Thai Parliament Members Play Name Games With Charter

[webfact]

CHARTER REVIEW

Parliament members play name games with charter

Somroutai Sapsomboon

The Nation

Democrat MP Theptai Seanapong yesterday proposed "national fast-track charter for Thaksin" as the title for the amended Constitution.

BANGKOK: -- The parliamentary meeting became heated when it started considering changes to the first article of the Constitution and its name and then opposition MPs came up with various designations and directly attacked former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Besides Theptai's suggestion, Satit Pitutecha labelled it a "UDD-ruling charter" and Watchara Petchthong branded it as "the charter cancelling the 2007 Constitution which passed a national referendum with approval by 14.7 million people".

Before government MPs started to protest, House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont, who was chairing the session at that time, said he didn't understand how these names could be offered.

"They are clearly satire."

He went on in a way that indicated that he would not allow the discussion to continue, but many Democrats insisted it was the right of the panel members to address the chamber, especially when it was included in the report, and that MPs had the right to debate. Somsak eventually allowed them to speak.

Theptai said he was not joking, as the name resembled this charter drafting process.

The charter rewrite had been rushed since the beginning, as people had proposed three versions of the amendment bill but they were not tabled in Parliament because it was claimed that it would take too long to verify the names of each bill's sponsors.

The ad hoc panel on charter amendment also added many meetings to the schedule to speed up the process the way the government wanted, he added.

Satit said he thought up the name as the process was being hurried.

"The charter amendment is a channel for amnesty besides the reconciliation attempts the government is undertaking."

After two hours and a half, the meeting voted 353-107 to approve the title of the new charter as the "Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand", while 18 abstained.

However, for two more hours the debate went nowhere after the Democrats tried again to get the meeting postponed on grounds the report was incomplete and contained errors.

Senate Speaker Teeradej Meepien told the meeting to deliberate on the next article.

-- The Nation 2012-04-11

[Buchholz]

proposed "national fast-track charter for Thaksin" as the title for the amended Constitution.

sounds pretty accurate

.

[phiphidon]

proposed "national fast-track charter for Thaksin" as the title for the amended Constitution.

sounds pretty accurate

.

sounds pretty childish

[jonclark]

proposed "national fast-track charter for Thaksin" as the title for the amended Constitution.

sounds pretty accurate

.

sounds pretty childish

sounds like reconciliation being brushed under the carpet.

[phiphidon]

proposed "national fast-track charter for Thaksin" as the title for the amended Constitution.

sounds pretty accurate

.

sounds pretty childish

sounds like reconciliation being brushed under the carpet.

Maybe we'll find out once the CDA has been formed and they start discussing the ammendments.

[GazR]

Also worthy of consideration is allowing the 'one man - one vote' system to evolve/devolve so as to better suit local realities:

I refer all those not dogmatically in favor of 'one man - one vote' to 'The Curious Republic of Gondour'

by Mark Twain.

IMO it may be a practical temporary measure worth using at least until the education system is properly overhauled - if that ever happens.

Edited April 11, 2012 by GazR

[CalgaryII]

"The charter rewrite had been rushed since the beginning...................."

The current mantra of the anti-charter amendment Opposition...... trying to make the word "progress" synonymous with 'hurried'. To them the only way it wouldn't be 'hasty', is if it was going backward, sinking into oblivion through verbose bloviation. Their persistent agenda of casting charter reform as being single individual focussed, belies their identical motive when tampering with it in the first place, after their coup, thereby necesitating current remedial actions. All this smoke obscures the actual motive for charter revision as follows:

The 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 April 11, 2012 by CalgaryII

[FOODLOVER]

Me thinks they protest with hand grenades, thus the problems.

[Soi Sauce]

"The charter rewrite had been rushed since the beginning...................."

The current mantra of the anti-charter amendment Opposition...... trying to make the word "progress" synonymous with 'hurried'. To them the only way it wouldn't be 'hasty', is if it was going backward, sinking into oblivion through verbose bloviation. Their persistent agenda of casting charter reform as being single individual focussed, belies their identical motive when tampering with it in the first place, after their coup, thereby necesitating current remedial actions. All this smoke obscures the actual motive for charter revision as follows:

The 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.

So you disagree with anything imposed on Germany and Japan after WW2 coz the military enforced it, and reckon that the IRA and Bin Laden's mob should get all their demands met?