Pm Backs Referendum On Changes To 2007 Charter

[Lite Beer]

PM backs referendum on changes to 2007 charter

THE NATION ON SUNDAY

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said amending the Constitution would be the responsibility of Parliament, but that she agreed with holding a referendum to let people decide on the issue.

"In general, I agree with having a national referendum. But we have to see what we want [in the charter]…and what it's content is; then we can ask the people," she said.

Yingluck said she also agreed with the establishment of a new Constitution Drafting Assembly, as it would represent the people.

"At the moment, we should not be talking about which Article is to be changed or how to change it. We should first focus on ways of getting the people's opinions, on making sure they really come from all parts of society and that the effort is in the public interest," she said.

Amending the Constitution was among the policies promoted by the Pheu Thai Party during its election campaign. Party members said earlier they would push for amendments within the current parliamentary session. However, there are differences of opinion within the party.

Yingluck declined to say whether she thinks charter change would benefit the country, saying it depends on the specific parts that are to be changed.

Asked whether she would have to discuss the move with the coalition parties beforehand, she said the charter change effort was in the hands of House members. The government is focusing on solving people's problems and on flood rehabilitation, she said.

Asked whether charter change would lead to another round of political conflict, Yingluck said it was just an idea at the moment. People knowledgeable about constitutional matters would have to take time to study the issue and decide on the best course. Nevertheless, the changes would nothing to do with the law on lese majeste, she said.

The lese majeste law is enshrined in Article 112 of the Criminal Law.

Election Commission member Prapun Naigowit said the Election Commission is ready to hold a referendum on charter change, which would cost less than holding an election. However, politicians must consider the political atmosphere before pushing for such change, Prapun cautioned.

"The 2007 Constitution was instated after a referendum. It makes sense to do the referendum. Not holding one would require a good reason. A referendum makes the charter 'sacred', as it means the people of the whole country agree with its use. Discarding a referendum-approved constitution is not the same as scrapping a normal charter," he said.

Prapun said that in other countries, referendums are usually held after the legal amendments have been drafted. The referendum itself could ask voters to decide on a charter in its entirety, or to consider each article separately, the commission member said.

-- The Nation 2011-12-25

[givenall]

Suprise, suprise. She also wants to move back the time to 2007 and she also believe in Santa Claus and tooth fairy

[otherstuff1957]

Neither the '97 nor the 2007 Constitutions were perfect, but it probably makes more sense to modify the existing charter rather than just nullify it and then deal with resulting legal confusion. Hopefully, the referendum will give people to option to approve or disapprove of the changes point by point, rather than just an all or nothing yes or no!

[anterian]

Why not just go through the charter section by section and vote keep, remove, change? Then you are left with a number of sections that need changing. Put forward proposed changes, vote on your choice of change. This would be a slow process but there would not be a sudden hiatus like that of introducing a new constitution.

[whybother]

Why not just go through the charter section by section and vote keep, remove, change? Then you are left with a number of sections that need changing. Put forward proposed changes, vote on your choice of change. This would be a slow process but there would not be a sudden hiatus like that of introducing a new constitution.

Agreed.

The PTP and red shirts have pointed out two things wrong with the current constitution, being amnesty for the coup makers and a part non-elected senate.

Besides that, what are the problems with the current constitution? Point out the problems. Discuss the problems. Come up with alternatives. Don't just trash the whole thing because of how it happened to be brought into existence.

[hellodolly]

"quote Yingluck said she also agreed with the establishment of a new Constitution Drafting Assembly, as it would represent the people."

What a load of crap

It will only represent what the Thaksin led elite are willing to let the commoners have.