WATCHDOG

Pheu Thai wants more than just charter change

Nophakhun Limsamarnphun

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Wattana Muangsuk, the Pheu Thai Party's party-list MP and vice chairman of the House Committee on National Reconciliation, suggested that the role of the Supreme Court on criminal offences by political office-holders should be reviewed.

He made the remark during yesterday's joint session of Parliament, during which the charter amendment motion was debated.

According to Wattana, there is currently no check and balance in the judicial review process, which is enshrined in the current Constitution.

The ruling Pheu Thai Party wants to amend the 2007 charter, which it claims is undemocratic because it was promulgated following the 2006 coup that overthrew the Thaksin government.

In the past several years, the Supreme Court on criminal offences by political office-holders has delivered many crucial rulings, including imprisonment for serious offenses, such as the two-year jail term for fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra on abuse of power while in office.

In fact, the Supreme Court's role is aimed at serving as another check-and-balance mechanism. The Court's role, which is not completely isolated, is similar to that of the Constitution Court, which has jurisdiction over constitutional issues; and the Supreme Administrative Court, which has jurisdiction over governance issues.

Such a judicial review process is also similar to the roles played by independent bodies such as the National Counter Corruption Commission and the Election Commission among others.

However, Wattana, a close aide of Thaksin, argued that the country needs a new balance in the legislative, executive and judicial branches. In his opinion, the executive - the government - is checked and balanced by the legislative, the MPs and senators.

The mechanisms include the set-up of House committees and no-confidence debates as well as dissolution of the House if the government can longer function, he said.

Wattana also claimed that the role of Supreme Court on criminal offences by political office holders may run counter to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Parliament has spent more than 25 hours over the past few days debating amendments to the current charter as sought by Pheu Thai and its coalition partners.

There are three separate bills on charter amendment. The legislation is aimed at first amending Article 291 of the Constitution to pave the way for the set-up of a new charter-drafting assembly.

Government MPs, opposition MPs and senators got the same quota of eight hours each in debating the pros and cons of the three bills over the past two days.

The government will need at least 325 votes out of the joint session's 650 members to approve one of the bills to change the charter. With a combined 300 government MPs, Pheu Thai needs at least another 25 senators to pass the bill.

In response to the government's move, leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), said they would stage a mass rally on March 10 to oppose the whose process, which they say will be tantamount to a constitutional coup to whitewash fugitive ex-premier Thaksin.

A recent poll the by the National Institute of Development Administration (Nida) shows that 58.4 per cent of respondents are against the move to amend the charter, as they believe it will benefit only certain people. Another 45.1 per cent of respondents said charter amendment must be participated in by a wide range of people from all walks of life.

The charter amendment move has also hit the private sector's confidence due to the looming political confrontation, which could hurt the economy and the export sector.

-- The Nation 2012-02-25

How does the use of Executive Decrees fit into this parliamentary consultative process? What checks and balances apply when no debate is permitted?

The Majority party is adequately held in check by the MP's, of whom they control the majority? !

Let's be quite clear what k. Wattana is suggesting. Should an MP be accused of a CRIMINAL offence rather than that being referred to an independent court, instead he would face impeachment. The matter would then be dealt with by parliamentary process. Of course, if he was a government MP, the vote would be lost.

If the criminal in question happened to be the PM (who reportedly also holds resignation letters from his MPs) he could literally get away with murder. Or rampant corruption, without facing a 2 year jail sentence.

This runs with Thaksin and PTP's (and associated sycophants') views on Democracy; once an election is won, by fair means or foul, the government has the right to do whatever it wishes until the next election. Checks and balances only hinder an elected government, especially when it comes to pillage.

Edited February 24, 201214 yr by OzMick

This is madness and heading down the road to civil war

Seems to be the grand plan

This is madness and heading down the road to civil war

This is madness and heading down the road to civil war

The prognosis does not look good!

I said it in 2006 and again in 2008 and 2010, its a hostile take over of the Thailand corporation. A revolution not for democracy or justice nor for liberty, but for the money and the power.

• In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.
  
• Tony Montana
  

Perhaps the MPs and others need a holiday in Cambodia's Killing Fields and a visit to Tuol Sleng School in Phnom Penh to see where they are taking the country.

This is madness and heading down the road to civil war

The prognosis does not look good!

The usual defenders of the faith haven't shown up to defend a complete take over of all branches of government.

PAD have been warning us all along, but we dod not listen.

The charter change is to benefit Thaksin and Thaksin alone, by a introducing a reconcilation law to white wash a man call Thaksin.

The charter change is to remove or reword 112.

First of, having immunity for MP's is pure nonsense.

Secondly, having a separate justice system for politicians only is a setup for something very sinister.

Immunity for MP and government members is a good thing.

But they are not beyond the law..

Our ExFederal President in Germany had to retire, because some public prosecutors

asked for anulment of his immunity with some facts. He fled before.

But you need an intact law system. PTT tries to abolish the already weak system in Thailand.

It seems that PT wants to be the sole arbiter of MP's conduct. They also conveniently 'forget' that the current constitution was promulgated after a referendum, unlike any of the previous editions.

I'm not sure what type of half-baked democracy they are aiming for - Singapore's, Zimbabwe's or Cambodia's.

It seems that PT wants to be the sole arbiter of MP's conduct. They also conveniently 'forget' that the current constitution was promulgated after a referendum, unlike any of the previous editions.

I'm not sure what type of half-baked democracy they are aiming for - Singapore's, Zimbabwe's or Cambodia's.

Based on the Red Shirt's infatuation with Hun Sen and Thaksin being his "eternal friend" I would pick the third option.

Perhaps the MPs and others need a holiday in Cambodia's Killing Fields and a visit to Tuol Sleng School in Phnom Penh to see where they are taking the country.

This is madness and heading down the road to civil war

The prognosis does not look good!

Unfortunately, it would add up to nothing more than just another taxpayer funded "political jaunt".

First of, having immunity for MP's is pure nonsense.

Secondly, having a separate justice system for politicians only is a setup for something very sinister.

Are the government the only powerful entity in Thailand with priviledges in the judicial arena?

Edited February 25, 201214 yr by 473geo

I thought the drunk guy had already written everything by himself so this is all moot, correct?

Not required as does nothing to support democracy, well my idea of it anyway.

It seems that PT wants to be the sole arbiter of MP's conduct. They also conveniently 'forget' that the current constitution was promulgated after a referendum, unlike any of the previous editions.

I'm not sure what type of half-baked democracy they are aiming for - Singapore's, Zimbabwe's or Cambodia's.

That would make the PT leader the sole arbiter of his own actions.

Checks and Balances out the window.

Not to mention the whining to weaken the Judiciary,

which has been the ONLY check and balance on both the Legislative and Executive.

Leaving the army as the only court of last resort. Which explains the anti-coup rallies

and obvious future repeat attempts to salt the army with Pro-Thaksin shills.

Recipe for civil war indeed.

Edited February 26, 201214 yr by animatic

Perhaps the MPs and others need a holiday in Cambodia's Killing Fields and a visit to Tuol Sleng School in Phnom Penh to see where they are taking the country.

This is madness and heading down the road to civil war

The prognosis does not look good!

That's the problem. This lot of Pheu Thai MP's do know where they are taking the country. Welcome to the Shinawatra Dynasty, the other ----- family.

so basically MP's should be above the law ????

Oh my god are these people for real

so basically MP's should be above the law ????

Oh my god are these people for real

If not MP's who should be above law?

Coup makers? They already are.

Roll on the next coup. What does it take to tip the balance? I am sure the ground is already well prepared.

Edited February 27, 201214 yr by MaiChai

isn't it just as well there is an army here to step in when government gets out of control, not that I agree with this type of action but I believe it is a nessesary safe guard in Thailand when ruling parties get carried away

When a ruling party is so hell bent on changing the constitution so they can do as they wish that tells me two things, the constitution is working as it is and the party trying to change it are not