Fears Of Violence Over Charter

[Lite Beer]

Fears of violence over charter

The Nation on Sunday

BANGKOK: -- Democrat MP: New Pheu Thai plan aims to scrap independent agencies

Almost 70 per cent of people in Bangkok and its surrounding areas are concerned that the ruling politicians' push to write a new Constitution may lead to renewed chaos in the country, a poll has found.

However, a poll by Suan Dusit Rajabhat University also found that most respondents agreed to charter changes if they benefit the majority.

Of the 1,022 respondents, 69.34 per cent said they believed the amendment push would lead to political chaos due to the simmering and prolonged conflict between the proponents and opponents of charter change.

Another 25 per cent were unsure whether amendment would lead to a bad situation in the country, while 5.66 per cent expected no negative development as they believed the government would be able to handle the situation, according to the results of the poll conducted on December 4-7.

Bangkok witnessed violence in 2009 and 2010, when the red shirts held protests against the Democrat-led government of Abhisit Vejjajiva.

More than 44 per cent said the government should clearly explain why constitutional amendment was needed and it should listen to comments from different groups of people.

When asked how to prevent possible chaos, 30.16 per cent suggested that legislators listen to all sides and find a beneficial solution. Another 28 per cent urged postponement to allow more time to study the law in detail.

About 24 per cent said the government must explain clearly and rationally the need for amendment, while 17.64 per cent suggested the government ensure that all sides accept the amendment by following proper and just steps, without aiming to do this for its own gain.

A Democrat legal expert said yesterday that the ruling party may be seeking to dissolve all independent agencies including the Constitution Court and the Adminis-trative Court by amending the entire charter.

Wirat Kallayasiri, Democrat MP for Songkhla, was responding to reports that the Pheu Thai Party has decided to change its political strategy by submitting to Parliament a new charter draft that would rewrite the Constitution completely.

The ruling party would then seek a public referendum in order to legitimise its charter draft.

"Is it right that Pheu Thai does this in order to scrap Article 309 and dissolve all independent agencies including the Constitution Court and the Administration?'' he asked.

Pheu Thai Party deputy spokesperson Sunisa Lertpakawat said coalition parties had been awaiting a conclusion from a coalition panel about the next move regarding the Constitution amendment, following the charter-change bill's passage in its first and second readings. The committee is expected to come up with the resolution by December 17.

She said she believed it is necessary that the vote on the third reading to amend Article 291 of the Constitution must be held to complete the legislation process. The purpose of amending this article is not to change the charter's content, but to change procedures for amending the charter. She said the public supports the move to have charter writers, including academics, draft a new charter. It is unlikely that charter writers who come from various sectors would write a law just to help one person, as alleged.

The Democrat Party and the Group of 40 Senators have speculated that the move to push for passage of the charter amendment bill in the final reading will cause the government to collapse because the charter draft aims at helping one person.

Sunisa also rejected the Democrats' criticism that the government's move to use Bt168 million in taxpayers' money to organise seminars in 108 different locations across the country is wasteful. The Democrats say the plan is aimed at brainwashing the public into supporting charter amendment.

She said the money would actually bring about national reconciliation. She said the seminar topics were identified by respected educational institutes, which the government cannot dictate to or interfere with.

Opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva advised the government against any move related to charter amendment, since the Constitution Court has expressed reservations about the draft being deliberated in Parliament.

He said the party would deploy officials to observe the 108-seminar project to ensure it is done in accordance with the law. The party will also hold a seminar every Saturday about the legislation, explaining that its aim is to whitewash politicians, Abhisit said.

-- The Nation 2012-12-09

[khunken]

I'd say the fears of violence are well-founded. When a government intends to steamroller legislation to benefit one person as well as themselves, against the wishes of a substantial minority there will be protests & rightly so.

[rubl]

More than 44 per cent said the government should clearly explain why constitutional amendment was needed and it should listen to comments from different groups of people.

Hear, hear!

[righteous]

"........2010, when the red shirts held protests against the Democrat-led government of Abhisit Vejjajiva".........Uh, not exactly. Their principle demand was for elections, not the ouster of Abhisit and Co.

It was anti-coup and pro-electoral, not anti-Abhisit.

Edited December 9, 2012 by righteous

[righteous]

More than 44 per cent said the government should clearly explain why constitutional amendment was needed and it should listen to comments from different groups of people.

Hear, hear!

Isn't it clear enough already? Its sole purpose of the amendment is to bring Takky back home "cooly", or maybe people rather want to hear nice excuse than hard truth...

Yes, it is clear enough - to the minority side of the political divide.

As with the GOP in the States, there needs to be a re-think of these positions if there is any chance of electoral success in the future.

Edited December 9, 2012 by righteous

[whybother]

"........2010, when the red shirts held protests against the Democrat-led government of Abhisit Vejjajiva".........Uh, not exactly. Their principle demand was for elections, not the ouster of Abhisit and Co.

It was anti-coup and pro-electoral, not anti-Abhisit.

That's funny Carra.

Edited December 9, 2012 by whybother

[Valentine]

"........2010, when the red shirts held protests against the Democrat-led government of Abhisit Vejjajiva".........Uh, not exactly. Their principle demand was for elections, not the ouster of Abhisit and Co.

It was anti-coup and pro-electoral, not anti-Abhisit.

That's funny Carra.

Banned today & back already. Must be on the payroll.

[Thait Spot]

"........2010, when the red shirts held protests against the Democrat-led government of Abhisit Vejjajiva".........Uh, not exactly. Their principle demand was for elections, not the ouster of Abhisit and Co.

It was anti-coup and pro-electoral, not anti-Abhisit.

How would you explain the mobs that stormed to his house to pour infected blood and throw bags of human faeces?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[ridkun]

"........2010, when the red shirts held protests against the Democrat-led government of Abhisit Vejjajiva".........Uh, not exactly. Their principle demand was for elections, not the ouster of Abhisit and Co.

It was anti-coup and pro-electoral, not anti-Abhisit.

That's funny Carra.

I'm also not really against Thaksin. really. I'm just anti-corruption and anti-conflict-of-interest.

[righteous]

"........2010, when the red shirts held protests against the Democrat-led government of Abhisit Vejjajiva".........Uh, not exactly. Their principle demand was for elections, not the ouster of Abhisit and Co.

It was anti-coup and pro-electoral, not anti-Abhisit.

How would you explain the mobs that stormed to his house to pour infected blood and throw bags of human faeces?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

Protesters and demonstrators by definition need to "act out" to get attention. Placidity gets them nowhere. Abhisit needed to dissolve Parliament presaging elections, the aim of the whole exercise.

Elections were the issue. Not Abhisit. He was a focus only insofar as he could facilitate them.

Edited December 9, 2012 by righteous

[ridkun]

More than 44 per cent said the government should clearly explain why constitutional amendment was needed and it should listen to comments from different groups of people.

Hear, hear!

Isn't it clear enough already? Its sole purpose of the amendment is to bring Takky back home "cooly", or maybe people rather want to hear nice excuse than hard truth...

Yes, it is clear enough - to the minority side of the political divide.

As with the GOP in the States, there needs to be a re-think of these positions if there is any chance of electoral success in the future.

It's clear enough to both sides, with majority side that plays dumb and never admit to the real motive of their actions.

[whybother]

"........2010, when the red shirts held protests against the Democrat-led government of Abhisit Vejjajiva".........Uh, not exactly. Their principle demand was for elections, not the ouster of Abhisit and Co.

It was anti-coup and pro-electoral, not anti-Abhisit.

How would you explain the mobs that stormed to his house to pour infected blood and throw bags of human faeces?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

Protesters and demonstrators by definition need to "act out" to get attention. Placidity gets them nowhere. Abhisit needed to dissolve Parliament presaging elections, the aim of the whole exercise.

And act out they did. Spread blood. Mobile rallies. Confront soldiers away from protest areas. Blockade a shopping and business area. Storm parliament. Throw molotov cocktails. Storm Thaicom. Blow up a colonel. Shoot some soldiers.

[righteous]

"........2010, when the red shirts held protests against the Democrat-led government of Abhisit Vejjajiva".........Uh, not exactly. Their principle demand was for elections, not the ouster of Abhisit and Co.

It was anti-coup and pro-electoral, not anti-Abhisit.

How would you explain the mobs that stormed to his house to pour infected blood and throw bags of human faeces?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

Protesters and demonstrators by definition need to "act out" to get attention. Placidity gets them nowhere. Abhisit needed to dissolve Parliament presaging elections, the aim of the whole exercise.

And act out they did. Spread blood. Mobile rallies. Confront soldiers away from protest areas. Blockade a shopping and business area. Storm parliament. Throw molotov cocktails. Storm Thaicom. Blow up a colonel. Shoot some soldiers.

Not near enough!

[khunken]

^^ Post No: 13

Wow - bring on the revolution!

The red shirt leaders (as distinct from the majority, most of whom were paid to attend) organised the protest to overthrow the government to try to get their boss's ill-gotten gains back. They were offered early elections by Abhisit (on TV) but a call to one of them (Jatuporn?) instructed them to refuse.

If you are indeed Carra, then you have a very poor understanding of what happened in 2010, not to mention a very westernised, simplistic view of politics here.

[Thait Spot]

"........2010, when the red shirts held protests against the Democrat-led government of Abhisit Vejjajiva".........Uh, not exactly. Their principle demand was for elections, not the ouster of Abhisit and Co.

It was anti-coup and pro-electoral, not anti-Abhisit.

How would you explain the mobs that stormed to his house to pour infected blood and throw bags of human faeces?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

Protesters and demonstrators by definition need to "act out" to get attention. Placidity gets them nowhere. Abhisit needed to dissolve Parliament presaging elections, the aim of the whole exercise.

Elections were the issue. Not Abhisit. He was a focus only insofar as he could facilitate them.

I'm too long in the tooth to have smoke blown up my back passage without the use of a lot more stealth than that.

I suppose the attack on AV's car was to give him a box of Euro Custard Cakes too.

What the reds were pushing for was a hypocritical coup d'étât and I have no doubt in my mind that the attacks on AV were not only extremely personal but with malice aforethought

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[righteous]

^^ Post No: 13

Wow - bring on the revolution!

The red shirt leaders (as distinct from the majority, most of whom were paid to attend) organised the protest to overthrow the government to try to get their boss's ill-gotten gains back. They were offered early elections by Abhisit (on TV) but a call to one of them (Jatuporn?) instructed them to refuse.

If you are indeed Carra, then you have a very poor understanding of what happened in 2010, not to mention a very westernised, simplistic view of politics here.

An offer is not an agreement.

The MO of one side of negotiation is not the business of the other.

Only offers, discussions and subsequent agreements.

To characterize an offer as an agreement doesn't fly.

An offer was made, it was countered and discussions died. To characterize this as negotiations is incorrect. To whitewash one side while demonizing the other doesn't fly either. Discussions were not conducted in good faith. Period!

[whybother]

^^ Post No: 13

Wow - bring on the revolution!

The red shirt leaders (as distinct from the majority, most of whom were paid to attend) organised the protest to overthrow the government to try to get their boss's ill-gotten gains back. They were offered early elections by Abhisit (on TV) but a call to one of them (Jatuporn?) instructed them to refuse.

If you are indeed Carra, then you have a very poor understanding of what happened in 2010, not to mention a very westernised, simplistic view of politics here.

An offer is not an agreement.

The MO of one side of negotiation is not the business of the other.

Only offers, discussions and subsequent agreements.

To characterize an offer as an agreement doesn't fly.

An offer was made, it was countered and discussions died. To characterize this as negotiations is incorrect. To whitewash one side while demonizing the other doesn't fly either. Discussions were not conducted in good faith. Period!

The protesters wanted an election. They were offered an election. They rejected that offer. Not exactly sure why rejected what they asked for.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[khunken]

^^ Post No: 13

Wow - bring on the revolution!

The red shirt leaders (as distinct from the majority, most of whom were paid to attend) organised the protest to overthrow the government to try to get their boss's ill-gotten gains back. They were offered early elections by Abhisit (on TV) but a call to one of them (Jatuporn?) instructed them to refuse.

If you are indeed Carra, then you have a very poor understanding of what happened in 2010, not to mention a very westernised, simplistic view of politics here.

An offer is not an agreement.

The MO of one side of negotiation is not the business of the other.

Only offers, discussions and subsequent agreements.

To characterize an offer as an agreement doesn't fly.

An offer was made, it was countered and discussions died. To characterize this as negotiations is incorrect. To whitewash one side while demonizing the other doesn't fly either. Discussions were not conducted in good faith. Period!

No one characterised an offer as an agreement. The only counter 'offer' was for Abhisit to resign & call an immediate election which was not an offer made in good faith or compromise. Bottom line is that the Thaksin spokesmen wanted a form of coup: 'we won't stop until you go'. The real boss wanted everything, as usual.

It would be a good idea if you read the post and refrained from inventing ficticious contents.

[righteous]

^^ Post No: 13

Wow - bring on the revolution!

The red shirt leaders (as distinct from the majority, most of whom were paid to attend) organised the protest to overthrow the government to try to get their boss's ill-gotten gains back. They were offered early elections by Abhisit (on TV) but a call to one of them (Jatuporn?) instructed them to refuse.

If you are indeed Carra, then you have a very poor understanding of what happened in 2010, not to mention a very westernised, simplistic view of politics here.

An offer is not an agreement.

The MO of one side of negotiation is not the business of the other.

Only offers, discussions and subsequent agreements.

To characterize an offer as an agreement doesn't fly.

An offer was made, it was countered and discussions died. To characterize this as negotiations is incorrect. To whitewash one side while demonizing the other doesn't fly either. Discussions were not conducted in good faith. Period!

The protesters wanted an election. They were offered an election. They rejected that offer. Not exactly sure why rejected what they asked for.

Sent from my HTC phone.

No offer was rejected...It was countered. It wasn't good enough to offer dissolution of Parliament. A firm election date acceptable to the other side was never negotiated.

To accuse one side of somehow being incorrectly influenced has no bearing on this thing. Influences on the other side were equally suspect. But never mind, most negotiation teams have influences outside themselves. But regardless, who has input to any particular negotiation team is inconsequential to the desired end result.

Edited December 9, 2012 by righteous

[Thai at Heart]

are the institutions incapable of solving this issue without Violence?

that alone means there is a need for a new constitution.

[righteous]

are the institutions incapable of solving this issue without Violence?

that alone means there is a need for a new constitution.

The biggest problem, is that one side of the political divide is unable to win elections.

If they could 'contemplate their navel' and re-position themselves with new leaders, it would be better for everyone. Competitive elections winnable by either side would eliminate the need for protests and seeking Governing power via the judicial system. Their responsiveness to societal needs would also improve in order to be electable.

And there definitely is a need for a revised constitution as follows:

The present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organizations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy.

Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution.

Edited December 9, 2012 by righteous

[khunken]

PTP Spokeswoman said:

She said the public supports the move to have charter writers, including academics, draft a new charter. It is unlikely that charter writers who come from various sectors would write a law just to help one person, as alleged.

Two lies in one sentence. There is no evidence that the public support any such thing. If PTP would follow the CC ruling & have a referendum, then we would find out if the public actually supports any tinkering with the existing constitution.

The total rewrite is designed to eliminate or modify sections which support both Thaksin & the PTP (one & the same thing really). These spokespeople must think that everyone is stupid.

[khunken]

are the institutions incapable of solving this issue without Violence?

that alone means there is a need for a new constitution.

The biggest problem, is that one side of the political divide is unable to win elections.

If they could 'contemplate their navel' and re-position themselves with new leaders, it would be better for everyone. Competitive elections winnable by either side would eliminate the need for protests and seeking Governing power via the judicial system. Their responsiveness to societal needs would also improve in order to be electable.

And there definitely is a need for a revised constitution as follows:

The present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organizations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy.

Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution.

Every one of the above is not only wrong, but is straight out of the red-shirt propaganda machine. The last point is hilarious. It's that Dubai criminal who is the greatest cause of divisions here.

Interesting too that you left out that it was (democratically) accepted by a referendum - a first for Thailand.

[Thai at Heart]

are the institutions incapable of solving this issue without Violence?

that alone means there is a need for a new constitution.

The biggest problem, is that one side of the political divide is unable to win elections.

If they could 'contemplate their navel' and re-position themselves with new leaders, it would be better for everyone. Competitive elections winnable by either side would eliminate the need for protests and seeking Governing power via the judicial system. Their responsiveness to societal needs would also improve in order to be electable.

And there definitely is a need for a revised constitution as follows:

The present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organizations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy.

Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution.

yes, but why is violence inevitable?

[righteous]

A

are the institutions incapable of solving this issue without Violence?

that alone means there is a need for a new constitution.

The biggest problem, is that one side of the political divide is unable to win elections.

If they could 'contemplate their navel' and re-position themselves with new leaders, it would be better for everyone. Competitive elections winnable by either side would eliminate the need for protests and seeking Governing power via the judicial system. Their responsiveness to societal needs would also improve in order to be electable.

And there definitely is a need for a revised constitution as follows:

The present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organizations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy.

Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution.

Every one of the above is not only wrong, but is straight out of the red-shirt propaganda machine. The last point is hilarious. It's that Dubai criminal who is the greatest cause of divisions here.

Interesting too that you left out that it was (democratically) accepted by a referendum - a first for Thailand.

A coupist Constitution with a referendum conducted under the auspices of a coup-rooted Government is invalid.

[philw]

are the institutions incapable of solving this issue without Violence?

that alone means there is a need for a new constitution.

The biggest problem, is that one side of the political divide is unable to win elections.

If they could 'contemplate their navel' and re-position themselves with new leaders, it would be better for everyone. Competitive elections winnable by either side would eliminate the need for protests and seeking Governing power via the judicial system. Their responsiveness to societal needs would also improve in order to be electable.

And there definitely is a need for a revised constitution as follows:

The present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organizations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy.

Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution.

Every one of the above is not only wrong, but is straight out of the red-shirt propaganda machine. The last point is hilarious. It's that Dubai criminal who is the greatest cause of divisions here.

Interesting too that you left out that it was (democratically) accepted by a referendum - a first for Thailand.

Not quite as clear as you suggest.

It was very strongly pointed out to the electorate, by the military, approve this constitution OR we will do what we think best.

It was nowhere near a proper and impartial referendum.

[righteous]

are the institutions incapable of solving this issue without Violence?

that alone means there is a need for a new constitution.

The biggest problem, is that one side of the political divide is unable to win elections.

If they could 'contemplate their navel' and re-position themselves with new leaders, it would be better for everyone. Competitive elections winnable by either side would eliminate the need for protests and seeking Governing power via the judicial system. Their responsiveness to societal needs would also improve in order to be electable.

And there definitely is a need for a revised constitution as follows:

The present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organizations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy.

Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution.

yes, but why is violence inevitable?

This onion I suspect has a number of skins, one of them being that some significant and influential elements of society are undemocratic. Electoral Democracy is not sacrosanct to them. They see nothing wrong with trying to overthrow elected Governments where the means justifies the end, when they are unable to win elections.

Case in point is the agenda of some to demonize all Politicians, which is an indirect attempt to undermine elections which produce them. I saw a so-called Poll today again projecting this anti-politician agenda under the guise of researchy type stuff.

I know Politicians and lawyers are favorite punching bags, but in this case of demonizing Politicians, it has greater motives.

Edited December 9, 2012 by righteous

[MAJIC]

"It is unlikely that charter writers who come from various sectors would write a law just to help one person, as alleged"

Oh really! How interesting! Surely the PTP and their Red Shirt Brothers would never stoop so low?

[khunken]

are the institutions incapable of solving this issue without Violence?

that alone means there is a need for a new constitution.

The biggest problem, is that one side of the political divide is unable to win elections.

If they could 'contemplate their navel' and re-position themselves with new leaders, it would be better for everyone. Competitive elections winnable by either side would eliminate the need for protests and seeking Governing power via the judicial system. Their responsiveness to societal needs would also improve in order to be electable.

And there definitely is a need for a revised constitution as follows:

The present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organizations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy.

Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution.

Every one of the above is not only wrong, but is straight out of the red-shirt propaganda machine. The last point is hilarious. It's that Dubai criminal who is the greatest cause of divisions here.

Interesting too that you left out that it was (democratically) accepted by a referendum - a first for Thailand.

Not quite as clear as you suggest.

It was very strongly pointed out to the electorate, by the military, approve this constitution OR we will do what we think best.

It was nowhere near a proper and impartial referendum.

I didn't say it was clear only accepted. 'Nowhere near a proper & impartial referendum' yes just like all elections here with one exception - no vote buying.

It is nothing but hypocrisy to criticise anything that doesn't go Thaksin's way & accept or even praise anything that he (pays for &) wins.

[h90]

are the institutions incapable of solving this issue without Violence?

that alone means there is a need for a new constitution.

The biggest problem, is that one side of the political divide is unable to win elections.

If they could 'contemplate their navel' and re-position themselves with new leaders, it would be better for everyone. Competitive elections winnable by either side would eliminate the need for protests and seeking Governing power via the judicial system. Their responsiveness to societal needs would also improve in order to be electable.

And there definitely is a need for a revised constitution as follows:

The present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organizations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy.

Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution.

The biggest problem is that one side does not has the money to win the election.....PTP won with massive vote buying. If the Democrats would have put in the same amount they would have done way better.