Deputy PM Chalerm Completes Own Version Of Reconciliation Bill

[webfact]

Deputy PM Completes Own Version of Reconciliation Bill

BANGKOK: -- A deputy prime minister is unnerved by possible opposition towards his draft reconciliation bill and insists that it is drafted with everyone's best interest in mind.

Deputy Prime Minister Police Captain Chalerm Yoobamrung said he has completed drafting a national reconciliation bill.

He added he prepared the draft bill by himself and no one has seen its content yet.

Chalerm insisted that the bill was drafted with everyone's best interest in mind.

Regarding claims that the bill aims to help former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and might lead to political protests and other problems, the deputy PM admitted that not everyone will agree to the bill but it is too soon to criticize it when details have not yet been disclosed.

He noted that to achieve true national reconciliation, any incidents and outcomes after September 18, 2006, or the military coup and its after effects, must be voided.

He noted the country cannot move forward otherwise and bickering over political conflicts will never come to an end.

Chalerm revealed that the draft bill consists of six provisions, each of which is less than two pages.

He kept mum about when the draft bill will be disclosed to the public and did not promise whether it will be within the next House session.

The deputy PM said he will send the draft to his party for review before tendering it to the House.

-- Tan Network 2012-02-03

[sungod]

Shouldn't be too one sided then.............................

[Buchholz]

In the spirit of reconciliation, and providing he was in the mood, I wonder if he had Mrs. Suwichai Rotwimud work with him on the reconciliation bill.

http://www.nationmul...-gun-52416.html

.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Buchholz

[gl555]

Drafted by him with lots of help from the man in Dubai!

Such a scumbag him, his master, the master's puppet sister and the majority of the PTP.

[rixalex]

He noted that to achieve true national reconciliation, any incidents and outcomes after September 18, 2006, or the military coup and its after effects, must be voided.

I take it that doesn't include the last election though.

The truth is, the problems began when Thaksin took office in 2001, and particularly when judges allowed pubic support to determine guilt or innocence, so if we are going to hit the reset button - which i don't think we should by the way - that should surely be the starting the point.

[Moruya]

....and this Magnum Opus of yours Khun Chalerm. When might one cast one's mince pies on it?

[rubl]

The list of finer details and 'real' truths still to be provided by Dept. PM Chalerm gets longer and longer. He may even surpass MP Jatuporn if he's not carefull.

[Soi Sauce]

What are his qualifications for actually drafting a law?

Also, if Thaksin is to get off for a criminal act, as the constitution states that "all Thais are equal,:anyone convicted of a criminal act after the coup must get off too.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Soi Sauce

[Unkomoncents]

This gentleman is the most obtuse and unrepentantly dishonest individual in [even moderately significant] politics today. Even thinking about some of his gems make me all giggly inside.

[CalgaryII]

He noted that to achieve true national reconciliation, any incidents and outcomes after September 18, 2006, or the military coup and its after effects, must be voided.

After criticising the Nitirat proposals, he includes one of its' major provisions.

"O well, never mind...I agree that what started as a gross illegality should by its' very nature delegitimize what it propagated later.

I take it that doesn't include the last election though

The election simply demonstrated the illegality referenced above, of a minority usurping power from a majority. It simply set things straight.

Such illegalities are not the way of Democracy, usually requiring reconciliatory remedy's later.

It has forever been such.

Edited February 3, 2012 by CalgaryII

[exeter]

I had a dream, I was surrounded by beautiful people in red shirts,I thought this must be the promised land. The men in red gave the commandments and it came to pass that I wrote them down whilst I was alseep, not even I have seen them, have I mr T?

Edited February 3, 2012 by exeter

[LuckyLew]

Can someone please tell me how you can just "void" history?

[CalgaryII]

Can someone please tell me how you can just "void" history?

No problem

Not complicated in this instance.

I'll reference two:

#1 - Undo the judicial decisions made during what the UDD/Red Shirts call the "judicial coup", which followed the military one.

#2 - Return to the constitution that the military coup people abrogated in favour of their own. One focussed on eliminating one man and one party.

It is particularly interesting how the Opposition are now claiming that current pressures for Constitutional reform are designed to advantage one man..............what can one expect when the constitution needing reform was written to disadvantage him and his Party.

Pretty difficult to avoid that issue, when it was initiated by the very same Opposition in the first place.

[rubl]

Can someone please tell me how you can just "void" history?

No problem

Not complicated in this instance.

I'll reference two:

#1 - Undo the judicial decisions made during what the UDD/Red Shirts call the "judicial coup", which followed the military one.

#2 - Return to the constitution that the military coup people abrogated in favour of their own. One focussed on eliminating one man and one party.

It is particularly interesting how the Opposition are now claiming that current pressures for Constitutional reform are designed to advantage one man..............what can one expect when the constitution needing reform was written to disadvantage him and his Party.

Pretty difficult to avoid that issue, when it was initiated by the very same Opposition in the first place.

You seem to indicate a 'selective' voidance of history. Doesn't reconciliation suggest 'all' to reconcile, work together to overcome grievances, stop the 'blame game', etc., etc. ?

BTW if a people can be reconciled, a single person who just happens to be a multi-billionair may be excluded for the good of all those other people. It's not as if you condemn that particular person to abject poverty

Edited February 3, 2012 by rubl

[wxyz]

Can someone please tell me how you can just "void" history?

No problem

Not complicated in this instance.

I'll reference two:

#1 - Undo the judicial decisions made during what the UDD/Red Shirts call the "judicial coup", which followed the military one.

#2 - Return to the constitution that the military coup people abrogated in favour of their own. One focussed on eliminating one man and one party.

It is particularly interesting how the Opposition are now claiming that current pressures for Constitutional reform are designed to advantage one man..............what can one expect when the constitution needing reform was written to disadvantage him and his Party.

Pretty difficult to avoid that issue, when it was initiated by the very same Opposition in the first place.

You seem to indicate a 'selective' voidance of history. Doesn't reconciliation suggest 'all' to reconcile, work together to overcome grievances, stop the 'blame game', etc., etc. ?

BTW if a people can be reconciled, a single person who just happens to be a multi-billionair may be excluded for the good of all those other people. It's not as if you condemn that particular person to abject poverty

a single person who just happens to be:

Human Rights Watch has branded ousted Thai prime minister “a human rights abuser of the worst kind”

Thaksin’s human rights violations.

Thaksin presided over extrajudicial killings during the notorious “war on drugs”. HRW says 2,500 people were killed during one three-month period at the start of 2003.

Thaksin told the Thai military to employ any means to suppress an insurgency in the south of Thailand.

Thaksin Suppressed the Thai media.

Edited February 3, 2012 by wxyz

[carbine1125]

Can someone please tell me how you can just "void" history?

Apparently it is quite easy as they managed to do it regarding their involvment with the Japanese during the war.

[Ricardo]

Can someone please tell me how you can just "void" history?

No problem

Not complicated in this instance.

I'll reference two:

#1 - Undo the judicial decisions made during what the UDD/Red Shirts call the "judicial coup", which followed the military one.

#2 - Return to the constitution that the military coup people abrogated in favour of their own. One focussed on eliminating one man and one party.

It is particularly interesting how the Opposition are now claiming that current pressures for Constitutional reform are designed to advantage one man..............what can one expect when the constitution needing reform was written to disadvantage him and his Party.

Pretty difficult to avoid that issue, when it was initiated by the very same Opposition in the first place.

And a third example, of how to void history, is surely to pretend (your Point 2) that there was no majority referendum to endorse the slightly-changed constitution, which the short-lived junta-appointed government of former-PM Sorayud proposed.

Legitimacy sometimes flows from a popular-vote on a specific issue, as opposed to a general-election vote on a whole raft of 'pre-election promises', which some might later claim to support a specific possibly-less-popular policy. Such as a policy to wipe the slate clean for just one man.

One continues to hope that any serious changes in the constitution, especially those which might seek to weaken the necessary checks-and-balances, such as Deputy-PM Chalerm or the CDA or whoever might propose, will similarly be put to a referendum. No Double-Standards ?

Edited February 4, 2012 by Ricardo

[Buchholz]

Can someone please tell me how you can just "void" history?

No problem

Not complicated in this instance.

I'll reference two:

#1 - Undo the judicial decisions made during what the UDD/Red Shirts call the "judicial coup", which followed the military one.

#2 - Return to the constitution that the military coup people abrogated in favour of their own. One focussed on eliminating one man and one party.

It is particularly interesting how the Opposition are now claiming that current pressures for Constitutional reform are designed to advantage one man..............what can one expect when the constitution needing reform was written to disadvantage him and his Party.

Pretty difficult to avoid that issue, when it was initiated by the very same Opposition in the first place.

And a third example, of how to void history, is surely to pretend (your Point 2) that there was no majority referendum to endorse the slightly-changed constitution, which the short-lived junta-appointed government of former-PM Sorayud proposed.

Legitimacy sometimes flows from a popular-vote on a specific issue, as opposed to a general-election vote on a whole raft of 'pre-election promises', which some might later claim to support a specific possibly-less-popular policy. Such as a policy to wipe the slate clean for just one man.

One continues to hope that any serious changes in the constitution, especially those which might seek to weaken the necessary checks-and-balances, such as Deputy-PM Chalerm or the CDA or whoever might propose, will similarly be put to a referendum. No Double-Standards ?

Interesting to see a Chalerm apologist.

I don't recall reading from one before.

.

[CalgaryII]

Can someone please tell me how you can just "void" history?

No problem

Not complicated in this instance.

I'll reference two:

#1 - Undo the judicial decisions made during what the UDD/Red Shirts call the "judicial coup", which followed the military one.

#2 - Return to the constitution that the military coup people abrogated in favour of their own. One focussed on eliminating one man and one party.

It is particularly interesting how the Opposition are now claiming that current pressures for Constitutional reform are designed to advantage one man..............what can one expect when the constitution needing reform was written to disadvantage him and his Party.

Pretty difficult to avoid that issue, when it was initiated by the very same Opposition in the first place.

And a third example, of how to void history, is surely to pretend (your Point 2) that there was no majority referendum to endorse the slightly-changed constitution, which the short-lived junta-appointed government of former-PM Sorayud proposed.

Legitimacy sometimes flows from a popular-vote on a specific issue, as opposed to a general-election vote on a whole raft of 'pre-election promises', which some might later claim to support a specific possibly-less-popular policy. Such as a policy to wipe the slate clean for just one man.

One continues to hope that any serious changes in the constitution, especially those which might seek to weaken the necessary checks-and-balances, such as Deputy-PM Chalerm or the CDA or whoever might propose, will similarly be put to a referendum. No Double-Standards ?

Interesting to see a Chalerm apologist.

I don't recall reading from one before.

.

Not sure about the "Chalerm apologist" part.

I am constantly wondering what his game is, beyond promoting his and his sons interests exclusively.

I also am concerned about indicators showing contacts between Chalerm, Suthep and Newin.

They are birds of the same feather....or some such thing.

[scorecard]

Can someone please tell me how you can just "void" history?

No problem

Not complicated in this instance.

I'll reference two:

#1 - Undo the judicial decisions made during what the UDD/Red Shirts call the "judicial coup", which followed the military one.

#2 - Return to the constitution that the military coup people abrogated in favour of their own. One focussed on eliminating one man and one party.

It is particularly interesting how the Opposition are now claiming that current pressures for Constitutional reform are designed to advantage one man..............what can one expect when the constitution needing reform was written to disadvantage him and his Party.

Pretty difficult to avoid that issue, when it was initiated by the very same Opposition in the first place.

You say ;It is particularly interesting how the Opposition are now claiming that current pressures for Constitutional reform are designed to advantage one man..............what can one expect when the constitution needing reform was written to disadvantage him and his Party.'.

Well that's just your opinion. And personally I don't agree with you.

What you don't mention is that there was a need to make the laws and regulations about vote buying more serious (in fact my opinion is that the adjustments to these regulations and laws should have been even more serious.

In fact (given the Thai political history and it's known problems in terms of building 'quality democracy'), people who continue to buy votes should be penalized so severly that others are frightened to engage in any form of vote buying, and of course hoping that those with morals would stay well away from vote buying because of their own values.

None of the above is specific to the paymaster, just appropriate laws.

The ultimate point is that these laws and regulations should apply to everybody, and I stongly challenge your assertion (your opinion) that the laws and regulations were changed just to trap one man and his gang.

Further, the laws about vote buying were made stronger but the paymaster and his gang continued to openly buy votes and there is plenty of evidence, and they were therefore disbanded because they broke a serious and good law.

Should all parties be subject to the same laws and the same process if a case goes before the courts? Yes, of course!

Edited February 4, 2012 by scorecard

[wxyz]

"Deputy PM Chalerm Completes Own Version Of Reconciliation Billinsists it was drafted with everyone's best interest in mind"

This has been a paid political message, Deputy PM Chalerm approves this message.

Edited February 4, 2012 by wxyz

[SICHONSTEVE]

Shouldn't be too one sided then.............................

If he had kept his'gob' shut and not spouted his utter determination to bring Thaksin home then it could have garnered some support (maybe). The fact that he 'let the cat out of the bag' as to his true reasons for draughting the constitution bill then it holds no real worth in my eyes.

[scorecard]

What are his qualifications for actually drafting a law?

Also, if Thaksin is to get off for a criminal act, as the constitution states that "all Thais are equal,:anyone convicted of a criminal act after the coup must get off too.

He has a Ph.D. in law from Ram. University in Bkk. He says he has drafted it all himself. With all his other flags: drugs, gambling dens, and more, he has time to sit down and personally write a whole piece of legislation, 6 modules plus rational. Really?

Pity he didn't therefore show some respect for the law, and use his knowledge to champion fair and equal justice for all Thais.

Edited February 4, 2012 by scorecard

[wxyz]

What are his qualifications for actually drafting a law?

Also, if Thaksin is to get off for a criminal act, as the constitution states that "all Thais are equal,:anyone convicted of a criminal act after the coup must get off too.

He has a Ph.D. in law from Ram. University in Bkk. He says he has drafted it all himself. With all his other flags: drugs, gambling dens, and more, he has time to sit down and personally write a whole piece of legislation, 6 modules plus rational. Really?

Pity he didn't therefore show some respect for the law, and use his knowledge to champion fair and equal justice for all Thais.

Who better to write a law than a law breaker eh?

Edited February 4, 2012 by wxyz

[longway]

Can someone please tell me how you can just "void" history?

No problem

Not complicated in this instance.

I'll reference two:

#1 - Undo the judicial decisions made during what the UDD/Red Shirts call the "judicial coup", which followed the military one.

#2 - Return to the constitution that the military coup people abrogated in favour of their own. One focussed on eliminating one man and one party.

It is particularly interesting how the Opposition are now claiming that current pressures for Constitutional reform are designed to advantage one man..............what can one expect when the constitution needing reform was written to disadvantage him and his Party.

Pretty difficult to avoid that issue, when it was initiated by the very same Opposition in the first place.

So you are finally waking up - you now admit its all about one man.

[473geo]

To pen the draft version of an article/proposal does not automatically exclude advice and input from others and render the result a personal plan

[whybother]

To pen the draft version of an article/proposal does not automatically exclude advice and input from others and render the result a personal plan

But this does:

He added he prepared the draft bill by himself and no one has seen its content yet.

Edited February 4, 2012 by whybother

[Soi Sauce]

What are his qualifications for actually drafting a law?

Also, if Thaksin is to get off for a criminal act, as the constitution states that "all Thais are equal,:anyone convicted of a criminal act after the coup must get off too.

He has a Ph.D. in law from Ram. University in Bkk. He says he has drafted it all himself. With all his other flags: drugs, gambling dens, and more, he has time to sit down and personally write a whole piece of legislation, 6 modules plus rational. Really?

Pity he didn't therefore show some respect for the law, and use his knowledge to champion fair and equal justice for all Thais.

A Phd From Ram requires about the same intellectual; ability as an English eleven plus. No doubt like Thaksin's and Yingluck's it was bought. Neither of them can speak English above a poor beginner level yet have Phd's from America.

Go figure?

Therefore, he ain't qualified.

[473geo]

To pen the draft version of an article/proposal does not automatically exclude advice and input from others and render the result a personal plan

But this does:

He added he prepared the draft bill by himself and no one has seen its content yet.

Nope it means he prepared it...and nobody has seen it............,,no indication at all that he has not adopted, utilised, included advice and ideas from other sources

[rixalex]

To pen the draft version of an article/proposal does not automatically exclude advice and input from others and render the result a personal plan

We are talking about Chalerm here. I take it you have a clue who he is; an idea about his nature?