Charter Change: What Has Real Reform Got To Do With It?: Thai Talk

[webfact]

THAI TALK

Charter change: What has real reform got to do with it?

Suthichai Yoon

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- What has the proposed amendment to the Constitution got to do with long-sought-after political reform? How does it reflect the people's real wish for genuine democratisation of the country?

As they say, stupid questions deserve stupid answers.

Who says rewriting the charter is related in any way to the people's political longing and advancement? You must be really naive to even think the country will embark on major political reform once the charter is amended, no matter how "democratic" the whole process may seem.

First, the Yingluck government said it wouldn't be involved in the process of amending the Constitution. That, the premier once said, would be the task of the MPs.

On Monday, that position changed dramatically when the Cabinet endorsed a government bill seeking to amend Article 291 of the 2007 charter - paving the way for a controversial proposed rewriting of the Constitution.

Why the about-turn?

Premier Yingluck's explanation wasn't all that convincing. But still, it has to be taken into account so that any future debate on the issue can be traced back to the government's stand on this particularly hot topic.

She said the government doesn't want to lose the right to propose its own version of the amendment draft, since different groups, including her ruling Pheu Thai Party and the red shirts, have separately submitted their own drafts for parliamentary deliberations.

The three groups, of course, are somehow related to Thaksin Shinawatra - and the essence of each of the three drafts isn't all that different. It's the overwhelming impact of a joint assault that's the real purpose of this exercise.

Opposition Democrats immediately fired the first salvo: The whole thing smacks of helping ousted former premier Thaksin to return to power. Premier Yingluck denied that line of argument once again, saying it has nothing to do with her brother.

On the surface, the bill that was approved by the Cabinet was simple enough: form a constitutional drafting assembly of 77 elected representatives (one from each province) and let the House appoint 22 others from among legal and political science experts. The 99-member panel would then be given a "free hand" to amend the entire post-2006 coup charter.

Cynics were quick to point out that a nationwide election to pick members of the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) would inevitably follow the pattern of the last general election. That means despite the provision that CDA members can't have political affiliations, there is no escaping the fact that the respective political parties would nominate their own men and women to run, with the help of their national and local election machines.

As a result, it is already predicted that the North and Northeast will see CDA members from the ruling Pheu Thai Party, while the South would see Democrat-backed candidates winning their seats.

The CDA members from the central plains would almost certainly be split among the smaller parties - following a similar composition of the current House of Representatives.

If that turns out to be true, there is little doubt what changes will be voted on in the CDA. And those proposed amendments would centre mainly on what the powers-that-be want changed.

That practically means that all the debate about what's good and what's bad for democracy in Thailand would come to nought. The whole process of constitutional rewriting would concentrate on who controls how many votes in the CDA rather than what the people really want from the country's highest law of the land.

It may still not be too late to prevent the national cynicism over this exercise from plunging much deeper into the political abyss.

The CDA should first launch a nationwide survey of opinion of what clauses the people really want amended to fulfil the long-lost hope of seeing real political reform.

A referendum before the draft is drawn up - not after it is rewritten - on the substance of the new charter, would at least ensure that this constitutional amendment isn't just a farce to ensure the staying power of populist politics where checks and balances are neutralised and moneyed electoral manipulation leads every step of the way to the next national disaster.

-- The Nation 2012-02-16

[tragickingdom]

The Nation should have asked this question when the military raped the country in concert with Abhisit and his cronies and wrote again a new constitution. The Nation should have asked the somewhat rhetorical question how it is possible that idiots from the army and any other person with power could be able to write a new constitution every fie years or so and give themselves amnesty and how it is possible that in nomad countries a constitution is there for ever.

The Thai constitution needs a complete rewrite in it must be an article that any one trying to rewrite a constitution after a coupe should be send to prison for life. It will teach them a lesson that the constitution is not there for Royalists, military or industrialists but for all of the people.

[animatic]

Of course the 2007 constitution was an attempt at reform,

Why else would Thaksin want it changed back so badly?

[whybother]

The Nation should have asked this question when the military raped the country in concert with Abhisit and his cronies and wrote again a new constitution. The Nation should have asked the somewhat rhetorical question how it is possible that idiots from the army and any other person with power could be able to write a new constitution every fie years or so and give themselves amnesty and how it is possible that in nomad countries a constitution is there for ever.

The Thai constitution needs a complete rewrite in it must be an article that any one trying to rewrite a constitution after a coupe should be send to prison for life. It will teach them a lesson that the constitution is not there for Royalists, military or industrialists but for all of the people.

1) What did Abhisit have to do with writing the 2007 constitution? - Absolutely nothing.

2) If you're suggesting that the 2007 constitution needs a complete rewrite, you must think the same of the 1997 "People's Constitution" since there isn't that much different in the content.

3) What difference would it make if there was a clause that put people in jail if they rewrite the constitution after a coup? They've just performed a coup! Why would they care what's in the existing constitution? Coups aren't legal, but that clearly doesn't stop them happening.

[billd766]

The Nation should have asked this question when the military raped the country in concert with Abhisit and his cronies and wrote again a new constitution. The Nation should have asked the somewhat rhetorical question how it is possible that idiots from the army and any other person with power could be able to write a new constitution every fie years or so and give themselves amnesty and how it is possible that in nomad countries a constitution is there for ever.

The Thai constitution needs a complete rewrite in it must be an article that any one trying to rewrite a constitution after a coupe should be send to prison for life. It will teach them a lesson that the constitution is not there for Royalists, military or industrialists but for all of the people.

How do you work out that The military and Abhisit (Democrats perhaps) raped the country

The scenario I remember was that in 2006 there was ONLY a caretaker government who failed to win an election and whose Prime Minister publicly went to the King and formally tendered his resignation which was accepted thus svering him from all authority.

He then told the country that he had had enough of politics and was quitting.

A new pro tem caretaker Prime Minister was appointed to oversee the next election however the time to do that had run out.

The previous Prime Minister returned and took over WITHOUT formally going to the king (thus it was illegal) and proceeded to try to run Thailand as he had before he resigned.

When the coup came he was in New York illegally representing himself as the Prime Minister of Thailand.

The coup happened and the military promised that they would leave in a year. It was more like 13 or 14 months.

What followed was an election won by Samak who also broke the law (perhaps it was a silly law) and was forced to resign.

His party could legally have had him back as PM but chose Thaksin's brother in law instead.

That party was disolved for blatent election cheating and in the mess that followed the Democrats came up with a coalition to take over the government which is perfectly legal in Thailand.

That took place in 2009 nearly 3 years after the coup.

Where you have come up with the army and the democrats raping the country is beyond me.

Can you explain it simply to me and other people and also explain it what I have written above is correct or not and if I was wrong, please tell me where and why.

Thank you.

[billd766]

The Nation should have asked this question when the military raped the country in concert with Abhisit and his cronies and wrote again a new constitution. The Nation should have asked the somewhat rhetorical question how it is possible that idiots from the army and any other person with power could be able to write a new constitution every fie years or so and give themselves amnesty and how it is possible that in nomad countries a constitution is there for ever.

The Thai constitution needs a complete rewrite in it must be an article that any one trying to rewrite a constitution after a coupe should be send to prison for life. It will teach them a lesson that the constitution is not there for Royalists, military or industrialists but for all of the people.

How do you work out that The military and Abhisit (Democrats perhaps) raped the country

The scenario I remember was that in 2006 there was ONLY a caretaker government who failed to win an election and whose Prime Minister publicly went to the King and formally tendered his resignation which was accepted thus svering him from all authority.

He then told the country that he had had enough of politics and was quitting.

A new pro tem caretaker Prime Minister was appointed to oversee the next election however the time to do that had run out.

The previous Prime Minister returned and took over WITHOUT formally going to the king (thus it was illegal) and proceeded to try to run Thailand as he had before he resigned.

When the coup came he was in New York illegally representing himself as the Prime Minister of Thailand.

The coup happened and the military promised that they would leave in a year. It was more like 13 or 14 months.

What followed was an election won by Samak who also broke the law (perhaps it was a silly law) and was forced to resign.

His party could legally have had him back as PM but chose Thaksin's brother in law instead.

That party was disolved for blatent election cheating and in the mess that followed the Democrats came up with a coalition to take over the government which is perfectly legal in Thailand.

That took place in 2009 nearly 3 years after the coup.

Where you have come up with the army and the democrats raping the country is beyond me.

Can you explain it simply to me and other people and also explain it what I have written above is correct or not and if I was wrong, please tell me where and why.

Thank you.

24 hours and no response to what I thought was a reasonable request for a response.

[CalgaryII]

Of course the 2007 constitution was an attempt at reform,

Why else would Thaksin want it changed back so badly?

Only the coup-ists perpetrated Constitutional reform aimed at one person.

The 2007 constitution was aimed at one person and one political party.

To undo that damage, it is understandable that the stuff against one person and one political party will be changed.

The simplistic mantra of linking Constitution reform to a single, denigrating motive is just so much politicking.

The rationale for constitutional reform is as follows::

"...the present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organisations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy.

Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution.

Edited February 17, 2012 by CalgaryII

[CalgaryII]

tragickingdom, #2

The Thai constitution needs a complete rewrite in it must be an article that any one trying to rewrite a constitution after a coupe should be send to prison for life

Constitutional changes after a coup are seen for what they are, and are typically assigned to the garbage bin, as soon as elections return the country to Democratic Institutions.

Defending a coup-constitution is a tough go!

[CalgaryII]

whybother, #4^

2) If you're suggesting that the 2007 constitution needs a complete rewrite, you must think the same of the 1997 "People's Constitution" since there isn't that much different in the content.

That is one of the key points of the Nitirat proposals.

Just do away with the coup-constitution altogether, considering its' tainted origin.

Constitution reform makes a lot of sense if one uses the 1997 "People's Constitution" as a base document.

Instead of accepting the version done by coup perps, do one that has validity accross all sectors of the Thai Political landscape.

[CalgaryII]

The Nation should have asked this question when the military raped the country in concert with Abhisit and his cronies and wrote again a new constitution. The Nation should have asked the somewhat rhetorical question how it is possible that idiots from the army and any other person with power could be able to write a new constitution every fie years or so and give themselves amnesty and how it is possible that in nomad countries a constitution is there for ever.

The Thai constitution needs a complete rewrite in it must be an article that any one trying to rewrite a constitution after a coupe should be send to prison for life. It will teach them a lesson that the constitution is not there for Royalists, military or industrialists but for all of the people.

How do you work out that The military and Abhisit (Democrats perhaps) raped the country

The scenario I remember was that in 2006 there was ONLY a caretaker government who failed to win an election and whose Prime Minister publicly went to the King and formally tendered his resignation which was accepted thus svering him from all authority.

He then told the country that he had had enough of politics and was quitting.

A new pro tem caretaker Prime Minister was appointed to oversee the next election however the time to do that had run out.

The previous Prime Minister returned and took over WITHOUT formally going to the king (thus it was illegal) and proceeded to try to run Thailand as he had before he resigned.

When the coup came he was in New York illegally representing himself as the Prime Minister of Thailand.

The coup happened and the military promised that they would leave in a year. It was more like 13 or 14 months.

What followed was an election won by Samak who also broke the law (perhaps it was a silly law) and was forced to resign.

His party could legally have had him back as PM but chose Thaksin's brother in law instead.

That party was disolved for blatent election cheating and in the mess that followed the Democrats came up with a coalition to take over the government which is perfectly legal in Thailand.

That took place in 2009 nearly 3 years after the coup.

Where you have come up with the army and the democrats raping the country is beyond me.

Can you explain it simply to me and other people and also explain it what I have written above is correct or not and if I was wrong, please tell me where and why.

Thank you.

Coup-ist spin and misleading historical revisionism.

The stuff that happened between the coup turfing an elected Government, and last year's restoration of an elected, democratic Government, is best assigned to the dustbin of history. Its egregious trampling of Democracy cannot be denied and 'spun' out of existence.

Over 90 people died protesting this usurpation of governance by an unelected, coup-ist minority.

Last years election clearly showed how right they were. Killing them will forever be on the conscience of the coup-ists.

The term "tyranny of the minority" could have been crafted particularly for the garbage that took place between the 2006 coup and last years election.

tragickingdom could not have been more bang-on.

Edited February 17, 2012 by CalgaryII

[CalgaryII]

The Nation should have asked this question when the military raped the country in concert with Abhisit and his cronies and wrote again a new constitution. The Nation should have asked the somewhat rhetorical question how it is possible that idiots from the army and any other person with power could be able to write a new constitution every fie years or so and give themselves amnesty and how it is possible that in nomad countries a constitution is there for ever.

The Thai constitution needs a complete rewrite in it must be an article that any one trying to rewrite a constitution after a coupe should be send to prison for life. It will teach them a lesson that the constitution is not there for Royalists, military or industrialists but for all of the people.

How do you work out that The military and Abhisit (Democrats perhaps) raped the country

The scenario I remember was that in 2006 there was ONLY a caretaker government who failed to win an election and whose Prime Minister publicly went to the King and formally tendered his resignation which was accepted thus svering him from all authority.

He then told the country that he had had enough of politics and was quitting.

A new pro tem caretaker Prime Minister was appointed to oversee the next election however the time to do that had run out.

The previous Prime Minister returned and took over WITHOUT formally going to the king (thus it was illegal) and proceeded to try to run Thailand as he had before he resigned.

When the coup came he was in New York illegally representing himself as the Prime Minister of Thailand.

The coup happened and the military promised that they would leave in a year. It was more like 13 or 14 months.

What followed was an election won by Samak who also broke the law (perhaps it was a silly law) and was forced to resign.

His party could legally have had him back as PM but chose Thaksin's brother in law instead.

That party was disolved for blatent election cheating and in the mess that followed the Democrats came up with a coalition to take over the government which is perfectly legal in Thailand.

That took place in 2009 nearly 3 years after the coup.

Where you have come up with the army and the democrats raping the country is beyond me.

Can you explain it simply to me and other people and also explain it what I have written above is correct or not and if I was wrong, please tell me where and why.

Thank you.

24 hours and no response to what I thought was a reasonable request for a response.

He said everything correctly the first time.

[scorecard]

Of course the 2007 constitution was an attempt at reform,

Why else would Thaksin want it changed back so badly?

Only the coup-ists perpetrated Constitutional reform aimed at one person.

The 2007 constitution was aimed at one person and one political party.

To undo that damage, it is understandable that the stuff against one person and one political party will be changed.

The simplistic mantra of linking Constitution reform to a single, denigrating motive is just so much politicking.

The rationale is as follows::

"...the present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organisations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy.

Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution.

More troll stuff.

I notice you, and some others, have not provided any answers to the excellent points raised by billd766.

More proof that your just trolling the 'line' that you hope folks will blindly swallow.

[AleG]

The Nation should have asked this question when the military raped the country in concert with Abhisit and his cronies and wrote again a new constitution. The Nation should have asked the somewhat rhetorical question how it is possible that idiots from the army and any other person with power could be able to write a new constitution every fie years or so and give themselves amnesty and how it is possible that in nomad countries a constitution is there for ever.

The Thai constitution needs a complete rewrite in it must be an article that any one trying to rewrite a constitution after a coupe should be send to prison for life. It will teach them a lesson that the constitution is not there for Royalists, military or industrialists but for all of the people.

How do you work out that The military and Abhisit (Democrats perhaps) raped the country

The scenario I remember was that in 2006 there was ONLY a caretaker government who failed to win an election and whose Prime Minister publicly went to the King and formally tendered his resignation which was accepted thus svering him from all authority.

He then told the country that he had had enough of politics and was quitting.

A new pro tem caretaker Prime Minister was appointed to oversee the next election however the time to do that had run out.

The previous Prime Minister returned and took over WITHOUT formally going to the king (thus it was illegal) and proceeded to try to run Thailand as he had before he resigned.

When the coup came he was in New York illegally representing himself as the Prime Minister of Thailand.

The coup happened and the military promised that they would leave in a year. It was more like 13 or 14 months.

What followed was an election won by Samak who also broke the law (perhaps it was a silly law) and was forced to resign.

His party could legally have had him back as PM but chose Thaksin's brother in law instead.

That party was disolved for blatent election cheating and in the mess that followed the Democrats came up with a coalition to take over the government which is perfectly legal in Thailand.

That took place in 2009 nearly 3 years after the coup.

Where you have come up with the army and the democrats raping the country is beyond me.

Can you explain it simply to me and other people and also explain it what I have written above is correct or not and if I was wrong, please tell me where and why.

Thank you.

Coup-ist spin and misleading historical revisionism.

The stuff that happened between the coup turfing an elected Government, and last year's restoration of an elected, democratic Government, is best assigned to the dustbin of history. Its egregious trampling of Democracy cannot be denied and 'spun' out of existence.

Over 90 people died protesting this usurpation of governance by an unelected, coup-ist minority.

Last years election clearly showed how right they were. Killing them will forever be on the conscience of the coup-ists.

The term "tyranny of the minority" could have been crafted particularly for the garbage that took place between the 2006 coup and last years election.

tragickingdom could not have been more bang-on.

Historic revisionism? Please tell us, exactly, what events are not true and in their right order.

[CalgaryII]

The Nation should have asked this question when the military raped the country in concert with Abhisit and his cronies and wrote again a new constitution. The Nation should have asked the somewhat rhetorical question how it is possible that idiots from the army and any other person with power could be able to write a new constitution every fie years or so and give themselves amnesty and how it is possible that in nomad countries a constitution is there for ever.

The Thai constitution needs a complete rewrite in it must be an article that any one trying to rewrite a constitution after a coupe should be send to prison for life. It will teach them a lesson that the constitution is not there for Royalists, military or industrialists but for all of the people.

How do you work out that The military and Abhisit (Democrats perhaps) raped the country

The scenario I remember was that in 2006 there was ONLY a caretaker government who failed to win an election and whose Prime Minister publicly went to the King and formally tendered his resignation which was accepted thus svering him from all authority.

He then told the country that he had had enough of politics and was quitting.

A new pro tem caretaker Prime Minister was appointed to oversee the next election however the time to do that had run out.

The previous Prime Minister returned and took over WITHOUT formally going to the king (thus it was illegal) and proceeded to try to run Thailand as he had before he resigned.

When the coup came he was in New York illegally representing himself as the Prime Minister of Thailand.

The coup happened and the military promised that they would leave in a year. It was more like 13 or 14 months.

What followed was an election won by Samak who also broke the law (perhaps it was a silly law) and was forced to resign.

His party could legally have had him back as PM but chose Thaksin's brother in law instead.

That party was disolved for blatent election cheating and in the mess that followed the Democrats came up with a coalition to take over the government which is perfectly legal in Thailand.

That took place in 2009 nearly 3 years after the coup.

Where you have come up with the army and the democrats raping the country is beyond me.

Can you explain it simply to me and other people and also explain it what I have written above is correct or not and if I was wrong, please tell me where and why.

Thank you.

Coup-ist spin and misleading historical revisionism.

The stuff that happened between the coup turfing an elected Government, and last year's restoration of an elected, democratic Government, is best assigned to the dustbin of history. Its egregious trampling of Democracy cannot be denied and 'spun' out of existence.

Over 90 people died protesting this usurpation of governance by an unelected, coup-ist minority.

Last years election clearly showed how right they were. Killing them will forever be on the conscience of the coup-ists.

The term "tyranny of the minority" could have been crafted particularly for the garbage that took place between the 2006 coup and last years election.

tragickingdom could not have been more bang-on.

Historic revisionism? Please tell us, exactly, what events are not true and in their right order.

See my Post #10 above.

[AleG]

No weaseling, answer the question.

[whybother]

Coup-ist spin and misleading historical revisionism.

The stuff that happened between the coup turfing an elected Government, and last year's restoration of an elected, democratic Government, is best assigned to the dustbin of history. Its egregious trampling of Democracy cannot be denied and 'spun' out of existence.

Over 90 people died protesting this usurpation of governance by an unelected, coup-ist minority.

Last years election clearly showed how right they were. Killing them will forever be on the conscience of the coup-ists.

The term "tyranny of the minority" could have been crafted particularly for the garbage that took place between the 2006 coup and last years election.

tragickingdom could not have been more bang-on.

Which coup ousted an elected government?

"tyranny of the minority" - that would be the red shirts protests using guns and grenades, right?

Edited February 17, 2012 by whybother

[jayboy]

I notice you, and some others, have not provided any answers to the excellent points raised by billd766.

Excellent points? I just noted the boring convoluted narrative that there had not been a coup against Thaksin.I thought that tired old lie, which even the coup makers don't pretend to believe, had died a death.Apparently not, though I have never seen it gain much circulation outside this forum

[whybother]

I notice you, and some others, have not provided any answers to the excellent points raised by billd766.

Excellent points? I just noted the boring convoluted narrative that there had not been a coup against Thaksin.I thought that tired old lie, which even the coup makers don't pretend to believe, had died a death.Apparently not, though I have never seen it gain much circulation outside this forum

In this thread? I missed it. Can you point it out?

[CalgaryII]

I notice you, and some others, have not provided any answers to the excellent points raised by billd766.

Excellent points? I just noted the boring convoluted narrative that there had not been a coup against Thaksin.I thought that tired old lie, which even the coup makers don't pretend to believe, had died a death.Apparently not, though I have never seen it gain much circulation outside this forum

Anything that happened between the coup, and the election restoring political dignity to the Thai people, cannot be exonerated by coup-ists.

As much as they try via this convoluted narrative as you reference jayboy.

The political garbage between these two events are not worthy of comment or consideration. It is not history worth noting, and is expunged by all well-meaning citizens.

The culminating event of over 90 deaths standing up to this grievous political history, is a testimony to its aberrant nature.

Coup-ists and their sympathizers are all implicated in those deaths, and their defence of this history is gross indeed.

Let us all hope these people will be held responsible and will fade along with their misguided perspectives.

[whybother]

I notice you, and some others, have not provided any answers to the excellent points raised by billd766.

Excellent points? I just noted the boring convoluted narrative that there had not been a coup against Thaksin.I thought that tired old lie, which even the coup makers don't pretend to believe, had died a death.Apparently not, though I have never seen it gain much circulation outside this forum

Anything that happened between the coup, and the election restoring political dignity to the Thai people, cannot be exonerated by coup-ists.

As much as they try via this convoluted narrative as you reference jayboy.

The political garbage between these two events are not worthy of comment or consideration. It is not history worth noting, and is expunged by all well-meaning citizens.

The culminating event of over 90 deaths standing up to this grievous political history, is a testimony to its aberrant nature.

Coup-ists and their sympathizers are all implicated in those deaths, and their defence of this history is gross indeed.

Let us all hope these people will be held responsible and will fade along with their misguided perspectives.

So the political garbage of the 2010 protests and 90 deaths is not worth comment or consideration.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

[AleG]

I notice you, and some others, have not provided any answers to the excellent points raised by billd766.

Excellent points? I just noted the boring convoluted narrative that there had not been a coup against Thaksin.I thought that tired old lie, which even the coup makers don't pretend to believe, had died a death.Apparently not, though I have never seen it gain much circulation outside this forum

Anything that happened between the coup, and the election restoring political dignity to the Thai people, cannot be exonerated by coup-ists.

As much as they try via this convoluted narrative as you reference jayboy.

The political garbage between these two events are not worthy of comment or consideration. It is not history worth noting, and is expunged by all well-meaning citizens.

The culminating event of over 90 deaths standing up to this grievous political history, is a testimony to its aberrant nature.

Coup-ists and their sympathizers are all implicated in those deaths, and their defence of this history is gross indeed.

Let us all hope these people will be held responsible and will fade along with their misguided perspectives.

Your lack of ability or willingness to address the question is dully noted.

Please do continue to peddle BS.

[tlansford]

The Nation should have asked this question when the military raped the country in concert with Abhisit and his cronies and wrote again a new constitution. The Nation should have asked the somewhat rhetorical question how it is possible that idiots from the army and any other person with power could be able to write a new constitution every fie years or so and give themselves amnesty and how it is possible that in nomad countries a constitution is there for ever.

The Thai constitution needs a complete rewrite in it must be an article that any one trying to rewrite a constitution after a coupe should be send to prison for life. It will teach them a lesson that the constitution is not there for Royalists, military or industrialists but for all of the people.

Well, you received the anticipated piling-on. Looks like a political rugby match. How do you feel at the bottom of the pile ?

[tlansford]

As they say, stupid questions deserve stupid answers.

At least they declare their built in bias at the start of the article.

The whole process of constitutional rewriting would concentrate on who controls how many votes in the CDA rather than what the people really want from the country's highest law of the land.

Here is the real root of the problem for the right. In the Thai society, they have a lot of influence and are used to wielding it. But among the electorate, they clearly do not have the same influence. If democratic principles are followed, then the influence of the right will clearly be reduced and minimized which the right cannot tolerate.

It is ironic that the right talks here about the "what the people want", and simultaneously tries to claim that won't be served by following a democratic process.

This is going to be interesting to watch.

[tlansford]

I notice you, and some others, have not provided any answers to the excellent points raised by billd766.

Excellent points? I just noted the boring convoluted narrative that there had not been a coup against Thaksin.I thought that tired old lie, which even the coup makers don't pretend to believe, had died a death.Apparently not, though I have never seen it gain much circulation outside this forum

Anything that happened between the coup, and the election restoring political dignity to the Thai people, cannot be exonerated by coup-ists.

As much as they try via this convoluted narrative as you reference jayboy.

The political garbage between these two events are not worthy of comment or consideration. It is not history worth noting, and is expunged by all well-meaning citizens.

The culminating event of over 90 deaths standing up to this grievous political history, is a testimony to its aberrant nature.

Coup-ists and their sympathizers are all implicated in those deaths, and their defence of this history is gross indeed.

Let us all hope these people will be held responsible and will fade along with their misguided perspectives.

Your lack of ability or willingness to address the question is dully noted.

Please do continue to peddle BS.

Bild766's points are the same tired version of events which have been refuted many times on TVF. There is hardly need to do so again.

[DP25]

Of course this is only about Thaksin, that's all any of this has ever been about. The only goal of this government, aside from lining their pockets, is to pardon Thaksin and return his confiscated billions (which these corrupt politicians support as it lines their own pockets as well). Once Thaksin's billions are returned he will be almost unstoppable. Then we will get the society these people desire, a corrupt oligarchy that squashes all dissent and enables the permanent exploitation of the Thai people at the hands of a ruthless oppressor.

[tlansford]

Gotta love the picture at the head of the article. The charter amendment opponents' strategy is pretty clear, isn't it?

[CalgaryII]

Of course this is only about Thaksin, that's all any of this has ever been about. The only goal of this government, aside from lining their pockets, is to pardon Thaksin and return his confiscated billions (which these corrupt politicians support as it lines their own pockets as well). Once Thaksin's billions are returned he will be almost unstoppable. Then we will get the society these people desire, a corrupt oligarchy that squashes all dissent and enables the permanent exploitation of the Thai people at the hands of a ruthless oppressor.

Not interested in debating indoctrinated Thaksin haters.

[DP25]

Of course this is only about Thaksin, that's all any of this has ever been about. The only goal of this government, aside from lining their pockets, is to pardon Thaksin and return his confiscated billions (which these corrupt politicians support as it lines their own pockets as well). Once Thaksin's billions are returned he will be almost unstoppable. Then we will get the society these people desire, a corrupt oligarchy that squashes all dissent and enables the permanent exploitation of the Thai people at the hands of a ruthless oppressor.

Not interested in debating indoctrinated Thaksin haters.

My comment wasn't addressed to you, and I'm not interested in "debating" with Thaksin propagandists

[scorecard]

tragickingdom, #2

The Thai constitution needs a complete rewrite in it must be an article that any one trying to rewrite a constitution after a coupe should be send to prison for life

Constitutional changes after a coup are seen for what they are, and are typically assigned to the garbage bin, as soon as elections return the country to Democratic Institutions.

Defending a coup-constitution is a tough go!

That would be the oinion of a troll.

[AleG]

Wow, when I think the guy can't be any more pathetic.... WHAM! blindsided.