Thai Govt'S Decision Day On Charter Change, Reconciliation Bills

[webfact]

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT

Govt's decision day on charter change, reconciliation bills

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Coalition leaders will decide today whether the government will push ahead with the constitutional amendment and the controversial reconciliation bills, the coalition chief whip said yesterday.

Udomdej Ratanasathien, who is also an MP from the ruling Pheu Thai Party, said that leaders of the coalition parties would meet this afternoon at the Miracle Grand Hotel to try to reach a conclusion about the contentious issues.

At their meeting yesterday, he said, the coalition whips agreed the government still had three options following the recent Constitution Court verdict on the charter-change case - amendment by articles, holding a public referendum on whether constitutional changes were necessary, and going ahead with voting in the final parliamentary reading on the government-sponsored amendment bill.

"However, whips are just coordinators among the coalition parties. The final decision will be made by leaders of the coalition parties," Udomdej said.

He said some coalition whips expressed concern that the Constitution Court's verdict that it has the power to accept for judicial review petitions against people accused of amending the charter with the goal of overthrowing the country's democratic regime, would attract many more cases in the future.

Fear of possible legal action also could discourage supporters of constitutional amendment from voting for the bill in the third reading, the chief government whip said.

House Speaker Somsak Kiartsuranond yesterday voiced the idea of amending the Constitution by articles, which he said would be "the least problematic" among the options.

He said the budget of Bt1 billion allocated for a constitution drafting assembly, whose establishment is required under the government's constitutional amendment bill, would be left intact as long as the bill has not been withdrawn.

"There should be no problem. The budget is just part of the preparation - just in case it is needed," he said.

Two weeks after the court made its ruling on July 13, the government has yet to comply with the court's judgement that amending the charter to allow writing of a new one could not be done without first holding a referendum to ask the public, as the current post-coup Constitution was supported by the majority in a popular vote.

Somsak said yesterday that, regarding the reconciliation bills, what he could do as House speaker was to suggest that they be postponed.

"My suggestion was that the bills should be delayed further, and not withdrawn. I insist that I am not doing it for any one person alone. I mainly look at the country's benefit," he said.

The speaker said that he has no power to order any of the proponents to withdraw their reconciliation bills.

Critics and the opposition have described the reconciliation bills, proposed separately by MP and ex-coup leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin and Pheu Thai MPs, as an attempt to whitewash fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who is believed to be pulling the strings behind the ruling party.

Meanwhile, opposition chief whip Jurin Laksanavisit said yesterday the government was "buying time" by adopting a delaying tactic with its constitutional amendment bill and the four controversial reconciliation bills.

Jurin, who is a senior Democrat Party figure, suggested that in order to ensure peace and prevent a new round of political conflict, the government should withdraw those bills. He also called on Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to get involved in a bid to solve the dispute.

"She should not just say that this is a matter for Parliament. Three of the four reconciliation bills are proposed by the Pheu Thai Party, in which the prime minister is part," he said.

-- The Nation 2012-07-31

[waza]

The PTP government are at loggerheads......

The ex's faction just want money and position. Position requires a stable government, so they are happy to stall.

Thaksins club want him back, and fast. He needs amnesty.

and the UDD is looking for relevance and credibility. Do they sell their martyrs for Thaksins amnesty?

Which factions agenda will be sold out for cabinet positions, or time at the trough.

[ThaiOats]

Just out of curiosity, I went back and listened to the March 2010 Parley with the Red Shirts and realized how hypocritical they were. At the time, I wasn't active on Thai visa and forgot to point out some things which were wrong and I sincerely believe that the majority of the Thai population who aren't Red Shirts realize some of these points as well.

1: The Red shirts wanted Abhisit to dissolve Parliament citing that the Democrats came into power illegitimately via the military coup. By law under the constitution he didn't come into power illegitimately and using the excuse of the military coup was just that, a sorry excuse. If you wish to refute this, tell me which part of the constitution did his power violate.

2. The Red Shirts wanted Abhisit to dissolve and would accept nothing less. He rationalized "what would Dissolving parliament do and what problem would it fix right now other than to give into the demands of a group of people which by the way, may not be necessarily the views of the majority of the Thai people". He further went on in reasoning that "should he give into the demands right now, this would set up a precedence in which gov't must obey to the demands of a certain group instead of the nation.

3. Back then, they wanted to change the constitution and Abhisit said it time and time again that he wanted to know which part of the constitution they wanted to change. He explained that "out of 100 people who vote yes to change the constitution, there's no guaranteeing that they all wanted to change the same articles. It would make sense to hold a public referendum to which articles they want changed. We (the government) came up with 6 articles that members of Parliament wanted to change and suggested to hold a public referendum but the ex-PM (ThaksIn) refused." At this point Jatuporn chimed in "It was I who refused it and Thaksin agreed with me because we believe that you won't hold a public referendum". Pardon me but that's the stupidest excuse to bring Thai citizens into the city and perpetuate violence. Just because you "believe" that it won't be held?

4. If they didn't believe that the Democrats were going to hold a public referendum, why are they refusing to hold it while they are the government now? It's pure hypocrisy. Even now, they want the public to vote on the constitution that they draft up (even if they were chosen by the CDA) as a package. Is this in essence, any different from what the military junta did when they proposed the 2007 constitution? Their biggest gripe at the time, was Article 309 which has given amnesty to the coup makers (which by the way was a bloodless coup). If the Red shirts want Reconciliation and amnesty, then I'm sure there wouldn't be much opposition except Mr. Thaksin wants it all for himself.

I seriously implore some of the foreigners who understand Thai to go back and listen to the parleys. At this point, civil frameworks need to be set before Thailand should even consider adhering to standards of Democracy. If they want to develop Democracy, they best start with abiding to laws from the ground up, otherwise they're just waving that word around like it actually is supposed to mean something.

[waza]

Just out of curiosity, I went back and listened to the March 2010 Parley with the Red Shirts and realized how hypocritical they were. At the time, I wasn't active on Thai visa and forgot to point out some things which were wrong and I sincerely believe that the majority of the Thai population who aren't Red Shirts realize some of these points as well.

1: The Red shirts wanted Abhisit to dissolve Parliament citing that the Democrats came into power illegitimately via the military coup. By law under the constitution he didn't come into power illegitimately and using the excuse of the military coup was just that, a sorry excuse. If you wish to refute this, tell me which part of the constitution did his power violate.

2. The Red Shirts wanted Abhisit to dissolve and would accept nothing less. He rationalized "what would Dissolving parliament do and what problem would it fix right now other than to give into the demands of a group of people which by the way, may not be necessarily the views of the majority of the Thai people". He further went on in reasoning that "should he give into the demands right now, this would set up a precedence in which gov't must obey to the demands of a certain group instead of the nation.

3. Back then, they wanted to change the constitution and Abhisit said it time and time again that he wanted to know which part of the constitution they wanted to change. He explained that "out of 100 people who vote yes to change the constitution, there's no guaranteeing that they all wanted to change the same articles. It would make sense to hold a public referendum to which articles they want changed. We (the government) came up with 6 articles that members of Parliament wanted to change and suggested to hold a public referendum but the ex-PM (ThaksIn) refused." At this point Jatuporn chimed in "It was I who refused it and Thaksin agreed with me because we believe that you won't hold a public referendum". Pardon me but that's the stupidest excuse to bring Thai citizens into the city and perpetuate violence. Just because you "believe" that it won't be held?

4. If they didn't believe that the Democrats were going to hold a public referendum, why are they refusing to hold it while they are the government now? It's pure hypocrisy. Even now, they want the public to vote on the constitution that they draft up (even if they were chosen by the CDA) as a package. Is this in essence, any different from what the military junta did when they proposed the 2007 constitution? Their biggest gripe at the time, was Article 309 which has given amnesty to the coup makers (which by the way was a bloodless coup). If the Red shirts want Reconciliation and amnesty, then I'm sure there wouldn't be much opposition except Mr. Thaksin wants it all for himself.

I seriously implore some of the foreigners who understand Thai to go back and listen to the parleys. At this point, civil frameworks need to be set before Thailand should even consider adhering to standards of Democracy. If they want to develop Democracy, they best start with abiding to laws from the ground up, otherwise they're just waving that word around like it actually is supposed to mean something.

Good post