Constitution Court Acted Outside Its Powers, Says Nitirat

[binjalin]

They are AGHAST that I am more sympathetic to the red cause and I actually care what happens to the poor here and so, as on TVF, we argue a lot.

As much as i may disagree with some of the members here, i don't think any of us would spend so much time and argue so passionately, if we didn't care about what happens to the poor here. If you have friends who don't, my advise would be, find new friends.

The reason why i am not sympathetic to the red cause, is funnily enough the same reason why you are. I care about what happens to the poor. The red cause does not (much like the yellow cause).

I can only say, truthfully, that some of my friends, actually, do not care about the poor etc. and just think about 'their' houses, 'their' wives, giks, girl friends and whatever and they, tend to be, ferociously yellow and pro-Abhisit and the amart (people hate it when I use that term but it's a true one).

You might be right in choice of friends

BTW I 'get it' that some, like yourself and some others I have some respect for on here, do (genuinely) believe that the red cause is flawed and that the Dem cause is more apt but I think you are wrong... for many reasons... (not linked to red mob violence or Thaksin).

[rubl]

I can only say, truthfully, that some of my friends, actually, do not care about the poor etc. and just think about 'their' houses, 'their' wives, giks, girl friends and whatever and they, tend to be, ferociously yellow and pro-Abhisit and the amart (people hate it when I use that term but it's a true one).

You might be right in choice of friends

BTW I 'get it' that some, like yourself and some others I have some respect for on here, do (genuinely) believe that the red cause is flawed and that the Dem cause is more apt but I think you are wrong... for many reasons... (not linked to red mob violence or Thaksin).

No offence, genuinely interested. Those friends with wifes, giks, girlfriends, whatever, do they have children here ?

[nurofiend]

Added to which they don't even live in Thailand, have no commitment, no stake, no home here, no family here, no job here, no life here at all, safely ensconced in another country drinking coffee over their keyboards and amusing themselves lobbing cheap propagandist potshots at the residents... and these people are in it for....... What? Do tell.......

'they'? I have lived here for years and traveled extensively in Thailand and have many friends here. If you are referring tp some posters then I would have to agree (for once) that living here and having a 'stake' here does give a better perspective AND I respect the commentary more but (and you won't like this bit) most of 'those' are in the yellow/traditionalist/don't like change to 'their' Thailand camp yes, as you say, don't live here.

see this is what his post was aimed at, knowing he was talking crap.. he was just fishing to know people's personal business.

fair enough that you don't mind telling him but personally i feel no obligation to tell a stranger on the internet what my personal business in thailand is.

[binjalin]

I can only say, truthfully, that some of my friends, actually, do not care about the poor etc. and just think about 'their' houses, 'their' wives, giks, girl friends and whatever and they, tend to be, ferociously yellow and pro-Abhisit and the amart (people hate it when I use that term but it's a true one).

You might be right in choice of friends

BTW I 'get it' that some, like yourself and some others I have some respect for on here, do (genuinely) believe that the red cause is flawed and that the Dem cause is more apt but I think you are wrong... for many reasons... (not linked to red mob violence or Thaksin).

No offence, genuinely interested. Those friends with wifes, giks, girlfriends, whatever, do they have children here ?

yes some do, born here - second families usually - I know of many actually. Failed first families (or grown up) back in 'farangland'

You know the story - came here and the one common denominator? ALL their new Thai wives are at least 20 years younger and most 30 years

[binjalin]

Added to which they don't even live in Thailand, have no commitment, no stake, no home here, no family here, no job here, no life here at all, safely ensconced in another country drinking coffee over their keyboards and amusing themselves lobbing cheap propagandist potshots at the residents... and these people are in it for....... What? Do tell.......

'they'? I have lived here for years and traveled extensively in Thailand and have many friends here. If you are referring tp some posters then I would have to agree (for once) that living here and having a 'stake' here does give a better perspective AND I respect the commentary more but (and you won't like this bit) most of 'those' are in the yellow/traditionalist/don't like change to 'their' Thailand camp yes, as you say, don't live here.

see this is what his post was aimed at, knowing he was talking crap.. he was just fishing to know people's personal business.

fair enough that you don't mind telling him but personally i feel no obligation to tell a stranger on the internet what my personal business in thailand is.

tell him what? we know what and who he is and what he stands for - I have told him zero but I do feel, with respect, that it IS relevant if you live here or not

[nurofiend]

Added to which they don't even live in Thailand, have no commitment, no stake, no home here, no family here, no job here, no life here at all, safely ensconced in another country drinking coffee over their keyboards and amusing themselves lobbing cheap propagandist potshots at the residents... and these people are in it for....... What? Do tell.......

'they'? I have lived here for years and traveled extensively in Thailand and have many friends here. If you are referring tp some posters then I would have to agree (for once) that living here and having a 'stake' here does give a better perspective AND I respect the commentary more but (and you won't like this bit) most of 'those' are in the yellow/traditionalist/don't like change to 'their' Thailand camp yes, as you say, don't live here.

see this is what his post was aimed at, knowing he was talking crap.. he was just fishing to know people's personal business.

fair enough that you don't mind telling him but personally i feel no obligation to tell a stranger on the internet what my personal business in thailand is.

tell him what? we know what and who he is and what he stands for - I have told him zero but I do feel, with respect, that it IS relevant if you live here or not

i'm not having a go at you, i didn't mean it to sound like you fell for something if that's how it came across.

also i'm not saying living here is irrelevant because i agree that it's not, i'm just saying personally i wouldn't justify anything to a post that was made in that manner.

i was having a go at his post itself by pointing it out to you what i felt about it, rather than what i felt about you replying, that's all.

Edited July 26, 2012 by nurofiend

[Moruya]

i'm not having a go at you, i didn't mean it to sound like you fell for something if that's how it came across.

also i'm not saying living here is irrelevant because i agree that it's not, i'm just saying personally i wouldn't justify anything to a post that was made in that manner.

i was having a go at his post itself by pointing it out to you what i felt about it, rather than what i felt about you replying, that's all.

Oh! Will the red fur start to fly?

Parliament will be back in session next week and you will have some more PT farts to sniff.

[rixalex]

As much as i may disagree with some of the members here, i don't think any of us would spend so much time and argue so passionately, if we didn't care about what happens to the poor here. If you have friends who don't, my advise would be, find new friends.

The reason why i am not sympathetic to the red cause, is funnily enough the same reason why you are. I care about what happens to the poor. The red cause does not (much like the yellow cause).

I can only say, truthfully, that some of my friends, actually, do not care about the poor etc. and just think about 'their' houses, 'their' wives, giks, girl friends and whatever and they, tend to be, ferociously yellow and pro-Abhisit and the amart (people hate it when I use that term but it's a true one).

Well they sound to me like horrible people you would be better off without. I don't think however they reflect much of the opinion expressed here. I can't for example think of anyone i would describe as being "ferociously yellow". A lot of people "ferociously anti red", yes indeed. I include myself. And it's not that i think the yellows are much better. But with the yellows, i feel that what they are and what they represent is pretty darn obvious to all. They are a danger but it's all there on the surface and easy to see. With the reds on the other hand, they do a much better job of masquerading as something they are not. They masquerade as giving a shit about the poor. They don't. They masquerade as not being part of the deeply entrenched wealthy elite (amart) who have for generations been helping maintain the economic, social and educational gulf between rich and poor. They most certainly are a part of that group. They masquerade as being pro-democracy and anti coup, when their leader himself rose to prominence thanks to a coup, and when their politicians continue to use anti democratic means to get elected, and then when they are, they attempt to remove or render powerless, as many of the democratic checks and balances in place as possible. I could go on...

And to repeat, it's not that i feel the yellows are much different or better. It's just that the yellows don't scare me. The reds do. I see potential in them to give Thailand what Hun Sen has "given" Cambodia, or what Marcos' "gave" the Philippines. The foundations are in place: a large poorly educated (through of course no fault of their own) downtrodden rural working class ready to rise up and grasp at anything or anyone that can successfully sell the false belief that they are different, that they care.

[animatic]

People can have opinions of their own, that may parallel a certain camps position, or some of them, yet they are holding opinions they came up with separately, and with no actual contact with either color group as a direct influence, more of simply observing that group, among many others.

But because of their held positions on some points,

they are lumped into full compliance with all points of a color camps platforms,

and that is rarely, very, very rarely a true assessment.

But it fits a demonization of all opposition methodology very well.

Edited July 27, 2012 by animatic

[Thai at Heart]

As much as i may disagree with some of the members here, i don't think any of us would spend so much time and argue so passionately, if we didn't care about what happens to the poor here. If you have friends who don't, my advise would be, find new friends.

The reason why i am not sympathetic to the red cause, is funnily enough the same reason why you are. I care about what happens to the poor. The red cause does not (much like the yellow cause).

I can only say, truthfully, that some of my friends, actually, do not care about the poor etc. and just think about 'their' houses, 'their' wives, giks, girl friends and whatever and they, tend to be, ferociously yellow and pro-Abhisit and the amart (people hate it when I use that term but it's a true one).

Well they sound to me like horrible people you would be better off without. I don't think however they reflect much of the opinion expressed here. I can't for example think of anyone i would describe as being "ferociously yellow". A lot of people "ferociously anti red", yes indeed. I include myself. And it's not that i think the yellows are much better. But with the yellows, i feel that what they are and what they represent is pretty darn obvious to all. They are a danger but it's all there on the surface and easy to see. With the reds on the other hand, they do a much better job of masquerading as something they are not. They masquerade as giving a shit about the poor. They don't. They masquerade as not being part of the deeply entrenched wealthy elite (amart) who have for generations been helping maintain the economic, social and educational gulf between rich and poor. They most certainly are a part of that group. They masquerade as being pro-democracy and anti coup, when their leader himself rose to prominence thanks to a coup, and when their politicians continue to use anti democratic means to get elected, and then when they are, they attempt to remove or render powerless, as many of the democratic checks and balances in place as possible. I could go on...

And to repeat, it's not that i feel the yellows are much different or better. It's just that the yellows don't scare me. The reds do. I see potential in them to give Thailand what Hun Sen has "given" Cambodia, or what Marcos' "gave" the Philippines. The foundations are in place: a large poorly educated (through of course no fault of their own) downtrodden rural working class ready to rise up and grasp at anything or anyone that can successfully sell the false belief that they are different, that they care.

For the longterm good of the country, Abhisit should ditch the Democrats and offer something real as an alternative. First order of business, land tax reform. The status quo has to change, if you don't want red, the Dems are a horrible bunch of gangsters too. We need a third way. Woops, look where that got everyone.

[binjalin]

As much as i may disagree with some of the members here, i don't think any of us would spend so much time and argue so passionately, if we didn't care about what happens to the poor here. If you have friends who don't, my advise would be, find new friends.

The reason why i am not sympathetic to the red cause, is funnily enough the same reason why you are. I care about what happens to the poor. The red cause does not (much like the yellow cause).

I can only say, truthfully, that some of my friends, actually, do not care about the poor etc. and just think about 'their' houses, 'their' wives, giks, girl friends and whatever and they, tend to be, ferociously yellow and pro-Abhisit and the amart (people hate it when I use that term but it's a true one).

Well they sound to me like horrible people you would be better off without. I don't think however they reflect much of the opinion expressed here. I can't for example think of anyone i would describe as being "ferociously yellow". A lot of people "ferociously anti red", yes indeed. I include myself. And it's not that i think the yellows are much better. But with the yellows, i feel that what they are and what they represent is pretty darn obvious to all. They are a danger but it's all there on the surface and easy to see. With the reds on the other hand, they do a much better job of masquerading as something they are not. They masquerade as giving a shit about the poor. They don't. They masquerade as not being part of the deeply entrenched wealthy elite (amart) who have for generations been helping maintain the economic, social and educational gulf between rich and poor. They most certainly are a part of that group. They masquerade as being pro-democracy and anti coup, when their leader himself rose to prominence thanks to a coup, and when their politicians continue to use anti democratic means to get elected, and then when they are, they attempt to remove or render powerless, as many of the democratic checks and balances in place as possible. I could go on...

And to repeat, it's not that i feel the yellows are much different or better. It's just that the yellows don't scare me. The reds do. I see potential in them to give Thailand what Hun Sen has "given" Cambodia, or what Marcos' "gave" the Philippines. The foundations are in place: a large poorly educated (through of course no fault of their own) downtrodden rural working class ready to rise up and grasp at anything or anyone that can successfully sell the false belief that they are different, that they care.

don't agree with all your comment but... yes the reds scare me a bit too but more because of their lack of control and 'thinking ability'. Yellow's scare me too because they are the tool of the 'traditionalist amart' and, in the long run, that is more detrimental to Thailand. A third way would be better.

[binjalin]

As much as i may disagree with some of the members here, i don't think any of us would spend so much time and argue so passionately, if we didn't care about what happens to the poor here. If you have friends who don't, my advise would be, find new friends.

The reason why i am not sympathetic to the red cause, is funnily enough the same reason why you are. I care about what happens to the poor. The red cause does not (much like the yellow cause).

I can only say, truthfully, that some of my friends, actually, do not care about the poor etc. and just think about 'their' houses, 'their' wives, giks, girl friends and whatever and they, tend to be, ferociously yellow and pro-Abhisit and the amart (people hate it when I use that term but it's a true one).

Well they sound to me like horrible people you would be better off without. I don't think however they reflect much of the opinion expressed here. I can't for example think of anyone i would describe as being "ferociously yellow". A lot of people "ferociously anti red", yes indeed. I include myself. And it's not that i think the yellows are much better. But with the yellows, i feel that what they are and what they represent is pretty darn obvious to all. They are a danger but it's all there on the surface and easy to see. With the reds on the other hand, they do a much better job of masquerading as something they are not. They masquerade as giving a shit about the poor. They don't. They masquerade as not being part of the deeply entrenched wealthy elite (amart) who have for generations been helping maintain the economic, social and educational gulf between rich and poor. They most certainly are a part of that group. They masquerade as being pro-democracy and anti coup, when their leader himself rose to prominence thanks to a coup, and when their politicians continue to use anti democratic means to get elected, and then when they are, they attempt to remove or render powerless, as many of the democratic checks and balances in place as possible. I could go on...

And to repeat, it's not that i feel the yellows are much different or better. It's just that the yellows don't scare me. The reds do. I see potential in them to give Thailand what Hun Sen has "given" Cambodia, or what Marcos' "gave" the Philippines. The foundations are in place: a large poorly educated (through of course no fault of their own) downtrodden rural working class ready to rise up and grasp at anything or anyone that can successfully sell the false belief that they are different, that they care.

For the longterm good of the country, Abhisit should ditch the Democrats and offer something real as an alternative. First order of business, land tax reform. The status quo has to change, if you don't want red, the Dems are a horrible bunch of gangsters too. We need a third way. Woops, look where that got everyone.

if only we had a real 'leader' but I see noone and nothing - from either side

BUT one piece of good news (if it happens) Suthep has threatened to quit politics and THAT would be a huge blessing for Thailand and for the Dems IF it happened as he is one of the reasons why so many hate the Dems - but a new, third alternative would be a step forward.

Maybe a 'New Dems' party ridding itself of it's 'amart' deferential connections??? now that would be a sweeping vote winner but is a pipe dream alas *sigh*

[rixalex]

For the longterm good of the country, Abhisit should ditch the Democrats and offer something real as an alternative. First order of business, land tax reform. The status quo has to change, if you don't want red, the Dems are a horrible bunch of gangsters too. We need a third way. Woops, look where that got everyone.

I agree with your comment about the Dems, but to me they are like the yellows in that very few are under any false pretences about what they are or what they represent.

[Crushdepth]

BUT one piece of good news (if it happens) Suthep has threatened to quit politics

Is that a threat or a promise

[binjalin]

BUT one piece of good news (if it happens) Suthep has threatened to quit politics

Is that a threat or a promise

we can only hope

he said 'if the Senate rules he abused his power while in government' he would quit politics

but I we should not put out the bunting quite yet

[Noistar]

Phiphidon's reply to my earlier post was that the Administrative Court was the control mechanism for the Government.

However, my investigations have shown that the Administrative Court deals with (shall we say) day to day issues and adjudicates accordingly.

The Constitutional Court limits itself to matters concerning the Constitution.

My reading matter, including the Wikipedia article on the Constitutional Court of Thailand, agrees that the CC has assumed that status, although there is much debate as to whether they should.

So like it or not, the CC is exercising the scope of its powers correctly.

So the outstanding argument is "should they have got involved?".

IMHO there's no point arguing that they made a judgement that was in their remit.

IMHO, the common- sense balance of their adjudication shows their value. I hope any replacement control mechanism can show the same impartiality

Well the "common- sense balance of their adjudication", in your opinion that is, has led to a situation where anyone in the country can now make a spurious claim of Article 68 on any action the government takes that "may" threaten the overthrow of the constitution with the King as it's Head of State etc.

This means that the CC can be called in to affect/slow down/halt the parliamentary process at the drop of a hat - or more

precisely somebody "assuming" that the goverment is doing "something" or "may be doing something in the future" or "thinking about doing" or "thinking about doing something in the future" that "may" involve the overthrow of the State can maliciously involve the CC in a sphere they should have no influence over. They are now officially political (as if they weren't before).

The Balance of Power has been tipped - it was alreadly listing heavily after the Junta written constitution - but now it's time to man the lifeboats - Rule by Law has arrived and it's not the government that is doing it.

But you're fine with that? - time to move beyond Wiki................

You seem to share some attributes of the ruling party - an obsession with going round in circles rather than actually achieve anything.

My points were factual

The current state of the Thai Constitution is that the CC controls changes to the Constitution. Correct me.

My comment that the CC assumed their powers by means which has not been fully accepted. By the Supreme Administrative Court, not TVF posters. Correct me.

My comment that the CC made a judgement that was in their remit. Correct me.

My comment that their is an outstanding query as to whether it should have been passed to the CC. Agreed or not.

Now I would love to go to my grave wearing my "Phiphidon thinks I'm worthy of posting on TVF", but perhaps I've better things to do.

You apparently know everything. Your inability to think outside your box is obvious.

I hope you are happy when the ruling party has thrown away it's chance take Thailand forward by using its majority to do good for Thailand.

Changing a Constitution for reasons which don't benefit Thailand doesn't seem a high priority

My points are each -In My Humble Opinion.

If you want to get stressed feel free. I'm thinking of Thailand, and its future.

If my not having perfect knowledge doesn't meet your standards or match your opinions - tough. Give the badge to someone else.

Well apparently someone seems to be having a bad day and my post has been removed. I'm not going to waste my time answering you again.

much appreciated

[Noistar]

feel free to add your name to the list. Rubl, UYunla, Rman...

excellent post!!! reading the DPM has come out with some great potential amendments to the Constitution today and let's hope he can get this through - what a wonderful day for Thailand it would be REAL progress at last and, if successful, a lasting legacy for the PTP.

Still on topic for my question:

What is preventing the ruling party from governing and actually helping Thailand with the current Constitution?

Changing the constitution is part of the promises made by the ruling party as part of their platform to govern. Surely improvements to the constitution could be considered part of governing and also beneficial to Thailand, could it not?

Some proponents of the 2007 charter argued that people should support the charter at the time, precisely because it could be changed (ie: improved) later.

And although it might seem like it sometimes on TV, this is not the only thing happening in government at the moment, so an accurate reply to your question,

"What is preventing the ruling party from governing and actually helping Thailand with the current Constitution?"

would be "nothing" as that is what is currently happening day to day.

Preceded by IMHO

Despite your attempt to side-track my point, I'm sure many posters realise that I am talking about priorities.

EVERY Political Party comes in with a raft of 'promises', some of which they are more sincere about than others.Doesn't matter if they're red, yellow, orange, sky-blue pink or whatever - they're politicians.

I assume (please correct me) that your last point is that nothing is stopping them so they are busy implementing other parts of their manifesto.

If that is the case, I am impressed and apologise for thinking otherwise (i'm being sincere, not sarcastic)

But it still doesn't negate my point that they have a full term to revise the Constitution. If they can achieve other goals without changing the Constitution then carry on.

Their promise to change the Constitution can be pursued alongside their more tangible mandate promises.

Are you concerned that changes to the Constitution MAY be mishandled? If they are, aren't we likely to witness further unrest?

I hope we're on the same hymn sheet, wanting to see benefits for the whole of Thailand, from a ruling party with such a massive majority.

[tlansford]

feel free to add your name to the list. Rubl, UYunla, Rman...

excellent post!!! reading the DPM has come out with some great potential amendments to the Constitution today and let's hope he can get this through - what a wonderful day for Thailand it would be REAL progress at last and, if successful, a lasting legacy for the PTP.

Still on topic for my question:

What is preventing the ruling party from governing and actually helping Thailand with the current Constitution?

Changing the constitution is part of the promises made by the ruling party as part of their platform to govern. Surely improvements to the constitution could be considered part of governing and also beneficial to Thailand, could it not?

Some proponents of the 2007 charter argued that people should support the charter at the time, precisely because it could be changed (ie: improved) later.

And although it might seem like it sometimes on TV, this is not the only thing happening in government at the moment, so an accurate reply to your question,

"What is preventing the ruling party from governing and actually helping Thailand with the current Constitution?"

would be "nothing" as that is what is currently happening day to day.

Preceded by IMHO

Despite your attempt to side-track my point, I'm sure many posters realise that I am talking about priorities.

EVERY Political Party comes in with a raft of 'promises', some of which they are more sincere about than others.Doesn't matter if they're red, yellow, orange, sky-blue pink or whatever - they're politicians.

I assume (please correct me) that your last point is that nothing is stopping them so they are busy implementing other parts of their manifesto.

If that is the case, I am impressed and apologise for thinking otherwise (i'm being sincere, not sarcastic)

But it still doesn't negate my point that they have a full term to revise the Constitution. If they can achieve other goals without changing the Constitution then carry on.

Their promise to change the Constitution can be pursued alongside their more tangible mandate promises.

Are you concerned that changes to the Constitution MAY be mishandled? If they are, aren't we likely to witness further unrest?

I hope we're on the same hymn sheet, wanting to see benefits for the whole of Thailand, from a ruling party with such a massive majority.

There is no attempt to sidetrack your point unless your point was to imply that they are not governing and trying (in their way) to help Thailand.

I'll come back to priorities, but first the campaign promises. Thailand is a bit different since a politician can make a campaign promise in other countries and then backtrack faster than a TVF poster. But in Thailand, doing that can run the politician into legal trouble. It's against the law.

As for priorities, the minimum wage, the women's fund, the OTPC, new car / house credit, rice price supports, the dealing with the floods, the flood prevention planning, and a host of other things all came prior to the charter change. This is why I responded 'nothing is stopping them' in reply to your question. While it is clearly possible to take issue with any of the above items, to say that the current gov't is not governing and is only interested in 1 man does not match current events at all.

It is another priority for the government to ... let's say, help to resolve the Thaksin issue. They call it "reconciliation" and their opponents call it "amnesty for one man". What ever you want to call it, and how ever it comes about, it involves bringing Thaksin back without him being punished, and probably getting him back some of his assets, and probably the most important, providing some guarantee against further legal action... For his opponents, it involves either (1) preventing all of that, or (2) getting the most out of the deal for themselves as possible...

IMO, I don't see Thaksin coming home due to changes in the Charter. Amnesty bills could be a different story. In the end, I still feel that he will work out his own deal with the necessary people.

If that is true, then the charter change itself is not as sinister as people here typically view it. In that regard, and it is my opinion, the charter changes are yet another campaign promise being implemented. Sure, if the government is able to change the charter and, for example, remove the amnesty for the coup perpetrators, that would be leverage for Thaksin in his negotiations. (but I doubt that will ever happen). But to be honest, several things have been declared off limits by the government already, the LM laws for example. Also, by annulling the actions of the post-coup AEC, that would help Thaksin, but again, the big thing for him will be guarantees against future legal action, so it would help him, sure, but it won't get him home.

So IMO, the most likely result of amending the charter will be to correct some of the undemocratic changes forced by the junta, things like the appointment of half the senate, maybe some changes to the CC, ...

[Noistar]

Added to which they don't even live in Thailand, have no commitment, no stake, no home here, no family here, no job here, no life here at all, safely ensconced in another country drinking coffee over their keyboards and amusing themselves lobbing cheap propagandist potshots at the residents... and these people are in it for....... What? Do tell.......

'they'? I have lived here for years and traveled extensively in Thailand and have many friends here. If you are referring tp some posters then I would have to agree (for once) that living here and having a 'stake' here does give a better perspective AND I respect the commentary more but (and you won't like this bit) most of 'those' are in the yellow/traditionalist/don't like change to 'their' Thailand camp yes, as you say, don't live here.

If I read correctly, you're saying

"living here and having a 'stake' here does give a better perspective AND I respect the commentary more" followed by

"most of those ... yes, as you say, don't live here".

IMHO most with a stake here are concerned and would like to see the country move forward. To put a colour to it seems somewhat misleading and doesn't help much in discussions.

Good morning - well I do respect more opinions and debate, on both sides, from folk who live here. It has been my perception that many who are staunch defenders of the 'don't like change/won't change' love and want Thailand to be stuck in the Dark Ages and tend to be ultra-conservative, right wing and support the yellow cause - often VERY vocally.

It has been my observation that farang are staunchly more right wing than most Thais - many of my farang friends are yellow supporters - and they are all relatively wealthy (compared to most Thais) and are 'protective' of that position. They are AGHAST that I am more sympathetic to the red cause and I actually care what happens to the poor here and so, as on TVF, we argue a lot.

It's about development and change vs. traditionalism and conservatism

perhaps I would qualify your summary sentence as

"It's about development and POSITIVE change vs. traditionalism and conservatism"

IMHO

[Noistar]

Changing the constitution is part of the promises made by the ruling party as part of their platform to govern. Surely improvements to the constitution could be considered part of governing and also beneficial to Thailand, could it not?

Some proponents of the 2007 charter argued that people should support the charter at the time, precisely because it could be changed (ie: improved) later.

And although it might seem like it sometimes on TV, this is not the only thing happening in government at the moment, so an accurate reply to your question,

"What is preventing the ruling party from governing and actually helping Thailand with the current Constitution?"

would be "nothing" as that is what is currently happening day to day.

Preceded by IMHO

Despite your attempt to side-track my point, I'm sure many posters realise that I am talking about priorities.

EVERY Political Party comes in with a raft of 'promises', some of which they are more sincere about than others.Doesn't matter if they're red, yellow, orange, sky-blue pink or whatever - they're politicians.

I assume (please correct me) that your last point is that nothing is stopping them so they are busy implementing other parts of their manifesto.

If that is the case, I am impressed and apologise for thinking otherwise (i'm being sincere, not sarcastic)

But it still doesn't negate my point that they have a full term to revise the Constitution. If they can achieve other goals without changing the Constitution then carry on.

Their promise to change the Constitution can be pursued alongside their more tangible mandate promises.

Are you concerned that changes to the Constitution MAY be mishandled? If they are, aren't we likely to witness further unrest?

I hope we're on the same hymn sheet, wanting to see benefits for the whole of Thailand, from a ruling party with such a massive majority.

There is no attempt to sidetrack your point unless your point was to imply that they are not governing and trying (in their way) to help Thailand.

I'll come back to priorities, but first the campaign promises. Thailand is a bit different since a politician can make a campaign promise in other countries and then backtrack faster than a TVF poster. But in Thailand, doing that can run the politician into legal trouble. It's against the law.

As for priorities, the minimum wage, the women's fund, the OTPC, new car / house credit, rice price supports, the dealing with the floods, the flood prevention planning, and a host of other things all came prior to the charter change. This is why I responded 'nothing is stopping them' in reply to your question. While it is clearly possible to take issue with any of the above items, to say that the current gov't is not governing and is only interested in 1 man does not match current events at all.

It is another priority for the government to ... let's say, help to resolve the Thaksin issue. They call it "reconciliation" and their opponents call it "amnesty for one man". What ever you want to call it, and how ever it comes about, it involves bringing Thaksin back without him being punished, and probably getting him back some of his assets, and probably the most important, providing some guarantee against further legal action... For his opponents, it involves either (1) preventing all of that, or (2) getting the most out of the deal for themselves as possible...

IMO, I don't see Thaksin coming home due to changes in the Charter. Amnesty bills could be a different story. In the end, I still feel that he will work out his own deal with the necessary people.

If that is true, then the charter change itself is not as sinister as people here typically view it. In that regard, and it is my opinion, the charter changes are yet another campaign promise being implemented. Sure, if the government is able to change the charter and, for example, remove the amnesty for the coup perpetrators, that would be leverage for Thaksin in his negotiations. (but I doubt that will ever happen). But to be honest, several things have been declared off limits by the government already, the LM laws for example. Also, by annulling the actions of the post-coup AEC, that would help Thaksin, but again, the big thing for him will be guarantees against future legal action, so it would help him, sure, but it won't get him home.

So IMO, the most likely result of amending the charter will be to correct some of the undemocratic changes forced by the junta, things like the appointment of half the senate, maybe some changes to the CC, ...

Thanks for clarifying your post and correcting my mis-understanding about Thai politicians (although I must admit I find it mind-boggling, bearing in mind the apparent difficulty of getting convictions on anything regarding politicians!)

I try to steer clear of the Amnesty/Reconciliation argument, because I see the Constitution as a bigger concern than that. Whatever the reason for change, I would fear for Thailand if a supposed 'Yellow' Constitution became perceived to be a 'Red' Constitution. In my naivety, I would prefer a transparent (i like that - devoid of colour), Thai Constitution.

As I say, I don't think we're at odds, maybe just a few different emphases.

[soundman]

Please don't re-post content that has been removed at an earlier point in time..

[binjalin]

Changing the constitution is part of the promises made by the ruling party as part of their platform to govern. Surely improvements to the constitution could be considered part of governing and also beneficial to Thailand, could it not?

Some proponents of the 2007 charter argued that people should support the charter at the time, precisely because it could be changed (ie: improved) later.

And although it might seem like it sometimes on TV, this is not the only thing happening in government at the moment, so an accurate reply to your question,

"What is preventing the ruling party from governing and actually helping Thailand with the current Constitution?"

would be "nothing" as that is what is currently happening day to day.

Preceded by IMHO

Despite your attempt to side-track my point, I'm sure many posters realise that I am talking about priorities.

EVERY Political Party comes in with a raft of 'promises', some of which they are more sincere about than others.Doesn't matter if they're red, yellow, orange, sky-blue pink or whatever - they're politicians.

I assume (please correct me) that your last point is that nothing is stopping them so they are busy implementing other parts of their manifesto.

If that is the case, I am impressed and apologise for thinking otherwise (i'm being sincere, not sarcastic)

But it still doesn't negate my point that they have a full term to revise the Constitution. If they can achieve other goals without changing the Constitution then carry on.

Their promise to change the Constitution can be pursued alongside their more tangible mandate promises.

Are you concerned that changes to the Constitution MAY be mishandled? If they are, aren't we likely to witness further unrest?

I hope we're on the same hymn sheet, wanting to see benefits for the whole of Thailand, from a ruling party with such a massive majority.

There is no attempt to sidetrack your point unless your point was to imply that they are not governing and trying (in their way) to help Thailand.

I'll come back to priorities, but first the campaign promises. Thailand is a bit different since a politician can make a campaign promise in other countries and then backtrack faster than a TVF poster. But in Thailand, doing that can run the politician into legal trouble. It's against the law.

As for priorities, the minimum wage, the women's fund, the OTPC, new car / house credit, rice price supports, the dealing with the floods, the flood prevention planning, and a host of other things all came prior to the charter change. This is why I responded 'nothing is stopping them' in reply to your question. While it is clearly possible to take issue with any of the above items, to say that the current gov't is not governing and is only interested in 1 man does not match current events at all.

It is another priority for the government to ... let's say, help to resolve the Thaksin issue. They call it "reconciliation" and their opponents call it "amnesty for one man". What ever you want to call it, and how ever it comes about, it involves bringing Thaksin back without him being punished, and probably getting him back some of his assets, and probably the most important, providing some guarantee against further legal action... For his opponents, it involves either (1) preventing all of that, or (2) getting the most out of the deal for themselves as possible...

IMO, I don't see Thaksin coming home due to changes in the Charter. Amnesty bills could be a different story. In the end, I still feel that he will work out his own deal with the necessary people.

If that is true, then the charter change itself is not as sinister as people here typically view it. In that regard, and it is my opinion, the charter changes are yet another campaign promise being implemented. Sure, if the government is able to change the charter and, for example, remove the amnesty for the coup perpetrators, that would be leverage for Thaksin in his negotiations. (but I doubt that will ever happen). But to be honest, several things have been declared off limits by the government already, the LM laws for example. Also, by annulling the actions of the post-coup AEC, that would help Thaksin, but again, the big thing for him will be guarantees against future legal action, so it would help him, sure, but it won't get him home.

So IMO, the most likely result of amending the charter will be to correct some of the undemocratic changes forced by the junta, things like the appointment of half the senate, maybe some changes to the CC, ...

Thanks for clarifying your post and correcting my mis-understanding about Thai politicians (although I must admit I find it mind-boggling, bearing in mind the apparent difficulty of getting convictions on anything regarding politicians!)

I try to steer clear of the Amnesty/Reconciliation argument, because I see the Constitution as a bigger concern than that. Whatever the reason for change, I would fear for Thailand if a supposed 'Yellow' Constitution became perceived to be a 'Red' Constitution. In my naivety, I would prefer a transparent (i like that - devoid of colour), Thai Constitution.

As I say, I don't think we're at odds, maybe just a few different emphases.

how about a red AND yellow? an 'orange constitution' joking aside - it needs something akin to this to break the dead-lock