Thai Court Says Referendum Needed For Constitution Change

[MunterHunter]

Don't forget the Judges reiterated its their right to block any charter change they feel will alter the political structure...

Sure, let them pay for a big fat referendum, but put anything in front of the judges that they don't agree with, and its wasted time, effort and money.

[whatsupdoc]

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?

yes, the current constitution was approved in a referendum

[saltandpepper]

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

And all this in the name of democracy, of course!

[Crushdepth]

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.

They can make extensive amendments to the charter. The limitations are i) a referendum is required, ii) several obvious issues are not permitted to be changed, and iii) they must amend the existing charter rather than throw it out completely (probably because this would not be consistent with the second point).

Hardly a controversial decision I would think.

[Crushdepth]

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

Which is what they should have done in the first place, since it would have been less controversial (ie. easier) to get what they want this way. Now if they have any sense at all, they will announce which parts of the charter they think should be amended, and how, so that there can be a public debate about it.

Or they could just keep it a "secret" and start another shitfight.

[whybother]

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.

I read it as, they need to have a referendum before they can do a wholesale rewrite. They don't say anything about referenda on individual changes.

Sent from my shoe phone

[Bagwan]

Oooooh! A new and posh word for my lexicon. I am indebted to you sir..

What I now want to see on TV is a Robert MacKenzie lookalike and a Swingometer - a soporific device par excellence.

[Bagwan]

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

Which is what they should have done in the first place, since it would have been less controversial (ie. easier) to get what they want this way. Now if they have any sense at all, they will announce which parts of the charter they think should be amended, and how, so that there can be a public debate about it.

Or they could just keep it a "secret" and start another shitfight.

You are advocating a mass debate? That sounds like fun. Will it be in public?

[whybother]

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

They only got 48% of the vote when people were voting for tablets and 300 baht. There is no guarantee that the would win a referendum on whitewashing Thaksin.

Sent from my shoe phone

[retarius]

If I remember the Democrat's campaign against Yingluck was based on the reasoning that she would be her brother's puppet and that she would try to bring him back...but the PEOPLE voted for her and her party anyway.

[whybother]

If I remember the Democrat's campaign against Yingluck was based on the reasoning that she would be her brother's puppet and that she would try to bring him back...but the PEOPLE voted for her and her party anyway.

Who listens to the Democrats, particularly in the north east?

Sent from my shoe phone

[OldeBellPedr]

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?

yes, the current constitution was approved in a referendum

....which it was illegal to campaign against.

It was voted on under military rule. They should revert to the 1997 constitution which, at the time, everyone agreed with.

[h90]

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

I doubt that! All Democrat voter, all Yellow, all "No Vote" and all "all politicians are the same bad, so I don't vote" will vote against it.

Yellow will use the "it is against the monarchy" propaganda and it might work.

Vote Thaksin for 500 Baht is OK, but if the Yellow can make some having a doubt if it is against the king they won't vote for it.

[h90]

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?

yes, the current constitution was approved in a referendum

....which it was illegal to campaign against.

It was voted on under military rule. They should revert to the 1997 constitution which, at the time, everyone agreed with.

The population never agreed or disagreed with the 1997 constitution.

[h90]

If I remember the Democrat's campaign against Yingluck was based on the reasoning that she would be her brother's puppet and that she would try to bring him back...but the PEOPLE voted for her and her party anyway.

And many Democrat supported did not vote at all because of Abhisits poor performance.

[whybother]

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?

yes, the current constitution was approved in a referendum

....which it was illegal to campaign against.

It was voted on under military rule. They should revert to the 1997 constitution which, at the time, everyone agreed with.

Did you do a poll? How else would you know?

Sent from my shoe phone

[kimamey]

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

They only got 48% of the vote when people were voting for tablets and 300 baht. There is no guarantee that the would win a referendum on whitewashing Thaksin.

Sent from my shoe phone

Possibly not if it involves an amnesty for Abhisit and those in the last government who are accused of ordering the army to shoot protesters in 2010.

My feeling is they wanted to get this sorted before it becomes clear that Abhisit ect. weren't responsible for the deaths which would undermine the deal.

[h90]

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.

Yes but it won't happen.

It will be like:

1) We'll have 2 times sonkran and christmas every year

2) Everyone gets an iPhone

3) Everyone will be rich

4) no drugs and happiness

.

.

745) For reconciliation all lawsuits against Prime Ministers who were ousted in a coup 2006 are not valid.

[OZEMADE]

It was all a storm in a teacup and Thaksin will eventually be back.

I see where Yingluck also had all the complaints dropped that were made against her. The Ombudsman stated that there was no case to answer.

A few people on here with egg on their face.

[expat4life]

Don't forget the Judges reiterated its their right to block any charter change they feel will alter the political structure...

Sure, let them pay for a big fat referendum, but put anything in front of the judges that they don't agree with, and its wasted time, effort and money.

well said

[thaicbr]

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.

Why have a referendum on Thaksins return. He can come back any time he wants. Nothing is stopping him.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

[Moruya]

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?

yes, the current constitution was approved in a referendum

....which it was illegal to campaign against.

It was voted on under military rule. They should revert to the 1997 constitution which, at the time, everyone agreed with.

no. The military did not want elections until the public was happy with the constitution

[geriatrickid]

The headline is misleading. NO referendum is needed to amend the constitution.

The court case was related to the proposed discussion of amendments. The court ruled that the referendum is only required if the ENTIRE constitution is rewritten. In fact, the cout gave guidance suggesting that constitution be amended by sections so as to avoid the need for a referendum. Basically, the court tweaked the government's position and tossed a bone to the Democrats and PAD on the structure of the proposed Assembly.

The big loser here is the Democrat Party. Mr. Abhisit hung his hat on this strategy and all that he has done has rallied the Redshirts, demoralized his party and demonstrated that the Democrat Party has no understanding of constitutional law.

Edited July 13, 2012 by geriatrickid

[steffi]

Is it not the case that PT can easily get the votes they need thru referendum? This sounds like a victory that paves the way for a certain amendment very soon.

[PaullyW]

CONSTITUTION COURT

Court drops complaints against charter amendments

The Nation

Photo : Pramote Putthaisong

[snip]

What kind of technology do they have going on here? Are they filming the small TV screen?

[EarthAlien]

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...

Yes,... my thoughts exactly. PTP came to power in July 2011 through a "democratic" vote by the people and look what happened.

If they can win an election by manipulation and throwing money into the pot then it stands to reason that they could and just might do the same thing with a referendum.

We live in hope,.. let's hope for the best and deal with it as it comes!

[Unkomoncents]

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.

Yes, agreed, but this merely delays the inevitable confrontations between a small majority and a relatively powerful minority. This is a seriously divided country. This was an incredibly wise move by the Constitutional Court but it doesn't resolve the underlying problems.

[trainman34014]

Lets just pretend that you can't buy votes for anything in this country and then put the voting papers in front of the 30 million or whatever number you choose. Do you think the majority of largely uneducated people in this country would even know what they were looking at? Would they even understand what exactly they are supposed to be voting for?

I have a 54 year old Sister-in-Law that cannot read or write. She runs a very successful business in the village market, and has done for 30 years, has a nice home, and the family are not poor by a long shot, owning numerous Motorcycles and two cars that are all paid for. Notwithstanding all this; she could not tell you anything about filing a tax form because she has never paid a single satang in direct tax, she could not tell you what is written on a voting form, in a newspaper, and she doesn't understand a word of what they are talking about in terms of politics on her old 80's TV set. She knows nothing of the outside world and doesn't understand what the word 'democracy' means. All she knows is that when it's time to vote somebody from the village leaders house will tell her which box to tick and pass her 100 Baht. I would suggest that there are several million similar 'voters' in this country, so don't even think about any kind of sensible 'true democracy' arriving any time in your foreseeable lifetime !

[gregb]

I think the title of this thread is a little bit deceptive. The CC never actually said a referendum was needed. Indeed, it specifically stated its opinion could not be binding on the legislature. Instead, it "recommended" that a referendum be used to dispel any doubts that this is what the public wanted, because a referendum was used to approve the constitution. However, it could not prevent the PT from ramming through their ill conceived plot to exonerate the criminal fugitive in Dubai if that is what they wanted to do. It only put them on notice that they would be held responsible if they should do something that was later proved to be against the intentions of the constitution.

So the cheering here is not really justified. The court suggested a reasonable compromise, but in the end it was only a suggestion. It was not a mandate. Come August 1st, the Thaksin party could easily decide they want chaos in the streets, and go for the third and final reading of their civil war declaration reconciliation bill. They would still need to be convicted on a charge of real substance after the rewrite had been completed.

I can only hope there was a back room deal made with the power brokers that the current government would respect the court's suggestion, even if they are not actually bound by it.

[samsiam]

So is a civil war still on the cards ??

Just wondering if I should unpack !!