Second Reading Of Thai Constitution Bill Finalised

[webfact]

POLITICS

Second reading of constitution bill finalised

KORNCHANOK RAKSASERI

THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- The second reading of a bill to allow the establishment of a Constitutional Drafting Assembly finished yesterday with the final article requiring the recruitment of CDA members to begin within 15 days after the law takes effect.

While there must be a break of at least 15 days before the third reading and finalisation of the charter amendment, the drafted law requires a royal decree for the election of CDA members within 15 days after the law takes effect. It also requires the process to recruit members of the drafting body be finished within 90 days.

The date for the third reading has yet to be scheduled.

MPs and senators yesterday proposed that people who join the drafting assembly be banned from holding a political post for five years. However, the proposal was defeated in a vote.

Yesterday was the 15th day of deliberation in the second reading of the bill in Parliament. After, the House-Senate joint meeting voted for almost all of the draft proposed by a parliamentary ad hoc committee on charter amendment led by Samart Kaewmeechai, a former charter drafter and MP from the ruling Pheu Thai Party.

The only change from the panel's draft was that instead of applying local administration election law, the election of members of the drafting assembly would be based on the law citing requirements for people who seek to be MPs and senators.

The bill - a change to Article 291 of the 2007 Constitution that cites only the process of charter amendment - allows the setting up of a new drafting body to draw up a new version of the supreme law.

The new CDA will be made up of 99 members - 77 elected to represent each of the provinces, and 22 members appointed by the Parliament. Six of them will be experts in public law, with six experts in political science or public administration, plus 10 with experience in politics, public administration, economic or social fields, or charter drafting.

The Parliament President is authorised to issue selection regulations and a 15-member panel will verify the qualifications of candidates nominated by university councils, social, economic and private agencies.

After the members are selected, the Assembly is required to finish drafting the new charter within 240 days. The time count will pause if the House of Representatives reaches the end of a term or is dissolved. But it can continue working after a new House is formed.

In drafting the new constitution, the assembly is required to hear opinions from people in all regions.

However, the amendment prohibits changing the political system from a constitutional monarchy. It also prohibits changing the form of the state from a single state, and prohibits changing any clause in the chapter on the monarchy in the current Constitution.

The Election Commission will be required to hold a national referendum on the CDA's new charter within 60 days after it receives the draft passed on by the Parliament President. However, the EC must leave at least 45 days before holding the referendum as time to promote the ballot and publicising the charter draft. This must be done within 60 days but not before 45 days after the EC receives the draft.

In case the CDA does not finish the drafting process in time, fewer than half of the CDA members remain or the draft contains prohibited content, the Parliament or the Cabinet can propose a new assembly be set up to finish the draft.

-- The Nation 2012-05-15

[mozzieslapper]

DOes some one have is easy straight to the point, what the new Constitution the Government is actually changing?

[Buchholz]

DOes some one have is easy straight to the point, what the new Constitution the Government is actually changing?

They don't know yet. It's just "bad" so changes need to be made... they just haven't said what.

.

[jayboy]

DOes some one have is easy straight to the point, what the new Constitution the Government is actually changing?

They don't know yet. It's just "bad" so changes need to be made... they just haven't said what.

.

The defects of the military sponsored 2006 constitution have been discussed at enormous length so the need for change is hardly mysterious.To be fair the constitution was partly an attempt to strengthen the division of state power and to prevent a repeat of Thaksin's self-aggrandisement.However it ended up by providing too much power to judges and civil servants (who sadly could be influenced by the unelected elites just as Thaksin had done) at the expense of that untidy and messy concept of democracy.The overarching rationale however of the constitution was to entrench the power and influence of the military which had imposed its grip through a criminal conspiracy.Looking at the current landscape its hard to believe the Yingluck government is going to change very much - too much political capital expended and no doubt appeasing the military is part of the behind the scenes deal.

But to suggest that nobody knows whats "bad" about the junta's constitution is a bizarre suggestion - though perhaps not surprising from those who give carte blanche to every crime, corrupt act or human rights abuse committed by the Thai military.

[OzMick]

"The overarching rationale however of the constitution was to entrench the power and influence of the military which had imposed its grip through a criminal conspiracy."

I'm sure you will be glad to justify this statement. You might also want to amend

"... judges and civil servants (who sadly could be influenced by the unelected elites just as Thaksin had done)..."

to elected and unelected elites just as Thaksin is doing

[jayboy]

"The overarching rationale however of the constitution was to entrench the power and influence of the military which had imposed its grip through a criminal conspiracy."

I'm sure you will be glad to justify this statement. You might also want to amend

"... judges and civil servants (who sadly could be influenced by the unelected elites just as Thaksin had done)..."

to elected and unelected elites just as Thaksin is doing

No my post was very clear and actually not controversial.

The fact that you are apparently suggesting the 2006 constitution did not have a main purpose of entrenching military interests simply demonstrates again the one dimensional view of Thai politics which your unending stream of not very thoughtful posts indicates.

[OzMick]

"The overarching rationale however of the constitution was to entrench the power and influence of the military which had imposed its grip through a criminal conspiracy."

I'm sure you will be glad to justify this statement. You might also want to amend

"... judges and civil servants (who sadly could be influenced by the unelected elites just as Thaksin had done)..."

to elected and unelected elites just as Thaksin is doing

No my post was very clear and actually not controversial.

The fact that you are apparently suggesting the 2006 constitution did not have a main purpose of entrenching military interests simply demonstrates again the one dimensional view of Thai politics which your unending stream of not very thoughtful posts indicates.

I have seen no reference to clauses changed to entrench military rule other than the amnesty. And the closest thing I can see to a criminal conspiracy is the government proposing the latest changes. I have never heard of a government with so many members facing serious criminal charges, or with members whose position is a reward for and an attempt to prevent prosecution of criminal charges.

As for the amendment, do you deny that elected elites are using political influence to avoid prosecutions, and that Thaksin, an unelected elite, continues to do so.

[Buchholz]

DOes some one have is easy straight to the point, what the new Constitution the Government is actually changing?

They don't know yet. It's just "bad" so changes need to be made... they just haven't said what.

.

The defects of the military sponsored 2006 constitution have been discussed at enormous length so the need for change is hardly mysterious.

To be fair the constitution was partly an attempt to strengthen the division of state power and to prevent a repeat of Thaksin's self-aggrandisement.However it ended up by providing too much power to judges and civil servants (who sadly could be influenced by the unelected elites just as Thaksin had done) at the expense of that untidy and messy concept of democracy.The overarching rationale however of the constitution was to entrench the power and influence of the military which had imposed its grip through a criminal conspiracy.Looking at the current landscape its hard to believe the Yingluck government is going to change very much - too much political capital expended and no doubt appeasing the military is part of the behind the scenes deal.

< inflammatory lies snipped >

Do you have information as to specifically what articles will be changed and what the changes entail?

.

Edited May 15, 2012 by sbk
no need to be snarky

[Moruya]

"The overarching rationale however of the constitution was to entrench the power and influence of the military which had imposed its grip through a criminal conspiracy."

I'm sure you will be glad to justify this statement. You might also want to amend

"... judges and civil servants (who sadly could be influenced by the unelected elites just as Thaksin had done)..."

to elected and unelected elites just as Thaksin is doing

No my post was very clear and actually not controversial.

The fact that you are apparently suggesting the 2006 constitution did not have a main purpose of entrenching military interests simply demonstrates again the one dimensional view of Thai politics which your unending stream of not very thoughtful posts indicates.

So inform us all of what the changes are and how they will benefit the man in the moo baan.

If you don't know then you should hold your keyboard!

[Thai at Heart]

At least they are reading it twice.

[whybother]

I'm sure you don't need me to give you guidance on current developments - in fact I'm sure you pay closer attention than I do.I simply pointed out some salient facts about the junta sponsored 2006 constitution.

2006 or 2007 constitution?

[Buchholz]

Do you have information as to specifically what articles will be changed and what the changes entail?

It'd also be great if you could avoid your usual off-topic, over-personal, derogatory side comments on posters in your reply.

I'm sure you don't need me to give you guidance on current developments - in fact I'm sure you pay closer attention than I do.I simply pointed out some salient facts about the junta sponsored 2006 constitution.

So then, your post had nothing to do with the my post nor the post I was replying to asking for information on the specific changes and instead was just an opportunity to flame a poster with off-topic derogatory comments, which you continue with your latest post .

Got it.

DOes some one have is easy straight to the point, what the new Constitution the Government is actually changing?

They don't know yet. It's just "bad" so changes need to be made... they just haven't said what.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Buchholz