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

[ttelise]

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.

Yep. So true. Let them walk out, vote anyway, and pass bill. There should be a provision for quorum passage.

[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.

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

How does taking into consideration the role of the CC imply my taking orders from the Reds? What is so difficult to comprehend that one cannot take action against a law that doesn't exist? The issue here goes to the intent of the CC. Courts rule on laws and in this case the CC role is to rule on constitutional laws. The MPs have the right to pass legislation. If the law is contestable, then it can only be contested when there is an application of that law to contest. The CC injunction acts to prevent MPs from carrying out their legislative duties. It makes no sense to contest a law that does not exist.

[GentlemanJim]

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.

That makes my top ten list of funniest comments on TV

[GentlemanJim]

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.

How does taking into consideration the role of the CC imply my taking orders from the Reds? What is so difficult to comprehend that one cannot take action against a law that doesn't exist? The issue here goes to the intent of the CC. Courts rule on laws and in this case the CC role is to rule on constitutional laws. The MPs have the right to pass legislation. If the law is contestable, then it can only be contested when there is an application of that law to contest. The CC injunction acts to prevent MPs from carrying out their legislative duties. It makes no sense to contest a law that does not exist.

GK

And all the others who are protesting. It does not matter what they do in the USA, UK or anywhere else, this is Thailand and the CC have acted in accordance with the THAI CONSTITUTION. It does not matter if you think a court cannot consider a law until it is passed, what matters is that under Article 68, if someone believes a bill will go against the Constitution or the Monarchy they have the right to complain directly to the CC, and it is the duty of the CC to hear the petition. Once the law would be passed, it can be challenged as much as you like in court, which could take years, but whilst it is being challenged it will be law. Thaksin would be back on the first flight the following morning of the bill passing and all his mafiosa thug ministers and red shirt leaders would be off scott free. I understand they have the principle of Double Jeopardy in Thai courts, so once these guys all have their legal acquittal they cannot be tried again for those crimes, full stop.

It is just a pity for the sake of every US citizen that nobody could have stopped the Patriot Act becoming law, because you can challenge it in the court to your hearts content, but you will never afford the legal bills and the law will never be quashed. And in one foul swoop disappeared the land of the free.

[bigbamboo]

There's another thread today saying how Thailand, in spite of the serious damage done to it's reputation over the last few years by self serving politicians on all sides, is still a favoured destination for tourists.

Of course it is. It is a beautiful country with a wonderful heritage and the nicest people you could wish to meet ruled by one of the most respected monarchs in history.

The only flies in the ointment are those greedy politicians, their families and their factions who ruin it for everyone.

Edited June 11, 2012 by bigbamboo

[blaze]

"It should be bourne in mind

that there is nothing more difficult to arrange

more doubtful of success,

and more dangerous

to carry through

than initiating changes

in a state's constitution."

--Niccolo Machiavelli

[ttelise]

There's another thread today saying how Thailand, in spite of the serious damage done to it's reputation over the last few years by self serving politicians on all sides, is still a favoured destination for tourists.

Of course it is. It is a beautiful country with a wonderful heritage and the nicest people you could wish to meet ruled by one of the most respected monarchs in history.

The only flies in the ointment are those greedy politicians, their families and their factions who ruin it for everyone.

Cheap sex, food, messages, hotels and favorable exchange rate along with a nice tropical setting. What's not to like? Take the cheap out if the equation and people might opt for other destinations.

[Slip]

Dammit. This is the second time in 2 weeks I've agreed with GK. Yes, walking out is pretty well 100 % pointless, unless trying to create division.

Luckily the crappola served out by the rest of the reds on this thread has rung pretty true to form.

Who said ban the reds AND the yellows? Sounds like a plan. Next, sack and imprison all corrupt politicians. Finally, watch the country start to heal and move forward.

[gand]

PTP forcing a political crisis for one megalomaniac, truly sad.

[PaulBax]

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.

Well let us see now that the minutes of the meeting discussing this have been bought into the public domain we can see it was agreed that all complaints had to go through the OAG. In fact there was a similar case bought to the CC during the Dems reign. The court ruled that it had to go through the office of the OAG. This is clearly inconsistent and as such parliament would be right to ignore the ruling.

[ThaiOats]

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.

Well let us see now that the minutes of the meeting discussing this have been bought into the public domain we can see it was agreed that all complaints had to go through the OAG. In fact there was a similar case bought to the CC during the Dems reign. The court ruled that it had to go through the office of the OAG. This is clearly inconsistent and as such parliament would be right to ignore the ruling.

Could u be more specific as to what the PTP lodged to the CC and was refused? Did it have to do with dissolution of the Democrat party? He CC will only look at cases that deals with the constitution or violation thereof.

It's not every day a plan to rewrite the constitution pops up and AFAIK the Democrats werent trying to amend or change he constitution during their reign.

[ThaiOats]

Could u be more specific as to what the PTP lodged to the CC and was refused? Did it have to do with dissolution of the Democrat party? He CC will only look at cases that deals with the constitution or violation thereof.

It's not every day a plan to rewrite the constitution pops up and AFAIK the Democrats werent trying to amend or change he constitution during their reign.

Again :

Section 68. A person is prohibited from using the rights and liberties provided in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic rule with the King as the Head of the State as provided by this Constitution; or to acquire power to rule the country by means other than is provided in the Constitution.

Where a person or political party acts under paragraph one, the witness thereof has the right to report the matter to the Prosecutor General to investigate the facts and to submit a request to the Constitutional Court for decision to order cessation of such act without prejudice to criminal proceedings against the doer of the act.

You can dissect the underlined portion.

"the witness thereof has the right to

a:report the matter to the Prosecutor General to investigate the facts and

b: to submit a request to the Constituional Court for decision to order cessation of such act."

I think that's their interpretation. Double post sorry. It wouldn't let me edit my previous post.

Edited June 11, 2012 by ThaiOats

[tlansford]

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.

Well let us see now that the minutes of the meeting discussing this have been bought into the public domain we can see it was agreed that all complaints had to go through the OAG. In fact there was a similar case bought to the CC during the Dems reign. The court ruled that it had to go through the office of the OAG. This is clearly inconsistent and as such parliament would be right to ignore the ruling.

Could u be more specific as to what the PTP lodged to the CC and was refused? Did it have to do with dissolution of the Democrat party? He CC will only look at cases that deals with the constitution or violation thereof.

It's not every day a plan to rewrite the constitution pops up and AFAIK the Democrats werent trying to amend or change he constitution during their reign.

They did change it - specifically the representation in parliament - allegedly to improve their representation. They thought about, but did not change some other parts - eg: not allow the disqualification of entire parties, but adding stricter penalties for executives.

[nurofiend]

Could u be more specific as to what the PTP lodged to the CC and was refused? Did it have to do with dissolution of the Democrat party? He CC will only look at cases that deals with the constitution or violation thereof.

It's not every day a plan to rewrite the constitution pops up and AFAIK the Democrats werent trying to amend or change he constitution during their reign.

Again :

Section 68. A person is prohibited from using the rights and liberties provided in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic rule with the King as the Head of the State as provided by this Constitution; or to acquire power to rule the country by means other than is provided in the Constitution.

Where a person or political party acts under paragraph one, the witness thereof has the right to report the matter to the Prosecutor General to investigate the facts and to submit a request to the Constitutional Court for decision to order cessation of such act without prejudice to criminal proceedings against the doer of the act.

You can dissect the underlined portion.

"the witness thereof has the right to

a:report the matter to the Prosecutor General to investigate the facts and

b: to submit a request to the Constituional Court for decision to order cessation of such act."

I think that's their interpretation. Double post sorry. It wouldn't let me edit my previous post.

that quote is slightly different to the official translation released under the management of the constitution drafting commission

"In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one,the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person"

that sounds to me like how it reads

you request the prosecutor general to investigate the facts and submit a motion to the constitutional court.

[tlansford]

-- deleted for quotes --

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>.

not bullocks, poorly interpreted and/or written.

Both the Thai and the English can be read to mean one or the other. But to read it the way the court has interpreted is a bit of a stretch...

"“ในกรณีที่บุคคลหรือพรรคการเมืองใดกระทำการตามวรรคหนึ่ง ผู้ทราบการกระทำดังกล่าวย่อมมีสิทธิเสนอเรื่องให้อัยการสูงสุดตรวจสอบข้อเท็จจริงและยื่นคำร้องขอให้ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญวินิจฉัยสั่งการให้เลิกการกระทำดังกล่าว แต่ทั้งนี้ ไม่กระทบกระเทือนการดำเนินคดีอาญาต่อผู้กระทำการดังกล่าว”

“In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Attorney General to investigate the facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person”.

Normal grammar would say that the AG will investigate and submit a motion. The court believes that the person can request the AG to investigate and the same person can submit a motion to the CC.

Also, the clause is about overthrowing the constitutional monarchy :

“No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution”

[tlansford]

Could u be more specific as to what the PTP lodged to the CC and was refused? Did it have to do with dissolution of the Democrat party? He CC will only look at cases that deals with the constitution or violation thereof.

It's not every day a plan to rewrite the constitution pops up and AFAIK the Democrats werent trying to amend or change he constitution during their reign.

Again :

Section 68. A person is prohibited from using the rights and liberties provided in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic rule with the King as the Head of the State as provided by this Constitution; or to acquire power to rule the country by means other than is provided in the Constitution.

Where a person or political party acts under paragraph one, the witness thereof has the right to report the matter to the Prosecutor General to investigate the facts and to submit a request to the Constitutional Court for decision to order cessation of such act without prejudice to criminal proceedings against the doer of the act.

You can dissect the underlined portion.

"the witness thereof has the right to

a:report the matter to the Prosecutor General to investigate the facts and

b: to submit a request to the Constituional Court for decision to order cessation of such act."

I think that's their interpretation. Double post sorry. It wouldn't let me edit my previous post.

that quote is slightly different to the official translation released under the management of the constitution drafting commission

"In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one,the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person"

that sounds to me like how it reads

you request the prosecutor general to investigate the facts and submit a motion to the constitutional court.

normally, that would be correct. watch out for a grammar battle

[ThaiOats]

Could u be more specific as to what the PTP lodged to the CC and was refused? Did it have to do with dissolution of the Democrat party? He CC will only look at cases that deals with the constitution or violation thereof.

It's not every day a plan to rewrite the constitution pops up and AFAIK the Democrats werent trying to amend or change he constitution during their reign.

Again :

Section 68. A person is prohibited from using the rights and liberties provided in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic rule with the King as the Head of the State as provided by this Constitution; or to acquire power to rule the country by means other than is provided in the Constitution.

Where a person or political party acts under paragraph one, the witness thereof has the right to report the matter to the Prosecutor General to investigate the facts and to submit a request to the Constitutional Court for decision to order cessation of such act without prejudice to criminal proceedings against the doer of the act.

You can dissect the underlined portion.

"the witness thereof has the right to

a:report the matter to the Prosecutor General to investigate the facts and

b: to submit a request to the Constituional Court for decision to order cessation of such act."

I think that's their interpretation. Double post sorry. It wouldn't let me edit my previous post.

that quote is slightly different to the official translation released under the management of the constitution drafting commission

"In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one,the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person"

that sounds to me like how it reads

you request the prosecutor general to investigate the facts and submit a motion to the constitutional court.

normally, that would be correct. watch out for a grammar battle

Since the word "and" in this case can be misinterpreted, let's look at it from a different perspective. For something as important as Article 68, it wouldn't make sense for its fate to be decided by one person. In case there is only one avenue, which is to go through the AG, the democratic rule with the King as the Head of the State would be really fragile.

[h90]

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

why should Thaksins party, his sister, put him at house arrest if they can give him full amnesty and the stolen money back? The party is Thaksins "enterprise".

[lannarebirth]

Could u be more specific as to what the PTP lodged to the CC and was refused? Did it have to do with dissolution of the Democrat party? He CC will only look at cases that deals with the constitution or violation thereof.

It's not every day a plan to rewrite the constitution pops up and AFAIK the Democrats werent trying to amend or change he constitution during their reign.

Again :

Section 68. A person is prohibited from using the rights and liberties provided in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic rule with the King as the Head of the State as provided by this Constitution; or to acquire power to rule the country by means other than is provided in the Constitution.

Where a person or political party acts under paragraph one, the witness thereof has the right to report the matter to the Prosecutor General to investigate the facts and to submit a request to the Constitutional Court for decision to order cessation of such act without prejudice to criminal proceedings against the doer of the act.

You can dissect the underlined portion.

"the witness thereof has the right to

a:report the matter to the Prosecutor General to investigate the facts and

b: to submit a request to the Constituional Court for decision to order cessation of such act."

I think that's their interpretation. Double post sorry. It wouldn't let me edit my previous post.

that quote is slightly different to the official translation released under the management of the constitution drafting commission

"In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one,the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person"

that sounds to me like how it reads

you request the prosecutor general to investigate the facts and submit a motion to the constitutional court.

normally, that would be correct. watch out for a grammar battle

Since the word "and" in this case can be misinterpreted, let's look at it from a different perspective. For something as important as Article 68, it wouldn't make sense for its fate to be decided by one person. In case there is only one avenue, which is to go through the AG, the democratic rule with the King as the Head of the State would be really fragile.

Whenever one needs to parse a document to understand it's meaning it means it isn't written correctly. Which is a whole different matter than interpretating a document correctly or not and ruling judgements, but that's not the issue here.

[bigbamboo]

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

why should Thaksins party, his sister, put him at house arrest if they can give him full amnesty and the stolen money back? The party is Thaksins "enterprise".

I suppose if Thaksin was put under house arrest he would geniuinely be able to say he had something in common with ASSK.

[metisdead]

A post not related to this topic has been removed.

[phiphidon]

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

why should Thaksins party, his sister, put him at house arrest if they can give him full amnesty and the stolen money back? The party is Thaksins "enterprise".

I suppose if Thaksin was put under house arrest he would geniuinely be able to say he had something in common with ASSK.

Bearing in mind that Thaksin did not compare himself to ASSK, your allusion is not only off topic but wrong as well.

[osiboy]

childish ? sure,...........democratic ............NO !

I'M TAKING MY BALL HOME WITH ME NOW, game over !

Edited June 12, 2012 by osiboy

[somtumlion]

Bearing in mind that Thaksin did not compare himself to ASSK, your allusion is not only off topic but wrong as well.

Good ol' Phi - Defender of the Faith!