Pheu Thai at risk for party dissolution: Chalerm

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The ruling Pheu Thai Party will, "with a million per cent certainty", be dissolved if it continues to push for the final passage of the charter amendment bill, Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung said on Tuesday.

"If the bill is passed its third reading, then the government will not survive," he said.

Chalerm said Phue Thai supporters should think before demanding for the final passage of bill.

The Constitution Court ruled last week that the bill was constitutional, but this was not a judicial endorsement, he said.

The high court simply dropped the charges because there was no tangible action to prove any charter violations, he said. But the passage of the bill might be construed as violating the ban for the rewriting of the entire charter, he added.

Any political parties found to have violated the ban might face disbandment.

He said the government should switch track and aim to amend certain provisions instead of introducing a new charter.

If the government took the lead on charter amendments, then it could control the outcome of charter change, he said.

Should it opt to form the Constitution Drafting Assembly, it would not have the same control over the outcome, he said.

Commenting on the idea of dismantling the high court, he said this idea would stir up trouble rather than resolve anything.

He said he believed the public would rally behind an alternate idea of merging the high court with the Supreme Court.

-- The Nation 2012-07-17

PTP is starting to split in directions and opinions?

PTP is starting to split in directions and opinions?

Could vey well be, I hope.

Or maybe he went to se his fortune-teller.

Wondered when we would hear words of wisdom

from this respected sage who puts others before himself

Wondered when we would hear words of wisdom

from this respected sage who puts others before himself

Well said.... 5555

Wondered when we would hear words of wisdom

from this respected sage who puts others before himself

he could be changing or perhaps thinking of becoming the PM instead of being a deputy

If the government took the lead on charter amendments, then it could control the outcome of charter change, he said.

These goons just don't get it. All they care about is who is in charge, who is giving the orders, etc.

Not one thought is given to what the people of Thailand might actually want.

"We will tell you; what you want, how to think, and what to do."

If the kangaroo courts are busy, we'll send them to the Sheep Dog Trials.

He is still capable of his moments of clarity.

Must have been a morning.

The government should switch and start looking out for the Thai people, all of them, except a select few or one.

For those who wonder why Chalerm advises the government to "switch track" should remember the definition of insanity : doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The government tested the constitution court to learn how far they can go and should now act accordingly

It's really fascinating to see how the policies of the government evolved according to the opposition they met. They really learned from the past and never make two times the same mistake. The way he engages the enemy, retreat, reengage, choose where he want to fight, is really fascinating. I really need to read Sun Tzu again.

The government should switch and start looking out for the Thai people, all of them, except a select few or one.

Kirk: Because the needs of the one... outweigh the needs of the many.

He is still capable of his moments of clarity.

Must have been a morning.

antibiotics worked wonders on his ear infection!

For those who wonder why Chalerm advises the government to "switch track" should remember the definition of insanity : doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The government tested the constitution court to learn how far they can go and should now act accordingly

It's really fascinating to see how the policies of the government evolved according to the opposition they met. They really learned from the past and never make two times the same mistake. The way he engages the enemy, retreat, reengage, choose where he want to fight, is really fascinating. I really need to read Sun Tzu again.

Except they obviously DO keep doing the same thing over and over and over again... expecting a different result.

The government should switch and start looking out for the Thai people, all of them, except a select few or one.

Kirk: Because the needs of the one... outweigh the needs of the many.

Because the needs of the monied outweigh the needs of the many.

Edited July 17, 201213 yr by metisdead
: Large font removed, there is no need to shout.

The high court simply dropped the charges because there was no tangible action to prove any charter violations, he said. But the passage of the bill might be construed as violating the ban for the rewriting of the entire charter, he added.

As far as I know (yes, please correct me if I'm not) the bill which has to go through a third reading ONLY proposes some very small amendments to article 291 to allow the setup of a CDA to look into making 'a few more' amendments. The procedue for forming the CDA is also included (I think).

So what's this about rewriting the entire charter? What is it Dept. PM Pol. Captain forgot he knows but we don't (yet)?

PTP is starting to split in directions and opinions?

Could vey well be, I hope.

You two read that wrong.

It means "Hey Thaksin that may mean troubles, so you must pay more or no go".

I suspect that PTP will disolved to make way for the old TRT. I'm sure Tox want the Reds to just go away. It will be easier for Tox to blame others for getting rid of the Reds. Plus Tox and company get points for finding a solution to the problem and maintains his hold on power.

Let us see how it all comes out!

And he can tell again that he is the victim and the amad don't want democracy

Or maybe he went to se his fortune-teller.

My thoughts exactly.

If the government took the lead on charter amendments, then it could control the outcome of charter change, he said.

These goons just don't get it. All they care about is who is in charge, who is giving the orders, etc.

Not one thought is given to what the people of Thailand might actually want.

"We will tell you; what you want, how to think, and what to do."

I don't think "they" really care so much "who is in charge" or "who is giving the orders" so much as whether the "who's" are going to be funneling the money their way. It's always about the money.

Just a reminder that posts using derogatory nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names will be deleted. If you don’t want your post to be deleted, spell people’s names correctly.

Another post calling for a civil war has been removed as well as the replies.

For those who wonder why Chalerm advises the government to "switch track" should remember the definition of insanity : doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The government tested the constitution court to learn how far they can go and should now act accordingly

It's really fascinating to see how the policies of the government evolved according to the opposition they met. They really learned from the past and never make two times the same mistake. The way he engages the enemy, retreat, reengage, choose where he want to fight, is really fascinating. I really need to read Sun Tzu again.

However, you cannot polish a turd

I don't see what the big deal about rewriting the entire charter is all about anyways. Didn't the 2006 coup do exactly that?

I suspect that the creation of a CDA could open up the whole Charter for total rewrite in a stealthy way.

This certainly was the fear of the CC prior to looking at it closely.

This may have been the bigger unspoken intent of the CC ruling,

to make sure that this open ended wording isn't sneaked in in the 'fine print'

and let PTP know they ARE looking closely.

For those who wonder why Chalerm advises the government to "switch track" should remember the definition of insanity : doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The government tested the constitution court to learn how far they can go and should now act accordingly

It's really fascinating to see how the policies of the government evolved according to the opposition they met. They really learned from the past and never make two times the same mistake. The way he engages the enemy, retreat, reengage, choose where he want to fight, is really fascinating. I really need to read Sun Tzu again.

JurgenG, It was interesting to see him note that the CDA would have created a process where the government would have had less control over the changes. With an amendment by amendment approach there are perhaps 2 big differences - control and a choice about passing them with a public referendum. - At lease as I have understood the information so far, the referendum is needed if and only if the government were to create a CDA. Is that what you understand, too?

What the bleep is up with Thaksin's political party? The dam_n thing is like a hydra. Cut off one head and another one grows back... What is the point of dissolving it when their hand get caught in the cookie jar? It just comes back again exactly the same, with the same thieves, but now with a different name.

For those who wonder why Chalerm advises the government to "switch track" should remember the definition of insanity : doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The government tested the constitution court to learn how far they can go and should now act accordingly

It's really fascinating to see how the policies of the government evolved according to the opposition they met. They really learned from the past and never make two times the same mistake. The way he engages the enemy, retreat, reengage, choose where he want to fight, is really fascinating. I really need to read Sun Tzu again.

JurgenG, It was interesting to see him note that the CDA would have created a process where the government would have had less control over the changes. With an amendment by amendment approach there are perhaps 2 big differences - control and a choice about passing them with a public referendum. - At lease as I have understood the information so far, the referendum is needed if and only if the government were to create a CDA. Is that what you understand, too?

It was always Chalerm's intention to steamroller these changes through without a referendum

For those who wonder why Chalerm advises the government to "switch track" should remember the definition of insanity : doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The government tested the constitution court to learn how far they can go and should now act accordingly

It's really fascinating to see how the policies of the government evolved according to the opposition they met. They really learned from the past and never make two times the same mistake. The way he engages the enemy, retreat, reengage, choose where he want to fight, is really fascinating. I really need to read Sun Tzu again.

JurgenG, It was interesting to see him note that the CDA would have created a process where the government would have had less control over the changes. With an amendment by amendment approach there are perhaps 2 big differences - control and a choice about passing them with a public referendum. - At lease as I have understood the information so far, the referendum is needed if and only if the government were to create a CDA. Is that what you understand, too?

Correctomundo - what you haven't figured in is the endless cries of Foul! They're going to overthrow the Head of State Article 68 petitions that the dems will no doubt throw at every possible charter amendment - However despite making a rod for their own back I feel that even the CC will eventually call enough and stop taking the dems petitions as credible.

Interesting times ahead............

For those who wonder why Chalerm advises the government to "switch track" should remember the definition of insanity : doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The government tested the constitution court to learn how far they can go and should now act accordingly

It's really fascinating to see how the policies of the government evolved according to the opposition they met. They really learned from the past and never make two times the same mistake. The way he engages the enemy, retreat, reengage, choose where he want to fight, is really fascinating. I really need to read Sun Tzu again.

JurgenG, It was interesting to see him note that the CDA would have created a process where the government would have had less control over the changes. With an amendment by amendment approach there are perhaps 2 big differences - control and a choice about passing them with a public referendum. - At lease as I have understood the information so far, the referendum is needed if and only if the government were to create a CDA. Is that what you understand, too?

Correctomundo - what you haven't figured in is the endless cries of Foul! They're going to overthrow the Head of State Article 68 petitions that the dems will no doubt throw at every possible charter amendment - However despite making a rod for their own back I feel that even the CC will eventually call enough and stop taking the dems petitions as credible.

Interesting times ahead............

So in other words the 2 winners here are the CC - giving themselves new powers, and the Government, not only not dissolved, but basically forced to follow a path of more control with a parliamentary majority and no requirement for a referendum.

No wonder the Dems can't win an election - they are strategic nimrods.