Country Must Come First, Kanit Warns Govt, Court

[webfact]

Country must come first, Kanit warns govt, court

The Nation

National reconciliation will take time and requires patience, TRCT chief says

BANGKOK: -- Kanit Na Nakorn, chairman of the Truth for National Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT), warned both the Yingluck Shinawatra government and the Constitution Court yesterday to place national interest before political confrontation that could get out of control.

Kanit said national reconciliation took time and required patience as well as cooperation from all sides, and any move to rush the process would lead to distrust.

He added that Parliament's attempt to rush the national reconciliation bill was one of the factors that might lead to conflict in society. The move is affecting the national reconciliation climate, Kanit said, and could lead to violence.

The TRCT chairman urged the ruling Pheu Thai Party in particular to review its decision to rush through the third reading of the reconciliation bill, so as to reduce the climate of conflict and division.

Parliament should organise a public forum to attract wide feedback on various reconciliation bills so that society can participate and be informed and understand the details of the bills that include amnesty and legal absolution, he said.

Kanit also criticised the upheaval inside Parliament on May 30-31, saying it had set an "inappropriate standard", and he called for all parties to take responsibility for what happened.

He also urged the Constitution Court to maintain strict impartiality in the ongoing confrontation between the court and Parliament. It should be extra-careful and rigorous in the current delicate time before making any ruling, otherwise there would be doubt that the court was really upholding justice.

The TRCT chairman also called on the public to respect the democratic system with His Majesty the King as head of state and to respect freedom of expression under the Constitution and adhere to peaceful means for handling conflicts.

Kanit also urged the authorities overseeing street protests to respect people's rights under the Constitution and adhere to international standards in dealing with protesters.

The last point made by Kanit was that all political parties must recognise that conflicts have led to huge losses for Thai society already - and that all parties are requested not to do anything that would make matters worse and try to ensure no violent confrontation will recur.

-- The Nation 2012-06-07

[Pib]

But since we don't live in a perfect world but live in a world of different political agendas, Kanit's warnings are really just sound bites for the press.

[Artisi]

Wise words, but does anyone really care.

[Time Traveller]

Only one side of politics has been talking about violence confrontation, and it's not the side that were elected by the majority of the voters

[Thaddeus]

Wise words, but does anyone really care.

I'm sure there are a large number that do care, unfortunately they are not driving the steam-roller.

[lannarebirth]

Wise words, but does anyone really care.

What is a nation's constitution but a document that says the country must come first. You can change it but civilized countries recognize it must be done with vast consensus of opinion, ie "the country must be united in it's change". That's why legislative supermajorities and referendums are required. Even then calling for supermajorities. One doesn't bully these things through. It just isn't democratic.

[Pib]

Wise words, but does anyone really care.

What is a nation's constitution but a document that says the country must come first. You can change it but civilized countries recognize it must be done with vast consensus of opinion, ie "the country must be united in it's change". That's why legislative supermajorities and referendums are required. Even then calling for supermajorities. One doesn't bully these things through. It just isn't democratic.

But TiT.

[Artisi]

Wise words, but does anyone really care.

I'm sure there are a large number that do care, unfortunately they are not driving the steam-roller.

That is really what was meant, the one's driving the "steam-roller" couldn't give a rat's a_se for any point of view other than their own or the points of view dictated by the off-shore dictator.

[MEL1]

Kanit Na Nakorn, chairman of the Truth says, "Country must come first"

<deleted> is a Chairman of the Truth in Thailand?

A person of high power here doesn't recognise the meaning of 'truth' - that's a FACT!

But who elected him as 'Chairman of the Truth'???

-mel.

[drdoom6996]

Wise words, but does anyone really care.

I'm sure there are a large number that do care, unfortunately they are not driving the steam-roller.

That is really what was meant, the one's driving the "steam-roller" couldn't give a rat's a_se for any point of view other than their own or the points of view dictated by the off-shore dictator.

Exactly

[Thai at Heart]

Country must come first, Kanit warns govt, court

BANGKOK: -- Kanit Na Nakorn, chairman of the Truth for National Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT), warned both the Yingluck Shinawatra government and the Constitution Court yesterday to place national interest before political confrontation that could get out of control.

Did he actually say this, or is this someone surmising/interpreting what he "meant". Would be lovely if the Nation actually wrote the occasional direct quote.

[thaicbr]

Only one side of politics has been talking about violence confrontation, and it's not the side that were elected by the majority of the voters

Really!!

Who has been talking about stopping peaceful demonstrators if not Thaksin and the Red shirts..

Who do you think allowed the Yellow shirts onto the road therefore blocking it.. Thaksin's wifes brother in law... it does take a bit to keep up with the shinawatra web i do give you that.

[hellodolly]

Only one side of politics has been talking about violence confrontation, and it's not the side that were elected by the majority of the voters

Jump in your time machine and travel back to the time of the elections where it was the majority that voted against the PT and there hanger on parties.

Hint 52% anti Thaksin

[bigbamboo]

Putting the country first............. there's a novel idea for the Thai politicians and assorted sen yais to mull over during recess.

Nah, this is Thailand. It'll never catch on.

[pastitche]

Only one side of politics has been talking about violence confrontation, and it's not the side that were elected by the majority of the voters

Jump in your time machine and travel back to the time of the elections where it was the majority that voted against the PT and there hanger on parties.

Hint 52% anti Thaksin

You repeatedly use this mantra that 52% voted against Thaksin. Given the political structure in Thailand, there will always be votes for minority parties because they are seen by their voters as being good for their own fiefdoms; that does not mean they voted against Thaksin since they realised that their representatives would seek coalition with the majority party which was unlikely to be other than PTP. Nor does the PTP's 48% mean that they all voted for Thaksin's rehabilitation.

Yours is a simplistic approach that ignores the political reality - PTP are in power, for better or worse. "Their hanger on parties" would mean that they do in fact have a parliamentary majority and a majority of the votes.

It really is a strange concept to think that the electorate vote against rather than for a party.

[animatic]

Wise words, but does anyone really care.

I'm sure there are a large number that do care, unfortunately they are not driving the steam-roller.

Some, too many really, care only if it makes them a profit, or face.

That is the crux of the fundamental societal problem that is at the root of this.

[animatic]

Only one side of politics has been talking about violence confrontation, and it's not the side that were elected by the majority of the voters

Jump in your time machine and travel back to the time of the elections where it was the majority that voted against the PT and there hanger on parties.

Hint 52% anti Thaksin

You repeatedly use this mantra that 52% voted against Thaksin. Given the political structure in Thailand, there will always be votes for minority parties because they are seen by their voters as being good for their own fiefdoms; that does not mean they voted against Thaksin since they realised that their representatives would seek coalition with the majority party which was unlikely to be other than PTP. Nor does the PTP's 48% mean that they all voted for Thaksin's rehabilitation.

Yours is a simplistic approach that ignores the political reality - PTP are in power, for better or worse. "Their hanger on parties" would mean that they do in fact have a parliamentary majority and a majority of the votes.

It really is a strange concept to think that the electorate vote against rather than for a party.

The bottom line is Thailand BADLY needs something like the French run off system.

Let any and all run in election 1

two weeks later only the TOP TWO vote getters from Election 1 slog it out

in an either or run off.

Who ever wins forms the government, with an indisputable mandate.

But must always be accountable to censure, impeachment, trial by their pears,

and removal from office for crimes misdemeanors and malfeasence in office.

[ginjag]

Thaksin S. would happily drive. same the commandant said, today we will play squash and I will be driving the steamroller.

[Thaddeus]

Only one side of politics has been talking about violence confrontation, and it's not the side that were elected by the majority of the voters

Jump in your time machine and travel back to the time of the elections where it was the majority that voted against the PT and there hanger on parties.

Hint 52% anti Thaksin

You repeatedly use this mantra that 52% voted against Thaksin. Given the political structure in Thailand, there will always be votes for minority parties because they are seen by their voters as being good for their own fiefdoms; that does not mean they voted against Thaksin since they realised that their representatives would seek coalition with the majority party which was unlikely to be other than PTP. Nor does the PTP's 48% mean that they all voted for Thaksin's rehabilitation.

Yours is a simplistic approach that ignores the political reality - PTP are in power, for better or worse. "Their hanger on parties" would mean that they do in fact have a parliamentary majority and a majority of the votes.

It really is a strange concept to think that the electorate vote against rather than for a party.

Ok, let's turn this around to make it more suitable for the people who try to claim that 52% voted against PTP.

48% voted for them, and that is a significant number of people.

But only 75% of people who were eligible to vote actually bothered, isn't apathy wonderful.

Which in essence means that PTP secured and got the approval of around 36% of people who could vote, just over a third, the words landslide, overwhelming and majority cannot be used it that situation, and it definitely does not give them a mandate to do what they want claiming it's what the people want.