Accused MPs Not Off The Hook Yet, High Court Declares

[webfact]

Accused MPs not off the hook yet, high court declares

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The 416 Cabinet members, MPs and senators who voted in support of the charter amendment bill must now file individual rebuttals to justify their votes, Constitution Court spokesman Somrit Chaiwong said yesterday.

Somrit reminded them that even though the high court ruled the bill constitutional on Friday, the accused are facing charges raised in a separate case.

Last week the 416 applied for a 30-day extension to submit their defence in the hope the outcome of Friday's ruling might help end their legal trouble.

But Somrit said the judicial review would proceed as the two cases had no bearing on each other.

People's Alliance for Democracy leader Chamlong Srimuang is the complainant accusing the 416 of conspiring to topple democratic rule or grab power by unconstitutional means.

The high court has yet to schedule a date to convene and review the case.

In a related development, Election Commission member Sodsri Satayathum said the commission was ready to organise a referendum on charter change if deemed necessary.

The high court should clarify whether the referendum should take place before the charter drafting or after or both, Sodsri said.

She said the court spokesman was not in a position to interpret the verdict.

"The high court should amend its decision, otherwise legal issues related to the referendum would not get resolved," she said in reference to the opportunity for the necessary clarification before the publication of the verdict in the Royal Gazette.

She said each referendum would cost about Bt2.4 billion and require four months to complete.

Pheu Thai Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said his ruling party would today convene a meeting to decide on options for the charter amendment bill.

In the first option, the bill may proceed to its final passage, he said. Or in the second option, the bill will be put on hold pending the referendum vote.

The third option is for the charter change to be limited to amending certain provisions, falling short of writing a new charter, he said, adding the party might also consider other alternatives.

He dismissed the Democrat Party's demand for the exit of the government, arguing the push for charter change was constitutional as per the judicial decision and in line with the campaign pledge.

Pheu Thai MP Kokaew Pikulthong said in his opinion, the party should push for final passage of the bill instead of holding the pre-drafting referendum.

Kokaew said the party had 15 million votes to back up its decision. He conceded, however, he was uncertain whether the party would go along with his idea.

-- The Nation 2012-07-16

[FOODLOVER]

Why does a referendum cost 2.4 billion baht? Holy Crap! Ask for discount!

[MunterHunter]

500b a head per vote... they need to buy a lot of votes to get this past

[bangkokrick]

Why does a referendum cost 2.4 billion baht? Holy Crap! Ask for discount!

Demand a recount!

[OzMick]

CC : "Why did you vote for a complete re-write of the constitution?"

PTP MP : "Thaksin told me to do it."

[Skywalker69]

"Kokaew said the party had 15 million votes to back up its decision. He conceded, however, he was uncertain whether the party would go along with his idea"

That´s how much of a Democrat he is.

[Moruya]

Why does a referendum cost 2.4 billion baht? Holy Crap! Ask for discount!

I guess it's around 80 Baht per vote.

I'm sure "others" will invest a lot more.

[whybother]

If the Constitution court has ruled that there was no intent to overthrow the "system", why is this still an issue?

[smedly]

I think the next step should be to reveal exactly what changes they want and why - transparency - but of course revealing that would most likely end this government very abruptly

[animatic]

CC : "Why did you vote for a complete re-write of the constitution?"

PTP MP : "Thaksin told me to do it."

Or he would publicly display my pre-signed resignation letter

that he is holding over my head like the sword of Damocles.

[animatic]

If the Constitution court has ruled that there was no intent to overthrow the "system", why is this still an issue?

That is in the bills as there were presented at that time.

What the final intent was, as stated by EVERY SINGLE MP

stating their written reasons for doing it is another matter.

[smedly]

If the Constitution court has ruled that there was no intent to overthrow the "system", why is this still an issue?

no evidence in the petitions to support intent - your statement is missleading

and the reason there is no evidence is because the PT/Reds have not officially declared the reasons or given any details as to why they want the constitutional rewrite - it's so far all hearsay from the Dems - if they had declared the reasons I suspect the CC court ruling would have been entirely different - keep the feet for dancing there pal

[phiphidon]

If the Constitution court has ruled that there was no intent to overthrow the "system", why is this still an issue?

That is in the bills as there were presented at that time.

What the final intent was, as stated by EVERY SINGLE MP

stating their written reasons for doing it is another matter.

Well if the final intent has been proved that there was no cumulative intent to overthrow the head of state etc. there was obviously no individual intent. It's not as if MP Somchai is going to state

"I Somchai do honestly declare that by voting for the change of Article 291 so that a CDA can be formed I was looking to overthrow the head of state etc."

Surely only members of the PAD, it's supporters and the 5 petitioners of Article 68 can be that stupid to believe that is the case?

However this is what happens when the CC has different interpretations of the law each time it looks at something.

[Reasonableman]

"Well if the final intent has been proved that there was no cumulative intent to overthrow the head of state etc. there was obviously no individual intent".

Does anyone follow that logic?

[phiphidon]

CC : "Why did you vote for a complete re-write of the constitution?"

PTP MP : "Thaksin told me to do it."

Or he would publicly display my pre-signed resignation letter

that he is holding over my head like the sword of Damocles.

Unless you know different with an identified source ,that "pre-signed resignation letter" is just a myth promulgated by the english language newspapers.

Edited July 16, 2012 by phiphidon

[smedly]

Most of the posters on this thread don't actually understand the issue here - you need to read the OP again

[OzMick]

If the Constitution court has ruled that there was no intent to overthrow the "system", why is this still an issue?

That is in the bills as there were presented at that time.

What the final intent was, as stated by EVERY SINGLE MP

stating their written reasons for doing it is another matter.

Well if the final intent has been proved that there was no cumulative intent to overthrow the head of state etc. there was obviously no individual intent. It's not as if MP Somchai is going to state

"I Somchai do honestly declare that by voting for the change of Article 291 so that a CDA can be formed I was looking to overthrow the head of state etc."

Surely only members of the PAD, it's supporters and the 5 petitioners of Article 68 can be that stupid to believe that is the case?

However this is what happens when the CC has different interpretations of the law each time it looks at something.

Only one person has to have that intent, if he is the one giving the orders. Or do you honestly believe that every MP reads, scrutinises and contemplates every bill before voting, rather than following the party line? Thaksin thinks, PTP follows orders.

[phiphidon]

If the Constitution court has ruled that there was no intent to overthrow the "system", why is this still an issue?

That is in the bills as there were presented at that time.

What the final intent was, as stated by EVERY SINGLE MP

stating their written reasons for doing it is another matter.

Well if the final intent has been proved that there was no cumulative intent to overthrow the head of state etc. there was obviously no individual intent. It's not as if MP Somchai is going to state

"I Somchai do honestly declare that by voting for the change of Article 291 so that a CDA can be formed I was looking to overthrow the head of state etc."

Surely only members of the PAD, it's supporters and the 5 petitioners of Article 68 can be that stupid to believe that is the case?

However this is what happens when the CC has different interpretations of the law each time it looks at something.

Only one person has to have that intent, if he is the one giving the orders. Or do you honestly believe that every MP reads, scrutinises and contemplates every bill before voting, rather than following the party line? Thaksin thinks, PTP follows orders.

So now the CC are mind readers? I cannot believe how many times I've had to repeat this. By following the constitutional way to pave the way to set up a CDA to amend the constitution you go by Section 291 which specifically states that no change can be made to the constitution that will overthrow the Head of State. End of Story. There was no need or substance to invoke Section 68. Even the President of the CC says that the way to amend the constitution is via amending Section 291

(See second video on this page http://asiancorrespondent.com/85609/recusal-of-judges-and-justice-in-thailand/)

[metisdead]

An insulting post has been removed as well as a reply.

[OzMick]

That is in the bills as there were presented at that time.

What the final intent was, as stated by EVERY SINGLE MP

stating their written reasons for doing it is another matter.

Well if the final intent has been proved that there was no cumulative intent to overthrow the head of state etc. there was obviously no individual intent. It's not as if MP Somchai is going to state

"I Somchai do honestly declare that by voting for the change of Article 291 so that a CDA can be formed I was looking to overthrow the head of state etc."

Surely only members of the PAD, it's supporters and the 5 petitioners of Article 68 can be that stupid to believe that is the case?

However this is what happens when the CC has different interpretations of the law each time it looks at something.

Only one person has to have that intent, if he is the one giving the orders. Or do you honestly believe that every MP reads, scrutinises and contemplates every bill before voting, rather than following the party line? Thaksin thinks, PTP follows orders.

So now the CC are mind readers? I cannot believe how many times I've had to repeat this. By following the constitutional way to pave the way to set up a CDA to amend the constitution you go by Section 291 which specifically states that no change can be made to the constitution that will overthrow the Head of State. End of Story. There was no need or substance to invoke Section 68. Even the President of the CC says that the way to amend the constitution is via amending Section 291

(See second video on this page http://asiancorrespo...ce-in-thailand/)

I was refuting your garbled nonsense regarding final, cumulative and individual intent, in that there has only to be one individual intent when the sheep are obeying the sheepdog. Does your reply in any way relate to that statement?

[h90]

Why does a referendum cost 2.4 billion baht? Holy Crap! Ask for discount!

I would like to know what costs 2.4 billion on that??

[phiphidon]

Well if the final intent has been proved that there was no cumulative intent to overthrow the head of state etc. there was obviously no individual intent. It's not as if MP Somchai is going to state

"I Somchai do honestly declare that by voting for the change of Article 291 so that a CDA can be formed I was looking to overthrow the head of state etc."

Surely only members of the PAD, it's supporters and the 5 petitioners of Article 68 can be that stupid to believe that is the case?

However this is what happens when the CC has different interpretations of the law each time it looks at something.

Only one person has to have that intent, if he is the one giving the orders. Or do you honestly believe that every MP reads, scrutinises and contemplates every bill before voting, rather than following the party line? Thaksin thinks, PTP follows orders.

So now the CC are mind readers? I cannot believe how many times I've had to repeat this. By following the constitutional way to pave the way to set up a CDA to amend the constitution you go by Section 291 which specifically states that no change can be made to the constitution that will overthrow the Head of State. End of Story. There was no need or substance to invoke Section 68. Even the President of the CC says that the way to amend the constitution is via amending Section 291

(See second video on this page http://asiancorrespo...ce-in-thailand/)

I was refuting your garbled nonsense regarding final, cumulative and individual intent, in that there has only to be one individual intent when the sheep are obeying the sheepdog. Does your reply in any way relate to that statement?

Yes, try reading it.

[animatic]

If the Constitution court has ruled that there was no intent to overthrow the "system", why is this still an issue?

That is in the bills as there were presented at that time.

What the final intent was, as stated by EVERY SINGLE MP

stating their written reasons for doing it is another matter.

Well if the final intent has been proved that there was no cumulative intent to overthrow the head of state etc. there was obviously no individual intent. It's not as if MP Somchai is going to state

"I Somchai do honestly declare that by voting for the change of Article 291 so that a CDA can be formed I was looking to overthrow the head of state etc."

Surely only members of the PAD, it's supporters and the 5 petitioners of Article 68 can be that stupid to believe that is the case?

However this is what happens when the CC has different interpretations of the law each time it looks at something.

Nothing about intent was proved.

Only that the documents as written didn't break the constitution.

Nothing more -nothing less.

Intent may be proved from the MP's statements,

especially if one or two (accidentally) actually tell the truth...

Edited July 16, 2012 by animatic

[SuneeTH]

Why does a referendum cost 2.4 billion baht? Holy Crap! Ask for discount!

I would like to know what costs 2.4 billion on that??

500 baht per Red head for voters outside Yellow Bangkok?

[phiphidon]

If the Constitution court has ruled that there was no intent to overthrow the "system", why is this still an issue?

That is in the bills as there were presented at that time.

What the final intent was, as stated by EVERY SINGLE MP

stating their written reasons for doing it is another matter.

Well if the final intent has been proved that there was no cumulative intent to overthrow the head of state etc. there was obviously no individual intent. It's not as if MP Somchai is going to state

"I Somchai do honestly declare that by voting for the change of Article 291 so that a CDA can be formed I was looking to overthrow the head of state etc."

Surely only members of the PAD, it's supporters and the 5 petitioners of Article 68 can be that stupid to believe that is the case?

However this is what happens when the CC has different interpretations of the law each time it looks at something.

Nothing about intent was proved.

Only that the documents as written didn't break the constitution.

Nothing more -nothing less.

Intent may be proved from the MP's statements,

especially if one or two (accidentally) actually tell the truth...

Seeing as they were voting to amend Section 291 so as to form a constitution drafting assembly/agency, I can't see what more you are going to get from an MP's statement especially if they tell the truth.

Q. Do you wish to put your vote towards amending Section 291 so as to form a CDA.

A. Yes.

Why do you and others attribute some dark deeds to this I don't know. Well I do know, the truth is inconveniently banal and does not fit in with the image of the PTP smuggling thaksin back in with full pardon and money repayment having rewritten the constitution (incidentally coercing the entire CDA to do so) to make such a thing happen. Abhisit and his myth machine has a lot to answer for.

[smutcakes]

Please can someone tell me who is allowed to make these complaints which are going to be investigated? I am curious as to what position Chamlong is in to file this complaint, and who do the courts take complaints from? I am not sure whether Chamlong is part of an official political party, or anyone could file a complaint like this?

It seems a lot of work load etc for the courts if anyone in the country can file a complaint which will be investigated by the courts.

[hellodolly]

That is in the bills as there were presented at that time.

What the final intent was, as stated by EVERY SINGLE MP

stating their written reasons for doing it is another matter.

Well if the final intent has been proved that there was no cumulative intent to overthrow the head of state etc. there was obviously no individual intent. It's not as if MP Somchai is going to state

"I Somchai do honestly declare that by voting for the change of Article 291 so that a CDA can be formed I was looking to overthrow the head of state etc."

Surely only members of the PAD, it's supporters and the 5 petitioners of Article 68 can be that stupid to believe that is the case?

However this is what happens when the CC has different interpretations of the law each time it looks at something.

Nothing about intent was proved.

Only that the documents as written didn't break the constitution.

Nothing more -nothing less.

Intent may be proved from the MP's statements,

especially if one or two (accidentally) actually tell the truth...

Seeing as they were voting to amend Section 291 so as to form a constitution drafting assembly/agency, I can't see what more you are going to get from an MP's statement especially if they tell the truth.

Q. Do you wish to put your vote towards amending Section 291 so as to form a CDA.

A. Yes.

Why do you and others attribute some dark deeds to this I don't know. Well I do know, the truth is inconveniently banal and does not fit in with the image of the PTP smuggling thaksin back in with full pardon and money repayment having rewritten the constitution (incidentally coercing the entire CDA to do so) to make such a thing happen. Abhisit and his myth machine has a lot to answer for.

And now you know the mind of every PT member.

And surprise surprise they all think just like you do.

You truly are amazing.

[ramrod711]

I still don't understand why a referendum is required to draft a constitution, or constitutional changes. Surely it makes more sense to allow a draft to be drawn up and then let the people vote on what the final draft contains. It is totally ridiculous to spend 2.4 billion baht on a blank cheque.

[kimamey]

CC : "Why did you vote for a complete re-write of the constitution?"

PTP MP : "Thaksin told me to do it."

Or he would publicly display my pre-signed resignation letter

that he is holding over my head like the sword of Damocles.

Unless you know different with an identified source ,that "pre-signed resignation letter" is just a myth promulgated by the english language newspapers.

I've often wondered about this as well as I can't see a pre signed resignation letter being of any use if it's not dated. Just doesn't add up to me.

[rubl]

Somrit reminded them that even though the high court ruled the bill constitutional on Friday, the accused are facing charges raised in a separate case.

People's Alliance for Democracy leader Chamlong Srimuang is the complainant accusing the 416 of conspiring to topple democratic rule or grab power by unconstitutional means.

The bill proposed to amend the charter item 291 was ruled not unconstitutional, that cleared the government and threw out one accusation. The other accusation is still being deliberated.

Of course as some members like to remind us frequently, no one knows what the heck the CDA will be doing in re-writing the constitution once the bill amending #291 has been passed and become legal. All for the good of the people in general and DL in particular, or just a complete re-write for the fun of it?