Pheu Thai At Risk For Party Dissolution: Chalerm

[Moruya]

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.

And no wonder the PTP can't run a government with all those brigands plundering the booty.

[siampolee]

You would all do well to remember that Chalerm was a leading member of the Democrat party until he was bought by Thaksin.

Don't underestimate Chalerm he (Chalerm) has always had his eye on the Prime Ministers post and of course Thaksins return due to an amnesty agreement would hamper Chalerms ambition.

Might that statement made by Chalerm be an indication as to the mind set of Chalerm and his allies ?

Samak was waiting in the wings for a long time before the sponsored call to power came, however the sponsorship by Thaksin did limit Samaks sphere of influence and the cooking show designed to make Samak look like a kindly uncle was his Nemesis.

As a friend my personal choice would be a rattlesnake rather than Chalermn, Thaksin and his brown nosed acolytes would indeed do well to remember the level of principles and honesty among their brethren in the P.T.snake pit.

[FOODLOVER]

Whoa, a million percent!

[whybother]

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?

A lot of people have a big problem with rewriting the charter in 2006/7, and these people want to do it again.

[kimamey]

Sounds pretty sensible for him or maybe I'm missing something.

1 million percent certainty? New Educaction Minister perhaps?

[nurofiend]

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?

A lot of people have a big problem with rewriting the charter in 2006/7, and these people want to do it again.

can you spot the differences though?

[rubl]

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?

A lot of people have a big problem with rewriting the charter in 2006/7, and these people want to do it again.

can you spot the differences though?

The part of absolving the coupmakers, one of whom is now an MP who recently proposed an amnesty bill which would absolve him once more just to be sure?

[nurofiend]

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?

A lot of people have a big problem with rewriting the charter in 2006/7, and these people want to do it again.

can you spot the differences though?

The part of absolving the coupmakers, one of whom is now an MP who recently proposed an amnesty bill which would absolve him once more just to be sure?

yes, that's precisely all i meant.

good job!

[whybother]

can you spot the differences though?

The part of absolving the coupmakers, one of whom is now an MP who recently proposed an amnesty bill which would absolve him once more just to be sure?

Given that "the people" voted to give amnesty to the coup makers, can a new constitution take that away?

Would that also mean that if this new constitution also gave amnesty to all the "political crimes" from the past few years that a future constitution could also remove that amnesty?

[nurofiend]

can you spot the differences though?

The part of absolving the coupmakers, one of whom is now an MP who recently proposed an amnesty bill which would absolve him once more just to be sure?

Given that "the people" voted to give amnesty to the coup makers, can a new constitution take that away?

Would that also mean that if this new constitution also gave amnesty to all the "political crimes" from the past few years that a future constitution could also remove that amnesty?

mmm

i wonder if they ever got to the stage where it was down to a referendum and it was blatant that thaksin would somehow be cleared of everything and allowed back, how would the vote go?

[phiphidon]

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?

A lot of people have a big problem with rewriting the charter in 2006/7, and these people want to do it again.

The reason that "A lot of people have a big problem with rewriting the charter in 2006/7" is the Thai people didn't ask for the coup to rip up their 1997 charter, they just didn't have any say in it.