seizure (the “poisonous tree”). Under this doctrine, not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also all evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence. The courts deem such evidence tainted fruit of the poisonous tree."

In this case, the constitution came about as the result of an illegal, act, a military coup. As such the constitution, no matter how well written, is the tainted fruit of a poisonous tree. Appreciably, there will be some that will say that PM Abhisit fostered the constitutional change, but the fact is that he had no electoral mandate to do so. The Democrats never received a mandate in an election to form the government. The Democrats came to power through the political manipulations and not by popular vote. Hence, the Democrat sponsored constitution will forever be considered tainted.

If there are those that believe that the current constitution is valid, then that constitution should be put to the people to allow them to decide. If they vote yes, then by all means keep that constitution.

What you are also saying is that it is right to throw out a government that has any of their members, paid or not, involved in any form of election fraud etc - since their action all poison the well. It might not be complete 'poison', but it sure is there.

Any other position and your argument is reduced merely to semantics and not one of moral outcry over the usage of 'poisioned' items.

[phiphidon]

Nothing edifying about the coup for me, and it wasn't the threat of force that enabled the coup, it was force itself.

The 2007 constitution was another matter. The people voted on it, and enough of them said yes. No force involved, threatened or otherwise.

You're right no force was threatened against the people, just blackmail. If the people didn't vote for the Junta composed new constitution, Section 32 of the interim constitution would be invoked and the Junta

“shall hold a joint meeting with the Council of Ministers to consider and revise one of the previously promulgated constitutions.”

In other words if you don't say Yes we'll use one of the old ones and revise the f*** out of it and then you'll be sorry.

So, no coercion there then, the Thai people happily threw away their "Peoples Constitution" and voted for the big boys with the guns.

[phiphidon]

Nothing edifying about the coup for me, and it wasn't the threat of force that enabled the coup, it was force itself.

The 2007 constitution was another matter. The people voted on it, and enough of them said yes. No force involved, threatened or otherwise.

You're right no force was threatened against the people, just blackmail. If the people didn't vote for the Junta composed new constitution, Section 32 of the interim constitution would be invoked and the Junta

“shall hold a joint meeting with the Council of Ministers to consider and revise one of the previously promulgated constitutions.”

In other words if you don't say Yes we'll use one of the old ones and revise the f*** out of it and then you'll be sorry.

So, no coercion there then, the Thai people happily threw away their "Peoples Constitution" and voted for the big boys with the guns.

[philw]

Kudos to Abhisit for backing a referendum on constitutional change, even though the current constitution exists as a result of the threat of force during the last coup.

There was no threat of force, there was a referendum in which the people freely voted. Yes the military installed government at the time, did encourage people to vote yes, but in a manner little different from how any government would, and i'm sure no different from how this current government will be encouraging people, if and when they organise one.

It was not a " military installed government " it was the military themselves with Surayud as PM.

IE a government of generals and their appointees

What word to describe this ???

Military Dictatorship, perhaps ??

The "offer" ( or more accurately threat ) , regarding the referendum was, " no yes vote, no acceptance, no elections...."

Nice bit of whitewashing for Christmas............

Edited December 24, 2011 by philw

[rixalex]

Nothing edifying about the coup for me, and it wasn't the threat of force that enabled the coup, it was force itself.

The 2007 constitution was another matter. The people voted on it, and enough of them said yes. No force involved, threatened or otherwise.

You're right no force was threatened against the people, just blackmail. If the people didn't vote for the Junta composed new constitution, Section 32 of the interim constitution would be invoked and the Junta

“shall hold a joint meeting with the Council of Ministers to consider and revise one of the previously promulgated constitutions.”

In other words if you don't say Yes we'll use one of the old ones and revise the f*** out of it and then you'll be sorry.

So, no coercion there then, the Thai people happily threw away their "Peoples Constitution" and voted for the big boys with the guns.

No, i wouldn't really call that coercion. There had to be a plan B, should the people have said no, and the plan B was to revise a previous constitution, and then put that to a referendum. Don't see why that would have been such a scary choice or one that terrified the people.

And don't forget, at the same time, we had Thaksin and his cronies urging people to vote no, and suggesting that if they didn't, there could well be trouble.

So, pressure of one sort or another came from both sides. Pretty much par for the course when a referendum is organised, and i guarantee you will be no different should this current government decide to have one.

[rixalex]

It was not a " military installed government " it was the military themselves with Surayud as PM.

The military governed period came directly after the coup and was headed by Sonthi. The military installed government came after that, headed by Surayud.

The "offer" ( or more accurately threat ) , regarding the referendum was, " no yes vote, no acceptance, no elections...."

Nice bit of whitewashing for Christmas............

No whitewashing. A constitution needed to be settled upon before elections, so what that meant is that had the people said no, a revised version of an old constitution would have been put together, then another referendum, and then elections after that. At no stage was the choice ever "say yes to this constitution or you will never vote again", which is what you erroneously imply.

[geriatrickid]

If I may borrow from the legal dictionary although initially an american legal position, it has gained acceptance around the world in various forms;

" The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine (also known as the Derivative Evidence Doctrine) is a rule in criminal law that makes evidence that was derived from an illegal search, arrest or interrogation inadmissible. In other words, the evidence (the “fruit”) was tainted due to it coming from the illegal search and seizure (the “poisonous tree”). Under this doctrine, not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also all evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence. The courts deem such evidence tainted fruit of the poisonous tree."

In this case, the constitution came about as the result of an illegal, act, a military coup. As such the constitution, no matter how well written, is the tainted fruit of a poisonous tree. Appreciably, there will be some that will say that PM Abhisit fostered the constitutional change, but the fact is that he had no electoral mandate to do so. The Democrats never received a mandate in an election to form the government. The Democrats came to power through the political manipulations and not by popular vote. Hence, the Democrat sponsored constitution will forever be considered tainted.

If there are those that believe that the current constitution is valid, then that constitution should be put to the people to allow them to decide. If they vote yes, then by all means keep that constitution.

What you are also saying is that it is right to throw out a government that has any of their members, paid or not, involved in any form of election fraud etc - since their action all poison the well. It might not be complete 'poison', but it sure is there.

Any other position and your argument is reduced merely to semantics and not one of moral outcry over the usage of 'poisioned' items.

Your logic is incorrect. If a specific elected representative wins the vote because of improprieties, then it is that specific representative that must be removed. If it just so happens that the representative provides the "majority" that gives a political party the majority right to form a government, then the political party would lose that member and its majority. That is my position and it is consistent with my position. You are making the assumption that one tainted electoral district requires all of the other districts that may have had clean votes to see their results dismissed. The poisonous relationship only occurs if that specific tainted seat is relied upon to form the majority.

[geriatrickid]

The Democrats came to power through the political manipulations and not by popular vote.

No party comes to power by popular vote, nor without "political manipulations", unless fortunate enough to win an outright majority - and even then there may have been "tricks" involved. Just look at the last election for evidence of that.

Hence, the Democrat sponsored constitution will forever be considered tainted.

The Democrats had nothing to do with "sponsoring" the 2007 constitution.

If there are those that believe that the current constitution is valid, then that constitution should be put to the people to allow them to decide. If they vote yes, then by all means keep that constitution.

I don't believe they will be given that choice. A new constitution will be put to the people, that restores some of the loop-holes of the 1997 version, that politicians have been missing. That is what this is all about. Nothing to do with moving the country forward, or helping those in need, just all about a power game.

<deleted>???? If I look at the last election results the PTP won a majority of the seats, 265 out of 500. That qualifies as a majority government. The PTP then reached out to other parties that were elected and offered them participation. This was an even stronger reinforcement of the majority position.

The Democrats most certainly backed the constitution. Other groups could not oppose the military junta's revised constitution effectively since criticism of the draft constitution was was banned.

If the new constitution has faults then those faults should be addressed. The weaknesses of the new constituion cannot be any worse than the previous version which stripped democracy from the senate allowing 1/2 the members to be appointed. More importantly, the 2007 constitution entrenched the powers of the very groups that have consistently attempted to thwart the work of elected governments of Thailand.

[thequietman]

He suggested the government nominate a respected figure to head the Constitution Drafting Assembly.

There's your first problem right there.