'Cut Court Out Of Any Charter Rewrite': Pheu Thai Lawyer

[webfact]

'Cut court out of any rewrite'

Piyanart Srivalo,

Praphan Jindalertudomdee,

Khanittha Thepphajorn

The Nation

Pheu Thai lawyer says article needs change to stop 'interference'

BANGKOK: -- As the Constitution Court published its official verdict yesterday in the case against the proponents of constitutional amendment, a key legal expert from the ruling Pheu Thai Party floated the idea of gagging the judiciary before moving on to write a new charter.

Pheu Thai legal adviser Chusak Sirinil said yesterday the ruling party should first amend Article 68 of the charter, seen as giving the top court the power to meddle in any rewrite. Once this provision was amended, the coalition could proceed to frame a new charter, the adviser said.

"Pheu Thai will strive for the rewriting of the entire charter," Chusak said.

The ruling party will hold a meeting of its MPs in Chon Buri this weekend, and constitutional amendment is among the topics they are expected to discuss. The decisions made by Pheu Thai at the meeting are likely to be raised at the next meeting of coalition whips, scheduled for Tuesday, the eve of the next House session.

The court yesterday made an electronic version of its official 29-page verdict available to the public for download on its website (constitutionalcourt.or.th), which saw heavy traffic during the afternoon.

On July 13, the court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the charter-change proponents aimed to overthrow the country's democratic regime with the King as head of state. However, it suggested that as the current Constitution was endorsed by the majority of voters in a public referendum, amendment to allow a rewrite of the entire charter could not be done without first consulting the public by holding a popular vote. The court said Article 291 of the charter allows amendment by article, not a wholesale rewrite of the entire Constitution.

The much-awaited official verdict released yesterday was almost identical to the one read by the judges on July 13. The court gave no more details or further explanations.

Pheu Thai politicians had earlier said that the ruling party would wait for the official version of the court's ruling before taking action in response to the verdict. Some considered the court's ruling regarding the referendum as only a suggestion. They called on Parliament to go ahead with voting on the final reading of the constitutional amendment bill.

Chusak said yesterday he expected the reconvening of Parliament next month to see a general debate about the verdict on the charter amendment bill. The debate will not include a vote because it is meant to assess opinions of lawmakers on the next step to be taken in rewriting the charter, he said.

In the face of the decision, he said Parliament should push for a specific amendment to curtail the judicial mandate, paving the way for change.

He said amending the charter provision by provision as per the verdict was impractical, arguing that the process would grind to a halt if 100 opposition lawmakers lined up to speak for each draft provision.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont said he has scheduled next Wednesday to hold a special session of the lower chamber, marking the end of the House's recess.

The session would not see debate on the controversial reconciliation bills, Somsak said, allaying concerns that the political tension would be inflamed.

Commenting on a demand by the People's Alliance for Democracy to remove the reconciliation debate from the legislative docket, he said coalition and opposition MPs had yet to reach an agreement on the issue.

In regard to the next legislative move on charter change, he said the House-Senate session would have to study and debate the judicial decision.

He said that in his personal opinion, the legislature should not proceed to vote on the third reading of the charter amendment bill because the move might trigger legal wrangling.

Should Parliament opt to amend the charter provision by provision, the rewrite would have to revert to a new bill for that purpose, he said.

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung said yesterday that at a Pheu Thai meeting this weekend, he will seek to persuade his colleagues not to try to push for a vote during the final reading of the charter change draft.

-- The Nation 2012-07-27

[Moruya]

For 80 years the Thais have struggled to get good governance in place. The constitution is an organic set of rules that has developed for good reasons.

For longer they have worked on the judicial system and whilst it may not be perfect, it has and continues to evolve.

Now this band of brigands feels that it has both the mandate and the authority to tear everything up and replace it with its own set?

God give me strength

[beammeup]

Maybe they should call it year zero while their at it

[Roadman]

There is a reason ruling governments should not have control of the judicary. It is the people's "fair" voice of reason when governments put themselves above the law.

What this mob cannot accept is that an individual group of their peers appointed by the Peoples Monarchy will hold them acountable, so that they cannot just put themselves above the law of Thaksin's version of democracy. populist dictaorship. The voice of Thaksin stinks in this assessment of Chusak Sirinil...the convicted fugitive criminal is wishing to be above the law, and have the law as he and the rest of his mob chose to have.

The only hope that Thailand has right now is that more and more thai's stand up to this stain that Thaksin is casting on Thailand.

[Crushdepth]

Don't worry, there is an independent Police Chief in place, he'll make sure there's no trouble

[jonclark]

Here's a better idea - how about cutting PTP out of any charter rewrite so they can focus on helping the ordinary folk.

[Skywalker69]

Pheu Thai Party floated the idea of gagging the judiciary before moving on to write a new charter.

Orders from the man "afar"

[Sharp]

Maybe they should call it year zero while their at it

Nice !!!!!

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[h90]

For 80 years the Thais have struggled to get good governance in place. The constitution is an organic set of rules that has developed for good reasons.

For longer they have worked on the judicial system and whilst it may not be perfect, it has and continues to evolve.

Now this band of brigands feels that it has both the mandate and the authority to tear everything up and replace it with its own set?

God give me strength

And the police is already complete knocked out.

[Thaddeus]

Pheu Thai politicians had earlier said that the ruling party would wait for the official version of the court's ruling before taking action in response to the verdict. Some considered the court's ruling regarding the referendum as only a suggestion.

If there is an axe about to fall on your head, get out of the way.

Just a suggestion.

[Crushdepth]

Pheu Thai legal adviser Chusak Sirinil said yesterday the ruling party should first amend Article 68 of the charter, seen as giving the top court the power to meddle in any rewrite. Once this provision was amended, the coalition could proceed to frame a new charter, the adviser said.

In other words, remove all checks on Parliamentary power. How predictably totalitarian.

[rubl]

"Pheu Thai will strive for the rewriting of the entire charter," Chusak said.

The 2007 version is not too much different from the 1997 version but is said to have juridical clarifications seen as improvement, apart from the junta amnesty and the senate selection. So, obviously and clearly for all to see, we do need to rewrite the constitution completely and get rid of any juridical meddling so in future we can legally do what we want. Makes sense. I'm sure some of our esteemed posters will agree that in Europe we do the same, established democratic behaviour and all that.

[yoshiwara]

There is only one and one only reason for removing the Court. It stands in the middle of the road blocking the return of Thaksin.

All and every other reason is secondary. It is all about Thaksin.

[givenall]

I would be surprised if he did not say this

[Reasonableman]

Does this really represent the wishes of the electorate, and is it in the best interests of the Nation and the advancement of democracy? Who will benefit?

[drdoom6996]

Here's a better idea - how about cutting PTP out of any charter rewrite so they can focus on helping the ordinary folk.

Never happen. They will claim it is helping ordinary folk. You know that ONe guy is the helpless Thai people here. Ordinary folk are not the mission of the PTP

[fareastguy]

Does this really represent the wishes of the electorate, and is it in the best interests of the Nation and the advancement of democracy? Who will benefit?

The ruling party say's YES.. this is in the best interest of the country & should be on the wish list of all the electorate, if not you don't know what's good for you so they will decide for you!!

[phiphidon]

For 80 years the Thais have struggled to get good governance in place. The constitution is an organic set of rules that has developed for good reasons.

For longer they have worked on the judicial system and whilst it may not be perfect, it has and continues to evolve.

Now this band of brigands feels that it has both the mandate and the authority to tear everything up and replace it with its own set?

God give me strength

But it was ok for another "bunch of brigands to rip everything up and replace it with its own set". Clue: one lot wore green and the other lot were voted in via an election.

[rubl]

For 80 years the Thais have struggled to get good governance in place. The constitution is an organic set of rules that has developed for good reasons.

For longer they have worked on the judicial system and whilst it may not be perfect, it has and continues to evolve.

Now this band of brigands feels that it has both the mandate and the authority to tear everything up and replace it with its own set?

God give me strength

But it was ok for another "bunch of brigands to rip everything up and replace it with its own set". Clue: one lot wore green and the other lot were voted in via an election.

Complaining about the bunch of >insert nice term< who partially rewrote the 1997 to get to the 2007 referendum approved version, while condoning the current bunch of >insert nice name< try to do the same? Seems somewhat inconsistent. Mind you personally I think approval through referendum should be 2/3 majority.

So pray tell, dear phiphidon. The current 2007 constitutions seems to differ mainly in the 'amnesty for coupmakers' and 'selection of senators'. Apart from that it looks like ambiguities have been clarified to the point that even the Admin. Court remarked on it as

"As perceived from the foregoing paragraph, one can see that the criteria for determining the competence of the Administrative Court are more clearly defined in comparison with the previous provision as provided for in the 1997 Constitution."

Why is a complete rewrite necessary?

Edited July 27, 2012 by rubl

[Noistar]

Does this really represent the wishes of the electorate, and is it in the best interests of the Nation and the advancement of democracy? Who will benefit?

Oiii

That's my dead horse - you find another one to flog

[Reasonableman]

The deafening silence is answer enough.

[Noistar]

For 80 years the Thais have struggled to get good governance in place. The constitution is an organic set of rules that has developed for good reasons.

For longer they have worked on the judicial system and whilst it may not be perfect, it has and continues to evolve.

Now this band of brigands feels that it has both the mandate and the authority to tear everything up and replace it with its own set?

God give me strength

But it was ok for another "bunch of brigands to rip everything up and replace it with its own set". Clue: one lot wore green and the other lot were voted in via an election.

boo hoo it's not fair.

They did it so it's my turn - so there

[Thaddeus]

For 80 years the Thais have struggled to get good governance in place. The constitution is an organic set of rules that has developed for good reasons.

For longer they have worked on the judicial system and whilst it may not be perfect, it has and continues to evolve.

Now this band of brigands feels that it has both the mandate and the authority to tear everything up and replace it with its own set?

God give me strength

But it was ok for another "bunch of brigands to rip everything up and replace it with its own set". Clue: one lot wore green and the other lot were voted in via an election.

Why do you keep asserting that the 2007 Constitution was a complete re-write, it wasn't, very little of it changed from the 1997 version.

Is it to try and justify a complete re-write now?

[Noistar]

Certainly is an interesting precedent if it comes off.

Need to make sure the Constitution is made of rubber - but as my 'Red' fellow posters are continually saying, the Democrats, or any non-Red party are unlikely to ever be ELECTED.

Be that as it may, the Reds are NOT Thailand. The non-Reds might still think they have some stake in THEIR country - IMHO

[mca]

T.I.T = This Is Thailand..

Not Europe, Not America nor any other civilised country!!

So Thai people aren't civilized?

[phiphidon]

For 80 years the Thais have struggled to get good governance in place. The constitution is an organic set of rules that has developed for good reasons.

For longer they have worked on the judicial system and whilst it may not be perfect, it has and continues to evolve.

Now this band of brigands feels that it has both the mandate and the authority to tear everything up and replace it with its own set?

God give me strength

But it was ok for another "bunch of brigands to rip everything up and replace it with its own set". Clue: one lot wore green and the other lot were voted in via an election.

Complaining about the bunch of >insert nice term< who partially rewrote the 1997 to get to the 2007 referendum approved version, while condoning the current bunch of >insert nice name< try to do the same? Seems somewhat inconsistent. Mind you personally I think approval through referendum should be 2/3 majority.

So pray tell, dear phiphidon. The current 2007 constitutions seems to differ mainly in the 'amnesty for coupmakers' and 'selection of senators'. Apart from that it looks like ambiguities have been clarified to the point that even the Admin. Court remarked on it as

"As perceived from the foregoing paragraph, one can see that the criteria for determining the competence of the Administrative Court are more clearly defined in comparison with the previous provision as provided for in the 1997 Constitution."

Why is a complete rewrite necessary?

We could do with a rewrite of your first paragraph I'm afraid. The second para - I haven't got a clue what you or they are on about. Which leaves the last sentence - All I can say is - I didn't say it was.

[Thaddeus]

For 80 years the Thais have struggled to get good governance in place. The constitution is an organic set of rules that has developed for good reasons.

For longer they have worked on the judicial system and whilst it may not be perfect, it has and continues to evolve.

Now this band of brigands feels that it has both the mandate and the authority to tear everything up and replace it with its own set?

God give me strength

But it was ok for another "bunch of brigands to rip everything up and replace it with its own set". Clue: one lot wore green and the other lot were voted in via an election.

Complaining about the bunch of >insert nice term< who partially rewrote the 1997 to get to the 2007 referendum approved version, while condoning the current bunch of >insert nice name< try to do the same? Seems somewhat inconsistent. Mind you personally I think approval through referendum should be 2/3 majority.

So pray tell, dear phiphidon. The current 2007 constitutions seems to differ mainly in the 'amnesty for coupmakers' and 'selection of senators'. Apart from that it looks like ambiguities have been clarified to the point that even the Admin. Court remarked on it as

"As perceived from the foregoing paragraph, one can see that the criteria for determining the competence of the Administrative Court are more clearly defined in comparison with the previous provision as provided for in the 1997 Constitution."

Why is a complete rewrite necessary?

We could do with a rewrite of your first paragraph I'm afraid. The second para - I haven't got a clue what you or they are on about. Which leaves the last sentence - All I can say is - I didn't say it was.

You do keep inferring that the Army ripped up the 1997 Constitution though.

[Crushdepth]

For 80 years the Thais have struggled to get good governance in place. The constitution is an organic set of rules that has developed for good reasons.

For longer they have worked on the judicial system and whilst it may not be perfect, it has and continues to evolve.

Now this band of brigands feels that it has both the mandate and the authority to tear everything up and replace it with its own set?

God give me strength

But it was ok for another "bunch of brigands to rip everything up and replace it with its own set". Clue: one lot wore green and the other lot were voted in via an election.

I know you are socially challenged, but try to understand this:

At the end of the day, rule of law is a social convention. It only works *if* a large majority of people believe in it and support it. If 'one side' flushes it down the toilet, systematically undermining the checks and balances that are essential to limit accumulation of power in a democratic system, what happens? The system breaks down. If you want democracy, you have to respect it too. If you break the rules you can't expect anyone else to follow them, nor will they. Sooner or later you'll find yourself looking down the barrel of a gun.

What is truly pathetic, is a party and an individual that cheats, lies, steals and then cries like a baby when rough justice is meted out. If they want the 'green brigands' or the court system to leave them alone, I have a simple one point plan that will make it happen: Respect the law and bounds of office.

Is this too much to ask of "democracy loving" politicians?

Edited July 27, 2012 by Crushdepth

[Noistar]

For 80 years the Thais have struggled to get good governance in place. The constitution is an organic set of rules that has developed for good reasons.

For longer they have worked on the judicial system and whilst it may not be perfect, it has and continues to evolve.

Now this band of brigands feels that it has both the mandate and the authority to tear everything up and replace it with its own set?

God give me strength

But it was ok for another "bunch of brigands to rip everything up and replace it with its own set". Clue: one lot wore green and the other lot were voted in via an election.

I know you are socially challenged, but try to understand this:

At the end of the day, rule of law is a social convention. It only works *if* a large majority of people believe in it and support it. If 'one side' flushes it down the toilet, systematically undermining the checks and balances that are essential to limit accumulation of power in a democratic system, what happens? The system breaks down. If you want democracy, you have to respect it too. If you break the rules you can't expect anyone else to follow them, nor will they. Sooner or later you'll find yourself looking down the barrel of a gun.

What is truly pathetic, is a party and an individual that cheats, lies, steals and then cries like a baby when rough justice is meted out. If they want the 'green brigands' or the court system to leave them alone, I have a simple one point plan that will make it happen: Respect the law and bounds of office.

Is this too much to ask of "democracy loving" politicians?

In the context you are discussing, IMHO, your question is purely rhetorical - more's the pity

[khunken]

For 80 years the Thais have struggled to get good governance in place. The constitution is an organic set of rules that has developed for good reasons.

For longer they have worked on the judicial system and whilst it may not be perfect, it has and continues to evolve.

Now this band of brigands feels that it has both the mandate and the authority to tear everything up and replace it with its own set?

God give me strength

But it was ok for another "bunch of brigands to rip everything up and replace it with its own set". Clue: one lot wore green and the other lot were voted in via an election.

Complaining about the bunch of >insert nice term< who partially rewrote the 1997 to get to the 2007 referendum approved version, while condoning the current bunch of >insert nice name< try to do the same? Seems somewhat inconsistent. Mind you personally I think approval through referendum should be 2/3 majority.

So pray tell, dear phiphidon. The current 2007 constitutions seems to differ mainly in the 'amnesty for coupmakers' and 'selection of senators'. Apart from that it looks like ambiguities have been clarified to the point that even the Admin. Court remarked on it as

"As perceived from the foregoing paragraph, one can see that the criteria for determining the competence of the Administrative Court are more clearly defined in comparison with the previous provision as provided for in the 1997 Constitution."

Why is a complete rewrite necessary?

We could do with a rewrite of your first paragraph I'm afraid. The second para - I haven't got a clue what you or they are on about. Which leaves the last sentence - All I can say is - I didn't say it was.

Well what are you saying?

His second para is pretty clear - why the pretense of 'no comprendo'?

Just for once Phiphidon say what your personal opinion is instead of criticising other posts.

I think that no political party should be allowed to amend or re-write the constitution without a majority of the electorate (not just those that voted) which is basically what the CC has advocated.