Thailand Constitution Changes 'Not Justified'

[webfact]

Constitution changes 'not justified'

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Campaign for Popular Democracy issued a statement yesterday opposing the charter rewrite on grounds that change would serve vested and partisan interests rather than the public.

"The people will gain nothing," campaign secretary-general Suriyan Thongnu-iad said.

Suriyan said he suspected government lawmakers had an ulterior motive to amend the Constitution in order to "rescue" fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra from his conviction and punishment for a conflict of interest.

He said the country's democratic rule and charter provisions were in order, hence there was no justification for changing the basic law.

He further stated that the Constitution Drafting Assembly, if formed, would be a proxy for politicians to write new rules, designed for partisanship.

He said he would keep a close watch on the charter rewriting process in order to blow the whistle on how the coalition parties were trying to dominate the political system by weakening public checks and balances.

Following the two-day charter debate in Parliament, about one in two people said they did not have sufficient information to form judgement on whether the charter should be amended, Suan Dusit Poll said in a survey released yesterday.

About three in 10 people voiced opposition against rewriting the charter for fear of deepening social division.

Some one in five respondents voiced support for changes in the hope of improving the political system.

When asked how the respondents saw the charter rewrite, the top five opinions were: a trigger for political violence, an unfolding issue to watch, a majority will for change and an unresolved issue.

About three in five people said they disapproved of protests and inappropriate behaviour displayed by MPs during the charter debate on Thursday and Friday.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said Parliament would take the lead role on the charter amendments.

"I hope the charter rewrite will heed the people's voice and meet their aspirations, leading to social acceptance and peace," she said.

In a related development, Democrat Party spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut said Thaksin should stop inciting the red shirts as a shield to escape his punishment.

Chavanond said Thaksin tried to maintain the loyalty of the red shirts by giving them false hopes.

He repeated the stand of the Democrats that Thaksin should be responsible for paying compensation in connection with the political disturbances in 2010 because he inveigled the red shirts to rally and become involved in rioting.

-- The Nation 2012-02-27

[sparebox2]

Similar to the coup maker who write the constitutioon to protect themselves. The 1st item in the new constitution will say something like. "Thaksin Shinawatar is above all laws before, during and after the coup".

See, the this charter amendment is made solely for the benefit of one man, and one man alone.

The argument is: If the dictators, not elected coup makers can write somthing for themselves; why not the leader of a people's elected government?

Edited February 26, 2012 by sparebox2

[Roadman]

"Suriyan said he suspected government lawmakers had an ulterior motive to amend the Constitution in order to "rescue" fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra from his conviction and punishment for a conflict of interest."

Suriyan suspects? It's been the objective since day dot, it ain't suspected.

"He repeated the stand of the Democrats that Thaksin should be responsible for paying compensation in connection with the political disturbances in 2010 because he inveigled the red shirts to rally and become involved in rioting."

Chavanond only wants compensation? Thaksin should be on charges of acts of civil war against Thailand.

Why can't these ministers actually call what is going on around them?

The days and events that most don't want are coming a lot closer. I am thankful that those that are most important to us are being moved out of Thailand very soon.

[birdpooguava]

The 2007 charter was unfairly drafted by an illegal, unconstitutional coup government to minimise and vilify one man, one party and the majority of voters. They used untold state funds and resources to promote the new constitution before the referendum was held, saying that a vote for the new constitution was a vote for the monarchy. Those who were opposed to it were prevented from campaigning properly by arrests, threats and a total lack of access in the media.

[Reasonableman]

That is one view, and there are many divergent viewpoints on this. It might be useful at this point to stop parroting slogans and turn your brain on. Please be specific about the Constitution's shortcomings. What is best for Thailand's future? It might be helpful to leave recent political contortions on the side to help think clearly. Exactly what parts do you think should be changed? Why? What would be a good process for changing it, and why? Thanks.

The 2007 charter was unfairly drafted by an illegal, unconstitutional coup government to minimise and vilify one man, one party and the majority of voters. They used untold state funds and resources to promote the new constitution before the referendum was held, saying that a vote for the new constitution was a vote for the monarchy. Those who were opposed to it were prevented from campaigning properly by arrests, threats and a total lack of access in the media.

[whybother]

When asked how the respondents saw the charter rewrite, the top five opinions were: (1) a trigger for political violence, (2) an unfolding issue to watch, (3) a majority will for change and (4) an unresolved issue.

(5) ?????????

[Reasonableman]

That is one view, and there are many divergent viewpoints on this. It might be useful at this point to stop parroting slogans and turn your brain on. Please be specific about the Constitution's shortcomings. What is best for Thailand's future? It might be helpful to leave recent political contortions on the side to help think clearly. Exactly what parts do you think should be changed? Why? What would be a good process for changing it, and why? Thanks.

The 2007 charter was unfairly drafted by an illegal, unconstitutional coup government to minimise and vilify one man, one party and the majority of voters. They used untold state funds and resources to promote the new constitution before the referendum was held, saying that a vote for the new constitution was a vote for the monarchy. Those who were opposed to it were prevented from campaigning properly by arrests, threats and a total lack of access in the media.

Right, as expected. A vacant space.

[maidu]

The charter change is yet another reason for PT reps to waste time - which they should be devoting to helping the Thai people. And yes, of course it's geared towards enabling T to return to Thailand - and probably taking the PM's chair again. PT can probably fool most of its supporters (who are all easily duped), but anyone using a few brain cells in concert will see the 'charter change' ruse for what it is. If PT devoted as much time and energy to assisting the Thai people as they do to playing golf, pampering their mia noi, and drinking whiskey, ......Thailand would be on its way to being a better place.

[Bakseedaa]

The charter change is yet another reason for PT reps to waste time - which they should be devoting to helping the Thai people. And yes, of course it's geared towards enabling T to return to Thailand - and probably taking the PM's chair again. PT can probably fool most of its supporters (who are all easily duped), but anyone using a few brain cells in concert will see the 'charter change' ruse for what it is. If PT devoted as much time and energy to assisting the Thai people as they do to playing golf, pampering their mia noi, and drinking whiskey, ......Thailand would be on its way to being a better place.

Whisky Has no "e" the real whisky that is...!

[pimay11]

The charter change is yet another reason for PT reps to waste time - which they should be devoting to helping the Thai people. And yes, of course it's geared towards enabling T to return to Thailand - and probably taking the PM's chair again. PT can probably fool most of its supporters (who are all easily duped), but anyone using a few brain cells in concert will see the 'charter change' ruse for what it is. If PT devoted as much time and energy to assisting the Thai people as they do to playing golf, pampering their mia noi, and drinking whiskey, ......Thailand would be on its way to being a better place.

Whisky Has no "e" the real whisky that is...!

Around these parts Thais call it whis-e-key.

[Orac]

Justifying a new constitution is not difficult due to the way it was brought in, the problem is with the 2007 constitution itself and the issues that would be raised if it was replaced rather than what it is replaced with due to the ridiculous inclusion of article 309 which basically gives primacy to the interim constitution of 2006.

It would be very difficult to write a new constitution with such clause tagged on to the end and therefore any new constitution would again make the 2006 coup illegal since no proper amnesty was given for its perpetrators.

[CalgaryII]

Constitution changes 'not justifies", #1^

The Campaign for popular Democracy issues a statement yesterday opposing charter rewrite

Another group for and by the opposition.

Laundering Opposition coupist agenda's is done often through vehicles like this, intending to mislead readers into thinking independent groups magically share Opposition agenda's.

Suriyan said he suspected government lawmakers had an ulterior motive to amend the Constitution in order to "rescue" fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra from his conviction and punishment for a conflict of interest.

Simplistic mantra trying to discredit the unstoppable need for an elected Govt. to do away with a coup constitution.

It was the coup constitution which had a one-man focus. That was an egregious rationale for constitution change perpetrated by a coup administration.

Here are the reasons fo constitution reform:

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.

He said the country's democratic rule and charter provisions were in order, hence there was no justification for changing the basic law.

A coupist defending a coup constitution.

Following the two-day charter debate in Parliament, about one in two people said they did not have sufficient information to form judgement on whether the charter should be amended, Suan Dusit Poll said in a survey released yesterday.

Another 'agenda laundering' mechanism for the opposition, in addition to the one noted above with creating seemingly independent groups, parotting Opposition agenda's. The voters in the last election had sufficient information, never made a Parliamentary debate.

In this case they use a Researchy type instrument.

By having polls of the general public magically support Opposition agenda's, is a way of the Opposition trying to show that the population at large supports their agenda. Getting their agenda mouthed by research respondants cleanses that agenda

He repeated the stand of the Democrats that Thaksin should be responsible for paying compensation in connection with the political disturbances in 2010 because he inveigled the red shirts to rally and become involved in rioting.

This statement shows that the Democrats and Coupists are one and the same.

The Red Shirts rallied against a coup.

They became involved in rioting when the pro-coup armed aggressors attacked them.

The subsequent election showed how correct they were. They knew they were the electoral majority being governed by an electoral minority.

Just setting a few facts straight.

Edited February 27, 2012 by CalgaryII

[sparebox2]

The charter amendment may allow Thaksin to return as a VIP head of state.

Hence it must not be allowed (both the return, and the amendment) at all cost.

Even if another (GOOD) coup is called for.

[tragickingdom]

These people must be complete and utter idiots. They wee the ones that changed the constitution in the first place after staging a coup and rewriting it to protect their sleazy ideas and business. Any Thai constitution is written on used toilet paper. Thailand must be the only banana republic that changes it constitution more often than the National football team its coach.

It is very justified to bring at least the constitution back in line with that of the 1997 constitution that was at least written with the participation of the people and was not dictated by crooked boot kissing generals.

[sparebox2]

These people must be complete and utter idiots. They wee the ones that changed the constitution in the first place after staging a coup and rewriting it to protect their sleazy ideas and business. Any Thai constitution is written on used toilet paper. Thailand must be the only banana republic that changes it constitution more often than the National football team its coach.

It is very justified to bring at least the constitution back in line with that of the 1997 constitution that was at least written with the participation of the people and was not dictated by crooked boot kissing generals.

"It is very justified to bring at least the constitution back in line with that of the 1997 constitution that was at least written with the participation of the people and was not dictated by crooked boot kissing generals."

Are you serious? Go tell that to Sonthi/Sondhi/Mark/PAD/Yellow shirt/Army et al.

The generals did Thailand and its people a BIG favour by removing a super corrupted person from robbing Thailand blind.

Edited February 27, 2012 by sparebox2

[Orac]

The charter amendment may allow Thaksin to return as a VIP head of state.

Hence it must not be allowed (both the return, and the amendment) at all cost.

Even if another (GOOD) coup is called for.

The issue is being twisted to make it all about Thaksin when, if fact, it is all about the coup.

The problem is that, should the constitution be changed or Article 309 dropped in some way, an awful lot of very important people will be sitting on the wrong side of the law.

[Jawnie]

That is one view, and there are many divergent viewpoints on this. It might be useful at this point to stop parroting slogans and turn your brain on. Please be specific about the Constitution's shortcomings. What is best for Thailand's future? It might be helpful to leave recent political contortions on the side to help think clearly. Exactly what parts do you think should be changed? Why? What would be a good process for changing it, and why? Thanks.

The 2007 charter was unfairly drafted by an illegal, unconstitutional coup government to minimise and vilify one man, one party and the majority of voters. They used untold state funds and resources to promote the new constitution before the referendum was held, saying that a vote for the new constitution was a vote for the monarchy. Those who were opposed to it were prevented from campaigning properly by arrests, threats and a total lack of access in the media.

Frankly, I see nothing in the article about the specifics of the charter changes...period. So, asking someone you disagree with to be specific is a straw-man rebuttal. Why don't you explain ALL of the proposed changes for us?

And btw, when will the public have an opportunity to comment and add their own thoughts and ideas about the charter changes as proposed? Or, is the only public input taken by way of newspaper survey? Will there be a 'public comment period' and will there be any government sponsored public forums to provide opportunities to the public to give their views?

[blows]

[Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said Parliament would take the lead role on the charter amendments.

"I hope the charter rewrite will heed the people's voice and meet their aspirations, leading to social acceptance and peace," she said.]

The FIX is in.

[blows]

The 2007 charter was unfairly drafted by an illegal, unconstitutional coup government to minimise and vilify one man, one party and the majority of voters. They used untold state funds and resources to promote the new constitution before the referendum was held, saying that a vote for the new constitution was a vote for the monarchy. Those who were opposed to it were prevented from campaigning properly by arrests, threats and a total lack of access in the media.

Pray tell us, how is it a coup to remove someone ILLEGAL occupying the office of PM? Isn't that just enforcing the LAW.

[Reasonableman]

That is one view, and there are many divergent viewpoints on this. It might be useful at this point to stop parroting slogans and turn your brain on. Please be specific about the Constitution's shortcomings. What is best for Thailand's future? It might be helpful to leave recent political contortions on the side to help think clearly. Exactly what parts do you think should be changed? Why? What would be a good process for changing it, and why? Thanks.

The 2007 charter was unfairly drafted by an illegal, unconstitutional coup government to minimise and vilify one man, one party and the majority of voters. They used untold state funds and resources to promote the new constitution before the referendum was held, saying that a vote for the new constitution was a vote for the monarchy. Those who were opposed to it were prevented from campaigning properly by arrests, threats and a total lack of access in the media.

Frankly, I see nothing in the article about the specifics of the charter changes...period. So, asking someone you disagree with to be specific is a straw-man rebuttal. Why don't you explain ALL of the proposed changes for us?

And btw, when will the public have an opportunity to comment and add their own thoughts and ideas about the charter changes as proposed? Or, is the only public input taken by way of newspaper survey? Will there be a 'public comment period' and will there be any government sponsored public forums to provide opportunities to the public to give their views?

All good questions, and your objective guess is probably as good as mine. You are asserting objectivity, right? I was hoping for some clarification, since there seems to be so much enthusiasm for it, without any coherent explanation why. Assertions that the Constitution needs to be changed, and why, should be substantiated with some reasons, don't you think? Not just salivation at a particular set of buzz-words. BTW, "Jawnie", you really should allow Mr Bird Poo Guava to answer with his own reasons, unless you have been permitted to represent him. My guess is he has no reasons. But that is a matter for him, not you, to clarify.

[whybother]

The charter amendment may allow Thaksin to return as a VIP head of state.

Hence it must not be allowed (both the return, and the amendment) at all cost.

Even if another (GOOD) coup is called for.

The issue is being twisted to make it all about Thaksin when, if fact, it is all about the coup.

The problem is that, should the constitution be changed or Article 309 dropped in some way, an awful lot of very important people will be sitting on the wrong side of the law.

Wasn't the coup all about Thaksin?

[tlansford]

The 2007 charter was unfairly drafted by an illegal, unconstitutional coup government to minimise and vilify one man, one party and the majority of voters. They used untold state funds and resources to promote the new constitution before the referendum was held, saying that a vote for the new constitution was a vote for the monarchy. Those who were opposed to it were prevented from campaigning properly by arrests, threats and a total lack of access in the media.

Pray tell us, how is it a coup to remove someone ILLEGAL occupying the office of PM? Isn't that just enforcing the LAW.

if enforcing the law means replacing the existing government with yourself & tearing up the constitution, then I guess you are right.

Pray tell us, how is it that the coup happened 1 month before elections?

[tlansford]

The charter amendment may allow Thaksin to return as a VIP head of state.

Hence it must not be allowed (both the return, and the amendment) at all cost.

Even if another (GOOD) coup is called for.

The issue is being twisted to make it all about Thaksin when, if fact, it is all about the coup.

The problem is that, should the constitution be changed or Article 309 dropped in some way, an awful lot of very important people will be sitting on the wrong side of the law.

Wasn't the coup all about Thaksin?

significantly, yes, but certainly not all. The generals (IMO) were not being altruistic ...

[473geo]

Democrats pointing the gun right at their foot again.........

Remember their attempt to use Thaksin as an incentive not to vote PTP at the last election.........failed

And now they attempt the same.........

Somebody should remind them.......and the others that come to this board applying similar tactics......