Thai Democrats To Walk Out Of Parliament If Charter Amendment Bill Goes To Vote

[webfact]

Democrats to walk if bill goes to vote

The Nation

Democrat supporters attend a big rally organised by the party at Wong Wian Yai Sunday to oppose the reconciliation bill, which they say aims to help the ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

BANGKOK: -- The opposition Democrat Party yesterday threatened to walk out of Parliament if the Pheu Thai-led coalition goes ahead with a third reading of the charter amendment bill tomorrow.

A joint House-Senate sitting is scheduled tomorrow to debate some foreign contracts required by Article 190 of the Constitution to be first approved by Parliament.

The Pheu Thai spokesman, meanwhile, said the party would meet today to discuss whether it will go ahead with the third reading despite an injunction by the Constitution Court for Parliament to wait for a court ruling.

The Constitution Court has taken up complaints from the Democrats and other groups to review whether the charter amendments would be unconstitutional or not, so it asked the Parliament to wait for a ruling before going ahead with the third reading.

Democrat party-list MP Ong-art Klampaibul said yesterday that he believed the coalition and senators would join forces to press ahead with the third reading.

He said he noticed that members of Senate committees had started returning from foreign trips and the last group of senators would return to Bangkok at 5am tomorrow. This indicated that that the coalition would seek help from senators to push for the passage of the charter amendment bill in the final reading.

Ong-art alleged that Pheu Thai had been discrediting the top court by saying the court would cease to exist following charter amendments.

The Democrat MP called on House Speaker and Parliament President Somsak Kiatsuranont to not put the third reading of the charter amendment bill on the agenda of the jointing sitting tomorrow.

Ong-art said he also feared that Somsak would put the reconciliation bills on the House meeting's agenda on Wednesday and Thursday.

He said Somsak had never ruled out "sneaking" the charter amendment bill and controversial reconciliation bills on to the agenda despite strong opposition. He said the Speaker should give priority to national interests instead of acting on someone's orders.

Democrat Party and opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday that MPs and senators had learned about the Constitution Court's injunction so the Pheu Thai should not push for a third reading of the charter amendment bill.

He said the government should issue a royal decree to close the current parliamentary session once the it considers the foreign contracts, as required by Article 190.

Pheu Thai spokesman Prompong Nopparit said yesterday that the party would meet at 2pm today to discuss whether to push for a third reading of the charter amendment tomorrow. He said several Pheu Thai MPs wanted to have the third reading held right away, tomorrow.

Meanwhile, Democrat spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut said the party would form four working committees to monitor various problems that affected people's living standards.

He said the Democrats decided to form the panels because the government had allegedly ignored the people's problems, such as the cost of living, the falling price of commodities and plight of flood victims in southern provinces.

-- The Nation 2012-06-11

[Ricardo]

If/when the CDA is created, the Democrat (and other party) representatives should participate, to argue for positive-changes, even if they can't actually ensure that these things are incorporated in the changes proposed.

These might include stronger penalties for election-rigging, strengthening freedom-of-speech, strengthening the independence of the justice-system & state-owned companies (like Thai Airways ?), doing-away with inactive-posts and reforming the police. As if ...

But it would be wrong to just walk away from the CDA.

They should also be seen to support the need for a national Referendum, to give the people a chance to have their say, about whatever changes are proposed. This is an important principle to maintain, following the example set by the junta-appointed government of PM-Sorayud, in 2007.

It would be very undemocratic IMO for any changes to be rubber-stamped merely by a vote in Parliament.

[visionchaser45]

Good! I hope they walk out and keep walking. They are a bunch of elitist splitters anyway. I say, "Good riddence."

[DocHolliday]

Good! I hope they walk out and keep walking. They are a bunch of elitist splitters anyway. I say, "Good riddence."

Please elaborate why the are a 'bunch of elitist splitters'

[virtualtraveller]

If the vote is 'sneaked' onto the agenda at the last minute, then a walkout is an appropriate action.

[geriatrickid]

If the vote is 'sneaked' onto the agenda at the last minute, then a walkout is an appropriate action.

How is it " sneaking" if the tabling of the Bill for a vote follows the established procedure?

There is a time constraint that compels a Bill to be voted on. The Democrats have every right not to vote. At least they have that right, which is far better than what they wish to do, which is to deny duly elected MPs their legislative rights to vote on a Bill. The failure to vote against the Bill is tantamount to accepting it and the Democrats will lose their moral right to complain against the Bill. If they are this strongly opposed, they can bring a legal action once it is passed and the government attempts to apply it.

Edited June 11, 2012 by geriatrickid

[kimamey]

If the vote is 'sneaked' onto the agenda at the last minute, then a walkout is an appropriate action.

How is it " sneaking" if the tabling of the Bill for a vote follows the established procedure?

There is a time constraint that compels a Bill to be voted on. The Democrats have every right not to vote. At least they have that right, which is far better than what they wish to do, which is to deny duly elected MPs their legislative rights to vote on a Bill. The failure to vote against the Bill is tantamount to accepting it and the Democrats will lose their moral right to complain against the Bill. If they are this strongly opposed, they can bring a legal action once it is passed and the government attempts to apply it.

Is the problem that if you ask the Constitution Court to look into the Bill and they grant an injunction stopping parliament from continuing with the third reading if you then take part you are going against the Constitution Court and their injunction which you asked for. This would leave the Democrats open to being in contempt of court. It's one thing if you think the court has no right to stop you but if you've asked for it and ask others to abide by it can you ignore it yourself..

Just a thought.

[carra]

If the vote is 'sneaked' onto the agenda at the last minute, then a walkout is an appropriate action.

How is it " sneaking" if the tabling of the Bill for a vote follows the established procedure?

There is a time constraint that compels a Bill to be voted on. The Democrats have every right not to vote. At least they have that right, which is far better than what they wish to do, which is to deny duly elected MPs their legislative rights to vote on a Bill. The failure to vote against the Bill is tantamount to accepting it and the Democrats will lose their moral right to complain against the Bill. If they are this strongly opposed, they can bring a legal action once it is passed and the government attempts to apply it.

Is the problem that if you ask the Constitution Court to look into the Bill and they grant an injunction stopping parliament from continuing with the third reading if you then take part you are going against the Constitution Court and their injunction which you asked for. This would leave the Democrats open to being in contempt of court. It's one thing if you think the court has no right to stop you but if you've asked for it and ask others to abide by it can you ignore it yourself..

Just a thought.

It is like me asking the som tam guy to issue a parking ticket to someone, he does not have the power to do this, just as the CC does not have the power to stop a vote unless it has gone through the AGs office fist.

hey I have an idea, the dems can vote against it, oh wait they wont win as they do not have enough seats, and why is that? because they did not win enough to form a government just like in numerous previous elections, the people want what the people want/

This is democracy, take the rough with the smooth and if you don't like it then win the next election, or in the dems case force a coup, get your mobs on the streets again, then when you have power do nothing with it apart from moan about thaksin.

[FOODLOVER]

Hey i have an idea too! Properly debate the bill without the " I cant see you", "I cant hear you", crap that the reds pulled in order to bulldoze through this utter piece of destructive legislation. Just because they are paid by the man in Dubai does not mean they can screw the general population. Mob rule paid for by Thaksin does not make a democracy!

[lannarebirth]

If the vote is 'sneaked' onto the agenda at the last minute, then a walkout is an appropriate action.

How is it " sneaking" if the tabling of the Bill for a vote follows the established procedure?

There is a time constraint that compels a Bill to be voted on. The Democrats have every right not to vote. At least they have that right, which is far better than what they wish to do, which is to deny duly elected MPs their legislative rights to vote on a Bill. The failure to vote against the Bill is tantamount to accepting it and the Democrats will lose their moral right to complain against the Bill. If they are this strongly opposed, they can bring a legal action once it is passed and the government attempts to apply it.

Is the problem that if you ask the Constitution Court to look into the Bill and they grant an injunction stopping parliament from continuing with the third reading if you then take part you are going against the Constitution Court and their injunction which you asked for. This would leave the Democrats open to being in contempt of court. It's one thing if you think the court has no right to stop you but if you've asked for it and ask others to abide by it can you ignore it yourself..

Just a thought.

It is like me asking the som tam guy to issue a parking ticket to someone, he does not have the power to do this, just as the CC does not have the power to stop a vote unless it has gone through the AGs office fist.

hey I have an idea, the dems can vote against it, oh wait they wont win as they do not have enough seats, and why is that? because they did not win enough to form a government just like in numerous previous elections, the people want what the people want/

This is democracy, take the rough with the smooth and if you don't like it then win the next election, or in the dems case force a coup, get your mobs on the streets again, then when you have power do nothing with it apart from moan about thaksin.

You probably don't see the irony, but having the AG decide what may or may not be passed on to the CC for it to decide on it's constitutionality is an authoritarian government, not a democratic government. I blame the drafters of the constitution.

[Moruya]

If the vote is 'sneaked' onto the agenda at the last minute, then a walkout is an appropriate action.

How is it " sneaking" if the tabling of the Bill for a vote follows the established procedure?

There is a time constraint that compels a Bill to be voted on. The Democrats have every right not to vote. At least they have that right, which is far better than what they wish to do, which is to deny duly elected MPs their legislative rights to vote on a Bill. The failure to vote against the Bill is tantamount to accepting it and the Democrats will lose their moral right to complain against the Bill. If they are this strongly opposed, they can bring a legal action once it is passed and the government attempts to apply it.

I'm convinced that if you were a turkey you would vote for Christmas if the red boys said it was good.

[JohnAllan]

And precisely what will that gain?

[gand]

Does it matter, red shirt or yellow shirt leaders? Aren't they are both members of the Thai Kleptocracy "rule by thieves"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy

[kimamey]

If the vote is 'sneaked' onto the agenda at the last minute, then a walkout is an appropriate action.

How is it " sneaking" if the tabling of the Bill for a vote follows the established procedure?

There is a time constraint that compels a Bill to be voted on. The Democrats have every right not to vote. At least they have that right, which is far better than what they wish to do, which is to deny duly elected MPs their legislative rights to vote on a Bill. The failure to vote against the Bill is tantamount to accepting it and the Democrats will lose their moral right to complain against the Bill. If they are this strongly opposed, they can bring a legal action once it is passed and the government attempts to apply it.

Is the problem that if you ask the Constitution Court to look into the Bill and they grant an injunction stopping parliament from continuing with the third reading if you then take part you are going against the Constitution Court and their injunction which you asked for. This would leave the Democrats open to being in contempt of court. It's one thing if you think the court has no right to stop you but if you've asked for it and ask others to abide by it can you ignore it yourself..

Just a thought.

It is like me asking the som tam guy to issue a parking ticket to someone, he does not have the power to do this, just as the CC does not have the power to stop a vote unless it has gone through the AGs office fist.

hey I have an idea, the dems can vote against it, oh wait they wont win as they do not have enough seats, and why is that? because they did not win enough to form a government just like in numerous previous elections, the people want what the people want/

This is democracy, take the rough with the smooth and if you don't like it then win the next election, or in the dems case force a coup, get your mobs on the streets again, then when you have power do nothing with it apart from moan about thaksin.

It still doesn't alter the fact they can't really go against a court injunction they asked for.

As for the CC having the power to look into this there seems to be divided opinion on this probably due in part to the relevant legislation being badly written. Until that is sorted out I can't see what the rush is apart from the fact that maybe this is all to cover for policies not going to plan.

As for getting mobs on the street I think there were a lot of reds on the street in 2010.

Abhisit actually spoke out against the coup. He also offered early elections during talks in 2010 but the reds refused because their idea of negotiation is give us exactly what we want

There is a lot that has gone on in recent years on both sides that it's right to complain about but just pushing this bill through so quickly isn't going to help and neither is an obviously puppet PM. I agree that she has to keep some distance as this bill is clearly going to affect her and her brother. When she was elected many asked how older experienced politicians would take to have a young woman with no experience in charge of them especially given the male dominated nature of the country. Well now we know I think. She's just sent of on visits and photo ops will the men do the real business. Or at least that's how it looks to me.

Edited June 11, 2012 by kimamey

[Thaddeus]

And precisely what will that gain?

Apart from showing once again that Thai Parliament is just a gang of ruthless thugs on one side and a bunch of spoilt children on the other.

Absolutely nothing.

[Yunla]

Faced with such a relentlessly 'incompetent incumbent' as Yingluck, witnessing PTP breaching not only peoples' privacy but endangering peoples' lives in the phone-number/address outrage, being powerless to stop PTP acting in such a way, and also being ignored and blanked in parliamentary debate, it is easy to see why the Democrats would walk out in protest and indeed in disgust.

It is a powerful gesture of disapproval, and it is not the Democrats' responsibility to stop this happening, the announcement of a planned walk-out should trigger action by the sitting government to initiate dialogue and clear up the problems that are causing a walk-out. In a genuinely democratic leadership, this announcement would signal that 'all is not well' and that measures have to be taken to restore the egalitarian balance and political respect that is essential to the healthy function of democratic government. What PTP the one-way totalitarian hatemongers don't understand is that their reckless and brutish actions are destroying a sacred balance, which is the right of the Opposition to engage in free and balanced debate with the government hierarchy. This balance has been broken by nobody except the PTP leadership and as such the Dems walkout is a signal to PTP that they have to make concessions and initiate the open debate that they have avoided for so long.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Yunla

[lannarebirth]

Faced with such a relentlessly 'incompetent incumbent' as Yingluck, witnessing PTP breaching not only peoples' privacy but endangering peoples' lives in the phone-number/address outrage, being powerless to stop PTP acting in such a way, and also being ignored and blanked in parliamentary debate, it is easy to see why the Democrats would walk out in protest and indeed in disgust.

It is a powerful gesture of disapproval, and it is not the Democrats' responsibility to stop this happening, the announcement of a planned walk-out should trigger action by the sitting government to initiate dialog and clear up the problems that are causing a walk-out. In a genuinely democratic leadership, this announcement would signal that 'all is not well' and that measures have to be taken to restore the egalitarian balance and political respect that is essential to the healthy function of democratic government. What PTP the one-way totalitarian hatemongers don't understand is that their reckless and brutish actions are destroying a sacred balance, which is the right of the Opposition to engage in free and balanced debate with the government heirarchy. This balance has been broken by nobody except the PTP leadership and as such the Dems walkout is a signal to PTP that they have to make concessions and initiate the open debate that they have avoided for so long.

I'll bet if fillibustering were in the parliamentary rules and attendence was mandatory, all this could be cleared up in short order.

[tlansford]

If/when the CDA is created, the Democrat (and other party) representatives should participate, to argue for positive-changes, even if they can't actually ensure that these things are incorporated in the changes proposed.

These might include stronger penalties for election-rigging, strengthening freedom-of-speech, strengthening the independence of the justice-system & state-owned companies (like Thai Airways ?), doing-away with inactive-posts and reforming the police. As if ...

But it would be wrong to just walk away from the CDA.

They should also be seen to support the need for a national Referendum, to give the people a chance to have their say, about whatever changes are proposed. This is an important principle to maintain, following the example set by the junta-appointed government of PM-Sorayud, in 2007.

It would be very undemocratic IMO for any changes to be rubber-stamped merely by a vote in Parliament.

You make some good points. I agree that "running away" is not the best option for the opposition. You are correct that there are (certainly) changes to the charter which can improve it, and the opposition will be able to bring a different perspective to the debate.

[tlansford]

If the vote is 'sneaked' onto the agenda at the last minute, then a walkout is an appropriate action.

How is it " sneaking" if the tabling of the Bill for a vote follows the established procedure?

There is a time constraint that compels a Bill to be voted on. The Democrats have every right not to vote. At least they have that right, which is far better than what they wish to do, which is to deny duly elected MPs their legislative rights to vote on a Bill. The failure to vote against the Bill is tantamount to accepting it and the Democrats will lose their moral right to complain against the Bill. If they are this strongly opposed, they can bring a legal action once it is passed and the government attempts to apply it.

This isn't hard. There are parliamentary roles and everyone knows them. You point out that there is a process. We're still just talking about the CDA after all - the debate hasn't even begun.

[lannarebirth]

If/when the CDA is created, the Democrat (and other party) representatives should participate, to argue for positive-changes, even if they can't actually ensure that these things are incorporated in the changes proposed.

These might include stronger penalties for election-rigging, strengthening freedom-of-speech, strengthening the independence of the justice-system & state-owned companies (like Thai Airways ?), doing-away with inactive-posts and reforming the police. As if ...

But it would be wrong to just walk away from the CDA.

They should also be seen to support the need for a national Referendum, to give the people a chance to have their say, about whatever changes are proposed. This is an important principle to maintain, following the example set by the junta-appointed government of PM-Sorayud, in 2007.

It would be very undemocratic IMO for any changes to be rubber-stamped merely by a vote in Parliament.

You make some good points. I agree that "running away" is not the best option for the opposition. You are correct that there are (certainly) changes to the charter which can improve it, and the opposition will be able to bring a different perspective to the debate.

Which begs the question; what debate ? It's not been allowed up till now and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[softgeorge]

Isn't voting the democratic way, or are they afraid the majority will vote in favour thus the minority not getting thier way.

[Lite Beer]

Opposition will boycott 3rd reading of draft charter amendment

BANGKOK, June 11 - Thailand's opposition parties on Monday vowed to not join the vote on the third reading of charter amendment draft if it is put on the agenda of tomorrow’s joint sitting of Parliament.

Opposition Chief Whip Jurin Laksanavisit announced his group’s position as the joint session of the Lower House and Senate is scheduled to take place on Tuesday amid concerns that the final vote on the amendment might proceed despite the order of the Constitution Court.

The court earlier ordered parliament to suspend deliberation of the amendment pending the court ruling on its constitutionality as petitioned by some MPs and senators.

Mr Jurin said if parliament decides to ignore the court order and pushes ahead with the vote, the prime minister will be in trouble, as the action’s legality remains uncertain, and she will have to forward the approved draft within 20 days for royal endorsement as stated by the law.

The opposition believes that the government whip is also hesitating whether the vote will violate the constitution or not, and whether the deliberation process will be considered as unlawful or not, according to the chief whip.

Mr Jurin however noted that the discussion of the court’s authority in tomorrow’s session is the intention of the ruling Pheu Thai Party to criticise the court's role.

He said the opposition is concerned there will be a vote to decide whether parliament should follow the court order or not.

The opposition chief whip emphasized that the stance of the opposition is not to vote if that happens, and that they will also observe the situation before considering whether or not to walk out of the session.

Meanwhile, some senators have voiced concern over the Tuesday joint sitting and advised that the vote be postponed until the Consitution Court rules on the legality of the draft.

Sai Kangkavekin, senator from Rayong, proposed during today Senate session, that the prime minister should delay the voting as no one knows the impact from the violation of the court order, while fellow senator Monthien Boonthan said parliament should instead consider other bills which will not cause conflict.

In the latest development, key leaders of the yellow shirted People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) petitioned the Constitution Court asking it to consider whether parliament’s deliberation on the amendment is lawful or not.

PAD leaders who turned up at court included retired Maj Gen Chamlong Srimuang, Somkiat Pongpaiboon, Pipob Thongchai and Panthep Puapongpan.

PAD spokesman Panthep said the group decided to petition the court directly as the Office of the Attorney-General (OAG) resolved not to forward the petitions earlier filed separately by six groups from both houses to the Constitution Court, saying the amendment was not aimed at overthrowing the constitutional monarchy as alleged.

Mr Panthep said the names of 416 persons accused of toppling the constitution were listed in the PAD petition and asserted that the court has authority to consider the case as the OAG did not do its duty.

Whatever the court ruling, Mr Panthep stated, the PAD will accept it. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2012-06-11

[Lite Beer]

Govt chief whip affirms no voting on 3rd reading of charter amendment bill on Tuesday joint sitting, to ask cabinet for House session closure June 19-20

/MCOT

[Lite Beer]

Coalition whips resolve to delay third reading

BANGKOK: -- The coalition coordination committee on parliamentary affairs resolved Monday to delay the third reading of charter amendment bill, the chief whip said.

Chief coalition whip Udomdej Rattanasathien said the whips resolved that the Parliament could proceed with the third reading but it should not do it now.

Udomdej said the whips saw that the third reading would be in conflict with the Constitution Court's order so the whip decided not to have the third reading put on meeting agenda during a joint sitting of MPs and senators on Tuesday.

He said if the whips saw that if the third reading went ahead Tuesday, opponents would seek another ruling from the Constitution Court against the charter amendment bill.

-- The Nation 2012-06-11

[lannarebirth]

Well I for one am happy at this news. I did not want to see the CC disband the PTP. Just as I would not like to see a military coup. What I'd like to see is legislators find common ground working within the framework of the constitution and the legal system; stupid as it may be sometimes.

[Moruya]

Well I for one am happy at this news. I did not want to see the CC disband the PTP. Just as I would not like to see a military coup. What I'd like to see is legislators find common ground working within the framework of the constitution and the legal system; stupid as it may be sometimes.

That really ought to be easy enough.

Unfortunately it will never happen.

They could offer Thaksin house arrest if he returns.

They could offer amnesty to anyone guilty of non-violent political crimes excluding leaders of reds, yellows, government and army.

They could leave the constitution as it is.

They could disband red, yellow and other groups

[humbug]

_{the non-democrats party are just full of spoilt bratts, how can anyone even excuse their actions recently, they should concentrate on winning a majority in an election because they never seem to be able to win by democratic means, a truelly rodent party}

[Ricardo]

If/when the CDA is created, the Democrat (and other party) representatives should participate, to argue for positive-changes, even if they can't actually ensure that these things are incorporated in the changes proposed.

These might include stronger penalties for election-rigging, strengthening freedom-of-speech, strengthening the independence of the justice-system & state-owned companies (like Thai Airways ?), doing-away with inactive-posts and reforming the police. As if ...

But it would be wrong to just walk away from the CDA.

They should also be seen to support the need for a national Referendum, to give the people a chance to have their say, about whatever changes are proposed. This is an important principle to maintain, following the example set by the junta-appointed government of PM-Sorayud, in 2007.

It would be very undemocratic IMO for any changes to be rubber-stamped merely by a vote in Parliament.

You make some good points. I agree that "running away" is not the best option for the opposition. You are correct that there are (certainly) changes to the charter which can improve it, and the opposition will be able to bring a different perspective to the debate.

Which begs the question; what debate ? It's not been allowed up till now and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

But there has to be a full public-debate, before any national Referendum, so that the voters can make an informed-decision, especially on something as important as changes to the Constitution. This isn't just another pork-barrel spending-Bill, after all.

In an ideal world, the changes would be only those which can be generally-agreed, but the danger is that PTP might be under-pressure to ram-through certain changes, which might benefit only a few influential-people, at any cost. Including risking the military stepping-in again.

Reconciliation should involve negotiation and compromise, in Parliament or a CDA or behind-the-scenes, leading to agreement of widely-supported but more-limited changes. Former-PM Abhisit has already made clear, that he doesn't think a blanket-amnesty is a good idea, even though some might claim that he might benefit personally from that. But is that acceptable to the government or the Red-Shirts or the Big Boss ? How important is it, that the amnesty covers top-figures, and how would that help the regular people ?

It might be helpful if, rather than ignoring the problem and hoping for it to go away, PM-Yingluck might get involved soon and show some true leadership.

[Crushdepth]

If the vote is 'sneaked' onto the agenda at the last minute, then a walkout is an appropriate action.

How is it " sneaking" if the tabling of the Bill for a vote follows the established procedure?

There is a time constraint that compels a Bill to be voted on. The Democrats have every right not to vote. At least they have that right, which is far better than what they wish to do, which is to deny duly elected MPs their legislative rights to vote on a Bill. The failure to vote against the Bill is tantamount to accepting it and the Democrats will lose their moral right to complain against the Bill. If they are this strongly opposed, they can bring a legal action once it is passed and the government attempts to apply it.

Is the problem that if you ask the Constitution Court to look into the Bill and they grant an injunction stopping parliament from continuing with the third reading if you then take part you are going against the Constitution Court and their injunction which you asked for. This would leave the Democrats open to being in contempt of court. It's one thing if you think the court has no right to stop you but if you've asked for it and ask others to abide by it can you ignore it yourself..

Just a thought.

It is like me asking the som tam guy to issue a parking ticket to someone, he does not have the power to do this, just as the CC does not have the power to stop a vote unless it has gone through the AGs office fist.

Wrong. The law reads that a person knowing of a problem with the amendment of the charter (certain obvious types of amendment are specifically prohibited) has the right to a) bring the issue to the AGs attention *and* to lodge it with the Constitution Court.

Some people have (wilfully) misinterpreted the law to read that only the AG can bring the issue to the attention of the court, which is <deleted>.

[OzMick]

Wrong. The law reads that a person knowing of a problem with the amendment of the charter (certain obvious types of amendment are specifically prohibited) has the right to a) bring the issue to the AGs attention *and* to lodge it with the Constitution Court.

Some people have (wilfully) misinterpreted the law to read that only the AG can bring the issue to the attention of the court, which is <deleted>.

You may note though that not many are willing to back their <deleted> and defy the CC, lest they end up with a 5 year political holiday.

Where I come from, it's called putting your money where your mouth is at.