Constitution Court Acted Outside Its Powers, Says Nitirat

[phiphidon]

Do you know what Nitirat is and what their causes are? Do you agree with yunlas misguided comments regarding the CDA and supposed elected assemblies taking the place of referendums? Or the supposed fact that the CC have demanded progress through a referendum when they have in fact proposed the opposite by allowing constitution amendments to be agreed in parliament without a referendum which has always been the case anyway? I won't even bother with the rest of the rant.

And you believe that yunlas post is a common sense summary? I suggest you do a lot more background reading and not just from this forum............

I'm afraid I won't put my life on hold just to please you. If that stops me from being able to post then so be it

My initial homework assignment, given to me by Phiphidon, one of the TVF moderators, to ensure my contributions are valid.

I apologize if any of this is different to Phiphidon's opinions. I hope I can be forgiven for getting things wrong. As I say, I'm new to this.

Nitirat are the group of legal scholars who have proposed that a new constitution be drafted to replace the junta-drafted 2007 Constitution - Nitirats Constitution Draft.

So that I believe is the definition.

I hope Phiphidon will forgive me, but I haven't studied everything in detail. I have gained a flavour for the draft.

The content IMHO, leaves itself wide-open to abuse with the current state of Thai Democracy. If Thailand ever reaches Democratic maturity, it may then be valid and applicable.

Many of the proposals already exist in mature Democracies, and as such can be justified in those Democracies. I am led to believe (sorry I cant quote a specific source - black mark to me), that they also existed in dictatorships (Stalinist Russia). Same element in the Constitution, different implementations.

For instance, what would the cabinet appointing senior military officers achieve? Would they end up being puppets of the ruling party? Sounds good in principle, but IMHO I don't think it would work as intended.

IMO the current cabinet can't be trusted to determine the allocation of posts which facilitate the mechanism of Government. A mechanism which currently allows the ruling party to 'carry on regardless'.

IMO this doesn't bode well for other important elements of Thai Government, being left to them.

I could go through other points, but my honest conclusion is that Thailand isn't ready or equipped to incorporate the proposed changes to the Constitution.

The potential for mis-using the proposed Constitution is staggering IMHO. With the current "we have a majority, so we can do whatever WE want' attitude, who knows where it would end.

IMO, when a Democratic Government can be trusted, with an EFFECTIVE control of any excesses, Thailand might be ready.

Until then, Nitirat should file it away in the "pending" tray, and return to reality.

Nitirat are also a major force behind the discussion about Section 112 as well - it's a very important point to note as it colours (literally) peoples judgement on what they say about other subjects, in fact a couple of Nitirat members were assaulted by supporters of PAD but that is to be expected. There is one supposed contentious point in their version of ideas for the constitution but again that is through ignorance of what they mean - see here

http://asiancorrespo...titution-draft/

I noticed that you completely ignored my point about yunlas complete misunderstanding about how constitution rewrites take place and what mechanisms need to be in place before that constitution rewrite can take place. She laughingly compares the constitution drafting assembly with an assembly put in place by the mafia? and then some business speak about vertical corporations.

She completely ignores the fact that Section 291 (the mechanism of amending the constitution so that a CDA can be set up) specifically states that no constitution can be written that could overthrow the Head of State.

And yet you still state that she has posted a common sense summary?

I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just asking you to find out a bit more on the subject so at the very least you can see that yunlas posts for what they are, and it's not a common sense summary for sure.

[Roadman]

Some clarity among all the bull crap slipped in around here.

Pheu Thai do not have a majority of 53% of the 2011 vote. They have 53% of the seats which is a completely different issue so to claim this to validate in terms of advancing to discussion of a majority to be by passing referundums is a bull crap slip in.

Pheu Thai do not have 38% of the 2011 vote (although my math which is OK but not brilliant has this bull crap slip in at 36%). They secured 38% of the total population eligible to vote. Even in referundums a good chunk of the population will not bother to vote again so this claim for referundum posturing is also a bull crap slip in.

The truth is Pheu Thai have 48.41% of the vote on the day that passed the EC checks. And that was from a 75.03% turnout of the eligible population.

[rubl]

Some clarity among all the bull crap slipped in around here.

Pheu Thai do not have a majority of 53% of the 2011 vote. They have 53% of the seats which is a completely different issue so to claim this to validate in terms of advancing to discussion of a majority to be by passing referundums is a bull crap slip in.

Pheu Thai do not have 38% of the 2011 vote (although my math which is OK but not brilliant has this bull crap slip in at 36%). They secured 38% of the total population eligible to vote. Even in referundums a good chunk of the population will not bother to vote again so this claim for referundum posturing is also a bull crap slip in.

The truth is Pheu Thai have 48.41% of the vote on the day that passed the EC checks. And that was from a 75.03% turnout of the eligible population.

Not that is really matters on this particular topic, but these are the figures I collected with some difficulty:

Thailand General Elections 2011-07-03

Registered electorate: 46,904,823

Total votes cast, both valid/invalid*: 35,469,811 (75.62%)

party votes % of cast, % of regist.

Pheu Thai party: 15,744,190 (44.38% 33.57%)

Democrat party: 11,433,762 (32.24% 24.38%)

2007 480 seats, 2011 500 seats, %change with 2007 results adjusted as if 500 seats then

Pheu Thai 233 in 2007 --> 265 in 2011 9.2% increase

Dems 165 in 2007 --> 159 in 2011 7.75% decrease

*: one party promoted 'no vote' which is classified as invalid vote, which explains the relatively high percentage of invalid votes. The extra 4.3% some give to PT is with only referring to valid votes.

Edited July 20, 2012 by rubl

[Roadman]

Some clarity among all the bull crap slipped in around here.

Pheu Thai do not have a majority of 53% of the 2011 vote. They have 53% of the seats which is a completely different issue so to claim this to validate in terms of advancing to discussion of a majority to be by passing referundums is a bull crap slip in.

Pheu Thai do not have 38% of the 2011 vote (although my math which is OK but not brilliant has this bull crap slip in at 36%). They secured 38% of the total population eligible to vote. Even in referundums a good chunk of the population will not bother to vote again so this claim for referundum posturing is also a bull crap slip in.

The truth is Pheu Thai have 48.41% of the vote on the day that passed the EC checks. And that was from a 75.03% turnout of the eligible population.

Not that is really matters on this particular topic, but these are the figures I collected with some difficulty:

Thailand General Elections 2011-07-03

Registered electorate: 46,904,823

Total votes cast, both valid/invalid*: 35,469,811 (75.62%)

party votes % of cast, % of regist.

Pheu Thai party: 15,744,190 (44.38% 33.57%)

Democrat party: 11,433,762 (32.24% 24.38%)

2007 480 seats, 2011 500 seats, %change with 2007 results adjusted as if 500 seats then

Pheu Thai 233 in 2007 --> 265 in 2011 9.2% increase

Dems 165 in 2007 --> 159 in 2011 7.75% decrease

*: one party promoted 'no vote' which is classified as invalid vote, which explains the relatively high percentage of invalid votes. The extra 4.3% some give to PT is with only referring to valid votes.

Cheers Rubi

Yes there does seem to be some slight differences in where one gets the numbers from but the main contention is the extremeties in the numbers that are being used here to validate one's side of the debate are false.

[nurofiend]

I thought my ex mother in law was the devil incarnate, bless her little socks..........

To answer my own question, though, perhaps they don't like judicial interference in Parliamentary procedure.

Frankly, I agree with them.

also, it's not unusual for protesters to burn effigies... in say, pretty much every country in the world.

but when these guy's do it... it MUST mean they actually want to murder them.

they will sacrifice them to the horned god thaksin.

What primitive world do you come from?

planet earth

you should visit it sometime.

[nurofiend]

That makes it all OK then

They do it in Zimbabwe so Thailand is fine.

You hear all kinds of intellect on here

do you ever bore yourself with this ridiculous style of 'debate'?

i won't react to posts like this from you in the future, as you're only stirring it up, trying to annoy the poster rather than have a debate..

there's no merit at all in what you've said.

[Roadman]

Do you know what Nitirat is and what their causes are? Do you agree with yunlas misguided comments regarding the CDA and supposed elected assemblies taking the place of referendums? Or the supposed fact that the CC have demanded progress through a referendum when they have in fact proposed the opposite by allowing constitution amendments to be agreed in parliament without a referendum which has always been the case anyway? I won't even bother with the rest of the rant.

And you believe that yunlas post is a common sense summary? I suggest you do a lot more background reading and not just from this forum............

I'm afraid I won't put my life on hold just to please you. If that stops me from being able to post then so be it

My initial homework assignment, given to me by Phiphidon, one of the TVF moderators, to ensure my contributions are valid.

I apologize if any of this is different to Phiphidon's opinions. I hope I can be forgiven for getting things wrong. As I say, I'm new to this.

Nitirat are the group of legal scholars who have proposed that a new constitution be drafted to replace the junta-drafted 2007 Constitution - Nitirats Constitution Draft.

So that I believe is the definition.

I hope Phiphidon will forgive me, but I haven't studied everything in detail. I have gained a flavour for the draft.

The content IMHO, leaves itself wide-open to abuse with the current state of Thai Democracy. If Thailand ever reaches Democratic maturity, it may then be valid and applicable.

Many of the proposals already exist in mature Democracies, and as such can be justified in those Democracies. I am led to believe (sorry I cant quote a specific source - black mark to me), that they also existed in dictatorships (Stalinist Russia). Same element in the Constitution, different implementations.

For instance, what would the cabinet appointing senior military officers achieve? Would they end up being puppets of the ruling party? Sounds good in principle, but IMHO I don't think it would work as intended.

IMO the current cabinet can't be trusted to determine the allocation of posts which facilitate the mechanism of Government. A mechanism which currently allows the ruling party to 'carry on regardless'.

IMO this doesn't bode well for other important elements of Thai Government, being left to them.

I could go through other points, but my honest conclusion is that Thailand isn't ready or equipped to incorporate the proposed changes to the Constitution.

The potential for mis-using the proposed Constitution is staggering IMHO. With the current "we have a majority, so we can do whatever WE want' attitude, who knows where it would end.

IMO, when a Democratic Government can be trusted, with an EFFECTIVE control of any excesses, Thailand might be ready.

Until then, Nitirat should file it away in the "pending" tray, and return to reality.

Nitirat are also a major force behind the discussion about Section 112 as well - it's a very important point to note as it colours (literally) peoples judgement on what they say about other subjects, in fact a couple of Nitirat members were assaulted by supporters of PAD but that is to be expected. There is one supposed contentious point in their version of ideas for the constitution but again that is through ignorance of what they mean - see here

http://asiancorrespo...titution-draft/

I noticed that you completely ignored my point about yunlas complete misunderstanding about how constitution rewrites take place and what mechanisms need to be in place before that constitution rewrite can take place. She laughingly compares the constitution drafting assembly with an assembly put in place by the mafia? and then some business speak about vertical corporations.

She completely ignores the fact that Section 291 (the mechanism of amending the constitution so that a CDA can be set up) specifically states that no constitution can be written that could overthrow the Head of State.

And yet you still state that she has posted a common sense summary?

I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just asking you to find out a bit more on the subject so at the very least you can see that yunlas posts for what they are, and it's not a common sense summary for sure.

Phiphidon.

The big problem with the Nitarat group's proposal is mainly in Section 9 and Section 13.

And especially when you apply honesty about the current state of Thailand being morally and politically corrupt and that includes the police who should be the people's 1st defender of their rights and those rights applied equally to all citizens.

Sections 9 and 13 propose that the senior judges and Army personnel are appointed by the cabinet. Now apply that in the two situations I know.

First Thailand. A country that is not and has never been democratic, where corruption is accepted all all levels of governance and in the majority of society, where the police are brought and corrupt, where the law is manipulated and not enforced, where inequality via class is normal every day life, where morals and values are non existent from most, where votes are block brought from an uneducated lower social economic group etc etc. and where politicans are the worst offenders and where the current lot have openly come out and stated that politicians are rightfully above the law. Nobody in their right mind who understands the basic principles of what a democracy is would allow this current lot in government that lassez faire right to appoint the judges and Army. If you did then Thaksin would have his people in those roles and Thailand wrapped up as another dictator state in no time.

Second my home country New Zealand. The exact opposite of the mess that is Thailand and one of the best examples of democracy. Here the law is applied and enforced, corruption is rooted out and punished, morals and values exist, the police are not brought and are the people's rightful defender, equality exists, nobody is above the law, votes are won not brought and most importantly the governement of the day do not appoint the senior judges and army. They are found not by family connection but by ability and merit and are selected and nominated by consultation between the Governor General and the Attorney General - ie - the Queens and peoples representative.

In Thailands case with a ruling Monarchy, they or their representative should be the one who is giving the final appointment for those positions not the latest corrupt band of thievies in disguise of politicans.

I may be wrong but that is where I see the charges being laid against Pheu Thai of attempting to over throw the Monarchy coming from. And that is why the NItarat group stink of Thaksin and Pheu Thai involvement with those two sections being aimed at putting complete and absolute control with the government of the day.

The joke is that the document is signed by the "people" when the people are prepared to stupidly hand over complete power to this lot of criminals, some of who are convicted and on the run and others who are using another absolute joke of thai politices in imunity of their MP status to stay above the law.

[Thaddeus]

I thought my ex mother in law was the devil incarnate, bless her little socks..........

To answer my own question, though, perhaps they don't like judicial interference in Parliamentary procedure.

Frankly, I agree with them.

also, it's not unusual for protesters to burn effigies... in say, pretty much every country in the world.

but when these guy's do it... it MUST mean they actually want to murder them.

they will sacrifice them to the horned god thaksin.

What primitive world do you come from?

planet earth

you should visit it sometime.

Have you got past the hotdog stand yet?

[rubl]

That makes it all OK then

They do it in Zimbabwe so Thailand is fine.

You hear all kinds of intellect on here

do you ever bore yourself with this ridiculous style of 'debate'?

i won't react to posts like this from you in the future, as you're only stirring it up, trying to annoy the poster rather than have a debate..

there's no merit at all in what you've said.

Well said, my dear fiend

Wondering about the 'annoy the poster' though. Do you mean to say poster Moruya is annoying, maybe even provoking you? Well that's against forum rules! Report him, the scoundrel :-)

[nurofiend]

That makes it all OK then

They do it in Zimbabwe so Thailand is fine.

You hear all kinds of intellect on here

do you ever bore yourself with this ridiculous style of 'debate'?

i won't react to posts like this from you in the future, as you're only stirring it up, trying to annoy the poster rather than have a debate..

there's no merit at all in what you've said.

Well said, my dear fiend

Wondering about the 'annoy the poster' though. Do you mean to say poster Moruya is annoying, maybe even provoking you? Well that's against forum rules! Report him, the scoundrel :-)

i mean he says things that he must know himself are completely untrue.. i give him the benefit of the doubt on realising that.

so if it's not to provoke, what else?! (rhetorical)

i think the intention is to provoke and annoy, but it only bores me, hence why i won't respond to those kind of silly posts of his anymore.

report?

not my style... i enjoy reading banter on a discussion forum, it's fun.

some people are just far too sensitive and humourless here, they probably hit the report button more than the post button.

[rubl]

That makes it all OK then

They do it in Zimbabwe so Thailand is fine.

You hear all kinds of intellect on here

do you ever bore yourself with this ridiculous style of 'debate'?

i won't react to posts like this from you in the future, as you're only stirring it up, trying to annoy the poster rather than have a debate..

there's no merit at all in what you've said.

Well said, my dear fiend

Wondering about the 'annoy the poster' though. Do you mean to say poster Moruya is annoying, maybe even provoking you? Well that's against forum rules! Report him, the scoundrel :-)

i mean he says things that he must know himself are completely untrue.. i give him the benefit of the doubt on realising that.

so if it's not to provoke, what else?! (rhetorical)

i think the intention is to provoke and annoy, but it only bores me, hence why i won't respond to those kind of silly posts of his anymore.

report?

not my style... i enjoy reading banter on a discussion forum, it's fun.

some people are just far too sensitive and humourless here, they probably hit the report button more than the post button.

Telling things which are completely untrue is like telling things one can know are not true. Again against forum rules and reason to be suspended or even banned. If you don't feel like reporting, never mind, the moderators are really vigilant and will surely catch the scoundrel on his lies

[nurofiend]

Telling things which are completely untrue is like telling things one can know are not true. Again against forum rules and reason to be suspended or even banned. If you don't feel like reporting, never mind, the moderators are really vigilant and will surely catch the scoundrel on his lies

rubl, i know your tongue is in your cheek ('scoundrel') but i'll play along anyway.

he quoted me by saying "That makes it all OK then

They do it in Zimbabwe so Thailand is fine."

which would be obvious to anyone who wasn't just trying to troll me that there wasn't a hint of a suggestion of that in what i said.

so yeah, it's projecting something completely untrue onto what i said.

i'm not on a crusade to get anyone in trouble and be the teachers pet.

i think i've only ever reported someone for name calling once, and i truly regretted doing it as soon as i hit the button.. i think it was pathetic of me to do it tbh.

[rubl]

Telling things which are completely untrue is like telling things one can know are not true. Again against forum rules and reason to be suspended or even banned. If you don't feel like reporting, never mind, the moderators are really vigilant and will surely catch the scoundrel on his lies

rubl, i know your tongue is in your cheek ('scoundrel') but i'll play along anyway.

he quoted me by saying "That makes it all OK then

They do it in Zimbabwe so Thailand is fine."

which would be obvious to anyone who wasn't just trying to troll me that there wasn't a hint of a suggestion of that in what i said.

so yeah, it's projecting something completely untrue onto what i said.

i'm not on a crusade to get anyone in trouble and be the teachers pet.

i think i've only ever reported someone for name calling once, and i truly regretted doing it as soon as i hit the button.. i think it was pathetic of me to do it tbh.

My dear fiend, whether you like it or not but 'posting what one can know to be untrue', 'trolling' and the like is against forum rules and will be vigilantly eradicated by moderators. That's independent of you reporting or not. Keep in mind that replying to really obvious lies only propagates those lies. Having them removed seems less painful.

As we deal with opinions here it's difficult to justify condemning people on just that unless it's very clear they're lying. To report that is not only a matter of self-preservation, but also of helping to keep this forum clean of trolls, fools and other idiots.

[nurofiend]

Telling things which are completely untrue is like telling things one can know are not true. Again against forum rules and reason to be suspended or even banned. If you don't feel like reporting, never mind, the moderators are really vigilant and will surely catch the scoundrel on his lies

rubl, i know your tongue is in your cheek ('scoundrel') but i'll play along anyway.

he quoted me by saying "That makes it all OK then

They do it in Zimbabwe so Thailand is fine."

which would be obvious to anyone who wasn't just trying to troll me that there wasn't a hint of a suggestion of that in what i said.

so yeah, it's projecting something completely untrue onto what i said.

i'm not on a crusade to get anyone in trouble and be the teachers pet.

i think i've only ever reported someone for name calling once, and i truly regretted doing it as soon as i hit the button.. i think it was pathetic of me to do it tbh.

My dear fiend, whether you like it or not but 'posting what one can know to be untrue', 'trolling' and the like is against forum rules and will be vigilantly eradicated by moderators. That's independent of you reporting or not. Keep in mind that replying to really obvious lies only propagates those lies. Having them removed seems less painful.

As we deal with opinions here it's difficult to justify condemning people on just that unless it's very clear they're lying. To report that is not only a matter of self-preservation, but also of helping to keep this forum clean of trolls, fools and other idiots.

well horses for courses and all that.

i don't like reporting people, sorry, but that's just how i am.

i find some of the back and forths here that you see between posters on here can sometimes be entertaining to read and ads a bit of colour to the otherwise dullness of "red shirts and thaksin are scum because of x and x... ah c'mon they have small elements but they're not all bad... and what about the yellow shirts and abhisit that did x and x" - discussions which i'm of course also fully guilty of contributing to

Edited July 20, 2012 by nurofiend

[Moruya]

That makes it all OK then

They do it in Zimbabwe so Thailand is fine.

You hear all kinds of intellect on here

do you ever bore yourself with this ridiculous style of 'debate'?

i won't react to posts like this from you in the future, as you're only stirring it up, trying to annoy the poster rather than have a debate..

there's no merit at all in what you've said.

Be happy that I typed something in response.

Had you been in my presence a huge guff of CH4 would have been more worthy.

[nurofiend]

That makes it all OK then

They do it in Zimbabwe so Thailand is fine.

You hear all kinds of intellect on here

do you ever bore yourself with this ridiculous style of 'debate'?

i won't react to posts like this from you in the future, as you're only stirring it up, trying to annoy the poster rather than have a debate..

there's no merit at all in what you've said.

Be happy that I typed something in response.

Had you been in my presence a huge guff of CH4 would have been more worthy.

a huge guff of ch4 is more worthy than most if not all of the replies that you respond to me with.

so from now on if you feel like replying to me, just have a big fart to yourself instead and it will make both of us all the more happier and entertained.

Edited July 20, 2012 by nurofiend

[tlansford]

Some clarity among all the bull crap slipped in around here.

Pheu Thai do not have a majority of 53% of the 2011 vote. They have 53% of the seats which is a completely different issue so to claim this to validate in terms of advancing to discussion of a majority to be by passing referundums is a bull crap slip in.

Pheu Thai do not have 38% of the 2011 vote (although my math which is OK but not brilliant has this bull crap slip in at 36%). They secured 38% of the total population eligible to vote. Even in referundums a good chunk of the population will not bother to vote again so this claim for referundum posturing is also a bull crap slip in.

The truth is Pheu Thai have 48.41% of the vote on the day that passed the EC checks. And that was from a 75.03% turnout of the eligible population.

"Pheu Thai do not have a majority of 53% of the 2011 vote. They have 53% of the seats which is a completely different issue so to claim this to validate in terms of advancing to discussion of a majority to be by passing referundums is a bull crap slip in."

The election was contesting seats, not popular vote, so 53% is the ONLY number that counted after the election.

And the support in the general election has nothing to do with a possible referendum - they are not at all the same. the general election had 40 parties to chose from and a referendum vote will be a yes/no vote.

[Yunla]

a referendum vote will be a yes/no vote.

It would be a yes/no vote, if PTP had the courage to call a national referendum.

Infact PTP are claiming that national referendum is too expensive, and that a PTP-approved private assembly would be more democratic.

Its like Yingluck has an repeat excuse-note from her mother that excuses Yingluck from attending sports lessons. We will never get to see her run.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Yunla

[phiphidon]

Phiphidon.

The big problem with the Nitarat group's proposal is mainly in Section 9 and Section 13.

And especially when you apply honesty about the current state of Thailand being morally and politically corrupt and that includes the police who should be the people's 1st defender of their rights and those rights applied equally to all citizens.

Sections 9 and 13 propose that the senior judges and Army personnel are appointed by the cabinet. Now apply that in the two situations I know.

First Thailand. A country that is not and has never been democratic, where corruption is accepted all all levels of governance and in the majority of society, where the police are brought and corrupt, where the law is manipulated and not enforced, where inequality via class is normal every day life, where morals and values are non existent from most, where votes are block brought from an uneducated lower social economic group etc etc. and where politicans are the worst offenders and where the current lot have openly come out and stated that politicians are rightfully above the law. Nobody in their right mind who understands the basic principles of what a democracy is would allow this current lot in government that lassez faire right to appoint the judges and Army. If you did then Thaksin would have his people in those roles and Thailand wrapped up as another dictator state in no time.

Second my home country New Zealand. The exact opposite of the mess that is Thailand and one of the best examples of democracy. Here the law is applied and enforced, corruption is rooted out and punished, morals and values exist, the police are not brought and are the people's rightful defender, equality exists, nobody is above the law, votes are won not brought and most importantly the governement of the day do not appoint the senior judges and army. They are found not by family connection but by ability and merit and are selected and nominated by consultation between the Governor General and the Attorney General - ie - the Queens and peoples representative.

In Thailands case with a ruling Monarchy, they or their representative should be the one who is giving the final appointment for those positions not the latest corrupt band of thievies in disguise of politicans.

I may be wrong but that is where I see the charges being laid against Pheu Thai of attempting to over throw the Monarchy coming from. And that is why the NItarat group stink of Thaksin and Pheu Thai involvement with those two sections being aimed at putting complete and absolute control with the government of the day.

The joke is that the document is signed by the "people" when the people are prepared to stupidly hand over complete power to this lot of criminals, some of who are convicted and on the run and others who are using another absolute joke of thai politices in imunity of their MP status to stay above the law.

A couple of quick notes - firstly my point about nitirat being involved in the discussions about section 112 colouring peoples perceptions are amply demonstrated here. Secondly, I'm not against promotion based on merit but think you have a very rosy coloured viewpoint about how your country relies on the Queen of Englands representative and the Attorney General having the knowledge and ability to do so without any outside interference or manipulation. In Thailand there are advisors to the King, Privy Counsellors, and there I shall leave this discussion for you to absorb.

[phiphidon]

a referendum vote will be a yes/no vote.

It would be a yes/no vote, if PTP had the courage to call a national referendum.

Infact PTP are claiming that national referendum is too expensive, and that a PTP-approved private assembly would be more democratic.

Its like Yingluck has an repeat excuse-note from her mother that excuses Yingluck from attending sports lessons. We will never get to see her run.

OK enough of the misinformation yunla. The quote about the referendum being too expensive arose due to the fact that now the CC have decreed that a referendum needs to be called first to see whether the populace want a new constitution - based on the erroneous claim by the CC that the military junta held a referendum on their version of the constitution - (strongly biased towards acceptance as it was), the CC seems to have forgotten that to get to that stage the Junta had ripped up the 1997 constitution without a word to the populace asking if that was OK by them in the first place.

Once this referendum has taken place (and assuming the answer is yes, the populace do want a new constitution) a CDA has to be formed, representative of the people already agreed under the 2nd reading by MP's. No, the CDA, constitution drafting assembly is not a PTP approved assembly or even a mafia assembly as you have previously alleged.

Once the CDA has done it's work then the draft constitution is put forward to another referendum (hence the cost issue, due to the additional CC imposed first referendum)

Perhaps this will sink in this time - I know it doesn't fit in to your "evil thaksin take over the world model" of thinking but then reality rarely does.

[Yunla]

OK enough of the misinformation yunla. The quote about the referendum being too expensive arose due to the fact that now the CC have decreed that a referendum needs to be called first to see whether the populace want a new constitution

Actually PTP put forward four options, one of them was public referendum which PTP said was the least desireable because it was too expensive, the other three options were discussion-based variations on the assembly theme, one of which was veto the whole process and simply allow an assembly to rubber stamp the PTP proposals.

Its really simple, they should call a public referendum. No need for anything else.

They do not have the support of the Thai people, that is a fact. They got 38% vote at the election and many people who voted for them have since woken up to the fact that they bought a gold-plated LIE. I think PTP will look back on that feeble 38% vote as their Golden Age, those halcyon early days before the chickens came home to roost armed with beak-mounted sleaze-seeking missiles.

All your dancing around the issue, skillfully avoids the basic central fact that PTP are a 38% votes elected party, whose cuddly House Speaker is currently being impeached for corrupting the office of house speaker and arguably for treason, PTP have broken multiple Thai privacy laws in office 2012 and also UDHR declarations against government oppression.

This makes PTP an extremely corrupt and lawless political party, and in NO genuinely democratic country ON EARTH would a such a sleazy crime-syndicate be allowed to change the national constitution without a public referendum first. The very fact that PTP want to slime their way out of this basic democratic process, and that you encourage them, says all I need to know about the type of undemocratic vertical-control system being offered here.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Yunla

[binjalin]

Some clarity among all the bull crap slipped in around here.

Pheu Thai do not have a majority of 53% of the 2011 vote. They have 53% of the seats which is a completely different issue so to claim this to validate in terms of advancing to discussion of a majority to be by passing referundums is a bull crap slip in.

Pheu Thai do not have 38% of the 2011 vote (although my math which is OK but not brilliant has this bull crap slip in at 36%). They secured 38% of the total population eligible to vote. Even in referundums a good chunk of the population will not bother to vote again so this claim for referundum posturing is also a bull crap slip in.

The truth is Pheu Thai have 48.41% of the vote on the day that passed the EC checks. And that was from a 75.03% turnout of the eligible population.

yup = landslide and mandate

[binjalin]

OK enough of the misinformation yunla. The quote about the referendum being too expensive arose due to the fact that now the CC have decreed that a referendum needs to be called first to see whether the populace want a new constitution

Actually PTP put forward four options, one of them was public referendum which PTP said was the least desireable because it was too expensive, the other three options were discussion-based variations on the assembly theme, one of which was veto the whole process and simply allow an assembly to rubber stamp the PTP proposals.

Its really simple, they should call a public referendum. No need for anything else.

They do not have the support of the Thai people, that is a fact. They got 38% vote at the election and many people who voted for them have since woken up to the fact that they bought a gold-plated LIE. I think PTP will look back on that feeble 38% vote as their Golden Age, those halcyon early days before the chickens came home to roost armed with beak-mounted sleaze-seeking missiles.

All your dancing around the issue, skillfully avoids the basic central fact that PTP are a 38% votes elected party, whose cuddly House Speaker is currently being impeached for corrupting the office of house speaker and arguably for treason, PTP have broken multiple Thai privacy laws in office 2012 and also UDHR declarations against government oppression.

This makes PTP an extremely corrupt and lawless political party, and in NO genuinely democratic country ON EARTH would a such a sleazy crime-syndicate be allowed to change the national constitution without a public referendum first. The very fact that PTP want to slime their way out of this basic democratic process, and that you encourage them, says all I need to know about the type of undemocratic vertical-control system being offered here.

'hey I'm visiting Thailand so I know what's best for them - and while I'm about it I think the government are extremely corrupt and lawless'

don't ya just love 'tourist experts'? conveniently forgetting the coups, ripping up constitutions etc. etc.

They do not have the support of the Thai people, that is a fact

says our visiting 'expert' Errrrrr....................they just WON the election - but not that a FACT like that should get in the way of your biased 'story-telling'

[phiphidon]

OK enough of the misinformation yunla. The quote about the referendum being too expensive arose due to the fact that now the CC have decreed that a referendum needs to be called first to see whether the populace want a new constitution

Actually PTP put forward four options, one of them was public referendum which PTP said was the least desireable because it was too expensive, the other three options were discussion-based variations on the assembly theme, one of which was veto the whole process and simply allow an assembly to rubber stamp the PTP proposals.

Its really simple, they should call a public referendum. No need for anything else.

They do not have the support of the Thai people, that is a fact. They got 38% vote at the election and many people who voted for them have since woken up to the fact that they bought a gold-plated LIE. I think PTP will look back on that feeble 38% vote as their Golden Age, those halcyon early days before the chickens came home to roost armed with beak-mounted sleaze-seeking missiles.

All your dancing around the issue, skillfully avoids the basic central fact that PTP are a 38% votes elected party, whose cuddly House Speaker is currently being impeached for corrupting the office of house speaker and arguably for treason, PTP have broken multiple Thai privacy laws in office 2012 and also UDHR declarations against government oppression.

This makes PTP an extremely corrupt and lawless political party, and in NO genuinely democratic country ON EARTH would a such a sleazy crime-syndicate be allowed to change the national constitution without a public referendum first. The very fact that PTP want to slime their way out of this basic democratic process, and that you encourage them, says all I need to know about the type of undemocratic vertical-control system being offered here.

Yunla discussion mode demonstrated here No idea of the constitutional amendment process whatsoever, this time I really give up.

,

[binjalin]

OK enough of the misinformation yunla. The quote about the referendum being too expensive arose due to the fact that now the CC have decreed that a referendum needs to be called first to see whether the populace want a new constitution

Actually PTP put forward four options, one of them was public referendum which PTP said was the least desireable because it was too expensive, the other three options were discussion-based variations on the assembly theme, one of which was veto the whole process and simply allow an assembly to rubber stamp the PTP proposals.

Its really simple, they should call a public referendum. No need for anything else.

They do not have the support of the Thai people, that is a fact. They got 38% vote at the election and many people who voted for them have since woken up to the fact that they bought a gold-plated LIE. I think PTP will look back on that feeble 38% vote as their Golden Age, those halcyon early days before the chickens came home to roost armed with beak-mounted sleaze-seeking missiles.

All your dancing around the issue, skillfully avoids the basic central fact that PTP are a 38% votes elected party, whose cuddly House Speaker is currently being impeached for corrupting the office of house speaker and arguably for treason, PTP have broken multiple Thai privacy laws in office 2012 and also UDHR declarations against government oppression.

This makes PTP an extremely corrupt and lawless political party, and in NO genuinely democratic country ON EARTH would a such a sleazy crime-syndicate be allowed to change the national constitution without a public referendum first. The very fact that PTP want to slime their way out of this basic democratic process, and that you encourage them, says all I need to know about the type of undemocratic vertical-control system being offered here.

Yunla discussion mode demonstrated here No idea of the constitutional amendment process whatsoever, this time I really give up.

,

yup I'm joining you - I'm simply going to ignore her posts and give up too as she simply just doesn't 'get it' and it's a waste of breath as she's one-track biased and that's all there is to it

[Reasonableman]

OK enough of the misinformation yunla. The quote about the referendum being too expensive arose due to the fact that now the CC have decreed that a referendum needs to be called first to see whether the populace want a new constitution

Actually PTP put forward four options, one of them was public referendum which PTP said was the least desireable because it was too expensive, the other three options were discussion-based variations on the assembly theme, one of which was veto the whole process and simply allow an assembly to rubber stamp the PTP proposals.

Its really simple, they should call a public referendum. No need for anything else.

They do not have the support of the Thai people, that is a fact. They got 38% vote at the election and many people who voted for them have since woken up to the fact that they bought a gold-plated LIE. I think PTP will look back on that feeble 38% vote as their Golden Age, those halcyon early days before the chickens came home to roost armed with beak-mounted sleaze-seeking missiles.

All your dancing around the issue, skillfully avoids the basic central fact that PTP are a 38% votes elected party, whose cuddly House Speaker is currently being impeached for corrupting the office of house speaker and arguably for treason, PTP have broken multiple Thai privacy laws in office 2012 and also UDHR declarations against government oppression.

This makes PTP an extremely corrupt and lawless political party, and in NO genuinely democratic country ON EARTH would a such a sleazy crime-syndicate be allowed to change the national constitution without a public referendum first. The very fact that PTP want to slime their way out of this basic democratic process, and that you encourage them, says all I need to know about the type of undemocratic vertical-control system being offered here.

Yunla discussion mode demonstrated here No idea of the constitutional amendment process whatsoever, this time I really give up.

,

yup I'm joining you - I'm simply going to ignore her posts and give up too as she simply just doesn't 'get it' and it's a waste of breath as she's one-track biased and that's all there is to it

Bib n Bub agreeing with each other. What a novelty.

[Yunla]

Bib n Bub agreeing with each other. What a novelty.

You never see them in the same room.

[Moruya]

OK enough of the misinformation yunla. The quote about the referendum being too expensive arose due to the fact that now the CC have decreed that a referendum needs to be called first to see whether the populace want a new constitution

Actually PTP put forward four options, one of them was public referendum which PTP said was the least desireable because it was too expensive, the other three options were discussion-based variations on the assembly theme, one of which was veto the whole process and simply allow an assembly to rubber stamp the PTP proposals.

Its really simple, they should call a public referendum. No need for anything else.

They do not have the support of the Thai people, that is a fact. They got 38% vote at the election and many people who voted for them have since woken up to the fact that they bought a gold-plated LIE. I think PTP will look back on that feeble 38% vote as their Golden Age, those halcyon early days before the chickens came home to roost armed with beak-mounted sleaze-seeking missiles.

All your dancing around the issue, skillfully avoids the basic central fact that PTP are a 38% votes elected party, whose cuddly House Speaker is currently being impeached for corrupting the office of house speaker and arguably for treason, PTP have broken multiple Thai privacy laws in office 2012 and also UDHR declarations against government oppression.

This makes PTP an extremely corrupt and lawless political party, and in NO genuinely democratic country ON EARTH would a such a sleazy crime-syndicate be allowed to change the national constitution without a public referendum first. The very fact that PTP want to slime their way out of this basic democratic process, and that you encourage them, says all I need to know about the type of undemocratic vertical-control system being offered here.

Yunla discussion mode demonstrated here No idea of the constitutional amendment process whatsoever, this time I really give up.

,

no you won't. You love the banter too much.

[tlansford]

a referendum vote will be a yes/no vote.

It would be a yes/no vote, if PTP had the courage to call a national referendum.

Infact PTP are claiming that national referendum is too expensive, and that a PTP-approved private assembly would be more democratic.

Its like Yingluck has an repeat excuse-note from her mother that excuses Yingluck from attending sports lessons. We will never get to see her run.

which has nothing to do with the point being made.

[Noistar]

<snip>

They had a point, even / especially back in 2007..................

You didn't just <snip> the quote, you apparently snipped reading everything that I was talking about, or you didn't understand it. I was pointing out that as your quote says 'ad-hoc' is the basis of the kind of emergent democracy when it is emerging in a deeply corrupted system.

Thailand has a performance show-democracy, it is vote based but that is where democracy ends. And that is why judges are essential to regulate the corrupt free-for-all that is embedded in Thai politics post-election. You can not compare the advanced modern parliamentary democracies like for example the UK, in terms of judicial intervention, because those democracies are infact largely self-regulating by their parliamentary-debate based nature, and also have a largely uncorrupt police force and independent social watchdogs to monitor them before any kind of legal intervention would occur. In Thailand there is mass-corruption and unaccounted lawbreaking by the ruling party PTP, so infact we need more judges involved in overseeing Thai politics and not less judges.

My analogy for your easier understanding. You have to build the car before you can driive it, and before you can start making 'driving peformance tests' to see how well the car fares on the road. Thailand's democratic car has never left the garage, and never will if the judges (mechanics) are all fired.

I'll ignore your insults about my intelligence.

Perhaps your "point" would be more clear if you didn't surround it with repetitious rant.

For an "emergent democracy when it is emerging in a deeply corrupted system" it seemed the Judges knew of problems of independance when being called upon to do political work even back in 2007. The mere fact that they had reversed their thinking wrt the previous Democrat Party dissolution case seems to have passed right over your head - or was that too hard to answer?

It seems that the emergent democracy was doing OK back when the dems were in power and only seems to be a problem now - why is that do you think? Do you not see that the dems and others have been spending their time getting worked up over a non event which has resulted in the CC making a terrible precedent for the future, not a check and balance but an fanatics tool for disrupting the business of parliament?

You would have known all that if you had read my post. I won't bother again with you, it's pointless.

I'm keeping my head down.

My only issue is the continuous rant (if I may use the phrase generally, not directed to Phiphidon particularly).

It seems to me (IMHO) that any time somebody makes a reference to issues in one Government, the finger is pointed at the other. Does this achieve much?

My continual rant, as it were, is that there NEEDS to be some sort of control over the elected Government, of whatever colour. What that control mechanism is, is open to debate (IMHO). If the current one isn't right, let's get another which isn't just a clone of the elected party.

The fact that the PTP were voted in by a majority (no calculators please), doesn't mean (IMHO) that they can just do what they want. If I dare risk the analogy of a blank-cheque, I don't think it can be deemed that they were handed one.

In another post I asked - 'what do the PTP think the opposition are there for?'. Are there any (polite) suggestions.

Instead of concentrating on whether PTP can be allowed to do something, can somebody give some thought as to whether the Dems before or PTP now or whoever, are putting Thailand first.