Pheu Thai Against Educational Requirement For Constitution Drafting Assembly Selection

[Siam Simon]

I love most of the input you've made in this forum but I strongly disagree. A constitution is a loose framework meant to empower all but not rich in detail. Courts decide the fine points, not the drafters of the constitution.

I respectfully don't see how a constitution being the loose framework that it is, supplies reasoning to your argument that all those involved must be legal gurus. Speaks to the opposite argument, in my opinion.

A Constitution should be elegant, empowering. establish powers and protections. It's not for farmers to decide, unless those farmers also have a grounding in constitutional law.

Hopefully the framers of this next constitution will borrow from those constitutions that have shown great longevity due to their construction, but I doubt it.

But constitutions have to be a representation of the peoples' wishes and morality, so representation from farmers in a country with a huge farming industry is absolutely essential.

[OzMick]

Right, who needs educational standards. As long as they can sign their name where they are told - it's all legitimate, right.

[Siam Simon]

Right, who needs educational standards. As long as they can sign their name where they are told - it's all legitimate, right.

Right, who needs intelligence. As long as their family can sign the cheque to the university - it's all legitimate, right.

[longway]

^ Not sure why you are asking me, but anything related to changing the judical system and its verdicts; some of the Nitarat groups proposals have gone down that route, KPI came up with ideas of re-trying Thaksin, so that could well be a second prong the PT can use to look for ways to get him off the hook.

Other things would be for pushing for changes on how much influence the government has on the militarty command structure and its organisation , as a indirect way of exerting control and domination all the power structures in Thailand.

There will be people giving alot of thought to do it; and how to achieve the changes necessary.

Do you think Thaksin is not looking for a way to get back without answering the charges against him?

I suspect Thaksin is very nervous about returning anytime soon, and won't be doing so prematurely.He will want reconciliation of some sort with all his major opponents. He currently has a very large target on his back.

He will be looking at every avenue of getting back ASAP. There is no other reason to pursue the charter change on this time table, its a sign of weakness rather than strength IMO anyway.

He claims he can get Thailand out of the doldrums, let him prove it, if he can make the country as prosperous as he claims he can be back in a few years and everyone will welcome him back, his position would be unassaible.

For a variety of reaons I dont think a 'premature demise' for him is as likely as you make out if he stages his return, but fair enough, he has pushed things to the brink as usual, so......

Edited March 11, 2012 by longway

[tlansford]

^ Not sure why you are asking me, but anything related to changing the judical system and its verdicts; some of the Nitarat groups proposals have gone down that route, KPI came up with ideas of re-trying Thaksin, so that could well be a second prong the PT can use to look for ways to get him off the hook.

Other things would be for pushing for changes on how much influence the government has on the militarty command structure and its organisation , as a indirect way of exerting control and domination all the power structures in Thailand.

There will be people giving alot of thought to do it; and how to achieve the changes necessary.

Do you think Thaksin is not looking for a way to get back without answering the charges against him?

going from last to first,

"Do you think Thaksin is not looking for a way to get back without answering the charges against him?"

- Absolutely. And to avoid future charges, as well.

"Other things would be for pushing for changes on how much influence the government has on the militarty command structure and its organisation , as a indirect way of exerting control and domination all the power structures in Thailand."

- If the changes manage to alter the power of the military, then that would be leverage for him to help negotiate a return. But those charter changes won't get him home.

"^ Not sure why you are asking me, but anything related to changing the judical system and its verdicts; some of the Nitarat groups proposals have gone down that route, KPI came up with ideas of re-trying Thaksin, so that could well be a second prong the PT can use to look for ways to get him off the hook."

- I ask you because you stated :

"There is only one driver to change the constitution in the time frame they have mandated"

Since the law he was convicted under was pre-coup/constitution. So the only way that can clear him is to annul all court verdicts since the 2007/Junta. And while some kind of annulling of court verdicts under the new constitution might get his sentence cleared, I think such a blatant change won't survive a referendum.

But that won't even be enough since he has other avenues to be attacked. Changing the charter in such a way as to eliminate all future legal attacks against him seems very unlikely to me.

That leaves a negotiated return.

Changing the charter might provide leverage, but I don't see the charter change as his way back. So I ask how you see that as being possible since you see the one reason for the charter change now is only to get Thaksin back to Thailand.

[tlansford]

Right, who needs educational standards. As long as they can sign their name where they are told - it's all legitimate, right.

"As long as they can sign their name where they are told"

As can be done with multiple degrees from Oxford, as well...

[TAWP]

If we only allows smart and rich people write the law, they will only write it in such a way that benefit smart and rich people.

Example: Tax examption for life for people with a overseas degree to promote and incentivise learning.

Example: Full scholarship for student who speak languages (Chinese, English, Thai).

Example: Tax free for saving account > 10 million Baht, to attract and promote saving, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.

The stupid, poor, hadicaps etc loose out.

Hence we need the stupid, the poor, the handicap, the women, etc. to be well represented, to protect their interest. These people are 99% of Thai population.

Incorrect - we are talking about a constitution, not the general set of laws.

Those are two very very different things.

Not understanding what separates them and what they should contain is the first disqualifying test.

[lannarebirth]

I love most of the input you've made in this forum but I strongly disagree. A constitution is a loose framework meant to empower all but not rich in detail. Courts decide the fine points, not the drafters of the constitution.

I respectfully don't see how a constitution being the loose framework that it is, supplies reasoning to your argument that all those involved must be legal gurus. Speaks to the opposite argument, in my opinion.

A Constitution should be elegant, empowering. establish powers and protections. It's not for farmers to decide, unless those farmers also have a grounding in constitutional law.

Hopefully the framers of this next constitution will borrow from those constitutions that have shown great longevity due to their construction, but I doubt it.

But constitutions have to be a representation of the peoples' wishes and morality, so representation from farmers in a country with a huge farming industry is absolutely essential.

I disagree. I don't think they need representation from restaurant workers or bar girls either, who also are a large percentage of the population. The whole point of the exercise (if it's even necessary at all) is equal protection and applicability to ALL persons, regardless of background. That's the whole point. Now that's easy enough to do on paper, but the culture is decidedly non-egalitarian and when they're done thye constitution may notbe worth the paper its printed on.

Edited March 12, 2012 by lannarebirth

[CalgaryII]

Longway, #94^

"He will be looking at every avenue of getting back ASAP. There is no other reason to pursue the charter change on this time table, its a sign of weakness rather than strength IMO anyway.

The notion that Constitution Reform is for one purpose only, is pure Anti-Thaksin agenda from the Opposition, shoehorned into the Constitution Reform debate.

For heaven's sake, it is this Opposition and their coupist brethren with the 'original sin'. Their post-coup constitutional tampering was singualrly Thaksin oriented, and now to accuse others of what they perpetrated is a bit much.

There are many reasons to pursue charter change, the principle ones being this Govt. sees the coup constitution as an existential threat. The UDD/Red Shirts have as one of their main objectives currently, to protect this Government from the coupists, wherever they lurk.

Late last year, as the attacks on Ms. Y. intensified, threatening Govt. , her constituancy was telling her, "If you don't get your a.. in gear with this constitution thing, whatever happens will serve you right".

So what are these reasons you do not see other than the unrelated Thaksin thing? let me help you with that, listing out five of them:

Th

e present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organizations 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 March 12, 2012 by CalgaryII

[sparebox2]

I wish to see a constitution that remove amnestry to all coup makers in the past, present and future.

let the coup maker clear their name in court themsleves, fair and square.

[OzMick]

^ Not sure why you are asking me, but anything related to changing the judical system and its verdicts; some of the Nitarat groups proposals have gone down that route, KPI came up with ideas of re-trying Thaksin, so that could well be a second prong the PT can use to look for ways to get him off the hook.

Other things would be for pushing for changes on how much influence the government has on the militarty command structure and its organisation , as a indirect way of exerting control and domination all the power structures in Thailand.

There will be people giving alot of thought to do it; and how to achieve the changes necessary.

Do you think Thaksin is not looking for a way to get back without answering the charges against him?

going from last to first,

"Do you think Thaksin is not looking for a way to get back without answering the charges against him?"

- Absolutely. And to avoid future charges, as well.

"Other things would be for pushing for changes on how much influence the government has on the militarty command structure and its organisation , as a indirect way of exerting control and domination all the power structures in Thailand."

- If the changes manage to alter the power of the military, then that would be leverage for him to help negotiate a return. But those charter changes won't get him home.

"^ Not sure why you are asking me, but anything related to changing the judical system and its verdicts; some of the Nitarat groups proposals have gone down that route, KPI came up with ideas of re-trying Thaksin, so that could well be a second prong the PT can use to look for ways to get him off the hook."

- I ask you because you stated :

"There is only one driver to change the constitution in the time frame they have mandated"

Since the law he was convicted under was pre-coup/constitution. So the only way that can clear him is to annul all court verdicts since the 2007/Junta. And while some kind of annulling of court verdicts under the new constitution might get his sentence cleared, I think such a blatant change won't survive a referendum.

But that won't even be enough since he has other avenues to be attacked. Changing the charter in such a way as to eliminate all future legal attacks against him seems very unlikely to me.

That leaves a negotiated return.

Changing the charter might provide leverage, but I don't see the charter change as his way back. So I ask how you see that as being possible since you see the one reason for the charter change now is only to get Thaksin back to Thailand.

"That leaves a negotiated return." Why does it? Isn't there the alternative that the fugitive criminal doesn't get what he wants and spends the rest of his life in exile?

Denial is good for the soul, and there's a first time for everything. Shinawatras being forced to realise that that they don't hold some sort of teflon-coated super-citizenship would also be good for the country

[lannarebirth]

I wish to see a constitution that remove amnestry to all coup makers in the past, present and future.

let the coup maker clear their name in court themsleves, fair and square.

That is the kind of non specicivity that a good constitution requires. It should be chockfull of of equal inclusion and equal protection clauses. It should never speak to any specific group of persons, except perhaps persons of influence, and only then if to hold them to an even higher standard. Courts are made for rendering judgements on the constitution. The problem with most Thais is they think they can advance by constitutional measures. You can't of course unless your society and judiciary adopt similar philosophies.

Edited March 12, 2012 by lannarebirth

[tlansford]

^ Not sure why you are asking me, but anything related to changing the judical system and its verdicts; some of the Nitarat groups proposals have gone down that route, KPI came up with ideas of re-trying Thaksin, so that could well be a second prong the PT can use to look for ways to get him off the hook.

Other things would be for pushing for changes on how much influence the government has on the militarty command structure and its organisation , as a indirect way of exerting control and domination all the power structures in Thailand.

There will be people giving alot of thought to do it; and how to achieve the changes necessary.

Do you think Thaksin is not looking for a way to get back without answering the charges against him?

going from last to first,

"Do you think Thaksin is not looking for a way to get back without answering the charges against him?"

- Absolutely. And to avoid future charges, as well.

"Other things would be for pushing for changes on how much influence the government has on the militarty command structure and its organisation , as a indirect way of exerting control and domination all the power structures in Thailand."

- If the changes manage to alter the power of the military, then that would be leverage for him to help negotiate a return. But those charter changes won't get him home.

"^ Not sure why you are asking me, but anything related to changing the judical system and its verdicts; some of the Nitarat groups proposals have gone down that route, KPI came up with ideas of re-trying Thaksin, so that could well be a second prong the PT can use to look for ways to get him off the hook."

- I ask you because you stated :

"There is only one driver to change the constitution in the time frame they have mandated"

Since the law he was convicted under was pre-coup/constitution. So the only way that can clear him is to annul all court verdicts since the 2007/Junta. And while some kind of annulling of court verdicts under the new constitution might get his sentence cleared, I think such a blatant change won't survive a referendum.

But that won't even be enough since he has other avenues to be attacked. Changing the charter in such a way as to eliminate all future legal attacks against him seems very unlikely to me.

That leaves a negotiated return.

Changing the charter might provide leverage, but I don't see the charter change as his way back. So I ask how you see that as being possible since you see the one reason for the charter change now is only to get Thaksin back to Thailand.

"That leaves a negotiated return." Why does it? Isn't there the alternative that the fugitive criminal doesn't get what he wants and spends the rest of his life in exile?

Denial is good for the soul, and there's a first time for everything. Shinawatras being forced to realise that that they don't hold some sort of teflon-coated super-citizenship would also be good for the country

You are right, that is of course one of the possibilities, but it is not one that Thaksin is following at the moment. As long as his return is not addressed, and as long as he is trying to return, the issue will not be resolved.

[phiphidon]

Since I normally refrain from giving reason why or why not the charter needs changing, I think it would be more fair for you to give sound reasoning why the 2007 constitution is to be condemned on contents rather than how it was conceived, or how some see it as having been conceived.

BTW 'glib' (as in 'fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow OCD') ? From the man who wrote 'why complain about proposals even before they are accepted'?

For a start the get out of jail free section for the Coup Leaders needs to be amended - Coups are illegal - their perpetrators should not be able to scrap a constitution and then write another one that white washes their deeds.

Judges now hold the fate of political parties in their hands - Article 237 allows the Constitutional Court not only to ban individual MPs but also to dissolve a whole political party if one of its members is found guilty (as suspected by the Election Commission) of having violated the election law with the knowledge or complicity of anyone who is an executive of the party.(I wonder if the democrats will try this on wrt Jaturporn but as he is supposedly not an MP, I think even the democrats would have trouble with this. Though I wouldn't put it past them as they are singularly useless at the election process.)

The number of constitution court judges has been dropped from 15 to 9 thus heightening their power. The constitutional judges are picked by the King but under the advice of the Senate. 74 (of 150) Senators are appointed by the Senate Selection Committee (SSC). The SSC comprises the President of the Constitutional Court, Chairman of the Election Commission, Chairman of the State Audit Commission, A Judge in the Supreme Court of Justice and A Judge of the Supreme Administrative Court. So 74 Senators are picked by the people that they themselves appoint. Mmmm...............

Need I go on. The 2007 constitution was primarily written to keep the status quo of the power wielded by those who perceived Thaksin as a "threat" to that status quo.

By the way ,If you're going to quote me get it right

I think you'll find I said why complain about things if they've not already been decided i.e the gov hasn't decided what changes are to be put forward for change but everybodys complaining without knowing what those changes are.

So your glib comments still stand and your lack of comment on the content of the constitution is also noted.

[rubl]

By the way ,If you're going to quote me get it right

I think you'll find I said why complain about things if they've not already been decided i.e the gov hasn't decided what changes are to be put forward for change but everybodys complaining without knowing what those changes are.

So your glib comments still stand and your lack of comment on the content of the constitution is also noted.

"They're arguing about the post coup AEC case proposals now even though they haven't been decided, much like the "assumed" charter reforms when the CDA hasn't even been formed yet!"

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5118787

BTW some for, some against:

2007-07-05

"Thailand’s struggle for constitutional survival"

http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0603/279/

Edited March 12, 2012 by rubl

[rubl]

Constitution, 1997 version:

"Thai institutions: Constitutional Court

August 10th, 2010 by Dominic J. Nardi, Jr., Guest Contributor

This post is part of New Mandala’s Thai institutions series. The first post in this series (Archives) is available here, the second (Unions) is here, the third (Police) is here, the fourth (Judiciary) is here, and the fifth (Parliament) was published last month.

When Thailand’s 1997 Constitution established a Constitutional Court*, few predicted that it would become so divisive. During Thaksin Shinawatra’s first term, critics accused the justices of being unduly deferential to the administration. Much later, Thammasat University Professor Worajet Phakhirat called the 2007 decision disbanding Thai Rak Thai “a coup d’état in the disguise of a court ruling.” To paraphrase Clausewitz, judicial activism (thulakarnphiwat) has become politics by any other means. What happened?"

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/08/10/thai-institutions-constitutional-court/

[animatic]

Coups may or may not be moral.

But if a constitution says it is illegal it is illegal, and if it says one IS legal, but not others not, then that ONE is legal.

If there is no constitution then there is no law to say one way or another, that a change of leadership by force is legal or not.

If a constitution is drawn up with good intentions, and the people vote yeah, and it oks the force used to create the new referendum situation, then the people have voted that coup a pass. Of course the losing side will ALWAYS rail against it, that is THEIR self-interest speaking.Yet regardless of the whining, the people spoke in the referendum.

A change by force might be good if the older leaders are very obviously bad,

and a different change by force very bad if those leaders were good for the majority,

but bad for the backers of the force taking them out.

And worse still for thje majority if the bad leaders not taken out are conning the public as 'good for the majority' but in reality acting far from it, using carrot and stick, and slight of hand grand theft of the public coffers in the night. Is it more or less moral to let the thieves keep on, or stop them by force even if a 'vote' has happened. Most countries have laws to remove, by force if necessary, leaders who are doing the country wrong.

In other words it is situational and not an absolute.

There have been absolute leaders theoretically elected, but via corruption in reality, who are taken out by force, and the world cheers.

There are evil forces taking out good men and that is bad. And the world says so.

It will;

be difficult not to see these potential Charter rewrites

as not being the product of self-interest driven corruption, in the same way

the other side sees the 2007 as the product of the coup.

In either case it is self-interest speaking for the people, not the peoples voice.

The system as it exists is the problem because it encourages the self-interest to jigger the system regularly.

Edited March 12, 2012 by animatic

[sparebox2]

Coups may or may not be moral.

But if a constitution says it is illegal it is illegal, and if it says one IS legal, but not others not, then that ONE is legal.

If there is no constitution then there is no law to say one way or another, that a change of leadership by force is legal or not.

If a constitution is drawn up with good intentions, and the people vote yeah, and it oks the force used to create the new referendum situation, then the people have voted that coup a pass. Of course the losing side will ALWAYS rail against it, that is THEIR self-interest speaking.Yet regardless of the whining, the people spoke in the referendum.

A change by force might be good if the older leaders are very obviously bad,

and a different change by force very bad if those leaders were good for the majority,

but bad for the backers of the force taking them out.

And worse still for thje majority if the bad leaders not taken out are conning the public as 'good for the majority' but in reality acting far from it, using carrot and stick, and slight of hand grand theft of the public coffers in the night. Is it more or less moral to let the thieves keep on, or stop them by force even if a 'vote' has happened. Most countries have laws to remove, by force if necessary, leaders who are doing the country wrong.

In other words it is situational and not an absolute.

There have been absolute leaders theoretically elected, but via corruption in reality, who are taken out by force, and the world cheers.

There are evil forces taking out good men and that is bad. And the world says so.

It will;

be difficult not to see these potential Charter rewrites

as not being the product of self-interest driven corruption, in the same way

the other side sees the 2007 as the product of the coup.

In either case it is self-interest speaking for the people, not the peoples voice.

The system as it exists is the problem because it encourages the self-interest to jigger the system regularly.

In other words it is situational and not an absolute.

There have been absolute leaders theoretically elected, but via corruption in reality, who are taken out by force, and the world cheers.

There are evil forces taking out good men and that is bad. And the world says so.

So, which one is Thaksin?

Edited March 12, 2012 by sparebox2

[CalgaryII]

Animatic, #107^

"A change by force might be good if the older leaders are very obviously bad"

And that was not the case in 2006.

As in all likelyhood it was not the case for many of the many coups Thailand has suffered through, because one side of the political divide considers itself entitled to rule, the hell with elections.

Last years election validated this perspective.

The coupists all-out armed aggressions against those who agreed with this perspective, also showed that they knew full well they would go down to humiliating electoral defeat -- AGAIN --- if they didn't defend their power grab at all costs.

And that is exactly what happened, in spite of an exhaustive campaign to criminalize those they coup-ed out of existence, and who were clearly associated with the election.

Thank God I'm not trying to defend and justify a self-serving coup.

Makes this a lot more fun.

Edited March 12, 2012 by CalgaryII

[phiphidon]

By the way ,If you're going to quote me get it right

I think you'll find I said why complain about things if they've not already been decided i.e the gov hasn't decided what changes are to be put forward for change but everybodys complaining without knowing what those changes are.

So your glib comments still stand and your lack of comment on the content of the constitution is also noted.

"They're arguing about the post coup AEC case proposals now even though they haven't been decided, much like the "assumed" charter reforms when the CDA hasn't even been formed yet!"

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5118787

BTW some for, some against:

2007-07-05

"Thailand’s struggle for constitutional survival"

http://www.article2....e.php/0603/279/

I'm sorry I haven't got your encyclopedic knowledge of what I said but the meaning is the same.

[rubl]

By the way ,If you're going to quote me get it right

I think you'll find I said why complain about things if they've not already been decided i.e the gov hasn't decided what changes are to be put forward for change but everybodys complaining without knowing what those changes are.

So your glib comments still stand and your lack of comment on the content of the constitution is also noted.

"They're arguing about the post coup AEC case proposals now even though they haven't been decided, much like the "assumed" charter reforms when the CDA hasn't even been formed yet!"

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5118787

BTW some for, some against:

2007-07-05

"Thailand’s struggle for constitutional survival"

http://www.article2....e.php/0603/279/

I'm sorry I haven't got your encyclopedic knowledge of what I said but the meaning is the same.

Almost like "you can believe me, I'm from the CIA', or 'on my word as a politician'. Like Dept PM Chalerm saying about his reconcilliation bill "the details of the bill cannot be disclosed at the moment because he wants to make sure that the public really understand its objective."

[longway]

^ Not sure why you are asking me, but anything related to changing the judical system and its verdicts; some of the Nitarat groups proposals have gone down that route, KPI came up with ideas of re-trying Thaksin, so that could well be a second prong the PT can use to look for ways to get him off the hook.

Other things would be for pushing for changes on how much influence the government has on the militarty command structure and its organisation , as a indirect way of exerting control and domination all the power structures in Thailand.

There will be people giving alot of thought to do it; and how to achieve the changes necessary.

Do you think Thaksin is not looking for a way to get back without answering the charges against him?

going from last to first,

"Do you think Thaksin is not looking for a way to get back without answering the charges against him?"

- Absolutely. And to avoid future charges, as well.

"Other things would be for pushing for changes on how much influence the government has on the militarty command structure and its organisation , as a indirect way of exerting control and domination all the power structures in Thailand."

- If the changes manage to alter the power of the military, then that would be leverage for him to help negotiate a return. But those charter changes won't get him home.

"^ Not sure why you are asking me, but anything related to changing the judical system and its verdicts; some of the Nitarat groups proposals have gone down that route, KPI came up with ideas of re-trying Thaksin, so that could well be a second prong the PT can use to look for ways to get him off the hook."

- I ask you because you stated :

"There is only one driver to change the constitution in the time frame they have mandated"

Since the law he was convicted under was pre-coup/constitution. So the only way that can clear him is to annul all court verdicts since the 2007/Junta. And while some kind of annulling of court verdicts under the new constitution might get his sentence cleared, I think such a blatant change won't survive a referendum.

But that won't even be enough since he has other avenues to be attacked. Changing the charter in such a way as to eliminate all future legal attacks against him seems very unlikely to me.

That leaves a negotiated return.

Changing the charter might provide leverage, but I don't see the charter change as his way back. So I ask how you see that as being possible since you see the one reason for the charter change now is only to get Thaksin back to Thailand.

I understand your points, Thaksin cannot control everything, its not an easy task, but this is one of the avenues he has to explore - tactics and strategies will become more apparent as the process moves forward. BTW your point about using the charter to avoid future charges, he will try for sure, but its not necessary for his return.

Its the time frame thats the give away. Its not a priority, given the tensions it will spark off and the distractions form the pressing concerns of the country. Thaksin's return is only of pressing concern to Thaksin.

The notion that Constitution Reform is for one purpose only, is pure Anti-Thaksin agenda from the Opposition, shoehorned into the Constitution Reform debate.

How many constitutions has Thailand had? Whats the rush with this one? There is no doubt the constitution needs to be reformed, all constitutions do. It is designed to keep political parties weak, but is that a bad thing when politicians and many other groups are above the law? Blessing in disguise IMO. First enforce the laws, then change the constitution.

On further thought, I think it is i fact Thaksin that is trying to shoehorn his way into the constitution reform, just as he shoehorned his way into the so called 'democracy' struggle, he is irrelevant to either, but by spending huge sums of money he keeps himself relevant and intrudes and distorts various pocesses ongoing in the country.

Edited March 12, 2012 by longway

[animatic]

Coups may or may not be moral.

But if a constitution says it is illegal it is illegal, and if it says one IS legal, but not others not, then that ONE is legal.

If there is no constitution then there is no law to say one way or another, that a change of leadership by force is legal or not.

If a constitution is drawn up with good intentions, and the people vote yeah, and it oks the force used to create the new referendum situation, then the people have voted that coup a pass. Of course the losing side will ALWAYS rail against it, that is THEIR self-interest speaking.Yet regardless of the whining, the people spoke in the referendum.

A change by force might be good if the older leaders are very obviously bad,

and a different change by force very bad if those leaders were good for the majority,

but bad for the backers of the force taking them out.

And worse still for thje majority if the bad leaders not taken out are conning the public as 'good for the majority' but in reality acting far from it, using carrot and stick, and slight of hand grand theft of the public coffers in the night. Is it more or less moral to let the thieves keep on, or stop them by force even if a 'vote' has happened. Most countries have laws to remove, by force if necessary, leaders who are doing the country wrong.

In other words it is situational and not an absolute.

There have been absolute leaders theoretically elected, but via corruption in reality, who are taken out by force, and the world cheers.

There are evil forces taking out good men and that is bad. And the world says so.

It will;

be difficult not to see these potential Charter rewrites

as not being the product of self-interest driven corruption, in the same way

the other side sees the 2007 as the product of the coup.

In either case it is self-interest speaking for the people, not the peoples voice.

The system as it exists is the problem because it encourages the self-interest to jigger the system regularly.

In other words it is situational and not an absolute.

There have been absolute leaders theoretically elected,

but via corruption in reality, who are taken out by force, and the world cheers.

There are evil forces taking out good men and that is bad. And the world says so.

So, which one is Thaksin?

Let your conscience be your guide.

I'll just say; I was once a Thaksin fan.

Edited March 12, 2012 by animatic

[animatic]

Animatic, #107^

"A change by force might be good if the older leaders are very obviously bad"

And that was not the case in 2006.

As in all likelyhood it was not the case for many of the many coups Thailand has suffered through, because one side of the political divide considers itself entitled to rule, the hell with elections.

Last years election validated this perspective.

The coupists all-out armed aggressions against those who agreed with this perspective, also showed that they knew full well they would go down to humiliating electoral defeat -- AGAIN --- if they didn't defend their power grab at all costs.

And that is exactly what happened, in spite of an exhaustive campaign to criminalize those they coup-ed out of existence, and who were clearly associated with the election.

Thank God I'm not trying to defend and justify a self-serving coup.

Makes this a lot more fun.

No, you're just trying to defend a self serving megalomaniac

who will go to any extreme to win his face back through a return to power.

Not an easy task, actually an impossible one. God has nothing to do with it.

Of course you have removed 99% of the argument and attack ONE point out of context.

Edited March 12, 2012 by animatic

[phiphidon]

By the way ,If you're going to quote me get it right

I think you'll find I said why complain about things if they've not already been decided i.e the gov hasn't decided what changes are to be put forward for change but everybodys complaining without knowing what those changes are.

So your glib comments still stand and your lack of comment on the content of the constitution is also noted.

"They're arguing about the post coup AEC case proposals now even though they haven't been decided, much like the "assumed" charter reforms when the CDA hasn't even been formed yet!"

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5118787

BTW some for, some against:

2007-07-05

"Thailand’s struggle for constitutional survival"

http://www.article2....e.php/0603/279/

I'm sorry I haven't got your encyclopedic knowledge of what I said but the meaning is the same.

Almost like "you can believe me, I'm from the CIA', or 'on my word as a politician'. Like Dept PM Chalerm saying about his reconcilliation bill "the details of the bill cannot be disclosed at the moment because he wants to make sure that the public really understand its objective."

It's nothing like that.

What part of "How can you complain about the content when you don't know what the content is" do you not understand.

It's all "I don't know what it is about but I object to it anyway" from the democrats (and posters on here)

Now do you understand?

[rubl]

I'm sorry I haven't got your encyclopedic knowledge of what I said but the meaning is the same.

Almost like "you can believe me, I'm from the CIA', or 'on my word as a politician'. Like Dept PM Chalerm saying about his reconcilliation bill "the details of the bill cannot be disclosed at the moment because he wants to make sure that the public really understand its objective."

It's nothing like that.

What part of "How can you complain about the content when you don't know what the content is" do you not understand.

It's all "I don't know what it is about but I object to it anyway" from the democrats (and posters on here)

Now do you understand?

Yes, now I understand. You refer to the English sense of fair play, an attitude so well understood here in Thailand and obviously not by Dutch, not even by a Dutch uncle