Thai Democracy Tested As Judges Battle Thaksin

[heybruce]

Ahh yes, all sorts of comments, but not one on the actual subject matter: Are the actions of the judges an attempt to legislate from the bench, an interference in the legal duties of the House, or are the judges acting in accordance with the applicable laws?

I don't suppose anyone wants to take a stab at considering the legal basis for the judicial activities? Maybe there is a legitimate legal argument to make in respect to the activity?

Unfortunately, one won't see a discussion of that here in this thread as the usual internet thugs rush to toss whatever crap they think will stick. It would be a nice change, to read the comments of someone offering up an explanation based upon the actual facts of the matter and not tangental comments about the alleged wrongdoings of a DPM etc.

What!? You want a rational analysis based on facts and an understanding of Thai law and the constitution? Are you mad Sir?

This is TV; the place where people spew out prejudices and simplistic solutions to complex problems, usually along the lines of "hang the 'villian(s)'". Intelligent posts are flamed without mercy. But I'm sure you already know that based on replies to your original post.

[maidu]

Chalerm all of a sudden an expert on Constitutional law? Interesting. He's about as adept as a law expert as he is as a father.

[heybruce]

From the full article:

"The Constitutional Court ordered Parliament last week to stop considering an amendment that would establish a 99-member body to rewrite the constitution drafted by an army-appointed panel after the coup. The Pheu Thai party won a majority in last July’s elections after campaigning on changing the document to make it harder to disband political parties. It also sought to curtail the power of appointed judges, soldiers and bureaucrats. "

Keep in mind that the constitution was written to satisfy the military that staged the last coup, not the majority of the Thai people. Also, that in attempting to change this constitution, the PTP is living up to one of its campaign promises.

Also:

"A judicial challenge to the legislators’ efforts could lead to the disbanding of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s party, the third time courts have disqualified elected allies of her brother Thaksin Shinawatra since he was ousted by the military six years ago."

and:

"The court accepted petitions arguing that the process violated Article 68 of the constitution, which restricts attempts “to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.” The clause allows judges to disband political parties that contravene the stipulation."

Article 68 appears to be wide open to interpretation, allowing a politicized judiciary to terminate any elected government it wishes. In view of this, I think the constitution should be rewritten.

[thaicbr]

From the full article:

"The Constitutional Court ordered Parliament last week to stop considering an amendment that would establish a 99-member body to rewrite the constitution drafted by an army-appointed panel after the coup. The Pheu Thai party won a majority in last July’s elections after campaigning on changing the document to make it harder to disband political parties. It also sought to curtail the power of appointed judges, soldiers and bureaucrats. "

Keep in mind that the constitution was written to satisfy the military that staged the last coup, not the majority of the Thai people. Also, that in attempting to change this constitution, the PTP is living up to one of its campaign promises.

Also:

"A judicial challenge to the legislators’ efforts could lead to the disbanding of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s party, the third time courts have disqualified elected allies of her brother Thaksin Shinawatra since he was ousted by the military six years ago."

and:

"The court accepted petitions arguing that the process violated Article 68 of the constitution, which restricts attempts “to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.” The clause allows judges to disband political parties that contravene the stipulation."

Article 68 appears to be wide open to interpretation, allowing a politicized judiciary to terminate any elected government it wishes. In view of this, I think the constitution should be rewritten.

So as a start go back to the 1997 constitution all parties would accept that. Then discuss /debate any further changes over a period of time. Makes sense does it not.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

[Lite Beer]

Thida says judges should be impeached

The Nation June 7, 2012 2:12 pm

BANGKOK: -- Reds chairwoman Thida Thawornseth on Thursday's afternoon delivered a passionate speech to kickstart the rally at Parliament aiming to impeach Constitution Court judges.

"A round of applause for the people today for refusing to bow down to extraconstitutional power, be it tanks, bullets or the scales of justice," she said in a punchline concluding her speech.

Thida said the red shirts deemed it necessary to rally because of an uprecedented move to stage a coup not by the military but by the Constitution Court.

She said the high court was a disgrace to the judiciary and a disappointment to the people because the judges were trying to invoke the law against, instead of for the people.

The high court had intepreted the charter provisions without any justifications with the aim to usurp power, a form of the judiciary coup, she said, in reference to the court order to suspend the passage of the charter change bill.

She said today's rally was actually a way for the people to come out and protect the judicial integrity.

She said the red shirts were aware about the difficulty for a successful impeachment to happen but they wanted the judges to realise that millions do not want them to hold office any longer.

The power, to change or not to change the charter, was vested in the people, not the judiciary or any other agencies, she said.

Regardless of the outcome of the rally, the impeachment drive will continue in order to demonstrate the people's will to rein in the judiciary, she said.

Should the rally fail to solicit 20,000 signatures required to sponsor the impeachment motion by today, organisers will submit a petition to show their intent to complete the campaign within the 180-day deadline. The petition will be lodged at the Office of the Senate Speaker.

-- The Nation 2012-06-07

[bigbamboo]

From the full article:

"The Constitutional Court ordered Parliament last week to stop considering an amendment that would establish a 99-member body to rewrite the constitution drafted by an army-appointed panel after the coup. The Pheu Thai party won a majority in last July's elections after campaigning on changing the document to make it harder to disband political parties. It also sought to curtail the power of appointed judges, soldiers and bureaucrats. "

Keep in mind that the constitution was written to satisfy the military that staged the last coup, not the majority of the Thai people. Also, that in attempting to change this constitution, the PTP is living up to one of its campaign promises.

Also:

"A judicial challenge to the legislators' efforts could lead to the disbanding of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's party, the third time courts have disqualified elected allies of her brother Thaksin Shinawatra since he was ousted by the military six years ago."

and:

"The court accepted petitions arguing that the process violated Article 68 of the constitution, which restricts attempts "to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State." The clause allows judges to disband political parties that contravene the stipulation."

Article 68 appears to be wide open to interpretation, allowing a politicized judiciary to terminate any elected government it wishes. In view of this, I think the constitution should be rewritten.

So as a start go back to the 1997 constitution all parties would accept that. Then discuss /debate any further changes over a period of time. Makes sense does it not.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

Seems to me that the Constitution Court are the only 'party' to actually appear to be putting the interests of the country first.

[thaicbr]

From the full article:

"The Constitutional Court ordered Parliament last week to stop considering an amendment that would establish a 99-member body to rewrite the constitution drafted by an army-appointed panel after the coup. The Pheu Thai party won a majority in last July's elections after campaigning on changing the document to make it harder to disband political parties. It also sought to curtail the power of appointed judges, soldiers and bureaucrats. "

Keep in mind that the constitution was written to satisfy the military that staged the last coup, not the majority of the Thai people. Also, that in attempting to change this constitution, the PTP is living up to one of its campaign promises.

Also:

"A judicial challenge to the legislators' efforts could lead to the disbanding of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's party, the third time courts have disqualified elected allies of her brother Thaksin Shinawatra since he was ousted by the military six years ago."

and:

"The court accepted petitions arguing that the process violated Article 68 of the constitution, which restricts attempts "to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State." The clause allows judges to disband political parties that contravene the stipulation."

Article 68 appears to be wide open to interpretation, allowing a politicized judiciary to terminate any elected government it wishes. In view of this, I think the constitution should be rewritten.

So as a start go back to the 1997 constitution all parties would accept that. Then discuss /debate any further changes over a period of time. Makes sense does it not.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

Seems to me that the Constitution Court are the only 'party' to actually appear to be putting the interests of the country first.

Mate. You will get NO disagreement from me.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

[phl]

The most worrying part is that the government and its officials believe they have the right to challenge or impeach the court ie the judicial system.

It is a worry to me as an expat living in Thailand and should be a worry to any common Thai, because it simply means that government can interfere in any

court ruling.

It also means that the law can be applied depending on individual needs. I am not saying that all laws are enforced in Thailand, but this challenges even the ability to enforce it

The most annoying part is that there are foreigners on this board who actually believe it is acceptable. I can perhaps understand a red shirt somchai with 2 years of schooling, who simply does not understand , can not read, let alone write, but a foreigner who comes to this country, supposedly educated and yet still fails to understand or see anarchy this officials are trying to implement

Can not help but ask all those supporting it, what if tomorrow some government official decided to simply take away your condo, what would you do? when filing a law suit is not possible, nor is lodging a complaint.

While its a small silly thing, it is foundation for what to come

[phl]

Thida says judges should be impeached

The Nation June 7, 2012 2:12 pm

BANGKOK: -- Reds chairwoman Thida Thawornseth on Thursday's afternoon delivered a passionate speech to kickstart the rally at Parliament aiming to impeach Constitution Court judges.

"A round of applause for the people today for refusing to bow down to extraconstitutional power, be it tanks, bullets or the scales of justice," she said in a punchline concluding her speech.

Thida said the red shirts deemed it necessary to rally because of an uprecedented move to stage a coup not by the military but by the Constitution Court.

She said the high court was a disgrace to the judiciary and a disappointment to the people because the judges were trying to invoke the law against, instead of for the people.

The high court had intepreted the charter provisions without any justifications with the aim to usurp power, a form of the judiciary coup, she said, in reference to the court order to suspend the passage of the charter change bill.

She said today's rally was actually a way for the people to come out and protect the judicial integrity.

She said the red shirts were aware about the difficulty for a successful impeachment to happen but they wanted the judges to realise that millions do not want them to hold office any longer.

The power, to change or not to change the charter, was vested in the people, not the judiciary or any other agencies, she said.

Regardless of the outcome of the rally, the impeachment drive will continue in order to demonstrate the people's will to rein in the judiciary, she said.

Should the rally fail to solicit 20,000 signatures required to sponsor the impeachment motion by today, organisers will submit a petition to show their intent to complete the campaign within the 180-day deadline. The petition will be lodged at the Office of the Senate Speaker.

-- The Nation 2012-06-07

Millions? where do the figures come from? a dream?

Then in the same speech, if they fail to solicit 20 000..... but i thought she said millions already

So if they fail, they want 180 days to buy more signatures?

[OzMick]

From the full article:

"The Constitutional Court ordered Parliament last week to stop considering an amendment that would establish a 99-member body to rewrite the constitution drafted by an army-appointed panel after the coup. The Pheu Thai party won a majority in last July’s elections after campaigning on changing the document to make it harder to disband political parties. It also sought to curtail the power of appointed judges, soldiers and bureaucrats. "

Keep in mind that the constitution was written to satisfy the military that staged the last coup, not the majority of the Thai people. Also, that in attempting to change this constitution, the PTP is living up to one of its campaign promises.

Also:

"A judicial challenge to the legislators’ efforts could lead to the disbanding of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s party, the third time courts have disqualified elected allies of her brother Thaksin Shinawatra since he was ousted by the military six years ago."

and:

"The court accepted petitions arguing that the process violated Article 68 of the constitution, which restricts attempts “to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.” The clause allows judges to disband political parties that contravene the stipulation."

Article 68 appears to be wide open to interpretation, allowing a politicized judiciary to terminate any elected government it wishes. In view of this, I think the constitution should be rewritten.

"Keep in mind that the constitution was written to satisfy the military that staged the last coup, not the majority of the Thai people."

This "casual lie" gets dropped in far too often. the only major clauses changed/added were anti-corruption (after removing a particularly corrupt government), removing the need to have a degree to be an MP, and the amnesty for the coup. If you know of any others, inform us or <deleted>.

You also seem to have a problem with parties being disqualified for electoral fraud, bribery and other breaking of electoral law, a habit Thaksin parties can't seem to shake. What is their problem? What is yours? Even the current government is blatantly guilty. Is this intentional, and attempt to push the country into conflict?

[Crushdepth]

Chalerm all of a sudden an expert on Constitutional law? Interesting. He's about as adept as a law expert as he is as a father.

Unless he is advised by idiots, he well knows the court's role in this. His comments are just PR bullshit to fire up the uninformed public and undermine rule of law. People like this are not fit to run a noodle shop, let alone a country.

[Crushdepth]

From the full article:

"The Constitutional Court ordered Parliament last week to stop considering an amendment that would establish a 99-member body to rewrite the constitution drafted by an army-appointed panel after the coup. The Pheu Thai party won a majority in last July’s elections after campaigning on changing the document to make it harder to disband political parties. It also sought to curtail the power of appointed judges, soldiers and bureaucrats. "

Keep in mind that the constitution was written to satisfy the military that staged the last coup, not the majority of the Thai people. Also, that in attempting to change this constitution, the PTP is living up to one of its campaign promises.

Also:

"A judicial challenge to the legislators’ efforts could lead to the disbanding of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s party, the third time courts have disqualified elected allies of her brother Thaksin Shinawatra since he was ousted by the military six years ago."

and:

"The court accepted petitions arguing that the process violated Article 68 of the constitution, which restricts attempts “to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.” The clause allows judges to disband political parties that contravene the stipulation."

Article 68 appears to be wide open to interpretation, allowing a politicized judiciary to terminate any elected government it wishes. In view of this, I think the constitution should be rewritten.

"Keep in mind that the constitution was written to satisfy the military that staged the last coup, not the majority of the Thai people."

This "casual lie" gets dropped in far too often. the only major clauses changed/added were anti-corruption (after removing a particularly corrupt government), removing the need to have a degree to be an MP, and the amnesty for the coup. If you know of any others, inform us or <deleted>.

You also seem to have a problem with parties being disqualified for electoral fraud, bribery and other breaking of electoral law, a habit Thaksin parties can't seem to shake. What is their problem? What is yours? Even the current government is blatantly guilty. Is this intentional, and attempt to push the country into conflict?

I refer you to Great Leader's recent comments: If you won't accept reconciliation [on his terms], only the arms merchants will benefit.

[GentlemanJim]

Keep in mind that the constitution was written to satisfy the military that staged the last coup, not the majority of the Thai people. Also, that in attempting to change this constitution, the PTP is living up to one of its campaign promises.

Article 68 appears to be wide open to interpretation, allowing a politicized judiciary to terminate any elected government it wishes. In view of this, I think the constitution should be rewritten.

Your first sentence is garbage. Show one valid link that contains that information....you can not.

As for your second sentence, perhaps Article 68 is so open to interpretation that a despot Government hell bent on establishing a Republic and returning it's Megalomaniac leader to power, feels it can mount an attack on the only independent legislatory body in the Kingdom. As for the constitution being rewritten, it is not yours and you have no say in the matter, particularly when the details you provide concerning your understanding of it are wrong.

[tlansford]

is there anyone here who seriously feels that the formation of a CDA could be unconstitutional?

from asian correspondant, they note, in quoting a Thai legal expert

public law scholar Dr. Worachet Pakeerat argues that there are no grounds in paragraph 1 to begin with:

"[T]he petition must be about acts that were committed by a person or a political party.

The fact is that the charter amendment legislation was undertaken by parliament as authorised by the constitution, and parliament is not regarded as a person or political party."

In other words, Parliament was acting within its authority in considering a legislation to amend the Constitution. Although the constitution amendment, if passed into law, might possibly lead drafting a new one, how is that an attempt to overthrow the democratic regime with the King as Head of State? No one has yet proposed a piece of legislation for Thailand to become a republic or any other form of government different from what it is today. Is the Constitution Court taking a pre-emptive strike to stop “an act” that it fears might happen? Does it have an authority to do so?

It strikes me as exceptionally odd that the court would force itself into the situation at this point.

[heybruce]

From the full article:

"The Constitutional Court ordered Parliament last week to stop considering an amendment that would establish a 99-member body to rewrite the constitution drafted by an army-appointed panel after the coup. The Pheu Thai party won a majority in last July’s elections after campaigning on changing the document to make it harder to disband political parties. It also sought to curtail the power of appointed judges, soldiers and bureaucrats. "

Keep in mind that the constitution was written to satisfy the military that staged the last coup, not the majority of the Thai people. Also, that in attempting to change this constitution, the PTP is living up to one of its campaign promises.

Also:

"A judicial challenge to the legislators’ efforts could lead to the disbanding of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s party, the third time courts have disqualified elected allies of her brother Thaksin Shinawatra since he was ousted by the military six years ago."

and:

"The court accepted petitions arguing that the process violated Article 68 of the constitution, which restricts attempts “to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.” The clause allows judges to disband political parties that contravene the stipulation."

Article 68 appears to be wide open to interpretation, allowing a politicized judiciary to terminate any elected government it wishes. In view of this, I think the constitution should be rewritten.

"Keep in mind that the constitution was written to satisfy the military that staged the last coup, not the majority of the Thai people."

This "casual lie" gets dropped in far too often. the only major clauses changed/added were anti-corruption (after removing a particularly corrupt government), removing the need to have a degree to be an MP, and the amnesty for the coup. If you know of any others, inform us or <deleted>.

You also seem to have a problem with parties being disqualified for electoral fraud, bribery and other breaking of electoral law, a habit Thaksin parties can't seem to shake. What is their problem? What is yours? Even the current government is blatantly guilty. Is this intentional, and attempt to push the country into conflict?

I realize Wikipedia isn't an unimpeachable source, but I trust its objectivity more than yours:

"Under the 2007 Constitution, only half of the Senate was elected; the other half was appointed. The executive branch was weakened, and half as many MPs were needed to propose a no-confidence vote compared to the 1997 Constitution. The judiciary was strengthened and high ranking judges became part of the appointment committees for the Senate, the Election Commission, and other independent agencies."

That seems like more than anti-corruption, amnesty for the coup leaders and non-degree requirements for MP's.

Regarding your questions "What is their problem? What is yours? Even the current government is blatantly guilty. Is this intentional, and attempt to push the country into conflict?" I regard the fact that no elected government has been allowed to serve its full term since 2005 to be the greatest threat to stability. Like it or not, the voters, usually by wide margins, have chosen Thaksin or Thaksin affiliated parties since 2000.

Finally, quoting myself: "Article 68 appears to be wide open to interpretation, allowing a politicized judiciary to terminate any elected government it wishes. In view of this, I think the constitution should be rewritten." You interpreted this to mean "You also seem to have a problem with parties being disqualified for electoral fraud, bribery and other breaking of electoral law..." How did you reach this ridiculous conclusion?

[smedly]

Sorry to be blunt, KK but your post is nonsense.

You are saying a parliament cannot debate or propose a change in law, without approval from an external court.

That is a severe and pretty unhealthy restriction of parliamentary powers.

You are also factually incorrect when you say that the government is going against a CC decision, yet to be made.

PTP have good reason to be outraged.

It's not Parliament it's PTP. They are neither proposing nor debating they are steamrolling.

And that is patently an abuse

you think?

just shows how much you don't know

even an elected governmet has to act within the law and constitution and even they must answer to someone - which in this case is the CC - the CC do not make law - they are there to make sure a civil elected government act within the law - it is pretty obvious from the last few days that Thaksin and his red army want to ignore the rule of law and disrespect the King which frankly I find it a hard pill to swallow - I'm not sure that the general reds even know what they are doing - what we really need is an open TV debate were the various issues can be confronted explaned and challenged in public - having these one sided televised unchallenged speakers ranting and stiring basically a pile of unchallenged <deleted> is contributing nothing - lets have an open debate so that all Thais people educated or not can really understand what is going on

[whybother]

From the full article:

"The Constitutional Court ordered Parliament last week to stop considering an amendment that would establish a 99-member body to rewrite the constitution drafted by an army-appointed panel after the coup. The Pheu Thai party won a majority in last July’s elections after campaigning on changing the document to make it harder to disband political parties. It also sought to curtail the power of appointed judges, soldiers and bureaucrats. "

Keep in mind that the constitution was written to satisfy the military that staged the last coup, not the majority of the Thai people. Also, that in attempting to change this constitution, the PTP is living up to one of its campaign promises.

Also:

"A judicial challenge to the legislators’ efforts could lead to the disbanding of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s party, the third time courts have disqualified elected allies of her brother Thaksin Shinawatra since he was ousted by the military six years ago."

and:

"The court accepted petitions arguing that the process violated Article 68 of the constitution, which restricts attempts “to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.” The clause allows judges to disband political parties that contravene the stipulation."

Article 68 appears to be wide open to interpretation, allowing a politicized judiciary to terminate any elected government it wishes. In view of this, I think the constitution should be rewritten.

Didn't a huge majority, a landslide in fact, of "the people" accept the 2007 constitution?

Sent from my shoe phone

[StefanBBK]

The root problem is that constitution can apparently be changed with a simple majority in parlaiment. This is not typical for other democracies. As far as I belive in most countries a 2/3 majority is needed to change or amend the constitution, if not a general refferendum by the people.

At times constitution courts in other countries are approached by parties or individuals to check if laws passed by parlaiment are constitutional. If the court finds that they are not, parlaiment is ordered to review and amend. This is a normal democratic process, that keeps parlaiment in check to adhere to the highest law, which is the constitution.

Constitution courts in many countries are accessable by anyone, not just the AG. If any petition has to be "approved" by the AG beforehand, then (he) has higher authority than the constitution court per say, as he could block anything he does not like. Who appoints the AG?

I surely hope the next constitution would make these things clear and fair and ensure a proper checks and balance procedure is in place.

Sent from my GT-P7500 using Thaivisa Connect App

[maidu]

In Thailand, the hub of coups, when one happens, the coup makers automatically declare a re-writing of the Constitution. It's as rote as putting socks on with shoes. Part of the reason, is to put a clause in there which will excuse the coup-makers from legal retribution. Many (probably nearly all) Thais, including regular people and legal scholars, believe the Constitution which was in place before the most recent coup, was good.

If most politicians believe the current Constitution is flawed, perhaps they should simply revert to the prior one. Problem solved. Of course, that won't happen, because the current hassles seek to absolve the Reds from facing legal responsibility for any crimes they may have committed - in particular, the financier and coach of the Reds, Mr. "I'm through with politics."

[alanferdi]

Thai Democracy Tested As Judges Battle Thaksin: Southeast Asia

By Daniel Ten Kate

BANGKOK: -- Thailand’s ruling party warned democracy is under threat as its highest court moves to stop lawmakers from changing the constitution in a country that has suffered 18 coup attempts in the past eight decades.

The Constitutional Court has no right to prevent Parliament from voting on an amendment that would create a new body to rewrite the charter, Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung told reporters yesterday.

A judicial challenge to the legislators’ efforts could lead to the disbanding of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s party, the third time courts have disqualified elected allies of her brother Thaksin Shinawatra since he was ousted by the military six years ago.

“Did they fall asleep and didn’t know we got our power from the election?” Chalerm said, referring to judges on the nine-member Constitutional Court. “Don’t go too far. This is too much and no one can accept this.”

Full story: http://www.bloomberg...heast-asia.html

-- Bloomberg 2012-06-06

what Chalerm forgets is that an election is only meant to put eligible people into power to govern, protect and move the economy further, what it does not include is hidden agendas that thwart the law to close eyes to the past and mass manupulation to be instigated by one individual. Thats not what can be called a peoples movement! This TEA (trial error approach) party should end

[lannarebirth]

The root problem is that constitution can apparently be changed with a simple majority in parlaiment. This is not typical for other democracies. As far as I belive in most countries a 2/3 majority is needed to change or amend the constitution, if not a general refferendum by the people.

The threshold to affect constitutional change here needs to be much much higher. Any constitution that doesn't call for both legislative and popular vote supermajorities is flawed IMO.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

[OzMick]

what Chalerm forgets is that an election is only meant to put eligible people into power to govern, protect and move the economy further, what it does not include is hidden agendas that thwart the law to close eyes to the past and mass manupulation to be instigated by one individual. Thats not what can be called a peoples movement! This TEA (trial error approach) party should end

"....... an election is only meant to put eligible people into power......"

Putting ineligible people into office may lead to the disbanding of PTP. Not only Jatuporn, but his red mates facing serious criminal charges, all "elected" via the party list.

One quarter of MPs are elected by nobody, what was once called "unrepresentative swill" in Oz. IMHO every MP should have to face the voters of his/her electorate to continue his representation, it is a great ego deflater, especially when a PM gets the boot from his seat.

[tlansford]

From the full article:

"The Constitutional Court ordered Parliament last week to stop considering an amendment that would establish a 99-member body to rewrite the constitution drafted by an army-appointed panel after the coup. The Pheu Thai party won a majority in last July's elections after campaigning on changing the document to make it harder to disband political parties. It also sought to curtail the power of appointed judges, soldiers and bureaucrats. "

Keep in mind that the constitution was written to satisfy the military that staged the last coup, not the majority of the Thai people. Also, that in attempting to change this constitution, the PTP is living up to one of its campaign promises.

Also:

"A judicial challenge to the legislators' efforts could lead to the disbanding of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's party, the third time courts have disqualified elected allies of her brother Thaksin Shinawatra since he was ousted by the military six years ago."

and:

"The court accepted petitions arguing that the process violated Article 68 of the constitution, which restricts attempts "to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State." The clause allows judges to disband political parties that contravene the stipulation."

Article 68 appears to be wide open to interpretation, allowing a politicized judiciary to terminate any elected government it wishes. In view of this, I think the constitution should be rewritten.

Didn't a huge majority, a landslide in fact, of "the people" accept the 2007 constitution?

Sent from my shoe phone

56.69% yes.

The summary in wikipedia presents the campaign in favor of the constitution by the Junta and the restrictions against campaigning by everyone else.

Junta campaigning

The Committee on Information and Public Dissemination of the Constitution Drafting Assembly led an advertising campaign to persuade voters to favour the draft constitution. Media used included all television, cable and radio stations, websites, print media outlets, government agencies, education institutions, billboards and places where crowds gather. All state-run schools and universities were involved in the campaign. Spots were aired from 6 am until 10 pm with the message "Approve: New Constitution, close to the people". Billboards saying, "Love the King. Care about the King. Vote in a referendum. Accept the 2007 draft charter." were placed throughout the Northeast.[41][42]

The junta's propaganda campaign was criticized. "Broadcasting media under the control of the army and certain television stations have been misused by the state to convey false messages to persuade people to endorse the draft 2007 constitution," a statement issued by Midnight University said. The junta then agreed to a debate regarding the draft, but refused to air the debate on television, because it would create confusion among the public.[43] A debate was later aired on Nation Channel, a subscription-only cable channel, rather than on one of the government-owned free-to-air channels.

In late July, General Sonthi said that if the draft constitution failed the referendum, the junta would modify the 1997 Constitution for permanent use. He also said that an election would definitely be held within 2007.[44]

The government printed 19 million copies of the draft for public distribution prior to the referendum. However, none of the copies contained a translation into Malay, preventing people in the Malay-speaking southern provinces of Thailand from understanding the contents of the draft constitution.[45] Despite this, eighteen Islamic organisations declared that they will accept a draft constitution and called for Muslims to also accept the draft.[46]

its 700,000 nationwide staff to "promote proper understanding of the constitution" among rural people. ISOC spokesman Colonel Thanathip Sawangsaeng said provincial ISOC chiefs will use door-to-door tactics in their campaign to "educate" people so they will not be "tricked" into rejecting the draft. It was also revealed that the ISOC started their draft constitution "education" campaign in February, even before the draft constitution had been completed.[47]

The junta also announced that it would transport people to voting stations on the date of the referendum. Interior Minister Aree Wongaraya insisted that it was not illegal for the Ministry to do so, adding that Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont has given his consent. In elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Election Act states that it is a criminal offence to provide free transport for voters.[48]

The junta's referendum campaign reached a peak in the final week before the referendum. On Sunday 12 August, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont led cabinet ministers, senior government officials, and 100,000 people dressed in yellow from 17 central provinces in a rally from the Royal Plaza to Democracy Monument. Similar rallies were organised simultaneously in several other major provinces. Former Thai Rak Thai member Kuthep Saikrajang claimed that people at the rally were paid between 100 and 300 Baht each to join the rally. He also claimed that the government had arranged transport to bring the people to Bangkok.[49]

The Election Commission supported the junta's campaign. EC member Sumet Upanisakorn denied that the government acted illegally by summoning villagers to take part in a parades to accept the draft charter.[50]

Restrictions against campaigning to reject the draft

The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.[2]

The restrictions against opposition to the draft were criticized by human rights bodies. “Even if amended to allow for ‘factual’ campaigning on the referendum, it is clear that the main purpose of the law is to intimidate and silence persons who don’t share the official view,” the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said. “Meanwhile the administration is pumping vast amounts of money into Yes propaganda that is set to increase quickly.”[51]

The ban against campaigning against the constitution was enforced. In July, 20 soldiers and 10 policemen raided the house of a politician and seized anti-charter t-shirts, banners, documents, and recorded speeches.[52] Police also raided the Duang Prateep Foundation of former Senator Prateep Ungsongtham Hata and confiscated 4,000 posters which carried the message “It’s not illegal to vote against the draft constitution.” No charges were filed. The police claimed they were acting on orders from the military. “They could not cite any law to back up their actions,” said Sombat Boon-ngam-anong. Prateep filed a complaint with the police, claiming that they had committed an “unlawful” act, citing her human rights under the abrogated 1997 constitution.

The junta also claimed to the public that general democratic elections would only occur if the draft were approved. Defense Minister Boonrawd Somtas told reporters that an election “can take place only if the new constitution passes the referendum,” implying that a a "No" would result in indefinite military rule.[51]

Taxi-drivers were banned from putting anti-draft bumper stickers on their vehicles.[45]

Interior minister Aree Wong-Arya has warned those campaigning against the draft by distributing leaflets to voters that they will be severely punished if there is proof against them.[53]

On 11 August in Kamphaeng Phet province, military officers raided a shop printing leaflets that attacked the draft. Eight boxes of leaflets and the printing press were seized for investigation. The raid was conducted under a government Emergency Decree.[54]

At the time of the referendum, martial law was in place in 35 provinces, intimidating those who wished to campaign against the draft.[45]

Criticisms of the referendum

The campaigning process leading to the referendum was harshly criticized. Giles Ji Ungpakorn of Chulalongkorn University noted that,

It is now obvious that the military junta have no intention of conducting a clean and democratic referendum on their new constitution. While the government is shamelessly spending millions of the public's baht on propaganda urging the population to vote "yes" and accept the constitution, those who are opposed to it are prevented from campaigning properly by arrests, threats and a total lack of access in the media. The referendum cannot therefore be regarded as democratic, according to any international or Thai standards...

[waza]

I find it strange that people object to the 2007 constitution because it was written by the coup leaders and has a clause to give amnesty to the coup leaders when the proposed constitutional changes also include amnesty for the coup leaders.

[heybruce]

From the full article:

"The Constitutional Court ordered Parliament last week to stop considering an amendment that would establish a 99-member body to rewrite the constitution drafted by an army-appointed panel after the coup. The Pheu Thai party won a majority in last July's elections after campaigning on changing the document to make it harder to disband political parties. It also sought to curtail the power of appointed judges, soldiers and bureaucrats. "

Keep in mind that the constitution was written to satisfy the military that staged the last coup, not the majority of the Thai people. Also, that in attempting to change this constitution, the PTP is living up to one of its campaign promises.

Also:

"A judicial challenge to the legislators' efforts could lead to the disbanding of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's party, the third time courts have disqualified elected allies of her brother Thaksin Shinawatra since he was ousted by the military six years ago."

and:

"The court accepted petitions arguing that the process violated Article 68 of the constitution, which restricts attempts "to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State." The clause allows judges to disband political parties that contravene the stipulation."

Article 68 appears to be wide open to interpretation, allowing a politicized judiciary to terminate any elected government it wishes. In view of this, I think the constitution should be rewritten.

Didn't a huge majority, a landslide in fact, of "the people" accept the 2007 constitution?

Sent from my shoe phone

Again from Wikipedia, but from what I recall it is correct:

"The draft was subject to a public referendum, but under the terms of the 2006 Constitution, the CNS would be allowed to promulgate any constitution of their choosing if the draft failed the referendum. The draft was criticized by the Thai Rak Thai party and supported by the Democrat party. Criticism of the draft was banned. The CNS attempted to link loyalty to the King with support for the draft, and ran a campaign with the slogan "Love the King. Care about the King. Vote in a referendum. Accept the 2007 draft charter."^[53][54] The draft was approved by 59.3% of the voters on 19 August 2007, with 55.6% of qualified voters voting."

It wasn't exactly a "free and fair election", it was more of a "vote for this or we'll choose your constitution for you. Also, don't criticize this constitution or you'll be arrested."

[tlansford]

I find it strange that people object to the 2007 constitution because it was written by the coup leaders and has a clause to give amnesty to the coup leaders when the proposed constitutional changes also include amnesty for the coup leaders.

where are those proposed changes?

So far they haven't even decided on how to form the CDA

[Thai at Heart]

The root problem is that constitution can apparently be changed with a simple majority in parlaiment. This is not typical for other democracies. As far as I belive in most countries a 2/3 majority is needed to change or amend the constitution, if not a general refferendum by the people.

The threshold to affect constitutional change here needs to be much much higher. Any constitution that doesn't call for both legislative and popular vote supermajorities is flawed IMO.

http://usgovinfo.abo.../constamend.htm

And don't the military just love it that way. As I have said it many times the reason the laws are written the way they are in Thailand is to suit the main power brokers in the country, not to deliver the best result for the country.

On this level, the coup makers are no better than any others that want to mess with the constitution.

There appears to be a system whereby people can submit complaints about unconstitutional threats, which would appear to be that they complaints go to the Attorney General first, in this situation, it appears that the CC has simply decided to hear the complaints without it going through this channel first.

How smart all the other countries in the world must have been to set up systems that have in some cases lasted hundreds of years with minor tweaks here and there, whereas, we have Thailand that simply lurches from one coup and constitutional crisis to another. But then where would be the fun in writing a water tight constitution if it piddled on your sandpit.

[thaicbr]

The use of wikipedia is amusing in this instance as I believe anyone or organization (amsterdam) can put information on. And its amazing how much info about Thailand that has materialized on wiki in the last few years since Thaksin retained Robert Amsterdam as his PR mouth piece.

Even re-writing the King of Thailand wiki with seemingly harmless but provoking words

example " He was credited with

facilitating Thailand's transition to

democracy in the 1990s, although he has

supported numerous military regimes,

including Sarit Dhanarajata's during the

1960s and the Council for National

Security in 2006–8. During his long reign,

he has authorized over 15 coups, 16

constitutions, and 27 changes of prime

ministers. "

sent from my Wellcom A90+

[tlansford]

The root problem is that constitution can apparently be changed with a simple majority in parlaiment. This is not typical for other democracies. As far as I belive in most countries a 2/3 majority is needed to change or amend the constitution, if not a general refferendum by the people.

The threshold to affect constitutional change here needs to be much much higher. Any constitution that doesn't call for both legislative and popular vote supermajorities is flawed IMO.

http://usgovinfo.abo.../constamend.htm

And don't the military just love it that way. As I have said it many times the reason the laws are written the way they are in Thailand is to suit the main power brokers in the country, not to deliver the best result for the country.

On this level, the coup makers are no better than any others that want to mess with the constitution.

There appears to be a system whereby people can submit complaints about unconstitutional threats, which would appear to be that they complaints go to the Attorney General first, in this situation, it appears that the CC has simply decided to hear the complaints without it going through this channel first.

How smart all the other countries in the world must have been to set up systems that have in some cases lasted hundreds of years with minor tweaks here and there, whereas, we have Thailand that simply lurches from one coup and constitutional crisis to another. But then where would be the fun in writing a water tight constitution if it piddled on your sandpit.

while I agree with your point, I believe that westerners have rose colored glasses regarding their own constitutions. Most European democracies are pretty young or have had multiple lives. The American constitution has gone through many changes and is likely to face many more. And while the USA hasn't had many military coups, there was that little incident called the civil war.

The point that I want to make here is that we should be a bit careful in criticizing the Thai people about the various weaknesses of their constitution without recognizing that our own institutions are not necessarily models of stability. In fact, it is the case for the American Constitution that the built in flexibility has been the major contributor to its longevity. But that is a longevity that exists without a history of military coups.

I suspect that the 97 constitution as well as the 07 constitution provide ample flexibility to be updated and adapted as Thai society changes without tearing apart the society. The continuing issues in Thailand regarding democracy IMO relate to the different political powers taking short-cuts to their desired outcomes rather than working through the democratic institutions in place.

In that regard, I view extreme judicial activism as we see happening now in over the last several years to be detrimental to the democratic institutions and that more judicial restraint is called for.

[tlansford]

The use of wikipedia is amusing in this instance as I believe anyone or organization (amsterdam) can put information on. And its amazing how much info about Thailand that has materialized on wiki in the last few years since Thaksin retained Robert Amsterdam as his PR mouth piece.

Even re-writing the King of Thailand wiki with seemingly harmless but provoking words

example " He was credited with

facilitating Thailand's transition to

democracy in the 1990s, although he has

supported numerous military regimes,

including Sarit Dhanarajata's during the

1960s and the Council for National

Security in 2006–8. During his long reign,

he has authorized over 15 coups, 16

constitutions, and 27 changes of prime

ministers. "

sent from my Wellcom A90+

First, wikipedia is not the lapdog of Amsterdam, nor is it that simple for just anyone to make changes.

Second, it is useful for the dense collection of events and factual information.

Third, if you disagree with the facts presented, then please do point out where they are not correct. The wikipedia information posted so far regarding the constitution is AFAIK completely accurate.