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

[phiphidon]

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

I don't infer that they ripped up the constitution - They did rip it up. What do you think the the CDA was formed for?

[phiphidon]

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.

You've been on this forum since 2004 - why don't you look at my posts and see if you can tell what my personal opinion is instead of criticising my post.

[Noistar]

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

I don't infer that they ripped up the constitution - They did rip it up. What do you think the the CDA was formed for?

source please

plus - having 'allegedly' ripped it up, was the 2007 completely different to the 1997 Constitution.

If they kept some of the 1997 Constitution, were there any bits you liked, or is everything in the 2007 Constitution tainted by association?

[Reasonableman]

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.

You've been on this forum since 2004 - why don't you look at my posts and see if you can tell what my personal opinion is instead of criticising my post.

Phiphidon has an extensive history of posting to review. Fascinating stuff. It should be compulsory reading for all.

[khunken]

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.

You've been on this forum since 2004 - why don't you look at my posts and see if you can tell what my personal opinion is instead of criticising my post.

I seen many of your posts and I've no intention of looking at any more - they are mostly red shirt propaganda rehashed. One exception is when I agreed with your post(s) about the death penalty. I haven't seen your opinion on the charter re-write/amendment & this is what I'm asking if you look at the context of this thread.

I've given you my opinion - why is it so bloody difficult to give yours?

[tlansford]

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?

wow, I thought you were talking about the coup until

"If they want the 'green brigands' or the court system to leave them alone"

and then I realized that you were talking about a coup...

[Reasonableman]

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?

wow, I thought you were talking about the coup until

"If they want the 'green brigands' or the court system to leave them alone"

and then I realized that you were talking about a coup...

Is your name Calgaryll? Btw have you seen ppd?

Edited July 27, 2012 by Reasonableman

[siampolee]

The long and the short of the matter is that there is but one aim of this current maladministration that is the return of Thaksin..

Perish the thought that the man and the woman on the street should actually be allowed to have their say in the matter of a charter rewrite process.

The proposed actions by this P.T. lawyer are designed to sweep away any shred of democracy that may impede the return of a convicted bail jumping corrupt individual to resume his financial blood sucking of the public purse and the people of Thailand.

Yet again.w see clearly the delightful vista of P.T. democracy..

[tlansford]

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

I don't infer that they ripped up the constitution - They did rip it up. What do you think the the CDA was formed for?

source please

plus - having 'allegedly' ripped it up, was the 2007 completely different to the 1997 Constitution.

If they kept some of the 1997 Constitution, were there any bits you liked, or is everything in the 2007 Constitution tainted by association?

I don't understand why people have a hard time understanding what happened in the coup. The elections were canceled, the constitution was abrogated, parliament was dissolved, the Constitutional Court was dissolved, the media censored, protests were banned, and just for kicks, martial law was imposed.

"allegedly" is the incorrect term.

[Noistar]

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?

wow, I thought you were talking about the coup until

"If they want the 'green brigands' or the court system to leave them alone"

and then I realized that you were talking about a coup...

Is your name Calgaryll? Btw have you seen ppd?

he's in the library

[tlansford]

- deleted for quote limits -

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?

wow, I thought you were talking about the coup until

"If they want the 'green brigands' or the court system to leave them alone"

and then I realized that you were talking about a coup...

Is your name Calgaryll? Btw have you seen ppd?

nice night for a troll is it?

[Noistar]

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

I don't infer that they ripped up the constitution - They did rip it up. What do you think the the CDA was formed for?

source please

plus - having 'allegedly' ripped it up, was the 2007 completely different to the 1997 Constitution.

If they kept some of the 1997 Constitution, were there any bits you liked, or is everything in the 2007 Constitution tainted by association?

I don't understand why people have a hard time understanding what happened in the coup. The elections were canceled, the constitution was abrogated, parliament was dissolved, the Constitutional Court was dissolved, the media censored, protests were banned, and just for kicks, martial law was imposed.

"allegedly" is the incorrect term.

thanks for clarifying ONE point.

Now, let's get back to the serious observation as to what differences there were between the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions. How much of the 1997 Constitution did they sellotape together and put in the 2007 Constitution, or was it a complete re-write?

[tlansford]

The long and the short of the matter is that there is but one aim of this current maladministration that is the return of Thaksin..

Perish the thought that the man and the woman on the street should actually be allowed to have their say in the matter of a charter rewrite process.

The proposed actions by this P.T. lawyer are designed to sweep away any shred of democracy that may impede the return of a convicted bail jumping corrupt individual to resume his financial blood sucking of the public purse and the people of Thailand.

Yet again.w see clearly the delightful vista of P.T. democracy..

hyperbole, anyone?

1) The point of an elected CDA was to have a say in a rewrite. Not to mention an elected parliament doing their job after being elected by the man and woman on the street.

2) As for the long and short of it, you view is popular on TVF but not the actual record of the current administration.

[Crushdepth]

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?

wow, I thought you were talking about the coup until

"If they want the 'green brigands' or the court system to leave them alone"

and then I realized that you were talking about a coup...

Oh don't be so precious. Which part of 'obey the law' do you have a problem with, comrade? What do you *think* happens when the *government* breaks the law, everyone else will just accept it and play nice? You don't even have the moral fibre to denounce government violence when its carried out by your political team. Its disgusting.

Why don't you just admit you have jackboot authoritarian leanings and drop this pathetic pretense of 'defending democracy', when you are in fact cheering on a would-be despot. Have you ever lived in a tin pot dictatorship? I have, and let me tell you: Its fuc_ked up.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

I don't infer that they ripped up the constitution - They did rip it up. What do you think the the CDA was formed for?

source please

plus - having 'allegedly' ripped it up, was the 2007 completely different to the 1997 Constitution.

If they kept some of the 1997 Constitution, were there any bits you liked, or is everything in the 2007 Constitution tainted by association?

I don't understand why people have a hard time understanding what happened in the coup. The elections were canceled, the constitution was abrogated, parliament was dissolved, the Constitutional Court was dissolved, the media censored, protests were banned, and just for kicks, martial law was imposed.

"allegedly" is the incorrect term.

thanks for clarifying ONE point.

Now, let's get back to the serious observation as to what differences there were between the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions. How much of the 1997 Constitution did they sellotape together and put in the 2007 Constitution, or was it a complete re-write?

It seems to be a point you are having difficulty with.

one reference of comparison is here http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

[tlansford]

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?

wow, I thought you were talking about the coup until

"If they want the 'green brigands' or the court system to leave them alone"

and then I realized that you were talking about a coup...

Oh don't be so precious. Which part of 'obey the law' do you have a problem with, comrade? What do you *think* happens when the *government* breaks the law, everyone else will just accept it and play nice? You don't even have the moral fibre to denounce government violence when its carried out by your political team. Its disgusting.

Why don't you just admit you have jackboot authoritarian leanings and drop this pathetic pretense of 'defending democracy', when you are in fact cheering on a would-be despot. Have you ever lived in a tin pot dictatorship? I have, and let me tell you: Its fuc_ked up.

"Why don't you just admit you have jackboot authoritarian leanings and drop this pathetic pretense of 'defending democracy'"

why don't you just stop putting words in my mouth and assuming that you know what I think?

[Crushdepth]

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?

wow, I thought you were talking about the coup until

"If they want the 'green brigands' or the court system to leave them alone"

and then I realized that you were talking about a coup...

Oh don't be so precious. Which part of 'obey the law' do you have a problem with, comrade? What do you *think* happens when the *government* breaks the law, everyone else will just accept it and play nice? You don't even have the moral fibre to denounce government violence when its carried out by your political team. Its disgusting.

Why don't you just admit you have jackboot authoritarian leanings and drop this pathetic pretense of 'defending democracy', when you are in fact cheering on a would-be despot. Have you ever lived in a tin pot dictatorship? I have, and let me tell you: Its fuc_ked up.

"Why don't you just admit you have jackboot authoritarian leanings and drop this pathetic pretense of 'defending democracy'"

why don't you just stop putting words in my mouth and assuming that you know what I think?

Well then, do tell us then in your own words, which part of 'obey the law' DO you have a problem with? Why IS IT that you consistently refuse to denounce government sponsored violence? Is it hard to do?

I think you are a hypocrite. I think you have no credibility. And I think that if you had a single shred of intellectual honesty, you'd just put your views on the table, "comrade", instead of maintaining this - frankly, offensive - pretence that its all in the name of "democracy". Had you lived in a (more) fuc_ked up country, perhaps you would value governance and rule of law considerably more than you do now.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Crushdepth

[metisdead]

A post of a speculative nature regarding HM the King has been removed. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family.

[khaowong1]

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?

Follow the money.. It's all about money and power. He who has the most money has the most power.

[rubl]

Terribly sorry and excuses, my dear fans. After the 17:31 post with main item "Why is a complete rewrite necessary?" I had to do other things. I've seen that a lively discussion has started, wish I'd get paid by TV for posts/replies generated (insert smiley)

Unfortunately I don't think I've got an answer to my question yet. Makes me wonder. Just to emphasize my point that at least some established institutions, like the Admin. Court (a court which was indicated as being favoured by some here) like the current constitution, let me post the:

NATIONAL REPORT OF THAILAND

"Review of Administrative Decisions of Government

by The Administrative Court of Thailand"

Report to the 10th Congress of IASAJ

Sydney, Australia, March 2010

Thailand AdminCourt 2010.pdf

[waza]

Go to see the thaksin lickspittles out and pushing the redshirt and PTP party line. "Its anti-democratic to try to stop the PTP party from completely rewriting the constitution of Thailand to favour and enrich their convicted criminal boss and remove all checks and balances to their nefarious scheme to rule Thailand forever in the true democratic way. After all the 2007 constitutions is a military manifesto, written to serve the needs of the Sino-Thai almart and to keep the true democratic Thais poor and in servitude."

[tlansford]

- deleted -

wow, I thought you were talking about the coup until

"If they want the 'green brigands' or the court system to leave them alone"

and then I realized that you were talking about a coup...

Oh don't be so precious. Which part of 'obey the law' do you have a problem with, comrade? What do you *think* happens when the *government* breaks the law, everyone else will just accept it and play nice? You don't even have the moral fibre to denounce government violence when its carried out by your political team. Its disgusting.

Why don't you just admit you have jackboot authoritarian leanings and drop this pathetic pretense of 'defending democracy', when you are in fact cheering on a would-be despot. Have you ever lived in a tin pot dictatorship? I have, and let me tell you: Its fuc_ked up.

"Why don't you just admit you have jackboot authoritarian leanings and drop this pathetic pretense of 'defending democracy'"

why don't you just stop putting words in my mouth and assuming that you know what I think?

Well then, do tell us then in your own words, which part of 'obey the law' DO you have a problem with? Why IS IT that you consistently refuse to denounce government sponsored violence? Is it hard to do?

I think you are a hypocrite. I think you have no credibility. And I think that if you had a single shred of intellectual honesty, you'd just put your views on the table, "comrade", instead of maintaining this - frankly, offensive - pretence that its all in the name of "democracy". Had you lived in a (more) fuc_ked up country, perhaps you would value governance and rule of law considerably more than you do now.

As you are being so sociable on the forum, allow me to respond in kind...

I think you have no frickin idea what you are talking about. But let's take your imagination one point at a time.

When did I ever have a problem with "obey the law"? Never. That's when. I think protesters and governments both should obey the law. I've said so, too. What about (government sponsored) violence? I have denounced the violence from the red shirt protesters and from the yellow shirt protesters. I have denounced the violence of the blue shirts in 2009 as well as the army in 2010. I have denounced the Thaksin war on drugs as well. I don't have a color when it comes to following the law and non-violence.

So take your assumptions about what I think and stuff them up your military-coups-are-a-check-and-balance-in-democracies idea, because that is truly a stupid idea. And finally, please understand that I don't give a rip about your imagination and what you assume about my values of governance and rule of law.

Thank you, it's been a very refreshing exchange.

[phiphidon]

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.

You've been on this forum since 2004 - why don't you look at my posts and see if you can tell what my personal opinion is instead of criticising my post.

I seen many of your posts and I've no intention of looking at any more - they are mostly red shirt propaganda rehashed. One exception is when I agreed with your post(s) about the death penalty. I haven't seen your opinion on the charter re-write/amendment & this is what I'm asking if you look at the context of this thread.

I've given you my opinion - why is it so bloody difficult to give yours?

You've said this

"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)"

- this is not an opinion on the proposed constitution only your viewpoint on how it should be amended.

So bearing that in mind and that with respect you have condemned the majority of my posts as "mostly red shirt propaganda rehashed", can you tell me the point of even bothering to formulate a reply in those circumstances?

I can't think of one.

Edited July 28, 2012 by phiphidon

[phiphidon]

The long and the short of the matter is that there is but one aim of this current maladministration that is the return of Thaksin..

Perish the thought that the man and the woman on the street should actually be allowed to have their say in the matter of a charter rewrite process.

The proposed actions by this P.T. lawyer are designed to sweep away any shred of democracy that may impede the return of a convicted bail jumping corrupt individual to resume his financial blood sucking of the public purse and the people of Thailand.

Yet again.w see clearly the delightful vista of P.T. democracy..

You neglect to mention that the 3rd reading of the bill that was stopped by the CC overstepping their remit and becoming political themselves even to the extent of rewriting laws (Anybody wishing to make a complaint about a bill passing through parliament by using Section 68 can now go direct to the CC rather than have their "case" ascertained first by the AG which was the "old" law according to the constitution) was for the amendment of Section 291 to allow the formation of a Constitution Drafting Assembly.

The composition of the CDA had been discussed and agreed after a vote in the 2nd reading of the bill all in accordance with Section 291 of the constitution which concerns itself with the rewriting of the constitution. All very democratic and the very same way that the CDA for the 2007 constitution was written (even though both the composition of the CDA and the referendum itself was loaded for a 'positive" result for the Junta). It didn't help in the long run.

So you see the very act that the CC carried out, and its subsequent advice to the PTP (about amending the constitution section by section in parliament) has led to the total exclusion of any of the Thai electorate from the constitution amendments - nothing to do with Thaksin or the PTP.

If you want to blame anybody for this state of affairs blame the right people and that is the CC and Abhisit and his chums for raising the spurious claims of Section 68 in the first place. There never was any threat to the Constitution with the King as the Head of State.

Edited July 28, 2012 by phiphidon

[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

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.

Ah! But the "khaki" boys stepped down once the abscess had been drained of pus.

The crimson monster intends to make itself immovable

Edited July 28, 2012 by Moruya

[Moruya]

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.

You've been on this forum since 2004 - why don't you look at my posts and see if you can tell what my personal opinion is instead of criticising my post.

Phiphidon has an extensive history of posting to review. Fascinating stuff. It should be compulsory reading for all.

Only for those who wish to give up the will to live!

[Moruya]

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

I don't infer that they ripped up the constitution - They did rip it up. What do you think the the CDA was formed for?

source please

plus - having 'allegedly' ripped it up, was the 2007 completely different to the 1997 Constitution.

If they kept some of the 1997 Constitution, were there any bits you liked, or is everything in the 2007 Constitution tainted by association?

I don't understand why people have a hard time understanding what happened in the coup. The elections were canceled, the constitution was abrogated, parliament was dissolved, the Constitutional Court was dissolved, the media censored, protests were banned, and just for kicks, martial law was imposed.

"allegedly" is the incorrect term.

The elections that the resigned caretaker prime minister was supposed to have planned were never planned. Hence one of the prevailing needs for the coup

[maidu]

When the court can be an advantage for them, PT heavies rally behind the justices. When the court is not amenable, PT wants to disband it. It's like the Psychobabble High School basketball team. They love the ball when they're winning, but if they start to miss shots, they want to stomp and destroy the ball, and tear the floorboards out of the game hall.

[Moruya]

When the court can be an advantage for them, PT heavies rally behind the justices. When the court is not amenable, PT wants to disband it. It's like the Psychobabble High School basketball team. They love the ball when they're winning, but if they start to miss shots, they want to stomp and destroy the ball, and tear the floorboards out of the game hall.

Haha! Indeed. Seen that game being played

[GentlemanJim]

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.

With that one statement of intent, it is enough for another wave of Dem complaints to go back to the Constitutional Court to use as proof that PTP do indeed wish to rewrite the entire charter which was against the decision of the court. When will these idiots learn that if you want to do something then keep your bloody mouth shut. They are all after their 15 mins.

Thailand hub of Ineptocracies!