Thai Charter Change: 'Rewriting Violates Democratic Principles'

[smedly]

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/...0,00.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....

making ammendments to the constitution is within the scope of the sitting government provided it is open transparent and is not effectivly making the laws that protect demacracy null and void, for example - improving anti corruption laws etc - this government is trying to remove the firewall that protects the very foundation of democracy and - imagine if the USA sitting government tried to dump the American constitution - it cannot be done because it is protected - however there is a process to make ammendments provided they are justified and approved by the people

[Thai at Heart]

And if you don't like it, the army will make one for the public.

[phiphidon]

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.

It's not a good point. What does he think a Constitutional Drafting Agency is for?

[phiphidon]

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.

As well he would having been the former chief of the secretariat of the Council for National Security that toppled the government of Thaksin Shinawatra in the 19 September 2006 coup. I mean you wouldn't see him rip up a constitution and write another one, Oh, No. By the way he was one of the appointed Senators, appointed by the Junta.

[phiphidon]

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.

I think you'll find they would like to go back to the old idea of elected Senators as opposed to appointed senators who are appointed by judges who are appointed by senators and thus get rid of the patronage system and limit the power of the Judges to their respective specialities, the fabled seperation of powers, something the constitution court has been finding difficult recently and also just as importantly to remove their political influences.

[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.

It's not a good point. What does he think a Constitutional Drafting Agency is for?

It is a good point.

No one can say what is actually wrong with the current constitution. All that most people care about is who came up with it.

If it is so bad, why can't anyone specify what the problem areas are?

[tlansford]

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/...0,00.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....

making ammendments to the constitution is within the scope of the sitting government provided it is open transparent and is not effectivly making the laws that protect demacracy null and void, for example - improving anti corruption laws etc - this government is trying to remove the firewall that protects the very foundation of democracy and - imagine if the USA sitting government tried to dump the American constitution - it cannot be done because it is protected - however there is a process to make ammendments provided they are justified and approved by the people

technically, an amendment to the US Constitution takes precedent over all previous articles and amendments, so in fact, the constitution can be "rewritten" and has been significantly changed many times - unless one would want to call changing property into people, allowing 50% of the population to vote, or simply deciding whether or not drinking alcohol was legal or not (the big flip-flop) insignificant.

The US has had 27 amendments - a whole raft of them in 1789 including such gems as the bill of rights. The last was enacted in 1992. There may be another coming before long regarding campaign finance laws.

As for the people approving amendments in the US, the state legislatures need to approve the amendment. It is not a process of public referendum.

But I am curious about the "firewall" that protects the foundation of democracy in Thailand and appears to be, in your opinion, under attack. Just what is it? So far, no one says they want to even get close to several key items - LM being the first that comes to mind. And of course, it has already been noted that changing Thailand from a constitutional monarchy would actually be illegal and no one has ever proposed that.

[tlansford]

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.

It's not a good point. What does he think a Constitutional Drafting Agency is for?

It is a good point.

No one can say what is actually wrong with the current constitution. All that most people care about is who came up with it.

If it is so bad, why can't anyone specify what the problem areas are?

no it is not a good point, it is just B... ooops, almost used that acronym again....

The function of the CDA is to draft and propose changes.

Many people have over the months had aired different ideas for changes to the charter. As things moved towards creating a CDA, news reports on the potential changes shifted to things like 'no plan to touch LM', etc rather than proposing ideas like 'all senators should be elected'.

The shift in the discussion made sense, since it will be the job of the CDA to work through the different ideas to improve the charter and actually draft the changes. The real debate, as folks like Phiphidon have been saying all along, will get started once there is a CDA.

The point that Thailand is at today is one where proponents of the status quo are applying any and every tactic possible to torpedo the CDA so that it dies before people even have a chance to debate changes to the charter which, heaven forbid, might eventually improve it...

[whybother]

no it is not a good point, it is just B... ooops, almost used that acronym again....

The function of the CDA is to draft and propose changes.

Many people have over the months had aired different ideas for changes to the charter. As things moved towards creating a CDA, news reports on the potential changes shifted to things like 'no plan to touch LM', etc rather than proposing ideas like 'all senators should be elected'.

The shift in the discussion made sense, since it will be the job of the CDA to work through the different ideas to improve the charter and actually draft the changes. The real debate, as folks like Phiphidon have been saying all along, will get started once there is a CDA.

The point that Thailand is at today is one where proponents of the status quo are applying any and every tactic possible to torpedo the CDA so that it dies before people even have a chance to debate changes to the charter which, heaven forbid, might eventually improve it...

The problem I see is that the constitution changes will be voted on as a whole. So there will be some "good" things that a lot of people will be in favour of, and some "bad" things that will get put in just because of the "good" things.

People will vote on it based on how it came about (positive or negative) rather than what's in it. They won't actually understand what it says. They will just vote a certain way because their Poo Yai says to vote that way.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

I think you'll find they would like to go back to the old idea of elected Senators as opposed to appointed senators who are appointed by judges who are appointed by senators and thus get rid of the patronage system and limit the power of the Judges to their respective specialities, the fabled seperation of powers, something the constitution court has been finding difficult recently and also just as importantly to remove their political influences.

Copy the house of lord model from the UK and appoint them a ll with the sitting government of the day given the right to appoint a given number per yearand a given number doing out. The Senate isn't the issue it is the confused nature of the separation of power between all the important agencies.

A completely ejected upper house becomes a rubber stamp lower house far to quickly, completely appointed with no progression to match the changing needs of the country means it g ets bogged down and out of touch.

I really don't know why they don't just take the British system and change the letter head.

[nurofiend]

no it is not a good point, it is just B... ooops, almost used that acronym again....

The function of the CDA is to draft and propose changes.

Many people have over the months had aired different ideas for changes to the charter. As things moved towards creating a CDA, news reports on the potential changes shifted to things like 'no plan to touch LM', etc rather than proposing ideas like 'all senators should be elected'.

The shift in the discussion made sense, since it will be the job of the CDA to work through the different ideas to improve the charter and actually draft the changes. The real debate, as folks like Phiphidon have been saying all along, will get started once there is a CDA.

The point that Thailand is at today is one where proponents of the status quo are applying any and every tactic possible to torpedo the CDA so that it dies before people even have a chance to debate changes to the charter which, heaven forbid, might eventually improve it...

The problem I see is that the constitution changes will be voted on as a whole. So there will be some "good" things that a lot of people will be in favour of, and some "bad" things that will get put in just because of the "good" things.

People will vote on it based on how it came about (positive or negative) rather than what's in it. They won't actually understand what it says. They will just vote a certain way because their Poo Yai says to vote that way.

People will vote on it based on how it came about (positive or negative) rather than what's in it. They won't actually understand what it says. They will just vote a certain way because their Poo Yai says to vote that way.

unlike 2007?

[animatic]

The current attempt at amendment is opaque in the extreme,

if they can't even state what is being done definitively,

they have no cause to insert an openeded rewrite body.

Which is exactly what they are trying to do.

[whybother]

People will vote on it based on how it came about (positive or negative) rather than what's in it. They won't actually understand what it says. They will just vote a certain way because their Poo Yai says to vote that way.

unlike 2007?

No.

[hellodolly]

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/...0,00.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....

making ammendments to the constitution is within the scope of the sitting government provided it is open transparent and is not effectivly making the laws that protect demacracy null and void, for example - improving anti corruption laws etc - this government is trying to remove the firewall that protects the very foundation of democracy and - imagine if the USA sitting government tried to dump the American constitution - it cannot be done because it is protected - however there is a process to make ammendments provided they are justified and approved by the people

technically, an amendment to the US Constitution takes precedent over all previous articles and amendments, so in fact, the constitution can be "rewritten" and has been significantly changed many times - unless one would want to call changing property into people, allowing 50% of the population to vote, or simply deciding whether or not drinking alcohol was legal or not (the big flip-flop) insignificant.

The US has had 27 amendments - a whole raft of them in 1789 including such gems as the bill of rights. The last was enacted in 1992. There may be another coming before long regarding campaign finance laws.

As for the people approving amendments in the US, the state legislatures need to approve the amendment. It is not a process of public referendum.

But I am curious about the "firewall" that protects the foundation of democracy in Thailand and appears to be, in your opinion, under attack. Just what is it? So far, no one says they want to even get close to several key items - LM being the first that comes to mind. And of course, it has already been noted that changing Thailand from a constitutional monarchy would actually be illegal and no one has ever proposed that.

Aren't you forgetting something here conveniently for you of course.

If all that happens as you say the Supreme court can still stop it.

[TongueThaied]

What a joke. This constituion was rammed down the throats of the people by a military that unlawfully usurped power from the overwhelmingly popular elected government. Sure, it was approved by a vote -- but only after an onslaught of government media blitzes.

A constitution should be drafted by an elected government and presented to the people for approval. It is long overdue.

[phiphidon]

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.

It's not a good point. What does he think a Constitutional Drafting Agency is for?

It is a good point.

No one can say what is actually wrong with the current constitution. All that most people care about is who came up with it.

If it is so bad, why can't anyone specify what the problem areas are?

Try having fully elected senators. Not senators apointed by judges who are appointed by senators. Reiterate to the Constitution Court exactly what seperatrion of powers means and make them practice it. Allow the courts to be criticised - they are not infallible. Remove anybody from positions who were appointed by the Junta to those positions. Hold elections (suitable to the position) to replace them. That would do for a start.

[tlansford]

no it is not a good point, it is just B... ooops, almost used that acronym again....

The function of the CDA is to draft and propose changes.

Many people have over the months had aired different ideas for changes to the charter. As things moved towards creating a CDA, news reports on the potential changes shifted to things like 'no plan to touch LM', etc rather than proposing ideas like 'all senators should be elected'.

The shift in the discussion made sense, since it will be the job of the CDA to work through the different ideas to improve the charter and actually draft the changes. The real debate, as folks like Phiphidon have been saying all along, will get started once there is a CDA.

The point that Thailand is at today is one where proponents of the status quo are applying any and every tactic possible to torpedo the CDA so that it dies before people even have a chance to debate changes to the charter which, heaven forbid, might eventually improve it...

The problem I see is that the constitution changes will be voted on as a whole. So there will be some "good" things that a lot of people will be in favour of, and some "bad" things that will get put in just because of the "good" things.

People will vote on it based on how it came about (positive or negative) rather than what's in it. They won't actually understand what it says. They will just vote a certain way because their Poo Yai says to vote that way.

I think that is a bit pessimistic, but certainly some people will vote that way. I just don't believe that most will vote without having their own understanding of it.

As for the good/bad, IMO it will be much easier to shoot down the referendum than pass it, even with a simple majority since a single "bad" point can be campaigned on to bring the whole thing down.

If a charter, facing a public referendum, is actually passed, then I'll be surprised.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

It's not a good point. What does he think a Constitutional Drafting Agency is for?

It is a good point.

No one can say what is actually wrong with the current constitution. All that most people care about is who came up with it.

If it is so bad, why can't anyone specify what the problem areas are?

Try having fully elected senators. Not senators apointed by judges who are appointed by senators. Reiterate to the Constitution Court exactly what seperatrion of powers means and make them practice it. Allow the courts to be criticised - they are not infallible. Remove anybody from positions who were appointed by the Junta to those positions. Hold elections (suitable to the position) to replace them. That would do for a start.

remove the political party banning penalty, keep the term limits, and axe the LM laws. The latter won't happen, but it would be nice.

[smedly]

The PTP has never mention once a referendum, in fact they have been extremely guarded about saying anything of their intentions throughout this process which is actually part of the problem, if they where more open and honest about why they want to pursue this process they might not have met so much opposition - in saying that we all know what most of it is about - the criminal in Dubai

[tlansford]

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/...0,00.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....

making ammendments to the constitution is within the scope of the sitting government provided it is open transparent and is not effectivly making the laws that protect demacracy null and void, for example - improving anti corruption laws etc - this government is trying to remove the firewall that protects the very foundation of democracy and - imagine if the USA sitting government tried to dump the American constitution - it cannot be done because it is protected - however there is a process to make ammendments provided they are justified and approved by the people

technically, an amendment to the US Constitution takes precedent over all previous articles and amendments, so in fact, the constitution can be "rewritten" and has been significantly changed many times - unless one would want to call changing property into people, allowing 50% of the population to vote, or simply deciding whether or not drinking alcohol was legal or not (the big flip-flop) insignificant.

The US has had 27 amendments - a whole raft of them in 1789 including such gems as the bill of rights. The last was enacted in 1992. There may be another coming before long regarding campaign finance laws.

As for the people approving amendments in the US, the state legislatures need to approve the amendment. It is not a process of public referendum.

But I am curious about the "firewall" that protects the foundation of democracy in Thailand and appears to be, in your opinion, under attack. Just what is it? So far, no one says they want to even get close to several key items - LM being the first that comes to mind. And of course, it has already been noted that changing Thailand from a constitutional monarchy would actually be illegal and no one has ever proposed that.

Aren't you forgetting something here conveniently for you of course.

If all that happens as you say the Supreme court can still stop it.

Sorry, don't understand which "supreme court" you mean here, US/Thai?

If you mean US, then no, they cannot stop amendments.

If you mean Thai, well as I've said, the CDA and parliament cannot break the law, and changing from a constitutional monarchy would be illegal and has never been proposed by anyone and has only be insinuated by opponents to the charter change.

[whybother]

remove the political party banning penalty, keep the term limits, and axe the LM laws. The latter won't happen, but it would be nice.

If they remove the political party banning, they need to increase the penalty (about 10 fold) for the individuals. Agree 100% with the last point.

[animatic]

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).

I remember months or years of public input. Just no referendum.

But they never tried a top down rewrite by subterfuge and stealth.

Edited July 7, 2012 by animatic

[animatic]

What a joke. This constituion was rammed down the throats of the people by a military that unlawfully usurped power from the overwhelmingly popular elected government. Sure, it was approved by a vote -- but only after an onslaught of government media blitzes.

A constitution should be drafted by an elected government and presented to the people for approval. It is long overdue.

It can be equally said Thaksin had been trying to usurp power for his clan,

but was stopped by the military.

He was no longer the 'legally elected PM of Thailand' at the time of the coup.

He had disolved the Parliament, failed to run a election, expired his term

and quit the acting PM job after not getting reappointed by the highest chair.

Then the attempted SOE / Martial Law via the scare tactic of

a faked bombing of Thaksin enroute to work, was a final straw.

The "over welmingly popular government" you mention

hadn't been in Parliament' or Government house in months,

at the time of the coup. Thaksin's snap election ended that.

Just Thaksin and a few cronies left, after he unilaterally took the job back,

after HE HAD PUBLICLY RESIGNED.

Facts are stubborn things that always get in the way of the big lies told.

Edited July 7, 2012 by animatic

[tlansford]

What a joke. This constituion was rammed down the throats of the people by a military that unlawfully usurped power from the overwhelmingly popular elected government. Sure, it was approved by a vote -- but only after an onslaught of government media blitzes.

A constitution should be drafted by an elected government and presented to the people for approval. It is long overdue.

It can be equally said Thaksin had been trying to usurp power for his clan,

but was stopped by the military. He was not the legally elected PM of Thailand

at the time of the coup. And the attempted SOE / Martial law via the faked bombing

of Thaksin enroute to work was a final straw.

The "over welmingly popular government" you mention

hadn't been in Parliament' or Government house in months,

at the time of the coup.

Just Thaksin and a few cronies, unilaterally taking the job back after HE QUIT.

Facts are stubborn things that always get in the way of the big lies told.

"Facts are stubborn things"

like the royally endorsed elections which were, naturally, no longer necessary after the coup...