Thai Charter Change: 'Rewriting Violates Democratic Principles'

[webfact]

CHARTER CHANGE

'Rewriting violates democratic principles'

Kittipong Thaveevong,

Somroutai Sapsomboon

The Nation

Witnesses for petitioners say sovereignty rests with public

BANGKOK: -- Amending the Constitution to allow a new one to be written is the "destruction of the current charter and violation of the principles of democracy", law professor Suraphol Nitikraipot said yesterday - the first day of the Constitution Court trial against the proponents of the amendment bills.

Suraphol, former rector of Thammasat University who is a key witness for the petitioners, said the post-coup Constitution of 2007 was the only one that was endorsed by the public in a nationwide referendum.

Hence, replacing it with a new one would require support from the majority in a public referendum, he said, adding that representatives of the voters should have no power to override the decision by the public, who are "owners of the sovereignty".

In court yesterday, the petitioners and witnesses presented their case showing how parliamentarians had no authority to allow the writing of an entirely new constitution, and that doing so would be tantamount to overthrowing the country's democratic regime with the King as head of state.

After the five petitioners and their two witnesses presented their testimonies, they were cross-examined by the defendants and their lawyers. Witnesses who had submitted their written testimonies did not appear at yesterday's hearing.

The court is scheduled to hear the defendants and their witnesses today.

Suraphol told the court yesterday that the current Constitution is "not usual" because it is the only charter and the only law in the Thai political history to be approved in a public referendum. He said the representatives of the people could not change the Constitution without the approval of the people themselves.

Hence, a referendum should be held before, not after, a new constitution is written, as has been stated in the government-sponsored amendment bill, he said. The professor said he believed that every constitution has a mechanism to prevent it from being replaced by a new one and the current charter has one too. He explained that the 2007 Constitution only allows changes to be made to clauses, not the entire law.

"Although the amendment is in line with Article 291, it is meant to destroy the current Constitution and this goes against the principles of democracy. The representatives [MPs and parliamentarians] are attempting to overrule a decision made by the owners of sovereignty [the general public]," Suraphol said.

According to the Constitution, amendments can be made by parliamentarians, who are representatives of the people, he said, adding that by allowing a constitution drafting assembly (CDA) to write a new charter with no clear guidelines on what issues need to be amended is like "writing a blank cheque".

Chusak Sirinil, a law expert for the ruling Pheu Thai Party, during his cross-examination said that voters in a public referendum would not know which issues need to be amended either. Suraphol responded to this by saying that in a referendum, there should be clear questions about these issues. He said the problem was that even proponents of the constitutional amendments could not specify which issues in the current charter need to be amended.

Before yesterday's hearing, Constitutional Court Justice Nurak Marpraneet said that the trial would focus on four issues:

lWhether the complainants are authorised to bring the case to court under Article 68;

lWhether Article 291 allows for the annulment of the current Constitution and the writing of a new one;

lWhether seeking an amendment to allow a new constitution to be written is tantamount to overthrowing the country's democratic regime; and

lWhether such an act is punishable by the dissolution of political parties involved and imposing a political ban on the politicians involved.

Democrat MP Wirut Kalayasiri, one of the petitioners, pointed out that the charter-amendment bill could lead to the monarchy being overthrown or its powers being reduced. During his cross-examination, the defence pointed out that Wirut and his Democrat colleagues had also taken part in the parliamentary debate on constitutional changes.

Wirut responded that the opposition MPs did not support the amendment and that they had done what they could to oppose it.

Earlier at yesterday's hearing, petitioner General Somjet Boonthanom compared the constitutional amendment bill to a coup d'etat that abolishes the charter. "The only difference is that in a coup, guns are used," he said.

Former Constitution drafter Dej-udom Krairit, another witness of the petitioners, said voters had "the power to establish a Constitution", adding that the current one was approved by the majority in a referendum.

Petitioner Wanthongchai Chamnankit said the power of amending the current charter, as per Article 291, rests with the parliamentarians.

"Hence, it is clearly against the Constitution for MPs and senators to relegate the power to a CDA," he said.

-- The Nation 2012-07-06

[Skywalker69]

Suraphol, former rector of Thammasat University who is a key witness for the petitioners, said the post-coup Constitution of 2007 was the only one that was endorsed by the public in a nationwide referendum.

Hence, replacing it with a new one would require support from the majority in a public referendum, he said, adding that representatives of the voters should have no power to override the decision by the public, who are "owners of the sovereignty".

This doesn´t seems so go the way Thaksin and PTP wants.

[whybother]

He said the problem was that even proponents of the constitutional amendments could not specify which issues in the current charter need to be amended.

A very good point.

[ianf]

The Charter does not need to be amended. However, politicians' approach to democracy in general needs to be amended as does the one in Dubai's propensity to cheat his way through public life.

[bigbamboo]

There is nothing wrong is proposing amendments to the constitution charter so long as any amendments are approved by the public in a national referendum... just as the current one was

What is totally wrong is to make retrospective changes to admonish crimes committed against the constitution.

What would be really cool is if the government concentrated on serving the people, not themselves.

[h90]

There is nothing wrong is proposing amendments to the constitution charter so long as any amendments are approved by the public in a national referendum... just as the current one was

What is totally wrong is to make retrospective changes to admonish crimes committed against the constitution.

What would be really cool is if the government concentrated on serving the people, not themselves.

But people become politicians to enrich themself. What is the profit in serving the people?

[tlansford]

it is not the first time since 2007 that the charter has been changed and without a public referendum. Just that it was the "other side" doing the changes.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/42681/thai-government-proposes-constitution-changes-evokes-ghosts-of-protests-past/

[tlansford]

so if this goes ahead and the government puts the new changes to a public referendum, can they impose the same conditions as in 2007 : martial law, no campaigning against the charter, unlimited government spending telling the people to vote for the new charter, etc?

I wonder how The Nation will portray the testimony from today?

[whybother]

it is not the first time since 2007 that the charter has been changed and without a public referendum. Just that it was the "other side" doing the changes.

http://asiancorrespo...-protests-past/

They changed specific parts of the constitution.

[h90]

so if this goes ahead and the government puts the new changes to a public referendum, can they impose the same conditions as in 2007 : martial law, no campaigning against the charter, unlimited government spending telling the people to vote for the new charter, etc?

I wonder how The Nation will portray the testimony from today?

no campaigning against the charter

Alzheimer? there was a lot blablabla from Thaksin to vote against the charter.....Therefor the victory wasn't overwhelming.

The 1997 constitution which the reds call "peoples constitution" was never voted for and just gave the government (and not the people) more power.

Maybe it is a good idea to take off the red glasses and look at the facts.

[tlansford]

it is not the first time since 2007 that the charter has been changed and without a public referendum. Just that it was the "other side" doing the changes.

http://asiancorrespo...-protests-past/

They changed specific parts of the constitution.

correct.

without broad public input.

without a referendum.

to the benefit of the party in power (or at least it was supposed to help them win elections in the future).

[tlansford]

so if this goes ahead and the government puts the new changes to a public referendum, can they impose the same conditions as in 2007 : martial law, no campaigning against the charter, unlimited government spending telling the people to vote for the new charter, etc?

I wonder how The Nation will portray the testimony from today?

no campaigning against the charter

Alzheimer? there was a lot blablabla from Thaksin to vote against the charter.....Therefor the victory wasn't overwhelming.

The 1997 constitution which the reds call "peoples constitution" was never voted for and just gave the government (and not the people) more power.

Maybe it is a good idea to take off the red glasses and look at the facts.

I am aware of the passage of the 1997 constitution.

As well as being aware of the situation during the referendum in 2007.

Facts are facts. It was illegal to campaign for or against the referendum. This was also enforced. Funny that the military junta was able to dump as much public money it wanted into convincing the public that they should vote "yes" ... Then there was the point about martial law, ...

pfft, red glasses. Get real.

And although the 1997 charter is not the topic here, maybe you can clarify how this charter gave the people less power and the government more power... If you feel like it.

[hellodolly]

so if this goes ahead and the government puts the new changes to a public referendum, can they impose the same conditions as in 2007 : martial law, no campaigning against the charter, unlimited government spending telling the people to vote for the new charter, etc?

I wonder how The Nation will portray the testimony from today?

That about sums up what the PT feel is there rite to do.

You might want to reread post #3 It makes a lot of sense.

What you are advocating with out coming right out and saying it is every government that comes into power if it does not like the charter amend it to suit themselves.

Even you must admit that rewriting it to absolve their leader of all his crimes and give him his fines back is merely self serving to the party in control.

[whybother]

it is not the first time since 2007 that the charter has been changed and without a public referendum. Just that it was the "other side" doing the changes.

http://asiancorrespo...-protests-past/

They changed specific parts of the constitution.

correct.

without broad public input.

without a referendum.

to the benefit of the party in power (or at least it was supposed to help them win elections in the future).

Actually it was to help the smaller parties.

Did the PTP request a referendum?

[Yunla]

Amending the Constitution to allow a new one to be written is the "destruction of the current charter and violation of the principles of democracy", law professor Suraphol Nitikraipot said yesterday - the first day of the Constitution Court trial against the proponents of the amendment bills.

Suraphol, former rector of Thammasat University who is a key witness for the petitioners, said the post-coup Constitution of 2007 was the only one that was endorsed by the public in a nationwide referendum.

The country that Yingluck inherited needed a lot of infrastructure work and anti-corruption and custodial improvement, equal rights work for rural poor, for women and for minority groups. Etc. What the country that Yingluck inherited did not need was the whole constitutional system overturning and assaulting publicly. Suraphol is right, PTP's actions are violating democray and they are an insult to the efforts of previous generations of democratically-minded Thais who wanted a safe and balance democracy for their children to live in. This country was not perfect one year ago but the work it needed was work in parliament relating to infrastructure and battling corruption, Thailand does not need this blackboard-eraser approach to politics, wiping away all the words that predecessors have written, all the hard work that patriotic Thais have done for generations to build a functioning society, laws which were written to safeguard the social rights of the poorest in society and to give justice to victims of crime. The PTP bill wants to protect the criminal's rights, not the victims' rights, and to create a one-party state in all but name. It is not an act of kindness or reconciliation, it is an act of force against democracy and the unrepresented working-class, in favour of a single ultra-rich crime family.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Yunla

[bigbamboo]

There is nothing wrong is proposing amendments to the constitution charter so long as any amendments are approved by the public in a national referendum... just as the current one was

What is totally wrong is to make retrospective changes to admonish crimes committed against the constitution.

What would be really cool is if the government concentrated on serving the people, not themselves.

But people become politicians to enrich themself. What is the profit in serving the people?

Sadly you could probably count the number of altruisticThai politicians on one hand which is why no one apart those involved in the game (plus one or two TV addicts on here) take it too seriously.

[sjaak327]

Is there a provision in the current constitution that requires a referendum in order to change the constitution, or can it be changed with a certain majority ? If the answer to these question is the latter, there is no ground to these remarks.

I also want to point out that what happened to the 99 constitution was everything but democratic, the military with tanks dealt with that one..

[JurgenG]

so if this goes ahead and the government puts the new changes to a public referendum, can they impose the same conditions as in 2007 : martial law, no campaigning against the charter, unlimited government spending telling the people to vote for the new charter, etc?

I wonder how The Nation will portray the testimony from today?

And you forget the most important : no new election if the charter is not approved.

Just like in 2007.

[h90]

so if this goes ahead and the government puts the new changes to a public referendum, can they impose the same conditions as in 2007 : martial law, no campaigning against the charter, unlimited government spending telling the people to vote for the new charter, etc?

I wonder how The Nation will portray the testimony from today?

And you forget the most important : no new election if the charter is not approved.

Just like in 2007.

What is the point of writing lies that are already proofed so many times that really everyone knows that it is just another red lie.

Even Wikipedia...

"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."

As well everyone who was in Thailand at this time recalls it as it was a big topic.

[tlansford]

so if this goes ahead and the government puts the new changes to a public referendum, can they impose the same conditions as in 2007 : martial law, no campaigning against the charter, unlimited government spending telling the people to vote for the new charter, etc?

I wonder how The Nation will portray the testimony from today?

And you forget the most important : no new election if the charter is not approved.

Just like in 2007.

What is the point of writing lies that are already proofed so many times that really everyone knows that it is just another red lie.

Even Wikipedia...

"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."

As well everyone who was in Thailand at this time recalls it as it was a big topic.

it looks to me as though the quote you chose justifies JurgenG's statement completely. He might have used short-hand, but the essence is the same.

Notice that the junta didn't say, if it doesn't pass, we'll reinstate the 1997 constitution.

They said, Don't vote yes, and we'll just write one ourselves.

[Docno]

Let's not forget that Abhisit also said that he would amend the constitution once in power .... See the end of this piece: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1655420,00.html. But of course, he was really firmly on side with the generals (who gave him the route to power) and nothing further was heard of it....

[h90]

so if this goes ahead and the government puts the new changes to a public referendum, can they impose the same conditions as in 2007 : martial law, no campaigning against the charter, unlimited government spending telling the people to vote for the new charter, etc?

I wonder how The Nation will portray the testimony from today?

And you forget the most important : no new election if the charter is not approved.

Just like in 2007.

What is the point of writing lies that are already proofed so many times that really everyone knows that it is just another red lie.

Even Wikipedia...

"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."

As well everyone who was in Thailand at this time recalls it as it was a big topic.

it looks to me as though the quote you chose justifies JurgenG's statement completely. He might have used short-hand, but the essence is the same.

Notice that the junta didn't say, if it doesn't pass, we'll reinstate the 1997 constitution.

They said, Don't vote yes, and we'll just write one ourselves.

They said they will modify the 1997 constitution. Of course "modify" can mean many things. But they didn't say "no elections" or even delaying elections.

So that frequently used lie that the population was forced to vote "yes" just to get rid of the appointed government is just a lie.

BTW it is a nonsense to write a new constitution all the time. Good constitutions in every flavor are ready to copy/paste.

Just take it from Germany or Switzerland, replace President with King and you have a constitution.

And I agree what you wrote about the changes the previous government made: It was made to help the Democrats or Newin.

Most of the political problems could be fixed if they change the system to a clean popular vote instead of that regional system that invites vote buying.

But I think here all parties agree that they don't want to change that.

[Docno]

so if this goes ahead and the government puts the new changes to a public referendum, can they impose the same conditions as in 2007 : martial law, no campaigning against the charter, unlimited government spending telling the people to vote for the new charter, etc?

I wonder how The Nation will portray the testimony from today?

And you forget the most important : no new election if the charter is not approved.

Just like in 2007.

What is the point of writing lies that are already proofed so many times that really everyone knows that it is just another red lie.

Even Wikipedia...

"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."

As well everyone who was in Thailand at this time recalls it as it was a big topic.

Well, if you want to quote wiki, try this one: "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]"

[whybother]

Most of the political problems could be fixed if they change the system to a clean popular vote instead of that regional system that invites vote buying.

But I think here all parties agree that they don't want to change that.

A popular vote for a leader gives you one person. Constituent voting gives you representatives of the area.

The system that Thailand uses isn't bad. It's basically the same that is used in many countries. It has just become corrupted because ... well, because it's Thailand.

[h90]

Most of the political problems could be fixed if they change the system to a clean popular vote instead of that regional system that invites vote buying.

But I think here all parties agree that they don't want to change that.

A popular vote for a leader gives you one person. Constituent voting gives you representatives of the area.

The system that Thailand uses isn't bad. It's basically the same that is used in many countries. It has just become corrupted because ... well, because it's Thailand.

That you need people of the area comes from a time of slow communications. Or in countries with different ethnic in different areas. It isn't that important anymore in Thailand. With small areas it is cheap to buy enough votes there.

With popular vote you must buy a lot more votes to get something nationwide and it is only interesting if you have a seat that isn't sure. Safe places does not pay and positions that can't win anyway don't need to pay.

It would destroy the system of local patrons.

[drdoom6996]

Democracy? Where? I have been here 25 years and have never seen democracy in action. Just thugs that hand out money on election day.

[JurgenG]

so if this goes ahead and the government puts the new changes to a public referendum, can they impose the same conditions as in 2007 : martial law, no campaigning against the charter, unlimited government spending telling the people to vote for the new charter, etc?

I wonder how The Nation will portray the testimony from today?

And you forget the most important : no new election if the charter is not approved.

Just like in 2007.

What is the point of writing lies that are already proofed so many times that really everyone knows that it is just another red lie.

Even Wikipedia...

"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."

As well everyone who was in Thailand at this time recalls it as it was a big topic.

Well, if you want to quote wiki, try this one: "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]"

Thanks

[whybother]

Most of the political problems could be fixed if they change the system to a clean popular vote instead of that regional system that invites vote buying.

But I think here all parties agree that they don't want to change that.

A popular vote for a leader gives you one person. Constituent voting gives you representatives of the area.

The system that Thailand uses isn't bad. It's basically the same that is used in many countries. It has just become corrupted because ... well, because it's Thailand.

That you need people of the area comes from a time of slow communications. Or in countries with different ethnic in different areas. It isn't that important anymore in Thailand. With small areas it is cheap to buy enough votes there.

With popular vote you must buy a lot more votes to get something nationwide and it is only interesting if you have a seat that isn't sure. Safe places does not pay and positions that can't win anyway don't need to pay.

It would destroy the system of local patrons.

I don't agree. Local areas have local issues that need to be dealt with at a national level, particularly ethnic issues, but others as well. Without local representation, whole areas get forgotten about. Why would politicians even need to worry about some areas? In Thailand, the whole of the south would get ignored because most of the population is north of Bangkok.

[Arkady]

I remember the years of public debate following the Black May massacre of protestors by the army in 1992 that lead up to the much loved 1997 "Peoples'" Constitution to which the hated 2007 "Military" Constitution is virtually identical, barring the clauses legitimizing the coup and its decrees. In the 90s there was much talk of the need for constitutional checks and balances to eliminate the massive corruption in Thai politics that provided the military with the excuse for the 1991 coup. Now corruption is not being mentioned at all and it is very clear that the ruling politicians want to remove all the checks and balances that originated from the 1997 Constitution, so that they can pursue unfettered corruption. Thus the vicious circle will never be broken.

[h90]

Most of the political problems could be fixed if they change the system to a clean popular vote instead of that regional system that invites vote buying.

But I think here all parties agree that they don't want to change that.

A popular vote for a leader gives you one person. Constituent voting gives you representatives of the area.

The system that Thailand uses isn't bad. It's basically the same that is used in many countries. It has just become corrupted because ... well, because it's Thailand.

That you need people of the area comes from a time of slow communications. Or in countries with different ethnic in different areas. It isn't that important anymore in Thailand. With small areas it is cheap to buy enough votes there.

With popular vote you must buy a lot more votes to get something nationwide and it is only interesting if you have a seat that isn't sure. Safe places does not pay and positions that can't win anyway don't need to pay.

It would destroy the system of local patrons.

I don't agree. Local areas have local issues that need to be dealt with at a national level, particularly ethnic issues, but others as well. Without local representation, whole areas get forgotten about. Why would politicians even need to worry about some areas? In Thailand, the whole of the south would get ignored because most of the population is north of Bangkok.

OK, you are right, theoretically. But wouldn't that the responsibility of the regional governor (who is also elected)?

As example Austria (not because I think it is so great, just because I know it well).

Central government: popular vote.

State (or province) governments who handle the local issues. As well they send the people who form something similar to the Senate in Thailand. So they can block things which are against their interests (example they would block if they get less money).

The heads of the province governments meet together from time to time and need to agree on how to share the tax money.

While I think it is a good system....I now see the big weakness myself. It does not fix the vote buying. It just moves it from the central government to the local governments..... And at the end nothing changes....