Proponents And Opponents Of Thai Charter Changes Clash On First Day Of Debate

[webfact]

Proponents and opponents of charter changes clash on first day of debate

Kittipong Thavevong

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Opposition MPs and some senators on Thursday expressed concern that constitutional clauses involving the monarchy may be written in a way to reduce the power of the head of state.

They also pointed out that the bills seeking to establish a constitution drafting assembly to write an entire charter would be tantamount to overthrowing the current post-coup Constitution, which they said was a violation of the highest law.

Thursday was the first day of parliamentary debate on three bills - proposed separately by the Cabinet and coalition parties - seeking amendment to Article 291 of the Constitution to allow establishment of a constitution drafting assembly.

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung said that a clause in one amendment draft prohibits writing constitution in a way that would result in change of the political system from the current constitutional monarchy. Pheu Thai MP Vicharn Meechainan insisted that he would not allow any changes that would affect the monarchy.

However, some senators and opposition MPs called on the government to state clearly in its bill that the clauses in the Charter 2 of the current charter about the monarchy would remain intact. Some parliamentarians urged Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to make assurance herself.

Senator Somchai Sawangkarn said that such concern was warranted following recent calls for changes in the clauses about the monarchy by groups linked to politicians in power.

Opposition Democrat MPs said that giving a "blank cheque" to a yet-to-be-established constitution drafting assembly - allowing it to write a new charter from scratches - was no guarantee that a new charter would be better than the current one. They also doubted the problems of the current charter mentioned by the government as the reasons for a major rewrite would be addressed.

Coalition MPs, particularly those from the ruling Pheu Thai Party, pointed out that the current Constitution was a "fruit" of the "evil" 2006 coup that overthrew the government of Thaksin Shinawatra. They said many provisions in the charter led to conflicts in society and obstructed the government work.

Pheu Thai MP Apiwan Wiriyachai said the charter set a nine-year term for members of the Constitutional Court and the National Anti-Corruption Commission, with the hidden goal of "trying to make some political parties extinct".

He also said that the provision about dissolution of a political party in case a party executive is involved in wrongdoing was "undemocratic and against the principle of justice".

Apiwan, formerly a deputy House speaker, supported the idea of setting up a CDA to write a new charter. He said it was likely the CDA would include the good parts of the current and past charters in a new constitution.

Democrat MP Chamni Sakdiseth questioned the validity of the government MPs' argument that constitutional amendment would lead to reconciliation. He said reconciliation would be achieved when the charter was enforced in a fair and justified manner.

Chamni said the current charter has clauses that make it difficult for ruling politicians to abuse their power. He suspected that changes of the charter also were aimed at helping "a particular person" to return to Thailand a free man, after efforts to seek amnesty and royal pardon for him failed. He obviously referred to Thaksin, who is in self-exile overseas escaping a two years' imprisonment at home for abuse of power.

Many senators spoke in support of the amendment move while a number of other members of the Upper House voiced their opposition.

Senator Prajit Rojanaphruk said that he believed it was against the constitution to allow rewrite of the entire charter. "This is tantamount to cancelling the current Constitution and parliamentarians who support the change will break their vow to protect the Constitution," he said.

Democrat MP Boonlert Pairin said he wondered if Parliament has the power to appoint a new constitution drafting assembly to write a new constitution. He said the act risked being regarded as a violation of the current Constitution.

"The political party that proposes such change could face criminal case and end up being dissolved," he said.

Opposition MPs said they did not oppose changes to certain problematic clauses in the current charter, but that allowing a CDA a free hand to write a new one was too costly and unnecessary. They said Article 291 already allows amendment by Parliament.

MP Sanongthep Aksornnarong from the opposition Pheu Thai Party voiced support to amendment of problematic clauses. He added that the amendment should benefit the people as a whole, and not certain groups.

Democrat MP Winai Sompong said he disagreed to changing the entire charter. He called on the government to identify the problematic clauses and that Parliament should do the job of amendment.

Winai, a retired Army colonel, said the problem with the current charter involved humans rather than the law itself. He noted that Japan has only one constitution after World War II. "The Japanese adapt themselves to the constitution and they do not try to change the constitution to suit them," he said.

He also said that in the Thai political history, a crisis often led to constitutional amendment and a new constitution in turn led to a new crisis. "Writing a new constitution may lead to yet another crisis," he warned.

Democrat MP Ratchada Thanadirek agreed that failure to abide by the constitution - and not the law itself - led to the political problems and unrest. "We should improve people rather than the constitution," she said.

Rival groups of supporters and detractors of constitutional amendment gathered separately outside Parliament on Thursday.

After more than 16 hours of meeting, Senate Speaker Thiradej Meepien, who acted as the chair, adjourned the debate at about 2 am and scheduled the meeting to be resumed at 9 am on Friday.

A total of 620 parliamentarians attended Thursday's meeting - 480 MPs and 140 senators.

-- The Nation 2012-02-24

[Moruya]

What was the point of the PTP party calling in Kofi Annan just to ignore his advice for reconcilliation?

[Reasonableman]

Thailand, the new hypocrisy hub

[Buchholz]

Coalition MPs, particularly those from the ruling Pheu Thai Party, pointed out that the current Constitution was a "fruit" of the "evil" 2006 coup that overthrew the government of Thaksin Shinawatra. They said many provisions in the charter led to conflicts in society and obstructed the government work.

Pheu Thai MP Apiwan Wiriyachai said the charter set a nine-year term for members of the Constitutional Court and the National Anti-Corruption Commission, with the hidden goal of "trying to make some political parties extinct".

I can understand that being an indicted Red Shirt Leader out on bail, Apiwan might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but the term limit of 9 years for Constitutional Court and the NACC was established in the 1997 Constitution (Articles 259 and 298). The "evil" 2007 Constitution simply continued it.

.

[Reasonableman]

It would be really great if you could appoint a new court every election, to "facilitate" the activities of the government in power. Then, a government could consitutionalise anything via its new appointees.

That only works well if YOU are the government in power, of course. If you are not, it would mean that one of the key checks and balances protecting against abuse of power has been neutered or become part of the political, not the judicial, process.

Is that really in the best long-term interests of the country?

[webfact]

Charter Amendment Vote Expected at 2 AM

BANGKOK: -- The Senate speaker expects the charter amendment vote to take place at 2 AM tonight following a full day of deliberation which began at 9 AM. The vote will be a roll call which is expected to take 2 hours.

Last night's session ended at 2 AM.

Senators also refuted speculation that bribes were paid for their vote for the charter amendment. The ruling coalition has 300 votes but it needs 350 votes to pass the motion. The Democrat Party has already announced it will oppose the motion.

-- Tan Network 2012-02-24

[webfact]

RT @Aim_NT: Pheu Thai MP Weng: when Thailand has a real democratic charter, all Thais will benefit from that including Thaksin will be able to come back

[animatic]

It has a real Democratic charter now. Voted on by the people.

Thaksin can come home today if he choses to.

But he won't get a pass on court dates awaiting his return,

removing those court dates has nothing to do with 'legitimate charter rewrites',

or with whether the charter is democratic; more or less.

This is a can of worms, slowly frying in oil being heated to boiling.

No good can come of it.

[Moruya]

RT @Aim_NT: Pheu Thai MP Weng: when Thailand has a real democratic charter, all Thais will benefit from that including Thaksin will be able to come back

He managed that with so few words? I think he deserves an ice cream.

[Jawnie]

Thais and Thai politicians should be cooperating to make the transition to a more secular government easier, not harder. This transition is inevitable. The idea that states exist to benefit and protect the Few is out-of-date and old fashioned for the 21st century.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Jawnie

[anterian]

It has a real Democratic charter now. Voted on by the people.

Thaksin can come home today if he choses to.

But he won't get a pass on court dates awaiting his return,

removing those court dates has nothing to do with 'legitimate charter rewrites',

or with whether the charter is democratic; more or less.

This is a can of worms, slowly frying in oil being heated to boiling.

No good can come of it.

Is voting under duress democracy. Do you remember the choices? Accept this one or the army will design its own.

[vijer]

Thais and Thai politicians should be cooperating to make the transition to a more secular government easier, not harder. This transition is inevitable. The idea that states exist to benefit and protect the Few is out-of-date and old fashioned for the 21st century.

Ya sure ... tell that to the Americans ... the US government is only interested in helping the few get richer, especially those pigs the republicans. A very clear corollary to Red Shirts, that being, the exceedingly ignorant and stupid being duped into believing that those individuals shoveling the shit have the idiots best interests at heart. The republican base is made up of some of the stupidest and least informed people in America and they believe the shit they are being told. Not a bright bunch those, too stupid to use the internet to check facts or form an informed opinion. I do believe that is an apt description of Red Shits, no?

The idea that states exist to benefit the few may be out of date but it is clearly operating at full capacity. The greedy work actively to keep the sheep ignorant, which is why the republicans repeatedly cut government spending on education. Keep em stupid.

Another analogy if I may, PM will give all the students tablets ... the US government will give everyone a reduction in taxes. Here sheep look at this hand over here that is giving you a pittance, but don't look at this other hand over here that is stealing all the wealth. Aren't you happy you voted Red/republican.

By the way "republican" is not capitalized because they are not proper and don't deserve the respect.

[OZEMADE]

Well it don't matter now as it went through exceptionally well.

MPs and senators voted 399-199 to pass the three amendment bills, with 14 abstentions.

[rixalex]

It has a real Democratic charter now. Voted on by the people.

Thaksin can come home today if he choses to.

But he won't get a pass on court dates awaiting his return,

removing those court dates has nothing to do with 'legitimate charter rewrites',

or with whether the charter is democratic; more or less.

This is a can of worms, slowly frying in oil being heated to boiling.

No good can come of it.

Is voting under duress democracy. Do you remember the choices? Accept this one or the army will design its own.

No, i don't recall the army saying it would design its own one, i remember there being talk of a new one being designed, were that necessary - precisely by whom, i don't think had been decided. And as far as i am aware, had a new one been needed to be designed, that new one also would have been put before the people in a referendum, and so it could also have been rejected, were the people not happy with it. Seems pretty democratic to me.

[anterian]

It has a real Democratic charter now. Voted on by the people.

Thaksin can come home today if he choses to.

But he won't get a pass on court dates awaiting his return,

removing those court dates has nothing to do with 'legitimate charter rewrites',

or with whether the charter is democratic; more or less.

This is a can of worms, slowly frying in oil being heated to boiling.

No good can come of it.

Is voting under duress democracy. Do you remember the choices? Accept this one or the army will design its own.

No, i don't recall the army saying it would design its own one, i remember there being talk of a new one being designed, were that necessary - precisely by whom, i don't think had been decided. And as far as i am aware, had a new one been needed to be designed, that new one also would have been put before the people in a referendum, and so it could also have been rejected, were the people not happy with it. Seems pretty democratic to me.

Perhaps you were not handed one of the leaflets to read. Two choices were on offer, accept this one or we (the puppet army government) will choose one for you.

[rixalex]

Perhaps you were not handed one of the leaflets to read. Two choices were on offer, accept this one or we (the puppet army government) will choose one for you.

I think the idea was, in the case of people voting "no", to use a modified version of an old constitution. I don't recall the interim government at any stage however saying that there would not be a referendum on that one.

What you say about voters being under duress is complete nonsense. Voters were free to vote however they wished, and had they voted "no", as Thaksin and his supporters were urging them to do, it would have created a massive problem for the military as it would have been a clear signal that the people were against them and for Thaksin. I'm sure Thaksin was confident that this was going to be the outcome, and had it, he would have claimed victory and it quite possibly would have emboldened him enough to return and declare himself as the rightful and the people's PM.

Alas for him, people didn't vote that way.

Of course we can't be having that. We now have to pretend that somehow people were voting under duress.

[AleG]

He also said that the provision about dissolution of a political party in case a party executive is involved in wrongdoing was "undemocratic and against the principle of justice".

If that is one of the bigger issues a compromise could be reached. Instead of dissolving entire parties and banning politicians for 5 years, remove the party banning and make the individual politicians caught in electoral fraud, corruption or convicted to jail for a criminal offense, permanently banned from politics.

Sounds fair, doesn't it?

[blows]

Next step, legalize dictator Thaksin's return with complete amnesty and appointed grand poobah directing the red shirts to eliminate all opposition, much like the red guard did.

[animatic]

It has a real Democratic charter now. Voted on by the people.

Thaksin can come home today if he choses to.

But he won't get a pass on court dates awaiting his return,

removing those court dates has nothing to do with 'legitimate charter rewrites',

or with whether the charter is democratic; more or less.

This is a can of worms, slowly frying in oil being heated to boiling.

No good can come of it.

Is voting under duress democracy. Do you remember the choices? Accept this one or the army will design its own.

Yes, 'vote yes or no, or it goes for a rewrite'.

Same as 95% of all National charters around the world get.

And yes there were limits set on lies and propaganda dissemination.

[animatic]

It has a real Democratic charter now. Voted on by the people.

Thaksin can come home today if he choses to.

But he won't get a pass on court dates awaiting his return,

removing those court dates has nothing to do with 'legitimate charter rewrites',

or with whether the charter is democratic; more or less.

This is a can of worms, slowly frying in oil being heated to boiling.

No good can come of it.

Is voting under duress democracy. Do you remember the choices? Accept this one or the army will design its own.

No, i don't recall the army saying it would design its own one, i remember there being talk of a new one being designed, were that necessary - precisely by whom, i don't think had been decided. And as far as i am aware, had a new one been needed to be designed, that new one also would have been put before the people in a referendum, and so it could also have been rejected, were the people not happy with it. Seems pretty democratic to me.

Perhaps you were not handed one of the leaflets to read. Two choices were on offer, accept this one or we (the puppet army government) will choose one for you.

Nope, none of my up country friends said the leaflets said this.

And I have friends in many provinces.

[phiphidon]

Perhaps you were not handed one of the leaflets to read. Two choices were on offer, accept this one or we (the puppet army government) will choose one for you.

I think the idea was, in the case of people voting "no", to use a modified version of an old constitution. I don't recall the interim government at any stage however saying that there would not be a referendum on that one.

What you say about voters being under duress is complete nonsense. Voters were free to vote however they wished, and had they voted "no", as Thaksin and his supporters were urging them to do, it would have created a massive problem for the military as it would have been a clear signal that the people were against them and for Thaksin. I'm sure Thaksin was confident that this was going to be the outcome, and had it, he would have claimed victory and it quite possibly would have emboldened him enough to return and declare himself as the rightful and the people's PM.

Alas for him, people didn't vote that way.

Of course we can't be having that. We now have to pretend that somehow people were voting under duress.

A one off law was written purely for the referendum on the 2007 Constitution which among other punishments promised a 10 year prison sentence or up to 200,000 Baht fine to anyone found "disturbing" the referendum - no definition given but presumably up to the Junta. Even The Nation seemed to be upset by this law (http://www.nationmul...cs_30039559.php)

If the Public had voted No the Junta were at liberty to choose any previous constitution and amend it accordingly (with the implied threat of losing whatever human rights they had gained in the 1996 Constitution)

For the military regime in Thailand too the appeal to the people is conceived as a way to get its own handiwork formally approved, for the sake of public relations at home and abroad. Yes or no, with us or against us: this is the extent of democracy on offer. And even this choice is a scam. If things do not work out as planned--due to arbitrary deadlines not being met or the draft being unexpectedly rejected by the public--the junta will simply write its own charter, revising "one of the previously promulgated Constitutions" (section 32). Thus, the fraud is ultimately exposed, as it was in 1991 when early versions of the constitution prepared under a military junta at that time were extensively rewritten according to the generals' wishes.

http://www.humanrigh...ews/AS-242-2006

In a hypothetical case you say that the Thai people would have been allowed another referendum to vote on this amended constitution (the one replacing the Junta amended version after the people voted No). If another referendum had been allowed the same proviso (Section 32) would have been written in and IF the Junta felt like it they would have referendums ad infinitum until they got the one they wanted.

No, there was no choice, it was take this one or lose what rights you had. To think otherwise is remarkably naive.

[anterian]

Perhaps you were not handed one of the leaflets to read. Two choices were on offer, accept this one or we (the puppet army government) will choose one for you.

I think the idea was, in the case of people voting "no", to use a modified version of an old constitution. I don't recall the interim government at any stage however saying that there would not be a referendum on that one.

What you say about voters being under duress is complete nonsense. Voters were free to vote however they wished, and had they voted "no", as Thaksin and his supporters were urging them to do, it would have created a massive problem for the military as it would have been a clear signal that the people were against them and for Thaksin. I'm sure Thaksin was confident that this was going to be the outcome, and had it, he would have claimed victory and it quite possibly would have emboldened him enough to return and declare himself as the rightful and the people's PM.

Alas for him, people didn't vote that way.

Of course we can't be having that. We now have to pretend that somehow people were voting under duress.

A one off law was written purely for the referendum on the 2007 Constitution which among other punishments promised a 10 year prison sentence or up to 200,000 Baht fine to anyone found "disturbing" the referendum - no definition given but presumably up to the Junta. Even The Nation seemed to be upset by this law (http://www.nationmul...cs_30039559.php)

If the Public had voted No the Junta were at liberty to choose any previous constitution and amend it accordingly (with the implied threat of losing whatever human rights they had gained in the 1996 Constitution)

For the military regime in Thailand too the appeal to the people is conceived as a way to get its own handiwork formally approved, for the sake of public relations at home and abroad. Yes or no, with us or against us: this is the extent of democracy on offer. And even this choice is a scam. If things do not work out as planned--due to arbitrary deadlines not being met or the draft being unexpectedly rejected by the public--the junta will simply write its own charter, revising "one of the previously promulgated Constitutions" (section 32). Thus, the fraud is ultimately exposed, as it was in 1991 when early versions of the constitution prepared under a military junta at that time were extensively rewritten according to the generals' wishes.

http://www.humanrigh...ews/AS-242-2006

In a hypothetical case you say that the Thai people would have been allowed another referendum to vote on this amended constitution (the one replacing the Junta amended version after the people voted No). If another referendum had been allowed the same proviso (Section 32) would have been written in and IF the Junta felt like it they would have referendums ad infinitum until they got the one they wanted.

No, there was no choice, it was take this one or lose what rights you had. To think otherwise is remarkably naive.

Yes that is exactly how i remember the situation. thank you for the substantiating links.

[rixalex]

If another referendum had been allowed the same proviso (Section 32) would have been written in and IF the Junta felt like it they would have referendums ad infinitum until they got the one they wanted.

Two way street. Just as the junta had the power to keep organising new referendums until they got the one they wanted, the voting public had the power to keeping saying no until they got the one they wanted.

No, there was no choice, it was take this one or lose what rights you had. To think otherwise is remarkably naive.

What rights would they have lost by voting no?

[blows]

If another referendum had been allowed the same proviso (Section 32) would have been written in and IF the Junta felt like it they would have referendums ad infinitum until they got the one they wanted.

Two way street. Just as the junta had the power to keep organising new referendums until they got the one they wanted, the voting public had the power to keeping saying no until they got the one they wanted.

No, there was no choice, it was take this one or lose what rights you had. To think otherwise is remarkably naive.

What rights would they have lost by voting no?

It sounds like the guy is doing a cop out.

Cop out is an idiom which means to avoid taking responsibility for an action.