Thai Parliament Passes Four Charter-Change Provisions

[webfact]

Parliament passes four charter-change provisions

Kornchanok Raksaseri

The Nation

Parliament yesterday approved draft provisions of the charter amendment bill in four successive votes, bringing the debate on the second reading of the legislation nearer to completion.

BANGKOK: -- After 14 days, debate on draft laws relating to the establishment of a Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) as proposed by the government is complete, while the deliberation of additional clauses proposed by parliamentarians is scheduled for Monday.

Article 291/16 drew heavy criticism from some lawmakers yesterday, because it allows the Cabinet to propose the establishment of a new drafting assembly in the event that the CDA-drafted charter is dropped.

Many Democrats and senators said the constitution-drafting process should be ended in the event that the draft is dropped, as a Constitution is worthy of respect and cannot be scrapped easily.

"If we leave the possibility of a charter rewrite open, this Constitution will not last long. One day, the ruling party becomes the opposition, and the opposition of today becomes the government; it might use your rules today and rewrite the charter. And we don't know what that would look like," Senator Surachai Liengboonlerschai said.

Senator Montien Boontan proposed a national referendum before the CDA is set up, as well as a ban on a new round of charter drafting for five years, to prevent unnecessary charter rewriting and to give people time to learn about their Constitution.

Pheu Thai MP Samart Kaew-meechai, chairman of the ad hoc panel on charter amendment, said a new CDA could be set up to continue the drafting process only if the initial CDA is unable to finish the job in time; if fewer than half the members remain; or if the charter draft produced by the CDA includes prohibited content. A new charter rewrite cannot be proposed simply because the draft fails in a national referendum, the MP said.

Prohibited content would include changes to the country's political system of constitutional monarchy, changes to its single-state status and changes to any clause contained in the chapter on the monarchy in the 2007 Constitution.

Article 291/16 passed with 346:88 votes. Article 291/14, which prescribes the process by which the Parliament president proposes the referendum-approved charter draft for Royal endorsement, was passed by a vote of 338 to 96, following what was seen as a surprisingly quick debate of less than two hours.

Some 20 minutes later, Article 291/15, which prescribes the means of disbanding the CDA, came up and was passed by a vote of 344 to 88. Article 291/17, which states that the Parliament secretariat shall serve as the secretariat for the CDA, was passed by a vote of 354 to 72.

-- The Nation 2012-05-12

[SomTumTiger]

Lovely. Time to start shaping the Constitution in Thaksin's image.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

I completely agree that something as fundamental as a constitution should not be able to be messed with so easily, neither by a military coup nor elected politicians.

A full-on direct referendum, thoroughly supervised by international voting monitors, or an extraordinarily large majority of both houses of Parliament should be required for any changes.

May be impractical now, but Thailand should have returned to the 1997 charter as soon as the coupists were overcome, can't understand how their charter was allowed to stand at all.

[whybother]

I completely agree that something as fundamental as a constitution should not be able to be messed with so easily, neither by a military coup nor elected politicians.

A full-on direct referendum, thoroughly supervised by international voting monitors, or an extraordinarily large majority of both houses of Parliament should be required for any changes.

May be impractical now, but Thailand should have returned to the 1997 charter as soon as the coupists were overcome, can't understand how their charter was allowed to stand at all.

Given that the 2007 constitution was approved by a referendum, it would be just as bad to simply dump it as it was to dump the 1997 constitution.

Rather than dumping constitutions wholesale, why not just fix the problems that are identified?

[mozzieslapper]

Is this a serious photo pf Parliament in Thailand, moat of the seats are empty ?

[bigbamboo]

Is this a serious photo pf Parliament in Thailand, moat of the seats are empty ?

They shouldn't have waited until the bar was open.

[phiphidon]

I completely agree that something as fundamental as a constitution should not be able to be messed with so easily, neither by a military coup nor elected politicians.

A full-on direct referendum, thoroughly supervised by international voting monitors, or an extraordinarily large majority of both houses of Parliament should be required for any changes.

May be impractical now, but Thailand should have returned to the 1997 charter as soon as the coupists were overcome, can't understand how their charter was allowed to stand at all.

Given that the 2007 constitution was approved by a referendum, it would be just as bad to simply dump it as it was to dump the 1997 constitution.

Rather than dumping constitutions wholesale, why not just fix the problems that are identified?

"Given that the 2007 constitution was approved by a referendum, it would be just as bad to simply dump it as it was to dump the 1997 constitution."

That's rich coming from Mr.Majority himself

Only 57.6 percent of enrolled voters cast a vote, compared with 70 percent in the past two national elections. The vote in favour was just 58 percent, as against 42 percent who voted no. In other words, less than one third of those eligible voted for the new constitution.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/thai-a31.shtml

As you are so fond of pointing out wrt the the last election the "low" percentage actually voting for the PTP, how come you propose that less than 33% of eligible voters voting for the new constitution as being OK for acceptance of said referendum. Or do you change your calculations to suit your bias.

[whybother]

"Given that the 2007 constitution was approved by a referendum, it would be just as bad to simply dump it as it was to dump the 1997 constitution."

That's rich coming from Mr.Majority himself

Only 57.6 percent of enrolled voters cast a vote, compared with 70 percent in the past two national elections. The vote in favour was just 58 percent, as against 42 percent who voted no. In other words, less than one third of those eligible voted for the new constitution.

http://www.wsws.org/.../thai-a31.shtml

As you are so fond of pointing out wrt the the last election the "low" percentage actually voting for the PTP, how come you propose that less than 33% of eligible voters voting for the new constitution as being OK for acceptance of said referendum. Or do you change your calculations to suit your bias.

Was the 2007 constitution referendum passed by a majority of votes or not?

No matter how you look at it, the PTP did not get a majority of the vote in the last election.

Edited May 13, 2012 by whybother

[1bbcd5]

Outstanding thread, thanks all for joining. I'll visit often.

[whybother]

As you are so fond of pointing out wrt the the last election the "low" percentage actually voting for the PTP, how come you propose that less than 33% of eligible voters voting for the new constitution as being OK for acceptance of said referendum. Or do you change your calculations to suit your bias.

Was the 2007 constitution referendum passed by a majority of votes or not?

No matter how you look at it, the PTP did not get a majority of the vote in the last election.

And further to that, I never mention the "low" percentage. I just point out that 48% of the vote is not a majority.

[phiphidon]

"Given that the 2007 constitution was approved by a referendum, it would be just as bad to simply dump it as it was to dump the 1997 constitution."

That's rich coming from Mr.Majority himself

Only 57.6 percent of enrolled voters cast a vote, compared with 70 percent in the past two national elections. The vote in favour was just 58 percent, as against 42 percent who voted no. In other words, less than one third of those eligible voted for the new constitution.

http://www.wsws.org/.../thai-a31.shtml

As you are so fond of pointing out wrt the the last election the "low" percentage actually voting for the PTP, how come you propose that less than 33% of eligible voters voting for the new constitution as being OK for acceptance of said referendum. Or do you change your calculations to suit your bias.

Was the 2007 constitution referendum passed by a majority of votes or not?

No matter how you look at it, the PTP did not get a majority of the vote in the last election.

My mistake I should not have bothered -

[whybother]

As you are so fond of pointing out wrt the the last election the "low" percentage actually voting for the PTP, how come you propose that less than 33% of eligible voters voting for the new constitution as being OK for acceptance of said referendum. Or do you change your calculations to suit your bias.

Was the 2007 constitution referendum passed by a majority of votes or not?

No matter how you look at it, the PTP did not get a majority of the vote in the last election.

My mistake I should not have bothered -

I don't know why you were trying to compare "eligible voters" to "valid votes", because if you look at the percentage of eligible votes that PTP got in the election, it was also less than one third of those eligible.

[phiphidon]

As you are so fond of pointing out wrt the the last election the "low" percentage actually voting for the PTP, how come you propose that less than 33% of eligible voters voting for the new constitution as being OK for acceptance of said referendum. Or do you change your calculations to suit your bias.

Was the 2007 constitution referendum passed by a majority of votes or not?

No matter how you look at it, the PTP did not get a majority of the vote in the last election.

My mistake I should not have bothered -

I don't know why you were trying to compare "eligible voters" to "valid votes", because if you look at the percentage of eligible votes that PTP got in the election, it was also less than one third of those eligible.

Now I know for sure why I should not have bothered - , where's the off switch?

[whybother]

I don't know why you were trying to compare "eligible voters" to "valid votes", because if you look at the percentage of eligible votes that PTP got in the election, it was also less than one third of those eligible.

Now I know for sure why I should not have bothered - , where's the off switch?

Yes, don't you hate it when your arguements get shot down in flames?

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

Edited May 13, 2012 by whybother