Thai Court Says Referendum Needed For Constitution Change

[webfact]

Thai court says referendum needed for constitution change

BANGKOK (Reuters) - Thailand's Constitutional Court dismissed petitions against the government's proposed constitutional changes on Friday but said a referendum was necessary to decide whether the government could go ahead with them.

It said that the changes did not threaten the role of the monarchy, as some opponents had argued.

Source: http://news.yahoo.co...-082140823.html

-- news.yahoo.com 2012-07-13

[Morakot]

Some sense prevails.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Morakot

[SuneeTH]

Why not just use a coup to tear the old one.

Quick and easy.

[Morakot]

Why not just use a coup to tear the old one.

Quick and easy.

Why not trying to think beyond your seemingly favourite word?

Edited July 13, 2012 by Morakot

[CurryAfficionado]

Some sense prevails.

Yep. Good news for Thailand today.

[webfact]

CONSTITUTION COURT

Court drops complaints against charter amendments

The Nation

Photo : Pramote Putthaisong

BANGKOK: -- The Constitution Court on Friday ruled to drop the five complaints against charter amendments.

The court ruled that testimonials by the defendants and the five complainants did not prove that the on-going charter amendments would lead to the overthrowing of the Constitutional Monarchy.

The court ruled that the complainants were only speculating that amendments would lead to the overthrowing of the democratic system with the King as head of the state.

The court noted that the amendments to Article 291 clearly stated that the abolition of the current charter and the changing of the current ruling system could not be done.

The court noted that the 2007 Constitution had come from the people through a public referendum so its abolition would need to be done with another referendum.

But the court said amendments could be made constitutionally to improve articles that are problematic.

As a result, the court decided to drop the five complaints.

The court spent only 25 minutes for reading the ruling.

The verdict started with the court defending that its mandate under Article 68 to look into the complaints as to whether the amendments were tantamount to efforts to overthrow the Constitutional Monarchy or not.

The court reasoned that it had the mandate to try the case and suspend the amendments because it would have too late to wait until the amendments were made before judging whether or not they were unconstitutional.

The court also ruled that the people could invoke Article 68 to bypass public prosecutors to file the complaints with the court directly.

-- The Nation 2012-07-13

[waza]

Seems like a win win result

[MaiChai]

Constitution amendment needs to be done carefully and put to a public referendum for each change. For each change, the people need to be able to keep the existing clause or select one or more alternatives.

Politicians cannot be trusted with changes as important as this and going via public referendum reduces the chances of corruption. Fair and Democratic.

Edited July 13, 2012 by MaiChai

[webfact]

RT @tulsathit: Jatuporn insists charter overhaul must move on.

[bigbamboo]

The court should be applauded on what seems a fair and sensible verdict.

Any changes to the constitution would need a referendum, just like the last one did, and of course there was never any threat to the role of the monarchy. No here today and gone tomorrow politician could ever threaten the Thai people's loyalty to His Majesty, everyone knows that.

Edited July 13, 2012 by bigbamboo

[DP25]

Constitution amendment needs to be done carefully and put to a public referendum for each change. For each change, the people need to be able to keep the existing clause or select one or more alternatives.

Politicians cannot be trusted with changes as important as this and going via public referendum reduces the chances of corruption. Fair and Democratic.

How horrifying that thought must be for Thaksin. If they have a referendum for each individual change, they can reject the pardon for Thaksin and reject returning the 46 billion Baht while accepting other changes.

Edited July 13, 2012 by DP25

[chowny77]

This is now the time for the "real" Thai people to decide what they want, not what certain "outside / hi-so / corrupt puppteers decide. This is it!!

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

How horrifying that thought must be for Thaksin. If they have a referendum for each individual change, they can reject the pardon for Thaksin and reject returning the 46 billion Baht while accepting other changes.

Where are you getting the notion that any future referenda would deal with Charter change items individually/separately?

I don't see that in the description of the court ruling above. Rather, it seems the court is simply saying the government can revise the Charter, but would have to put that new/revised document to a vote of the people.

I wish I were wrong. But I'm presuming the current government will simply shovel all the c**p into one big package for a public vote.

The "public" elected the current government. So presumably, they'd also pass a Charter revision put forward by the same folks.

[Morakot]

Constitution amendment needs to be done carefully and put to a public referendum for each change. For each change, the people need to be able to keep the existing clause or select one or more alternatives.

Politicians cannot be trusted with changes as important as this and going via public referendum reduces the chances of corruption. Fair and Democratic.

That is called "Direct democracy". That would certainly be novel, if not a dream.

[Reasonableman]

A very satisfactory result that upholds the principles of genuine democracy, and which guarantees the participation of the people in major changes affecting them, not subservience to the narrow agendas of pressure groups.

[hellodolly]

RT @tulsathit: Jatuporn insists charter overhaul must move on.

Well if he say's so I would take it that it would be a bad thing to do.

The man is non stop babel machine.

[KKvampire]

The court judges were never going to uphold the petition against the government and it's UDD threats, I mean I guess they and their families wanted to stay alive.

[ginjag]

This is a very good sign-and will show the dictators in power that it is not so easy to do what they like. I use the word because of what they tried to do before the court intervened. referendom is the key word-each change will have to be dealt with individually-NOT rushed through. Come back Yingluck your o.k. for now.

[howzat]

Nice one. We live to see another day. Did we really think we wouldn't. Life goes on for us ex pats as normal.That's why we all stay here because we like it. Am I right.

[haroldc]

Hmm... let's see... 30,000,000 votes at 500 baht per vote would only cost me 15 billion. They took 46 billion. OK, let's have a referendum...

[OldeBellPedr]

Constitution amendment needs to be done carefully and put to a public referendum for each change. For each change, the people need to be able to keep the existing clause or select one or more alternatives.

Politicians cannot be trusted with changes as important as this and going via public referendum reduces the chances of corruption. Fair and Democratic.

How horrifying that thought must be for Thaksin. If they have a referendum for each individual change, they can reject the pardon for Thaksin and reject returning the 46 billion Baht while accepting other changes.

You obviously aren't a psephologist. This is great news for democracy and by implication for Thaksin - it is the ruling elite who must be quaking in their boots this afternoon. Referenda will put power firmly in the hands of the people! And of course after the referendum on constitutional change, they can have a referendum on Thaksins return. If gambling weren't illegal in Thailand I'd bet you 50 baht that he would win that particular vote.

But democracy is the real winner this afternoon.

[webfact]

UDD hails Constitution Court's verdict to dismiss petition as triumph; UDD chair doesn't agree with court's rule that it has authority to consider petition /MCOT

[webfact]

Democrat Thepthai describes Constitution Court's verdict as Win-Win ruling acceptable for all parties /MCOT

[gl555]

Constitution amendment needs to be done carefully and put to a public referendum for each change. For each change, the people need to be able to keep the existing clause or select one or more alternatives.

Politicians cannot be trusted with changes as important as this and going via public referendum reduces the chances of corruption. Fair and Democratic.

How horrifying that thought must be for Thaksin. If they have a referendum for each individual change, they can reject the pardon for Thaksin and reject returning the 46 billion Baht while accepting other changes.

You obviously aren't a psephologist. This is great news for democracy and by implication for Thaksin - it is the ruling elite who must be quaking in their boots this afternoon. Referenda will put power firmly in the hands of the people! And of course after the referendum on constitutional change, they can have a referendum on Thaksins return. If gambling weren't illegal in Thailand I'd bet you 50 baht that he would win that particular vote.

But democracy is the real winner this afternoon.

Nope. PTP may have the popular vote in the last election but not everyone who voted for them were voting for Thaksin. Many PTP voters aren't Thaksin supporters, they just didn't want to vote for the Dems. Democracy is definitely the winner today but if there were a referendum on Thaksin's return, he is not guaranteed a win.

[khunken]

Yes it's a fair result. However I think there is some misunderstanding in some of the above posts.

My reading is that the can make minor amendments before putting the draft to a referendum. But if they want to re-write the whole constitution (which is what they were aiming at), then this would have to be put to a referendum before starting the rewrite.

[webfact]

RT @tulsathit: Urgent: Govt chief whip suggests govt ready to withdraw amendment bill (which aims to write new charter) and amend current charter instead.

[Siripon]

Constitution amendment needs to be done carefully and put to a public referendum for each change. For each change, the people need to be able to keep the existing clause or select one or more alternatives.

Politicians cannot be trusted with changes as important as this and going via public referendum reduces the chances of corruption. Fair and Democratic.

How horrifying that thought must be for Thaksin. If they have a referendum for each individual change, they can reject the pardon for Thaksin and reject returning the 46 billion Baht while accepting other changes.

You obviously aren't a psephologist. This is great news for democracy and by implication for Thaksin - it is the ruling elite who must be quaking in their boots this afternoon. Referenda will put power firmly in the hands of the people! And of course after the referendum on constitutional change, they can have a referendum on Thaksins return. If gambling weren't illegal in Thailand I'd bet you 50 baht that he would win that particular vote.

But democracy is the real winner this afternoon.

Please don't put the words Thaksin and democracy in the same sentence, the meanings are opposite.

I prefer- Thaksinocracy- rule over all for one family's benefit.

[LuckyLew]

Why is this good news?

It is just delaying the inevitable

PTP will win referendum vote, does not matter what the question is

The will give thicker envelopes to the voters, thus winning a majority

[Morakot]

Why is this good news?

It is just delaying the inevitable

PTP will win referendum vote, does not matter what the question is

The will give thicker envelopes to the voters, thus winning a majority

Nothing is inevitable (apart from death and paying taxes).

Edited July 13, 2012 by Morakot

[wpcoe]

As the thread title says, "referendum needed for constitution change."

When the constitution was changed after the last coup, was there a referendum for those changes? If not, why are those changes still considered valid in light of today's court decision? Is there some statute of limitations?