Pheu Thai Still Backs A Drafting Assembly

[webfact]

POLITICS

Pheu Thai still backs a drafting assembly

THE NATION

Parliament President Somsak Kiatsuranont, right, talks to Deputy Senate Speaker Nikom Wairatpanich during an event held by Parliament in Muang Thong Thani.

MPs, senators to be sounded out while they wait for written verdict

BANGKOK: -- The ruling Pheu Thai Party, which claims the Constitution Court's verdict on changing the charter was "unclear", remained firm yesterday with its plan to amend the Constitution by setting up a drafting assembly.

Spokesman Prompong Nopparit said a resolution was reached at a meeting yesterday afternoon of the party's Strategic Committee, made up of leading Pheu Thai figures. It was chaired by senior MP Snoh Thienthong and lasted over three hours.

The spokesman said Pheu Thai was still waiting for a written version of the Constitution Court's ruling given last Friday in a case against proponents of the constitutional amendment bills. He said the party would need to study the eight judges' joint ruling and personal judgements before taking further action.

The Constitution Court rejected petitions against the amendment proponents on grounds there was insufficient proof. However, the court also suggested that writing a new charter could not be done without consulting the public first, because the people were the "owners of sovereignty" and the current post-coup Constitution had been approved by a majority of the population in a referendum.

The Pheu Thai spokesman said yesterday the party still insisted on its stance that the court had no power to accept the petitions for judicial review and that it had no authority to tell the legislature what to do in regard to amending the charter.

The court accepted the petitions for trial a few days before Parliament was scheduled to vote on the government-proposed amendment bill in the final reading in early June. The petitioners accused amendment proponents of attempting to overthrow the country's democratic regime with the King as head of state by proposing changes that would allow writing of a new constitution.

Pheu Thai's key figures yesterday agreed that the party has no urgent need to decide now whether the vote in the third reading should go ahead or whether a referendum should be held first, Prompong said.

"The amendment bills were supported by MPs from Pheu Thai and the coalition parties and senators. So the people involved should be sounded out first as to what to do next," he said.

"Pheu Thai still is firm about amending the Constitution of 2007 to become democratic and to reduce obstacles regarding enforcement of the Constitution," he said. "The party views that amendment by a constitution drafting assembly is a democratic process. It will allow the people to use their power in establishing a new constitution for true development of the country's democracy."

Pheu Thai MP Piraphan Palusuk, a key member of the party's team of legal experts, said yesterday that the Constitution Court verdict read by judges last Friday was unclear.

He said the party could ignore a suggestion by the court although that would lead to some people petitioning the court again.

He suggested that Parliament go ahead with a vote on the amendment bill, adding that the draft of a new charter to be written by the CDA would finally be subject to a referendum.

Phumtham Vechayachai, Pheu Thai's party director, said that many people were confused by the verdict. The party would wait for the official version of the verdict to determine what the binding ruling is and what is merely comment.

The eight judges will release their ruling, and individual opinions, via the Royal Gazette in two weeks.

Observers see four scenarios after verdict. First, the amendment bill would either be withdrawn or put on hold pending a referendum. Second, the government opts for final passage of the bill and gives the CDA full mandate to overhaul the charter. Third, the government still pushes for the bill's passage but instructs the CDA to amend certain provisions and not rewrite the entire charter. Fourth, the idea of a drafting assembly would be dropped and the government or Pheu Thai would sponsor an alternate bill to amend the charter by articles.

-- The Nation 2012-07-17

[Yunla]

The ruling Pheu Thai Party, which claims the Constitution Court's verdict on changing the charter was "unclear"

Its "unclear" because they couldn't find a book that explained the concept of 'public referendum' using pictures of happy dogs chasing big red balls.

The truth is that its a lot easier to bribe, manipulate and intimidate a small "drafting assembly", than it is to win public referendum.

It is entirely undemocratic to have a ruling party that forms assemblies on its own lines to accept its own agenda without need for thoroughly transparent public referendum on major contentious constitutional proposals. PTP do not understand that there is a democratic process to enacting bills and any amendments they contain or involve; extensive debate in parliament, listening to opposing views, listening to public sentiment, and listening to legal experts. If all those thing progress in entirety , the next stage is to get the wax-seal of a strictly-supervised public referendum to close the deal. PTP are bypassing all those processes in favour of an 'assembly'. That is illegal and as undemocratic as it could possibly be.

"The party views that amendment by a constitution drafting assembly is a democratic process"

In any case 'the party views that X action is democratic' doesn't mean anything. Their views are not relevent to something being democratic or not. Democracy is not a relative standard, democracy is an absolute and has not changed in its absolute terms for many centuries. In democracy you need public referendum to decide if something is acceptable to the masses.

"The party" saying that they have already decided that something is 'for the people' and democratic, and they will get some assembly to rubber-stamp it, is not democracy it is autocratic totalitarianism.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Yunla

[Moruya]

Absolving Thaksin is so far up their list of priorities, it's a wonder their noses aren't all bleeding.

This government is a disgrace. It wants to say it has the mandate from the people and yet ignore all the polls.

It will ultimately get what it deserves.

[OzMick]

The CDA is a perfect example of how democracy is and will be abused. First you elect a "committee," by-passing and subverting normal electoral processes to stack it with relatives and cronies, but allowing a minority of dissenting voices. The committee is steered to make the "decisions" already made before it was formed, but which are now "democratic."

Vast amounts of money can be funneled to those owed favours by way of salary, allowances and expenses. Results can be delayed by forming sub-committees for research and opinion polling.

Check out criticism already coming in re the Women's Fund committees, a lovely little boondoggle that will enrich government supporters while ultimately achieving next to nothing.

[WhizBang]

Anyone surprised?

[phiphidon]

The ruling Pheu Thai Party, which claims the Constitution Court's verdict on changing the charter was "unclear"

Its "unclear" because they couldn't find a book that explained the concept of 'public referendum' using pictures of happy dogs chasing big red balls.

The truth is that its a lot easier to bribe, manipulate and intimidate a small "drafting assembly", than it is to win public referendum.

It is entirely undemocratic to have a ruling party that forms assemblies on its own lines to accept its own agenda without need for thoroughly transparent public referendum on major contentious constitutional proposals. PTP do not understand that there is a democratic process to enacting bills and any amendments they contain or involve; extensive debate in parliament, listening to opposing views, listening to public sentiment, and listening to legal experts. If all those thing progress in entirety , the next stage is to get the wax-seal of a strictly-supervised public referendum to close the deal. PTP are bypassing all those processes in favour of an 'assembly'. That is illegal and as undemocratic as it could possibly be.

"The party views that amendment by a constitution drafting assembly is a democratic process"

In any case 'the party views that X action is democratic' doesn't mean anything. Their views are not relevent to something being democratic or not. Democracy is not a relative standard, democracy is an absolute and has not changed in its absolute terms for many centuries. In democracy you need public referendum to decide if something is acceptable to the masses.

"The party" saying that they have already decided that something is 'for the people' and democratic, and they will get some assembly to rubber-stamp it, is not democracy it is autocratic totalitarianism.

So previously you have argued that democracy in Thailand is "young" and "evolving" and now you're saying that democracy is an absolute and has not changed for many centuries.?

Apparently this democracy you speak of demands a "public referendum to decide if something is acceptable to the masses"

And yet in your first paragraph you tell us that the

"democratic process to enacting bills and any amendments they contain or involve; extensive debate in parliament, listening to opposing views, listening to public sentiment, and listening to legal experts.

And then

"If all those thing progress in entirety , the next stage is to get the wax-seal of a strictly-supervised public referendum to close the deal".

But the PTP, you tell us "are bypassing all those processes in favour of an assembly"

Are you in the slightest aware as to how the 2007 Military Junta had the constitution rewritten? I'll tell you, it was in exactly the same way as the the PTP proposed doing. The second reading of the bill had agreed in parliament the makeup of the CDA and some concessions had been won by the dems with respect to the voting procedure for the members of the CDA (by the by, this method of picking the CDA members was and is immesurably more democratic than the Junta appointed CDA members).

All that was needed was for the 3rd reading of the bill to pass, the amendment of Section 291 of the Constitution to allow for the formation of the CDA whose members (1 person from each province plus assorted experts proposed by all parties) would write the new constitution - and you say this undemocratic?

Of course, thanks to the dems, the CC stuck its oar in, and you are left with a situation where they either carry on with rewriting the constitution via a CDA or doing it piecemeal in parliament without a referendum and all with the blessing of the Constitutional Court.

Is that clear enough for you or is it you that needs the aide of "pictures of happy dogs chasing big red balls"?

[rubl]

Charter Amendment, formation of the CDA and Democracy at work.

2012-04-25

"For another demand, the opposition wanted the CDA to present the charter draft for parliamentary deliberation before holding a referendum vote.

Udomdej said lawmakers, as the people's representatives, did not need to vet the draft because the people would directly render their judgement on the draft via the referendum."

http://www.nationmul...4-showAds1.html

2012-03-02

"Yingluck on Wednesday insisted that the rewrite of the 2007 Constitution should keep the first and second chapters intact, but Abhisit, the Democrat Party leader, said the government should also promise not to change the charter for the sake of any particular person."

http://www.thaivisa....2/#entry5101468

2012-02-29

"The 2007 Constitution should not be totally rewritten and the section stipulating the royal institution must not be changed, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said on Wednesday.

However, it will be the responsibility of members of the constitution drafting assembly (CDA) to consider the points in the charter that need to be rewritten, she said."

2012-02-06

"Chief government whip Udomded Ratanasatian said on Monday the Puea Thai bid to amend the 2007 constitution, written by a panel named by 2006's coup junta, will be submitted to House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranond on Thursday."

...

According to the chief government whip, the committee members will consist of 77 persons, to represent Thailand's 77 provinces each and be elected by constituents throughout the country, plus 22 others to be picked from among qualified persons."

http://news.voicetv....lish/30097.html

2012-01-25

"Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Police General Chalerm Yubamrung has said public referendum will be held before constitutional amendment is to take place, reiterating that the Pheu Thai-led government will not include Section 112 in the constitution amendment, given the two are totally different issues."

http://thainews.prd....id=255501250011

2012-01-04

"Samart said one change to be made within the current parliamentary session, by April 18, is to amend the law on the establishment of a charter-drafting council. It would then be up to the council to decide what parts of the main law should be redrafted."

http://www.nationmul...a-30173100.html

[phiphidon]

Charter Amendment, formation of the CDA and Democracy at work.

2012-04-25

"For another demand, the opposition wanted the CDA to present the charter draft for parliamentary deliberation before holding a referendum vote.

Udomdej said lawmakers, as the people's representatives, did not need to vet the draft because the people would directly render their judgement on the draft via the referendum."

http://www.nationmul...4-showAds1.html

2012-03-02

"Yingluck on Wednesday insisted that the rewrite of the 2007 Constitution should keep the first and second chapters intact, but Abhisit, the Democrat Party leader, said the government should also promise not to change the charter for the sake of any particular person."

http://www.thaivisa....2/#entry5101468

2012-02-29

"The 2007 Constitution should not be totally rewritten and the section stipulating the royal institution must not be changed, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said on Wednesday.

However, it will be the responsibility of members of the constitution drafting assembly (CDA) to consider the points in the charter that need to be rewritten, she said."

2012-02-06

"Chief government whip Udomded Ratanasatian said on Monday the Puea Thai bid to amend the 2007 constitution, written by a panel named by 2006's coup junta, will be submitted to House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranond on Thursday."

...

According to the chief government whip, the committee members will consist of 77 persons, to represent Thailand's 77 provinces each and be elected by constituents throughout the country, plus 22 others to be picked from among qualified persons."

http://news.voicetv....lish/30097.html

2012-01-25

"Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Police General Chalerm Yubamrung has said public referendum will be held before constitutional amendment is to take place, reiterating that the Pheu Thai-led government will not include Section 112 in the constitution amendment, given the two are totally different issues."

http://thainews.prd....id=255501250011

2012-01-04

"Samart said one change to be made within the current parliamentary session, by April 18, is to amend the law on the establishment of a charter-drafting council. It would then be up to the council to decide what parts of the main law should be redrafted."

http://www.nationmul...a-30173100.html

What you could have added

As a result of the judgement passed by the CC the majority of the constitution can now be re written inside parliament without the need for a referendum with the full blessings of the CC.

Whereas before the democratic party and the CC interfered the PTP were going to form a CDA in the democratic way laid down by the constitution. The results of that CDA written constitution would have then been submitted to the Thai Public to vote for or against in a referendum.

So, way to go the CC and the Democratic Party for saving the day well, what precisely?

[Noistar]

The ruling Pheu Thai Party, which claims the Constitution Court's verdict on changing the charter was "unclear"

Its "unclear" because they couldn't find a book that explained the concept of 'public referendum' using pictures of happy dogs chasing big red balls.

The truth is that its a lot easier to bribe, manipulate and intimidate a small "drafting assembly", than it is to win public referendum.

It is entirely undemocratic to have a ruling party that forms assemblies on its own lines to accept its own agenda without need for thoroughly transparent public referendum on major contentious constitutional proposals. PTP do not understand that there is a democratic process to enacting bills and any amendments they contain or involve; extensive debate in parliament, listening to opposing views, listening to public sentiment, and listening to legal experts. If all those thing progress in entirety , the next stage is to get the wax-seal of a strictly-supervised public referendum to close the deal. PTP are bypassing all those processes in favour of an 'assembly'. That is illegal and as undemocratic as it could possibly be.

"The party views that amendment by a constitution drafting assembly is a democratic process"

In any case 'the party views that X action is democratic' doesn't mean anything. Their views are not relevent to something being democratic or not. Democracy is not a relative standard, democracy is an absolute and has not changed in its absolute terms for many centuries. In democracy you need public referendum to decide if something is acceptable to the masses.

"The party" saying that they have already decided that something is 'for the people' and democratic, and they will get some assembly to rubber-stamp it, is not democracy it is autocratic totalitarianism.

So previously you have argued that democracy in Thailand is "young" and "evolving" and now you're saying that democracy is an absolute and has not changed for many centuries.?

Apparently this democracy you speak of demands a "public referendum to decide if something is acceptable to the masses"

And yet in your first paragraph you tell us that the

"democratic process to enacting bills and any amendments they contain or involve; extensive debate in parliament, listening to opposing views, listening to public sentiment, and listening to legal experts.

And then

"If all those thing progress in entirety , the next stage is to get the wax-seal of a strictly-supervised public referendum to close the deal".

But the PTP, you tell us "are bypassing all those processes in favour of an assembly"

Are you in the slightest aware as to how the 2007 Military Junta had the constitution rewritten? I'll tell you, it was in exactly the same way as the the PTP proposed doing. The second reading of the bill had agreed in parliament the makeup of the CDA and some concessions had been won by the dems with respect to the voting procedure for the members of the CDA (by the by, this method of picking the CDA members was and is immesurably more democratic than the Junta appointed CDA members).

All that was needed was for the 3rd reading of the bill to pass, the amendment of Section 291 of the Constitution to allow for the formation of the CDA whose members (1 person from each province plus assorted experts proposed by all parties) would write the new constitution - and you say this undemocratic?

Of course, thanks to the dems, the CC stuck its oar in, and you are left with a situation where they either carry on with rewriting the constitution via a CDA or doing it piecemeal in parliament without a referendum and all with the blessing of the Constitutional Court.

Is that clear enough for you or is it you that needs the aide of "pictures of happy dogs chasing big red balls"?

Now let's get back to now. The usual attempt to divert the topic by 'this is what happened with the junta/democrats'

If they did something you feel was wrong then, is it right for this Government to do the same?

What is THIS democratic government doing, or attempting to do, NOW? What are the implications? Forget the past, let's deal with now and look to the future.

[ratcatcher]

"Put your head on my shoulder and stop sniveling"

[rubl]

What you could have added

As a result of the judgement passed by the CC the majority of the constitution can now be re written inside parliament without the need for a referendum with the full blessings of the CC.

Whereas before the democratic party and the CC interfered the PTP were going to form a CDA in the democratic way laid down by the constitution. The results of that CDA written constitution would have then been submitted to the Thai Public to vote for or against in a referendum.

So, way to go the CC and the Democratic Party for saving the day well, what precisely?

- democracy at work

- complete rewrite needs referendum

- leave doubt as to the exact meaning and/or reach of "But the court said amendments could be made constitutionally to improve articles that are problematic."

- give Pheu Thai party list MPs and UDD leaders the chance to make fools of themselves by protesting against a CC

- etc., etc.

[phiphidon]

Now let's get back to now. The usual attempt to divert the topic by 'this is what happened with the junta/democrats'

If they did something you feel was wrong then, is it right for this Government to do the same?

What is THIS democratic government doing, or attempting to do, NOW? What are the implications? Forget the past, let's deal with now and look to the future.

If you read my post properly you would see that I brought up the Juntas way of rewriting the constitution (which has been decreed all above board simply through the number of people on here stating that there was nothing wrong with it) to illustrate that the PTP were going through exactly the same process but this time there is supposedly something wrong with the method.

In other words completely the opposite to what you're implying about my post which is dealing with the now and the future.

So next time read a post carefully before posting erroneous conclusions and do not attempt to divert the topic just because you don't like what you are reading.

[Reasonableman]

The ruling Pheu Thai Party, which claims the Constitution Court's verdict on changing the charter was "unclear"

Its "unclear" because they couldn't find a book that explained the concept of 'public referendum' using pictures of happy dogs chasing big red balls.

The truth is that its a lot easier to bribe, manipulate and intimidate a small "drafting assembly", than it is to win public referendum.

It is entirely undemocratic to have a ruling party that forms assemblies on its own lines to accept its own agenda without need for thoroughly transparent public referendum on major contentious constitutional proposals. PTP do not understand that there is a democratic process to enacting bills and any amendments they contain or involve; extensive debate in parliament, listening to opposing views, listening to public sentiment, and listening to legal experts. If all those thing progress in entirety , the next stage is to get the wax-seal of a strictly-supervised public referendum to close the deal. PTP are bypassing all those processes in favour of an 'assembly'. That is illegal and as undemocratic as it could possibly be.

"The party views that amendment by a constitution drafting assembly is a democratic process"

In any case 'the party views that X action is democratic' doesn't mean anything. Their views are not relevent to something being democratic or not. Democracy is not a relative standard, democracy is an absolute and has not changed in its absolute terms for many centuries. In democracy you need public referendum to decide if something is acceptable to the masses.

"The party" saying that they have already decided that something is 'for the people' and democratic, and they will get some assembly to rubber-stamp it, is not democracy it is autocratic totalitarianism.

So previously you have argued that democracy in Thailand is "young" and "evolving" and now you're saying that democracy is an absolute and has not changed for many centuries.?

Apparently this democracy you speak of demands a "public referendum to decide if something is acceptable to the masses"

And yet in your first paragraph you tell us that the

"democratic process to enacting bills and any amendments they contain or involve; extensive debate in parliament, listening to opposing views, listening to public sentiment, and listening to legal experts.

And then

"If all those thing progress in entirety , the next stage is to get the wax-seal of a strictly-supervised public referendum to close the deal".

But the PTP, you tell us "are bypassing all those processes in favour of an assembly"

Are you in the slightest aware as to how the 2007 Military Junta had the constitution rewritten? I'll tell you, it was in exactly the same way as the the PTP proposed doing. The second reading of the bill had agreed in parliament the makeup of the CDA and some concessions had been won by the dems with respect to the voting procedure for the members of the CDA (by the by, this method of picking the CDA members was and is immesurably more democratic than the Junta appointed CDA members).

All that was needed was for the 3rd reading of the bill to pass, the amendment of Section 291 of the Constitution to allow for the formation of the CDA whose members (1 person from each province plus assorted experts proposed by all parties) would write the new constitution - and you say this undemocratic?

Of course, thanks to the dems, the CC stuck its oar in, and you are left with a situation where they either carry on with rewriting the constitution via a CDA or doing it piecemeal in parliament without a referendum and all with the blessing of the Constitutional Court.

Is that clear enough for you or is it you that needs the aide of "pictures of happy dogs chasing big red balls"?

[Moruya]

"Put your head on my shoulder and stop sniveling"

What type of boots should I wear to a stomping?

[Skywalker69]

"Put your head on my shoulder and stop sniveling"

What type of boots should I wear to a stomping?

Burberrys?

[Yunla]

So previously you have argued that democracy in Thailand is "young" and "evolving" and now you're saying that democracy is an absolute and has not changed for many centuries.?

I meant that PTP leaders announcing that they have decided their assembly can substitute for public referendum, because they have decided this is democratic, means sweet jack to me because I wasn't asking PTP for a definition of the word 'democracy'. Democracy is not a relative term, that you can have your own opinion of. It is an absolute term. Absolute democracy, meaning the same basic thing it has meant since Ancient Greece demokratia meaning 'rule of the people'.

Different cultures have had different takes on it, but the basic idea was always that "all citizens" (originally excluded women and slaves) had an equal stake in democracy, and could have their voice heard in debate or referenda. That is what I meant by many centuries. I suspect you knew what I was saying since I made it perfectly clear, and you were just trying to pick a fight.

Thailand, as I have said before, has a classic 'performance show-democracy'. That means it is like a pantomime which ticks the boxes that make the audience happy but nothing more. Show-democracy is often the direct pre-cursor to full blown tinpot dictatorship with dark sunglasses, peaked caps and mass executions. Thailand's democracy consists of some very murky voting-practices, but that is democratic enough and not really the problem, unfortunately Thai democracy ends after the election, when the real gangsterism gets a chokehold. All kinds of serious corruption and parliamentary breaches occur here, and are not dealt with on any level, or extremely slowly if at all.

As I talked with you about before, in modern democracies, there are self-regulating mechanisms and also independent agencies to monitor parliament. In Thai there is nothing and that is why it is necessarily subjugate to the judiciary far more than other nations. To remove any legal authorities from this society is dangerous especially considering the current ruling party who don't even pretend to be democratic.

To spell it out, if PTP claim to represent the masses, PTP need a public referendum for any serious contentious proposals. PTP automatically need public referendum for constitutional rewrites because the constitution belongs to the people and not to politicians.

Of course, PTP can bypass this referendum, with their assembly and whatever else they can dream up, but infact they are then officially a dictatorship and have left democracy behind entirely. I would say that PTP have already long since left the realm of modern parliamentary democracy, with its debate and consensus and codes of conduct, but if they rewrite the nation's constitution without a transparent public referendum first, then they will officially be a totalitarian dictatorship, and a tinpot sleazy mafia one at that.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Yunla

[Moruya]

So previously you have argued that democracy in Thailand is "young" and "evolving" and now you're saying that democracy is an absolute and has not changed for many centuries.?

I meant that PTP leaders announcing that they have decided their assembly can substitute for public referendum, because they have decided this is democratic, means sweet jack to me because I wasn't asking PTP for a definition of the word 'democracy'. Democracy is not a relative term, that you can have your own opinion of. It is an absolute term. Absolute democracy, meaning the same basic thing it has meant since Ancient Greece demokratia meaning 'rule of the people'.

Different cultures have had different takes on it, but the basic idea was always that "all citizens" (originally excluded women and slaves) had an equal stake in democracy, and could have their voice heard in debate or referenda. That is what I meant by many centuries. I suspect you knew what I was saying since I made it perfectly clear, and you were just trying to pick a fight.

Thailand, as I have said before, has a classic 'performance show-democracy'. That means it is like a pantomime which ticks the boxes that make the audience happy but nothing more. Show-democracy is often the direct pre-cursor to full blown tinpot dictatorship with dark sunglasses, peaked caps and mass executions. Thailand's democracy consists of some very murky voting-practices, but that is democratic enough and not really the problem, unfortunately Thai democracy ends after the election, when the real gangsterism gets a chokehold. All kinds of serious corruption and parliamentary breaches occur here, and are not dealt with on any level, or extremely slowly if at all.

As I talked with to you about before, in modern democracies, there are self-regulating mechanisms and also independent agencies to monitor parliament. Here there is nothing and that is why it is necessarily subjugate to the judiciary far more than other nations. To remove any legal authorities from this society is dangerous especially considering the current ruling party who don't even pretend to be democratic.

To spell it out, if PTP claim to represent the masses, PTP need a public referendum for any serious contentious proposals. PTP automatically need public referendum for constitutional rewrites because the constitution belongs to the people and not to politicians. Of course, PTP can bypass this referendum, with their assembly and whatever else they can dream up, but infact they arethen officially a dictatorship and have left democracy behind entirely. I would say they have already long since left democracy behind, but if they rewrite the nation's constitution without a transparent public referendum first, then they will officially be a dictatorship, and a tinpot sleazy mafia one at that.

I think if voting in Thailand were restricted to, say, people with a grasp of the ancient Greeks or those who can demonstrate an understanding of Newton's calculus then things would be fine.

[phiphidon]

So previously you have argued that democracy in Thailand is "young" and "evolving" and now you're saying that democracy is an absolute and has not changed for many centuries.?

I meant that PTP leaders announcing that they have decided their assembly can substitute for public referendum, because they have decided this is democratic, means sweet jack to me because I wasn't asking PTP for a definition of the word 'democracy'. Democracy is not a relative term, that you can have your own opinion of. It is an absolute term. Absolute democracy, meaning the same basic thing it has meant since Ancient Greece demokratia meaning 'rule of the people'.

Different cultures have had different takes on it, but the basic idea was always that "all citizens" (originally excluded women and slaves) had an equal stake in democracy, and could have their voice heard in debate or referenda. That is what I meant by many centuries. I suspect you knew what I was saying since I made it perfectly clear, and you were just trying to pick a fight.

Thailand, as I have said before, has a classic 'performance show-democracy'. That means it is like a pantomime which ticks the boxes that make the audience happy but nothing more. Show-democracy is often the direct pre-cursor to full blown tinpot dictatorship with dark sunglasses, peaked caps and mass executions. Thailand's democracy consists of some very murky voting-practices, but that is democratic enough and not really the problem, unfortunately Thai democracy ends after the election, when the real gangsterism gets a chokehold. All kinds of serious corruption and parliamentary breaches occur here, and are not dealt with on any level, or extremely slowly if at all.

As I talked with you about before, in modern democracies, there are self-regulating mechanisms and also independent agencies to monitor parliament. In Thai there is nothing and that is why it is necessarily subjugate to the judiciary far more than other nations. To remove any legal authorities from this society is dangerous especially considering the current ruling party who don't even pretend to be democratic.

To spell it out, if PTP claim to represent the masses, PTP need a public referendum for any serious contentious proposals. PTP automatically need public referendum for constitutional rewrites because the constitution belongs to the people and not to politicians.

Of course, PTP can bypass this referendum, with their assembly and whatever else they can dream up, but infact they are then officially a dictatorship and have left democracy behind entirely. I would say that PTP have already long since left the realm of modern parliamentary democracy, with its debate and consensus and codes of conduct, but if they rewrite the nation's constitution without a transparent public referendum first, then they will officially be a totalitarian dictatorship, and a tinpot sleazy mafia one at that.

Brick wall time. See ya.

[phiphidon]

I think if voting in Thailand were restricted to, say, people with a grasp of the ancient Greeks or those who can demonstrate an understanding of Newton's calculus then things would be fine.

All fine attributes of a PADcentric thinker, votes are wasted on the phrai, eh.........

Edited July 17, 2012 by phiphidon

[Moruya]

I think if voting in Thailand were restricted to, say, people with a grasp of the ancient Greeks or those who can demonstrate an understanding of Newton's calculus then things would be fine.

All fine attributes of a PADcentric thinker, votes are wasted on the phrai, eh.........

I detest the PAD

I dislike people who go to rally about democracy when they understand more about sub-nucleonic particle physics

[Reasonableman]

I think if voting in Thailand were restricted to, say, people with a grasp of the ancient Greeks or those who can demonstrate an understanding of Newton's calculus then things would be fine.

All fine attributes of a PADcentric thinker, votes are wasted on the phrai, eh.........

I detest the PAD

I dislike people who go to rally about democracy when they understand more about sub-nucleonic particle physics

Some people find great solace in color coding. Their entire universe is colored red or yellow. It is indicative of intellectual laziness or even worse, a wilful denial of pluralistic reality. Anyway, it's much easier than independent analytical thinking, and plays nicely to color-coded mobthink. Either way, it is dishonest.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Reasonableman

[Yunla]

Some people find great solace in color coding. Their entire universe is colored red or yellow. It is indicative of intellectual laziness or even worse, a wilful denial of pluralistic reality. Anyway, it's much easier than independent analytical thinking, and plays nicely to color-coded mobthink. Either way, it is dishonest.

It is also an insult to anybody when they are defined primarily by a piece of clothing. Saying that somebody is a 'red shirt' or a 'yellow shirt', as opposed to saying that somebody is an individual with a unique personality and life skills, is to condense hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution and human achievement and refer to it as a scrap of cotton with some dye on it.

Defining people as "shirts" (of any colour) is a seriously dehumanising act. It says those people are all interchangeable, replaceable, disposable. Because they are just shirts and not a group of individuals. Even worse is when Thaksin gives you a shirt to wear, a shirt that not only defines you as a 'red shirt' (a 'thing' and not a 'person') but it also has a big Thaksin face on the front of the shirt, which says you are a 'thing' belonging to Thaksin, with his stamp of ownership on your chest.

That is why, even if I supported a political party I would insist on wearing my own normal working clothes and being referred to by my full name.

Nature throws out abundance, and the reason it does that is to avoid entropic uniformity. It is a crucial part of evolution to never surrender ones uniqueness to any system of deindividualisation.

[rubl]

Colour coding? IMHO some discussions here are more a case of only in blank and white thinking

[Moruya]

Some people find great solace in color coding. Their entire universe is colored red or yellow. It is indicative of intellectual laziness or even worse, a wilful denial of pluralistic reality. Anyway, it's much easier than independent analytical thinking, and plays nicely to color-coded mobthink. Either way, it is dishonest.

It is also an insult to anybody when they are defined primarily by a piece of clothing. Saying that somebody is a 'red shirt' or a 'yellow shirt', as opposed to saying that somebody is an individual with a unique personality and life skills, is to condense hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution and human achievement and refer to it as a scrap of cotton with some dye on it.

Defining people as "shirts" (of any colour) is a seriously dehumanising act. It says those people are all interchangeable, replaceable, disposable. Because they are just shirts and not a group of individuals. Even worse is when Thaksin gives you a shirt to wear, a shirt that not only defines you as a 'red shirt' (a 'thing' and not a 'person') but it also has a big Thaksin face on the front of the shirt, which says you are a 'thing' belonging to Thaksin, with his stamp of ownership on your chest.

That is why, even if I supported a political party I would insist on wearing my own normal working clothes and being referred to by my full name.

Nature throws out abundance, and the reason it does that is to avoid entropic uniformity. It is a crucial part of evolution to never surrender ones uniqueness to any system of deindividualisation.

Its time to outlaw coloured shirts.

From now on it will be the Dems and the Black Sheep.

[nurofiend]

Some people find great solace in color coding. Their entire universe is colored red or yellow. It is indicative of intellectual laziness or even worse, a wilful denial of pluralistic reality. Anyway, it's much easier than independent analytical thinking, and plays nicely to color-coded mobthink. Either way, it is dishonest.

It is also an insult to anybody when they are defined primarily by a piece of clothing. Saying that somebody is a 'red shirt' or a 'yellow shirt', as opposed to saying that somebody is an individual with a unique personality and life skills, is to condense hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution and human achievement and refer to it as a scrap of cotton with some dye on it.

Defining people as "shirts" (of any colour) is a seriously dehumanising act. It says those people are all interchangeable, replaceable, disposable. Because they are just shirts and not a group of individuals. Even worse is when Thaksin gives you a shirt to wear, a shirt that not only defines you as a 'red shirt' (a 'thing' and not a 'person') but it also has a big Thaksin face on the front of the shirt, which says you are a 'thing' belonging to Thaksin, with his stamp of ownership on your chest.

That is why, even if I supported a political party I would insist on wearing my own normal working clothes and being referred to by my full name.

Nature throws out abundance, and the reason it does that is to avoid entropic uniformity. It is a crucial part of evolution to never surrender ones uniqueness to any system of deindividualisation.

Its time to outlaw coloured shirts.

From now on it will be the Dems and the Black Sheep.

ohhhh... i get it

the dems and their followers, nice analogy m8.

[somtumlion]

What you could have added

As a result of the judgement passed by the CC the majority of the constitution can now be re written inside parliament without the need for a referendum with the full blessings of the CC.

Whereas before the democratic party and the CC interfered the PTP were going to form a CDA in the democratic way laid down by the constitution. The results of that CDA written constitution would have then been submitted to the Thai Public to vote for or against in a referendum.

So, way to go the CC and the Democratic Party for saving the day well, what precisely?

Careful Phi, your bias is showing..

[nurofiend]

What you could have added

As a result of the judgement passed by the CC the majority of the constitution can now be re written inside parliament without the need for a referendum with the full blessings of the CC.

Whereas before the democratic party and the CC interfered the PTP were going to form a CDA in the democratic way laid down by the constitution. The results of that CDA written constitution would have then been submitted to the Thai Public to vote for or against in a referendum.

So, way to go the CC and the Democratic Party for saving the day well, what precisely?

Careful Phi, your bias is showing..

or in other words you have nothing tangible to correct the post with.

[Reasonableman]

What you could have added

As a result of the judgement passed by the CC the majority of the constitution can now be re written inside parliament without the need for a referendum with the full blessings of the CC.

Whereas before the democratic party and the CC interfered the PTP were going to form a CDA in the democratic way laid down by the constitution. The results of that CDA written constitution would have then been submitted to the Thai Public to vote for or against in a referendum.

So, way to go the CC and the Democratic Party for saving the day well, what precisely?

Careful Phi, your bias is showing..

or in other words you have nothing tangible to correct the post with.

An incisive and illuminating riposte... like boiled tofu.

[nurofiend]

awww, are you following me again?

how cute.

[phiphidon]

Some people find great solace in color coding. Their entire universe is colored red or yellow. It is indicative of intellectual laziness or even worse, a wilful denial of pluralistic reality. Anyway, it's much easier than independent analytical thinking, and plays nicely to color-coded mobthink. Either way, it is dishonest.

It is also an insult to anybody when they are defined primarily by a piece of clothing. Saying that somebody is a 'red shirt' or a 'yellow shirt', as opposed to saying that somebody is an individual with a unique personality and life skills, is to condense hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution and human achievement and refer to it as a scrap of cotton with some dye on it.

Defining people as "shirts" (of any colour) is a seriously dehumanising act. It says those people are all interchangeable, replaceable, disposable. Because they are just shirts and not a group of individuals. Even worse is when Thaksin gives you a shirt to wear, a shirt that not only defines you as a 'red shirt' (a 'thing' and not a 'person') but it also has a big Thaksin face on the front of the shirt, which says you are a 'thing' belonging to Thaksin, with his stamp of ownership on your chest.

That is why, even if I supported a political party I would insist on wearing my own normal working clothes and being referred to by my full name.

Nature throws out abundance, and the reason it does that is to avoid entropic uniformity. It is a crucial part of evolution to never surrender ones uniqueness to any system of deindividualisation.

I take it that is why you prefer to refer to individuals that think in a different way to you as "redmob" - because that way you can hurl your insults and bile and feel good about it because it is not an individual or a group of individuals you are addressing but a dehumanised "mob". Nice.

You might want to practise what you preach, Yunla,............................Evolution, mmm, nothing to see around here.