Abhisit: Referendum Needed Before Constitution Amendment

[webfact]

Abhisit: Referendum Needed Before Constitution Amendment

The opposition party leader insists that the government is required to hold a referendum before any constitutional amendment can take place.

Opposition Party Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva reiterated that a referendum regarding a constitutional amendment must take place to ensure whether the majority of voters support the move.

Moreover, Abhisit urged the government to take a clear stance and identify which charters will be amended.

Abhisit suggested that the government refrain from using vague language in the referendum so that the government does not have to waste money holding two public hearings.

He reaffirmed that the government should not refuse to hold a public hearing, claiming that they have the support of the majority voters, or the 15 million people who voted for the Pheu Thai Party in the general election.

The opposition leader pointed out that a large number of voters casted their ballots for the Pheu Thai party due to the promises it made during the election campaign, though this may not have included the constitutional amendment.

Abhisit suggested that the Pheu Thai Party should first get a general consensus about the matter to avoid any rifts within the party.

Moreover, he added that the new Reconciliation Commission for Constitutional Reform must not be interfered by politics.

Meanwhile, the Premiere declined to point out the drawbacks of the current constitution, saying that it is unclear whether the 1997 Constitution and 2007 Constitution have distinctive points of discrepancy.

She insisted that the government would combine the strong points of each constitution to ensure that it in peoples' best interests.

-- Tan Network 2011-12-27

[Moruya]

You can't have reconciliation by steamrollering your way through the people.

It's also an insult to the people to make several material promises to them during the election campaign, break them when in power and then say that they had an effective mandate to makes constitutional amendments that were never detailed.

In short its dishonest.

[alexakap]

In short its dishonest.

Do they care??

[Bakseedaa]

Do they care..........Yes, about one man and how much moneys they can make for themselves..!

[airconsult]

You can't have reconciliation by steamrollering your way through the people.

It's also an insult to the people to make several material promises to them during the election campaign, break them when in power and then say that they had an effective mandate to makes constitutional amendments that were never detailed.

In short its dishonest.

Is "steamrollering" the same as a military-appointed government saying there will be no elections unless the new constitution is accepted by the voters? (2007)

Just an observation.....

[whybother]

You can't have reconciliation by steamrollering your way through the people.

It's also an insult to the people to make several material promises to them during the election campaign, break them when in power and then say that they had an effective mandate to makes constitutional amendments that were never detailed.

In short its dishonest.

Is "steamrollering" the same as a military-appointed government saying there will be no elections unless the new constitution is accepted by the voters? (2007)

Just an observation.....

Could they have had an election if the rules to run it weren't defined?

[airconsult]

You can't have reconciliation by steamrollering your way through the people.

It's also an insult to the people to make several material promises to them during the election campaign, break them when in power and then say that they had an effective mandate to makes constitutional amendments that were never detailed.

In short its dishonest.

Is "steamrollering" the same as a military-appointed government saying there will be no elections unless the new constitution is accepted by the voters? (2007)

Just an observation.....

Could they have had an election if the rules to run it weren't defined?

There were already rules in the 1997 constitution covering elections..... whether they were right and complete and prevented fraud was not part of my comment - I was just making the point that deciding on changes, then holding a referendum on those changes was not as bad as a military-appointed government saying no return to elections unless the new one we have drawn up is approved.

Cheers

[alexakap]

Do they care..........Yes, about one man and how much moneys they can make for themselves..!

I meant "dishonest", not "The Man".

[h90]

You can't have reconciliation by steamrollering your way through the people.

It's also an insult to the people to make several material promises to them during the election campaign, break them when in power and then say that they had an effective mandate to makes constitutional amendments that were never detailed.

In short its dishonest.

dishonest to people who you paid 300 Baht to vote for you?

[whybother]

There were already rules in the 1997 constitution covering elections..... whether they were right and complete and prevented fraud was not part of my comment - I was just making the point that deciding on changes, then holding a referendum on those changes was not as bad as a military-appointed government saying no return to elections unless the new one we have drawn up is approved.

Cheers

There were no rules, as the 1997 constitution had been cancelled because the junta had decided that there were too many holes in it.

[airconsult]

There were already rules in the 1997 constitution covering elections..... whether they were right and complete and prevented fraud was not part of my comment - I was just making the point that deciding on changes, then holding a referendum on those changes was not as bad as a military-appointed government saying no return to elections unless the new one we have drawn up is approved.

Cheers

There were no rules, as the 1997 constitution had been cancelled because the junta had decided that there were too many holes in it.

Ah - it also had to be cancelled because a coup was illegal under the 1997 constitution....... Unless, of course, once new elections were held they were happy to go on trial....

But, that is why I think people are exaggerating the current changes with respect to article 309 (which states that all actions performed by the junta and their appointed government before the new constitution were legal). In no way is anyone *really* silly enough to believe they can entirely revoke 309 - because that would mean you would have to put the generals on trial. Won't happen - never. Too much conflict.

I think what they seek is simply to remove the legality of the Asset Scrutiny Committee (ASC) only. I bet in hindsight the generals wished they had just sacked the NACC directors and appointed their own rather than set up a new committee under temporary laws. If you remove the legality of the ASC, you remove it's investigations, prosecutions, and go back to court to have any decisions based on their prosecutions reversed.

Like a good guest - I'm impartial here - it is up to Thai voting citizens to decide. But it's going to be very difficult to remove the ASC legality without threatening the former junta. I'm cooking the popcorn to watch the show.....

Cheers

[airconsult]

There were already rules in the 1997 constitution covering elections..... whether they were right and complete and prevented fraud was not part of my comment - I was just making the point that deciding on changes, then holding a referendum on those changes was not as bad as a military-appointed government saying no return to elections unless the new one we have drawn up is approved.

Cheers

There were no rules, as the 1997 constitution had been cancelled because the junta had decided that there were too many holes in it.

Ah - it also had to be cancelled because a coup was illegal under the 1997 constitution....... Unless, of course, once new elections were held they were happy to go on trial....

But, that is why I think people are exaggerating the current changes with respect to article 309 (which states that all actions performed by the junta and their appointed government before the new constitution were legal). In no way is anyone *really* silly enough to believe they can entirely revoke 309 - because that would mean you would have to put the generals on trial. Won't happen - never. Too much conflict.

I think what they seek is simply to remove the legality of the Asset Scrutiny Committee (ASC) only. I bet in hindsight the generals wished they had just sacked the NACC directors and appointed their own rather than set up a new committee under temporary laws. If you remove the legality of the ASC, you remove it's investigations, prosecutions, and go back to court to have any decisions based on their prosecutions reversed.

Like a good guest - I'm impartial here - it is up to Thai voting citizens to decide. But it's going to be very difficult to remove the ASC legality without threatening the former junta. I'm cooking the popcorn to watch the show.....

Cheers

Sorry to comment on my own comment - but it's worth adding that other decisions made by the interim government would be invalid too if you removed 309.

Notably (and to the great annoyance of certain pharma companies) the interim government exercised Thailand's right under WIPO rules (after negotiation) to invalidate 3(?) patents on drugs used in AIDS treatments. While those pharma companies would love that to be reversed, certainly the poor would suffer - which is why no elected government since has changed those decisions.

Cheers (no, I don't think there's a conspiracy there, it's just one more reason why most interim government decisions will stand)

[waza]

Before new elections could be held, in September 2006 a group of top military officers overthrew the caretaker Thaksin administration in a non-violent coup d’etat, repealed the 1997 constitution, and dissolved both houses of parliament. The coup leaders promulgated an interim constitution and appointed Surayud Chulanont as interim Prime Minister. In a national referendum in August 2007, a majority of Thai voters approved a new constitution drafted by an assembly appointed by the coup leaders. The interim government held multi-party elections under provisions of the new constitution in December 2007, and the pro-Thaksin People's Power Party (PPP) won a plurality of 233 of the 480 seats in the lower house of parliament.........................Efforts by the two PPP leaders to amend the 2007 constitution and provide amnesty to banned politicians, including ex-Prime Minister Thaksin, led to a renewal of street protests in mid-2008, some of which resulted in violence between security forces and protesters and between pro- and anti-government demonstrators. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2814.htm

[Thailand]

I am sure Abhisit insisting about anything will have the PT trembling in their boots.

[phiphidon]

There were already rules in the 1997 constitution covering elections..... whether they were right and complete and prevented fraud was not part of my comment - I was just making the point that deciding on changes, then holding a referendum on those changes was not as bad as a military-appointed government saying no return to elections unless the new one we have drawn up is approved.

Cheers

There were no rules, as the 1997 constitution had been cancelled because the junta had decided that there were too many holes in it.

"the 1997 constitution had been cancelled because the junta had decided that there were too many holes in it".

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of democracy that statement, is it? Is this supposed to be supporting Abhisits stance or against it?

[whybother]

There were already rules in the 1997 constitution covering elections..... whether they were right and complete and prevented fraud was not part of my comment - I was just making the point that deciding on changes, then holding a referendum on those changes was not as bad as a military-appointed government saying no return to elections unless the new one we have drawn up is approved.

Cheers

There were no rules, as the 1997 constitution had been cancelled because the junta had decided that there were too many holes in it.

"the 1997 constitution had been cancelled because the junta had decided that there were too many holes in it".

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of democracy that statement, is it? Is this supposed to be supporting Abhisits stance or against it?

What has it got to do with Abhisit?

It's got nothing to do with support or opposition. Just stating why the junta cancelled it.

[airconsult]

There were already rules in the 1997 constitution covering elections..... whether they were right and complete and prevented fraud was not part of my comment - I was just making the point that deciding on changes, then holding a referendum on those changes was not as bad as a military-appointed government saying no return to elections unless the new one we have drawn up is approved.

Cheers

There were no rules, as the 1997 constitution had been cancelled because the junta had decided that there were too many holes in it.

"the 1997 constitution had been cancelled because the junta had decided that there were too many holes in it".

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of democracy that statement, is it? Is this supposed to be supporting Abhisits stance or against it?

What has it got to do with Abhisit?

It's got nothing to do with support or opposition. Just stating why the junta cancelled it.

And I gave you a better reason before - they really cancelled it because it said coups were illegal.

The election rules were pretty ok in the 1997 - it contained penalties for electoral fraud - notice that one of the changes was to allow an entire party to be dissolved if just one person in the leading committee was convicted - both PPP and the Democrats wanted to change that - maybe now it will be done.

[DP25]

He reaffirmed that the government should not refuse to hold a public hearing, claiming that they have the support of the majority voters, or the 15 million people who voted for the Pheu Thai Party in the general election.

They actually had close to 16 million. Either way there were 35 million voters so they are not the majority(even wrongly assuming they are all in favor of amendments to pardon Thaksin), unless you start adding in the coalition partners.

There is no reason for PTP to bother with a referendum, especially one that specifically spells out exactly what they want to do. The sole purpose of this is pardoning Thaksin, and it would be disastrous if it were to lose. They would also have to get over 50%, not just be the largest minority like in a general election. The yellow shirts aren't going to be campaigning on a boycott this time and would turn out, it would be difficult for them to get a majority. It would be a huge risk if they had one on anything specific. Referendum or not there will be protests and rioting when PTP attempts to do so, but the red shirts will be able to limit large street protests through terrorism. They will be prepared.

In the end this will be settled in blood, there is little hope for a peaceful resolution.

[sparebox2]

<snip>

And I gave you a better reason before - they really cancelled it because it said coups were illegal.

The election rules were pretty ok in the 1997 - it contained penalties for electoral fraud - notice that one of the changes was to allow an entire party to be dissolved if just one person in the leading committee was convicted - both PPP and the Democrats wanted to change that - maybe now it will be done.

Only PT wants to change that. Democrate are clean, and have nothing to hide.

[valerian]

You can't have reconciliation by steamrollering your way through the people.

It's also an insult to the people to make several material promises to them during the election campaign, break them when in power and then say that they had an effective mandate to makes constitutional amendments that were never detailed.

In short its dishonest.

The PT top brass is a bunch of fraudsters and liers who have made it their trademark to betray and defraud the voters as professionally as possible.

The list to support this is so extensive that only an arse in disguise can believe otherwise. Or a completely blind person.

And it's the same kind of arse that would love to believe PT is anywhere near being pro democracy or human rights.

But... luckily enough for the PT top brass and their followers... there are a lot of donkeys around.

[VoterPower]

Thai voters perhaps would have been more inclined to listen to abisit now, if he had displayed some constitutional principle, and rejected the military junta in installing him as unelected Prime Minister.

How can you believe a word he says when he has already demonstrated his views on elections and democracy by his actions.

As we all know actions speak louder than words, the whole world saw abisits

Thats why the voters masively rejected him and what he stood for.

And that is the fact of it

Edited December 27, 2011 by VoterPower

[whybother]

Thai voters perhaps would have been more inclined to listen to abisit now, if he had displayed some constitutional principle, and rejected the military junta in installing him as unelected Prime Minister.

How can you believe a word he says when he has already demonstrated his views on elections and democracy by his actions.

As we all know actions speak louder than words, the whole world saw abisits

Thats why the voters masively rejected him and what he stood for.

And that is the fact of it

Which military junta installed him as PM?

[Orac]

I thought it was a done deal that there would be a referendum on any amendments to the constitution - has anyone said that there wouldn't be one???

[waza]

Thai voters perhaps would have been more inclined to listen to abisit now, if he had displayed some constitutional principle, and rejected the military junta in installing him as unelected Prime Minister.

How can you believe a word he says when he has already demonstrated his views on elections and democracy by his actions.

As we all know actions speak louder than words, the whole world saw abisits

Thats why the voters masively rejected him and what he stood for.

And that is the fact of it

Which military junta installed him as PM?

excellent question, I doubt if Votepower will have an equally excellent answer, because I suspect he is talking uninformed rubbish

[VoterPower]

Thai voters perhaps would have been more inclined to listen to abisit now, if he had displayed some constitutional principle, and rejected the military junta in installing him as unelected Prime Minister.

How can you believe a word he says when he has already demonstrated his views on elections and democracy by his actions.

As we all know actions speak louder than words, the whole world saw abisits

Thats why the voters masively rejected him and what he stood for.

And that is the fact of it

Which military junta installed him as PM?

excellent question, I doubt if Votepower will have an equally excellent answer, because I suspect he is talking uninformed rubbish

It was "old Military Junta", probably a bit like your, but it doesn't matter now that the people swept their puppet aside with VoterPower

[Siam Simon]

Thai voters perhaps would have been more inclined to listen to abisit now, if he had displayed some constitutional principle, and rejected the military junta in installing him as unelected Prime Minister.

How can you believe a word he says when he has already demonstrated his views on elections and democracy by his actions.

As we all know actions speak louder than words, the whole world saw abisits

Thats why the voters masively rejected him and what he stood for.

And that is the fact of it

Which military junta installed him as PM?

excellent question, I doubt if Votepower will have an equally excellent answer, because I suspect he is talking uninformed rubbish

Why is it an excellent question? Anyone with even half a brain knows how the last Dem-led government was formed. At least one of the politicians who were coerced by the military into forming that coalition went public about it straight away. Why is anyone on TVF even bothering to pretend that things happened differently than they actually did?

[lannarebirth]

Thai voters perhaps would have been more inclined to listen to abisit now, if he had displayed some constitutional principle, and rejected the military junta in installing him as unelected Prime Minister.

How can you believe a word he says when he has already demonstrated his views on elections and democracy by his actions.

As we all know actions speak louder than words, the whole world saw abisits

Thats why the voters masively rejected him and what he stood for.

And that is the fact of it

Which military junta installed him as PM?

excellent question, I doubt if Votepower will have an equally excellent answer, because I suspect he is talking uninformed rubbish

Why is it an excellent question? Anyone with even half a brain knows how the last Dem-led government was formed. At least one of the politicians who were coerced by the military into forming that coalition went public about it straight away. Why is anyone on TVF even bothering to pretend that things happened differently than they actually did?

What do you mean Simon? Please elucidate. Spell it all out for us if you would. Thanks.

[Siam Simon]

Why is it an excellent question? Anyone with even half a brain knows how the last Dem-led government was formed. At least one of the politicians who were coerced by the military into forming that coalition went public about it straight away. Why is anyone on TVF even bothering to pretend that things happened differently than they actually did?

What do you mean Simon? Please elucidate. Spell it all out for us if you would. Thanks.

Why intelligent posters behave like this on internet forums is utterly beyond me. Just boring..

[waza]

Why is it an excellent question? Anyone with even half a brain knows how the last Dem-led government was formed. At least one of the politicians who were coerced by the military into forming that coalition went public about it straight away. Why is anyone on TVF even bothering to pretend that things happened differently than they actually did?

What do you mean Simon? Please elucidate. Spell it all out for us if you would. Thanks.

Why intelligent posters behave like this on internet forums is utterly beyond me. Just boring..

When someone distorts the facts and/or history to suit their own agenda intelligent poster feel compelled to correct these faulsehoods. After all its in the forum rules. 15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate,

Edited December 27, 2011 by waza

[Siam Simon]

Why is it an excellent question? Anyone with even half a brain knows how the last Dem-led government was formed. At least one of the politicians who were coerced by the military into forming that coalition went public about it straight away. Why is anyone on TVF even bothering to pretend that things happened differently than they actually did?

What do you mean Simon? Please elucidate. Spell it all out for us if you would. Thanks.

Why intelligent posters behave like this on internet forums is utterly beyond me. Just boring..

When someone distorts the facts and/or history to suit their own agenda intelligent poster feel compelled to correct these faulsehoods. After all its in the forum rules.

Maybe you are just il-informed. I really don't know. But that the last Dem-led government was formed at Gen Anupung's house is beyond dispute. That a politician involved in that coalition stated immediately after joining it that he was coerced into joining it is beyond dispute. The forum rule to which you refer is about knowingly presenting wrong information. Are you from a parallel universe where there is another TVF which has somehow intersected with this one?

Edited December 27, 2011 by Siam Simon