Bhokin Panel Recommends Final Reading Of Thai Charter Change Bill

[webfact]

Bhokin panel recommends final reading of charter change bill

Olan Lertrudtanadumrongkul,

Khanittha Thepphajorn

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- A coalition panel yesterday resolved that the government proceed with the passage of the third reading of the charter amendment bill after launching public relations campaigns seeking support.

The committee studying charter amendments led by Bhokin Bhalakula held a meeting and came up with a four-point resolution.

First, the panel said the charter amendment bill, which is pending third reading by a joint sitting of MPs and senators, must proceed to the final reading, Bhokin told a press conference after the meeting.

Second, the panel will ask the government to start awareness campaigns to draw public support on December 10, which will mark the 80th anniversary of Thailand's constitutional system.

Third, the panel resolved that after a constitution drafting assembly - which will be set up following the bill's passage - has drawn up a version of a new charter, the draft will be put before the public for a referendum in line with an earlier Constitution Court ruling, Bhokin said.

Fourth, the panel resolved to have an entirely new draft written, and the panel decided that amendments of individual articles would be a matter for the future to be considered by Parliament later.

Bhokin said his panel would need more time to revise the wording of its report on how to amend the charter. The revision would be done by December 17 before it could be sent to the government.

He said he believed the government would spend about a month or two to campaign for public support for the passage third reading of the charter amendment bill.

In July, the Constitution Court rejected a petition filed against supporters of the government-backed amendment bills but also resolved that the entire charter could not be rewritten without a public referendum. But some government figures said it was just a suggestion, and not a verdict.

Meanwhile yesterday, appointed Senator Prasarn Maruekapitak said he believed the third reading of the charter amendment bill would rekindle protests and political conflicts. He said the bill's passage would lead to the same dispute over whether the writing of the new charter was aimed at helping former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Prasarn said he had learned that the coalition would push for passage of the bill during the next parliamentary session, which begins on December 21.

He said he had learned that the coalition had lobbied elected senators to support the bill with promises to write a new charter to benefit elected senators.

-- The Nation 2012-12-04

[Ricardo]

Good to see that the commitment to a full public-referendum on any new Constitution is still in there.

By such small steps, Thai democracy advances.

[whybother]

Bhokin thinks that because the police handled the recent protests so well, they should be able to handle a few more.

[h90]

Good to see that the commitment to a full public-referendum on any new Constitution is still in there.

By such small steps, Thai democracy advances.

I think when the speaker-car goes around in the small villages and shout "300 Baht for voting yes" your hope about advancing democracy will die....

[Ricardo]

Good to see that the commitment to a full public-referendum on any new Constitution is still in there.

By such small steps, Thai democracy advances.

I think when the speaker-car goes around in the small villages and shout "300 Baht for voting yes" your hope about advancing democracy will die....

The realists' point-of-view, compared to my own (in this case) optimistic one, I'm just pleased that they haven't (yet) decided to steamroller the changes through with their parliamentary-majority !

It really would be a pity if any subsequent government failed to match the democratic-standard set by the junta-appointed one.

[Thaddeus]

A former deputy prime minister and interior minister, Bhokin Bhalakula is Mr Thaksin's top legal expert and the outgoing speaker of parliament.

He is said to have played a significant role in Mr Thaksin's political strategy in recent months.

http://news.bbc.co.u...fic/4880142.stm

Never stray far from the fold do they,

He said he had learned that the coalition had lobbied elected senators to support the bill with promises to write a new charter to benefit elected senators.

Isn't that called bribery?

Edited December 4, 2012 by Thaddeus

[jonclark]

A former deputy prime minister and interior minister, Bhokin Bhalakula is Mr Thaksin's top legal expert and the outgoing speaker of parliament.

He is said to have played a significant role in Mr Thaksin's political strategy in recent months.

http://news.bbc.co.u...fic/4880142.stm

Never stray far from the fold do they,

He said he had learned that the coalition had lobbied elected senators to support the bill with promises to write a new charter to benefit elected senators.

Isn't that called bribery?

Yep - but we know how well Taskin sticks to his promises, as soon as the ink dries and the document is legal, his promises are like dust in a hurricane.

[smedly]

Good to see that the commitment to a full public-referendum on any new Constitution is still in there.

By such small steps, Thai democracy advances.

If you read very carefully you will see the real plan, the referendum will not include the Thaksin pardon (contrversial issue) so the new charter has a chance of passing but be be worded in such a way to make an easy ammendment shortly after (which doesn't require referendum) to allow a full pardon of Thaksin

What people need to be aware of is simply - how much power does this new charter hand to the government and how does it weaken the ability to challenge them, also how does it effect the judicial system -courts - law - powers of the sitting government and anti corruption mechanisims, if this government was serious about stamping out corruption then you should see sweeping new powers for anti corruption agencies which I doubt very much will happen

[Roadman]

Good to see that the commitment to a full public-referendum on any new Constitution is still in there.

By such small steps, Thai democracy advances.

If you read very carefully you will see the real plan, the referendum will not include the Thaksin pardon (contrversial issue) so the new charter has a chance of passing but be be worded in such a way to make an easy ammendment shortly after (which doesn't require referendum) to allow a full pardon of Thaksin

What people need to be aware of is simply - how much power does this new charter hand to the government and how does it weaken the ability to challenge them, also how does it effect the judicial system -courts - law - powers of the sitting government and anti corruption mechanisims, if this government was serious about stamping out corruption then you should see sweeping new powers for anti corruption agencies which I doubt very much will happen

You have it in a nutshell.

[dcutman]

You would think 17 practice attempts, you would have it down. Thai Constitution "TAKE 18" Snap!

[Thai at Heart]

Will the constitution be allowed to appeal whilst out on bail?

[h90]

Good to see that the commitment to a full public-referendum on any new Constitution is still in there.

By such small steps, Thai democracy advances.

I think when the speaker-car goes around in the small villages and shout "300 Baht for voting yes" your hope about advancing democracy will die....

The realists' point-of-view, compared to my own (in this case) optimistic one, I'm just pleased that they haven't (yet) decided to steamroller the changes through with their parliamentary-majority !

It really would be a pity if any subsequent government failed to match the democratic-standard set by the junta-appointed one.

yes because the court told that they need a referendum.

As well steamroller it through would be like an anabolic steroid injection for the PAD. With a referendum they can say it was the people who wanted it, no matter how true or not true it is.

[lungmi]

It look's a little bit Mursi for me. Step 2 means the instructions by the Red Brotherhood of God devoted

Thaksinistriers?

[rubl]

Fourth, the panel resolved to have an entirely new draft written, and the panel decided that amendments of individual articles would be a matter for the future to be considered by Parliament later.

An entirely new constitution? An amendments to it for the future? That suggests the 'entirely new' constitution will be faulty from day one.

What happened with

http://www.thailawfo...sititution.html ?

[nurofiend]

Good to see that the commitment to a full public-referendum on any new Constitution is still in there.

By such small steps, Thai democracy advances.

I think when the speaker-car goes around in the small villages and shout "300 Baht for voting yes" your hope about advancing democracy will die....

The realists' point-of-view, compared to my own (in this case) optimistic one, I'm just pleased that they haven't (yet) decided to steamroller the changes through with their parliamentary-majority !

It really would be a pity if any subsequent government failed to match the democratic-standard set by the junta-appointed one.

it was always intended for public referendum but the democrats seem to have a problem with public votes.

[Thaddeus]

Good to see that the commitment to a full public-referendum on any new Constitution is still in there.

By such small steps, Thai democracy advances.

I think when the speaker-car goes around in the small villages and shout "300 Baht for voting yes" your hope about advancing democracy will die....

The realists' point-of-view, compared to my own (in this case) optimistic one, I'm just pleased that they haven't (yet) decided to steamroller the changes through with their parliamentary-majority !

It really would be a pity if any subsequent government failed to match the democratic-standard set by the junta-appointed one.

it was always intended for public referendum but the democrats seem to have a problem with public votes.

Nope, the Dems have a problem with envelopes and grandiose promises...... if you need to buy friends, they aren't really friends are they.

[Ricardo]

Good to see that the commitment to a full public-referendum on any new Constitution is still in there.

By such small steps, Thai democracy advances.

I think when the speaker-car goes around in the small villages and shout "300 Baht for voting yes" your hope about advancing democracy will die....

The realists' point-of-view, compared to my own (in this case) optimistic one, I'm just pleased that they haven't (yet) decided to steamroller the changes through with their parliamentary-majority !

It really would be a pity if any subsequent government failed to match the democratic-standard set by the junta-appointed one.

it was always intended for public referendum but the democrats seem to have a problem with public votes.

On hopes that it was always intended, by all involved, but when any Thai politician (of any party) neglects to mention the referendum whilst discussing changes, then I wonder whether their commitment is less-than-firm.

I suspect that it would be more difficult to muster a majority-vote, if Thaksin's absolution/return is specifically included, and that the devil will be in the detail, as others have already said.

[Hugo6]

I think when the speaker-car goes around in the small villages and shout "300 Baht for voting yes" your hope about advancing democracy will die....

The realists' point-of-view, compared to my own (in this case) optimistic one, I'm just pleased that they haven't (yet) decided to steamroller the changes through with their parliamentary-majority !

It really would be a pity if any subsequent government failed to match the democratic-standard set by the junta-appointed one.

it was always intended for public referendum but the democrats seem to have a problem with public votes.

On hopes that it was always intended, by all involved, but when any Thai politician (of any party) neglects to mention the referendum whilst discussing changes, then I wonder whether their commitment is less-than-firm.

I suspect that it would be more difficult to muster a majority-vote, if Thaksin's absolution/return is specifically included, and that the devil will be in the detail, as others have already said.

who neglected to mention a referendum.

you're memory is failing you. it was always the plan to have a referendum

[smedly]

who neglected to mention a referendum.

you're memory is failing you. it was always the plan to have a referendum

do share your source, as I remember and understand it - it was the CC judges in their ruling that were the first to mention a referendum and most likely forced a pause to proceedings to figure out a new game plan which they seem to have done

Personally I'd like them to just state why they want to change anything - they say it's nothing to do with Thaksin so just exactly what are the changes intended to do ????????

[Hugo6]

who neglected to mention a referendum.

you're memory is failing you. it was always the plan to have a referendum

do share your source, as I remember and understand it - it was the CC judges in their ruling that were the first to mention a referendum and most likely forced a pause to proceedings to figure out a new game plan which they seem to have done

Personally I'd like them to just state why they want to change anything - they say it's nothing to do with Thaksin so just exactly what are the changes intended to do ????????

gotta read outside this forum. the government always always always said there would be a referendum on the charter. the judges want a referendum before the charter changes can start

stupid idea when in the government plan you see the charter you vote on and in the judges plan you vote on nothing

makes it obvious that the court ruling was just to clog up the process

[smedly]

who neglected to mention a referendum.

you're memory is failing you. it was always the plan to have a referendum

do share your source, as I remember and understand it - it was the CC judges in their ruling that were the first to mention a referendum and most likely forced a pause to proceedings to figure out a new game plan which they seem to have done

Personally I'd like them to just state why they want to change anything - they say it's nothing to do with Thaksin so just exactly what are the changes intended to do ????????

gotta read outside this forum. the government always always always said there would be a referendum on the charter. the judges want a referendum before the charter changes can start

stupid idea when in the government plan you see the charter you vote on and in the judges plan you vote on nothing

makes it obvious that the court ruling was just to clog up the process

sorry but I think you are wrong

The process is obvious - put the proposed changes or proposed new charter to the people in a referendum explaining what the changes are why the changes were made i.e. how they benefit the people and Thailand and let the people vote, as I understand this government wanted to make the changes without asking the people

[Skywalker69]

who neglected to mention a referendum.

you're memory is failing you. it was always the plan to have a referendum

do share your source, as I remember and understand it - it was the CC judges in their ruling that were the first to mention a referendum and most likely forced a pause to proceedings to figure out a new game plan which they seem to have done

Personally I'd like them to just state why they want to change anything - they say it's nothing to do with Thaksin so just exactly what are the changes intended to do ????????

gotta read outside this forum. the government always always always said there would be a referendum on the charter. the judges want a referendum before the charter changes can start

stupid idea when in the government plan you see the charter you vote on and in the judges plan you vote on nothing

makes it obvious that the court ruling was just to clog up the process

sorry but I think you are wrong

The process is obvious - put the proposed changes or proposed new charter to the people in a referendum explaining what the changes are why the changes were made i.e. how they benefit the people and Thailand and let the people vote, as I understand this government wanted to make the changes without asking the people

He said it made no sense to organise the referendum before the completion of the rewriting because voters would not be able to form a decision on what they were voting for or against.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Stick-to-rules-in-charter-rewrite-court-warns-30195616.html

[smedly]

I know exactly what he said, I was stating that the government had never mentioned a referendum until the CC told them it would be required, he said they did, I've never seen it on any news article in Thailand until the CC ruled, I asked him to link where he saw it to prove his claim........still waiting

[Moruya]

Good to see that the commitment to a full public-referendum on any new Constitution is still in there.

By such small steps, Thai democracy advances.

I think when the speaker-car goes around in the small villages and shout "300 Baht for voting yes" your hope about advancing democracy will die....

The realists' point-of-view, compared to my own (in this case) optimistic one, I'm just pleased that they haven't (yet) decided to steamroller the changes through with their parliamentary-majority !

It really would be a pity if any subsequent government failed to match the democratic-standard set by the junta-appointed one.

it was always intended for public referendum but the democrats seem to have a problem with public votes.

Really? So why did Chalerm ask if people had fallen asleep during the election and state that the government had the mandate to change it unilaterally?

[whybother]

I know exactly what he said, I was stating that the government had never mentioned a referendum until the CC told them it would be required, he said they did, I've never seen it on any news article in Thailand until the CC ruled, I asked him to link where he saw it to prove his claim........still waiting

The government were planning on having a referendum to accept / reject the charter that the 100 or so charter writers would come up with.

The court said that they should have a referendum BEFORE they write the new charter. I would imagine this would be along the lines of "Do you want a new constitution?". I would assume this would get over the line. Most people want a new constitution, but no one agrees what needs to be changed from the current constitution (or the 1997 one actually).

Unless they were going to specify the areas that were going to be changed, then having a referendum before writing a new constitution would be a waste of time IMO. And if the new constitution has anything in it that whitewashes Thaksin's or any politicians crimes, I doubt it would pass anyway.

In Australia, a majority of the people want to be a republic (ie remove the Queen of England as Head of State), but when they had a referendum, it failed because not enough agreed with the type of republic the referendum was proposing. That was about 15 years ago and it hasn't moved since.

[Hugo6]

who neglected to mention a referendum.

you're memory is failing you. it was always the plan to have a referendum

do share your source, as I remember and understand it - it was the CC judges in their ruling that were the first to mention a referendum and most likely forced a pause to proceedings to figure out a new game plan which they seem to have done

Personally I'd like them to just state why they want to change anything - they say it's nothing to do with Thaksin so just exactly what are the changes intended to do ????????

gotta read outside this forum. the government always always always said there would be a referendum on the charter. the judges want a referendum before the charter changes can start

stupid idea when in the government plan you see the charter you vote on and in the judges plan you vote on nothing

makes it obvious that the court ruling was just to clog up the process

sorry but I think you are wrong

The process is obvious - put the proposed changes or proposed new charter to the people in a referendum explaining what the changes are why the changes were made i.e. how they benefit the people and Thailand and let the people vote, as I understand this government wanted to make the changes without asking the people

guess you understood wrong

[Hugo6]

I know exactly what he said, I was stating that the government had never mentioned a referendum until the CC told them it would be required, he said they did, I've never seen it on any news article in Thailand until the CC ruled, I asked him to link where he saw it to prove his claim........still waiting

The government were planning on having a referendum to accept / reject the charter that the 100 or so charter writers would come up with.

The court said that they should have a referendum BEFORE they write the new charter. I would imagine this would be along the lines of "Do you want a new constitution?". I would assume this would get over the line. Most people want a new constitution, but no one agrees what needs to be changed from the current constitution (or the 1997 one actually).

Unless they were going to specify the areas that were going to be changed, then having a referendum before writing a new constitution would be a waste of time IMO. And if the new constitution has anything in it that whitewashes Thaksin's or any politicians crimes, I doubt it would pass anyway.

In Australia, a majority of the people want to be a republic (ie remove the Queen of England as Head of State), but when they had a referendum, it failed because not enough agreed with the type of republic the referendum was proposing. That was about 15 years ago and it hasn't moved since.

right, the court said have a referendum before knowing what you get.

just a tactic from abhisit and co to jam up the works and stop the process

the government always said there would be a referendum to approve the new charter or not approve it

what were the democrats so afraid of

if anyone thinks taht a get out of jail card for mr t would get through a popular referendum, then theyre crazy

but if it did, then it would still be what the thai people voted for

let the good time roll

[whybother]

right, the court said have a referendum before knowing what you get.

just a tactic from abhisit and co to jam up the works and stop the process

the government always said there would be a referendum to approve the new charter or not approve it

what were the democrats so afraid of

if anyone thinks taht a get out of jail card for mr t would get through a popular referendum, then theyre crazy

but if it did, then it would still be what the thai people voted for

let the good time roll

Surely with their massive landslide win in the election they should have no problem getting a huge majority in a referendum for the charter that they put forward, regardless what's in it.

[Hugo6]

right, the court said have a referendum before knowing what you get.

just a tactic from abhisit and co to jam up the works and stop the process

the government always said there would be a referendum to approve the new charter or not approve it

what were the democrats so afraid of

if anyone thinks taht a get out of jail card for mr t would get through a popular referendum, then theyre crazy

but if it did, then it would still be what the thai people voted for

let the good time roll

Surely with their massive landslide win in the election they should have no problem getting a huge majority in a referendum for the charter that they put forward, regardless what's in it.

whatever you say

i dont believe it for a minute

ps : not gonna happen now anyway

Edited December 5, 2012 by Hugo6

[whybother]

Surely with their massive landslide win in the election they should have no problem getting a huge majority in a referendum for the charter that they put forward, regardless what's in it.

whatever you say

i dont believe it for a minute

Do you mean, they didn't win the election in a landslide? That's a first.