Yingluck Has Nothing To Lose With Charter Poll

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

Yingluck has nothing to lose with charter poll

Avudh Panananda

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra made a wise choice recently in opting for a referendum to precede the rewriting of the Constitution.

Based on her remarks, Yingluck last week convinced her brother Thaksin to agree to the referendum in order to settle the political divide over charter change.

Today the coalition parties will meet and finalise a joint stand on amending the charter.

Critics of the government should look again at the prime minister whom many see as a political greenhorn. The inexperienced leader has proved to be very cunning indeed.

By opting for a referendum, Yingluck sends a clear signal she is willing to take a risk in facing her opponents on their own turf.

The idea for a referendum came from law professor Surapon Nitikraipot, seen as an ally of the yellow shirts.

In the face of an impasse on charter amendments between the red and yellow shirts, Surapon contends that the people should be consulted ahead of any changes to the charter they endorsed through the 2007 referendum.

At the July inquiry of the Constitution Court, he made a passionate argument to justify the referendum. The high court subsequently adopted his view in its verdict.

Pheu Thai legal adviser Bhokin Bhalakula strongly opposed Surapon's view but abruptly changed his stand after a meeting with Yingluck last week.

According to government insiders, Yingluck sees the referendum as the only way to avoid two doom scenarios - a potential street fight between red and yellow mobs and the violent confrontation between yellow protesters and anti-riot forces.

Should the situation spiral out of control, there would be no foolproof method to prevent tragic loss of life. As the government has just established a precedent in prosecuting the Democrats, Yingluck may be forced to taste her own medicine if the yellow protesters were to be shot dead by police.

The referendum is, therefore, unavoidable in order to pacify the yellow shirts from resuming street protests.

When the junta organised the vote for the endorsement of the Constitution, it mobilised all state agencies via the Internal Security Operations Command to drum up support. At the time the red shirts campaigned hard to oppose the coup-sponsored charter draft but failed to defeat it.

Despite the might of the state, the red shirts from the Northeast rejected the charter draft. And despite the anti-coup campaign, the yellow shirts from the South, the lower North and parts of the Central Region, combined their votes to promulgate the 2007 Constitution.

The upcoming referendum on charter change will likely see a neck-and-neck race to sway the voting outcome.

There is no telling whether the government can muster votes in its strongholds in the upper North and the Northeast to overtake the opposition movement.

From this month to March, the government plans to launch a publicity blitz by organising a series of public dialogues to try and justify charter change.

Parliament is expected to push for a passage of the referendum law. If things go according to plan, the vote on whether to amend the charter should take place by the middle of next year.

Uncertain as the referendum outcome might be, Yingluck will still plough on with it because she has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

If the government is defeated, then it will just keep the Constitution and amend it provision by provision. Should it win the referendum vote, then it will have the mandate to silence the yellow shirts and overhaul the charter.

-- The Nation 2012-12-14

[ChrisY1]

The results of which wouldn't make the slightest difference to the changes that will take place.....

[rubl]

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra made a wise choice recently in opting for a referendum to precede the rewriting of the Constitution.

A choice? In July, 2012 we had:

"Thailand's political calm hangs in the balance as Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's ruling party decides whether to defy the nation's highest court and proceed with an overhaul of a military-influenced constitution.

The Constitutional Court on July 13 called for a referendum before rewriting the charter ratified after a 2006 coup that ousted former leader Thaksin Shinawatra, Yingluck's brother. Lawmakers "must take responsibility for their next move" if they proceed with a vote to redraft the constitution, court spokesman Pimon Thammaphitakphong told reporters."

http://www.businessw...-southeast-asia

[whybother]

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra made a wise choice recently in opting for a referendum to precede the rewriting of the Constitution.

A choice? In July, 2012 we had:

"Thailand's political calm hangs in the balance as Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's ruling party decides whether to defy the nation's highest court and proceed with an overhaul of a military-influenced constitution.

The Constitutional Court on July 13 called for a referendum before rewriting the charter ratified after a 2006 coup that ousted former leader Thaksin Shinawatra, Yingluck's brother. Lawmakers "must take responsibility for their next move" if they proceed with a vote to redraft the constitution, court spokesman Pimon Thammaphitakphong told reporters."

http://www.businessw...-southeast-asia

And, has she actually made any decision?

[smedly]

I get the impression that the government hasn't grasped the "contitution change" and referendum vote concept

They write the new constitution present it to the people showing - what the changes are - why they were made - and the people vote on it to approve it or not

It seems to me that they believe they should have a referendum on whether to change the constitution - yes or nor, then if yes that gives them a mandate to change whatever they like without the peoples approval - total nonesense

Edited December 14, 2012 by smedly

[MunterHunter]

They present the changes, the public vote yes - they get what they want

They present the changes, the public vote no - so they just change it article by article to get what they want

Either way they white wash Thaksin, he comes home scott-free, somone puts a bullet in his head {X} months later...

So yeah, i agree - the government cant lose on this one

[whybother]

I get the impression that the government hasn't grasped the "contitution change" and referendum vote concept

They write the new constitution present it to the people showing - what the changes are - why they were made - and the people vote on it to approve it or not

It seems to me that they believe they should have a referendum on whether to change the constitution - yes or nor, then if yes that gives them a mandate to change whatever they like without the peoples approval - total nonesense

The courts are saying that they should have a referendum on whether to change the constitution.

If that passed, they would then rewrite it, and it would then go to another referendum to accept the new constitution.

It doesn't really matter whether they take a win in the first referendum as a right to do what they want, because it still needs to pass a second referendum.

[smedly]

I don't think anyone would disagree with a change in the constitution

Primary Targets for change should be -

anti corruption

strengthening the bodies/agencies that investigate corruption

Dumping the defamation laws

Dumping MP's immunity from the law (everyone should be answerable to the law no matter)

Introducing forced declaration of assets for all members of political parties including transfers of funds to family members and the gardener (every 6 months)

Changes to how government agencies are formed such as the DSI and the ACC (possibly similar to how Judges are appointed) to ensure unanimity and total independence of any government or political party

I'm sure there are many more but you get the idea

[nurofiend]

I don't think anyone would disagree with a change in the constitution

Primary Targets for change should be -

anti corruption

strengthening the bodies/agencies that investigate corruption

Dumping the defamation laws

Dumping MP's immunity from the law (everyone should be answerable to the law no matter)

Introducing forced declaration of assets for all members of political parties including transfers of funds to family members and the gardener (every 6 months)

Changes to how government agencies are formed such as the DSI and the ACC (possibly similar to how Judges are appointed) to ensure unanimity and total independence of any government or political party

I'm sure there are many more but you get the idea

but, but i thought you said in another topic... oh nevermind.

this is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of money... a blank referendum, simply to stall legal proceedings.

do you want the constitution changed? vote yes or no

but what are any of the changes?

oh we haven't even wrote them yet, c'mon, yes or no you fool!

ridiculous, waste of time and money, but it shows that democrats throwing hissy fits will get them everywhere, the future's bright.

[waza]

I don't think anyone would disagree with a change in the constitution

Primary Targets for change should be -

anti corruption

strengthening the bodies/agencies that investigate corruption

Dumping the defamation laws

Dumping MP's immunity from the law (everyone should be answerable to the law no matter)

Introducing forced declaration of assets for all members of political parties including transfers of funds to family members and the gardener (every 6 months)

Changes to how government agencies are formed such as the DSI and the ACC (possibly similar to how Judges are appointed) to ensure unanimity and total independence of any government or political party

I'm sure there are many more but you get the idea

but, but i thought you said in another topic... oh nevermind.

this is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of money... a blank referendum, simply to stall legal proceedings.

do you want the constitution changed? vote yes or no

but what are any of the changes?

oh we haven't even wrote them yet, c'mon, yes or no you fool!

ridiculous, waste of time and money, but it shows that democrats throwing hissy fits will get them everywhere, the future's bright.

OMG, I find myself agreeing with you. They should draft the constitutional changes and hold a referendum to allow the electorate a say on keeping or rejecting them. That would be far more democratic than voting on giving the PTP a blank check.

Edited December 14, 2012 by waza

[Thait Spot]

It's cool hand Luke. Nothing to lose.

Maybe she could impress by eating 99 hard boiled eggs

[Crushdepth]

The taxpayer, on the other hand, has hundreds of millions of baht to lose on this project to benefit one man.

[Skywalker69]

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra made a wise choice recently in opting for a referendum to precede the rewriting of the Constitution.

A choice? In July, 2012 we had:

"Thailand's political calm hangs in the balance as Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's ruling party decides whether to defy the nation's highest court and proceed with an overhaul of a military-influenced constitution.

The Constitutional Court on July 13 called for a referendum before rewriting the charter ratified after a 2006 coup that ousted former leader Thaksin Shinawatra, Yingluck's brother. Lawmakers "must take responsibility for their next move" if they proceed with a vote to redraft the constitution, court spokesman Pimon Thammaphitakphong told reporters."

http://www.businessw...-southeast-asia

And, has she actually made any decision?

Yes when she wants to go shopping somewere in Europe.

[siampolee]

Based on her remarks, Yingluck last week convinced her brother Thaksin to agree to the referendum in order to settle the political divide over charter change.

I am somewhat bemused by the above quote.I was under the impression that

A. Thaksin according to his own remarks had washed his hands of politics...

B. Thaksin is not the Prime Minister of Thailand or so we are led to believe.

.C. Thaksin is in fact a convicted bail jumping felon who does not recognize the law,thus any referendum result and subsequent changes if any to the constitution will not in whatever multitude of creations pass for his minds affect him in any way.

. .

Could you explain please madam Prime Minister why you felt you needed to or had to convince your convicted bail jumping brother that his agreement to the proposed referendum was necessary?

Possibly the arrangements regarding the commission'' on the cost of the referendum was the reason that your brother had to be consulted regarding the commission level and of course its distribution among the assorted agents '' involved in indoctrinating educating the masse as to how they should vote.

Not that the vote outcome would matter as the resolve is to change the current consttution come hell or high water in favour of and enabling large supplies of whitewash to be applied to a convicted bail lumping felon who is also a family member too..

Curiouser and curiouser said Alice,

When some one is behaving in a very secretive way one becomes curious ...

But when that same person starts doing things even more bizarre then one says ... it gets curioser and curioser ...

Edited December 14, 2012 by siampolee

[nurofiend]

I don't think anyone would disagree with a change in the constitution

Primary Targets for change should be -

anti corruption

strengthening the bodies/agencies that investigate corruption

Dumping the defamation laws

Dumping MP's immunity from the law (everyone should be answerable to the law no matter)

Introducing forced declaration of assets for all members of political parties including transfers of funds to family members and the gardener (every 6 months)

Changes to how government agencies are formed such as the DSI and the ACC (possibly similar to how Judges are appointed) to ensure unanimity and total independence of any government or political party

I'm sure there are many more but you get the idea

but, but i thought you said in another topic... oh nevermind.

this is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of money... a blank referendum, simply to stall legal proceedings.

do you want the constitution changed? vote yes or no

but what are any of the changes?

oh we haven't even wrote them yet, c'mon, yes or no you fool!

ridiculous, waste of time and money, but it shows that democrats throwing hissy fits will get them everywhere, the future's bright.

OMG, I find myself agreeing with you. They should draft the constitutional changes and hold a referendum to allow the electorate a say on keeping or rejecting them. That would be far more democratic than voting on giving the PTP a blank check.

"They should draft the constitutional changes and hold a referendum to allow the electorate a say on keeping or rejecting them."

ok, and what do you think the previous plan was?

[MAJIC]

I get the impression that the government hasn't grasped the "contitution change" and referendum vote concept

They write the new constitution present it to the people showing - what the changes are - why they were made - and the people vote on it to approve it or not

It seems to me that they believe they should have a referendum on whether to change the constitution - yes or nor, then if yes that gives them a mandate to change whatever they like without the peoples approval - total nonesense

Exactly!

[smedly]

threads and topics here and a lot of opinions posts etc etc wouldn't even get keyboard time if Thailand had a political system that worked - laws that applied to eveyone and the righteous

in dubai included

The Thai legal system has many huge holes in it that allow for all this kindergarden nonesense to continue - the sooner it is bunged up rge better

[smedly]

I don't think anyone would disagree with a change in the constitution

Primary Targets for change should be -

anti corruption

strengthening the bodies/agencies that investigate corruption

Dumping the defamation laws

Dumping MP's immunity from the law (everyone should be answerable to the law no matter)

Introducing forced declaration of assets for all members of political parties including transfers of funds to family members and the gardener (every 6 months)

Changes to how government agencies are formed such as the DSI and the ACC (possibly similar to how Judges are appointed) to ensure unanimity and total independence of any government or political party

I'm sure there are many more but you get the idea

but, but i thought you said in another topic... oh nevermind.

this is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of money... a blank referendum, simply to stall legal proceedings.

do you want the constitution changed? vote yes or no

but what are any of the changes?

oh we haven't even wrote them yet, c'mon, yes or no you fool!

ridiculous, waste of time and money, but it shows that democrats throwing hissy fits will get them everywhere, the future's bright.

if you had read and understood the post you are refering too you would have understood that the point I was making was that Thailand will never move forward while the people keep putting these w'kers in control - yes many here shout the democracy card but in reality we also know what is going on and can see the whole thing is rotten

I offered you a challenge to suggest a way forward and all you could come up with was - nothing

I believe that TV gets enough audience to warrant a corrupt convicted evil criminal like Thaksin to post here - I believe he does along with an ever increasing number of paid supporters

And a message to Thaksin - if you really want to be the Thail hero in this story - step up to the plate and make the changes through your sister that the Thai people realy need - you want to die soon and be remembered as a thief and criminal or a man that changed the history of Thailand for the good of the people - what else is there for you

you've made your billions from the Thai people - either walk away or be remembered for in history for how you gave it back

Edited December 14, 2012 by smedly

[waza]

I don't think anyone would disagree with a change in the constitution

Primary Targets for change should be -

anti corruption

strengthening the bodies/agencies that investigate corruption

Dumping the defamation laws

Dumping MP's immunity from the law (everyone should be answerable to the law no matter)

Introducing forced declaration of assets for all members of political parties including transfers of funds to family members and the gardener (every 6 months)

Changes to how government agencies are formed such as the DSI and the ACC (possibly similar to how Judges are appointed) to ensure unanimity and total independence of any government or political party

I'm sure there are many more but you get the idea

but, but i thought you said in another topic... oh nevermind.

this is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of money... a blank referendum, simply to stall legal proceedings.

do you want the constitution changed? vote yes or no

but what are any of the changes?

oh we haven't even wrote them yet, c'mon, yes or no you fool!

ridiculous, waste of time and money, but it shows that democrats throwing hissy fits will get them everywhere, the future's bright.

OMG, I find myself agreeing with you. They should draft the constitutional changes and hold a referendum to allow the electorate a say on keeping or rejecting them. That would be far more democratic than voting on giving the PTP a blank check.

"They should draft the constitutional changes and hold a referendum to allow the electorate a say on keeping or rejecting them."

ok, and what do you think the previous plan was?

This win win plan is the only one I have ever subscribed to. Its the same thing the military coup government did but do it in a more democratic manner.

I believe Thaksins plan was to railroad the constitutional changes in and the only opportunity for the electrate to vote on it will be at the next general election. With Thaksin as PM and PTP leader. However, what I think is academic.

Edited December 14, 2012 by waza

[rubl]

Coalition backs referendum on charter before Parliament vote

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The five-member coalition resolved yesterday to support the holding of a national referendum before the Parliament goes ahead with the third reading of the charter-amendment bill.

This decision was made after coalition parties met to discuss the Cabinet's proposal to hold a referendum before the final reading in order to avoid possible legal repercussions.

Pheu Thai Party leader Jarupong Ruangsuwan told the press yesterday that the coalition had unanimously agreed that the Cabinet should be formally asked to hold a referendum on the issue because the Parliament did not have the authority to do so.

He said the voting public would be asked if they supported the setting up of a new drafting assembly to write a charter draft provided the current ruling system and the monarchy is left intact.

Jarupong added that the coalition also believed that the government should cooperate with all political parties, educational institutions and the civil sector to launch a public-awareness campaign about the referendum.

Awaiting proposals

Justice Minister Pracha Promnok said he had been assigned by the Cabinet to receive proposals from coalition partners, adding that he would inform the Cabinet about the coalition's resolution by next week.

Bhokin Bhalakula, chairman of the coalition committee on charter amendments, said the government would not amend the National Referendum Act to cut down on the number of votes in the referendum.

Meanwhile, PM's Office Minister Varathep Ratanakorn said that after Pracha informs the Cabinet of the coalition's resolution, the Cabinet would consult the Council of State on how the referendum should be held.

He said the referendum would be held 90 to 120 days after the referendum plan is announced in the Royal Gazette.

Varathep said the government was obliged to encourage as many voters as possible to vote in the referendum. He said the process will be based on Article 165 and the Referendum Act, and will be valid if more than half of the voters exercised their voting rights. He added that the amendment would get the go ahead if more than half of the votes were "yes".

Varathep said Thailand had 46 million eligible voters so the turnout would have to be 23 million and at least 11.5 million "yes" votes were needed for the amendment to go through.

-- The Nation 2012-12-15

[siampolee]

Varathep said Thailand had 46 million eligible voters so the turnout would have to be 23 million and at least 11.5 million "yes" votes were needed for the amendment to go through.

Wonder how the finance will be arranged to ensure a yea vote then how will the outlay be recouped ?

Big bucks riding on this one folks.

[nurofiend]

"They should draft the constitutional changes and hold a referendum to allow the electorate a say on keeping or rejecting them."

ok, and what do you think the previous plan was?

This win win plan is the only one I have ever subscribed to. Its the same thing the military coup government did but do it in a more democratic manner.

I believe Thaksins plan was to railroad the constitutional changes in and the only opportunity for the electrate to vote on it will be at the next general election. With Thaksin as PM and PTP leader. However, what I think is academic.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Second-reading-of-constitution-bill-finalised-30181992.html

what's the second last paragraph in this all about then?

[waza]

"They should draft the constitutional changes and hold a referendum to allow the electorate a say on keeping or rejecting them."

ok, and what do you think the previous plan was?

This win win plan is the only one I have ever subscribed to. Its the same thing the military coup government did but do it in a more democratic manner.

I believe Thaksins plan was to railroad the constitutional changes in and the only opportunity for the electrate to vote on it will be at the next general election. With Thaksin as PM and PTP leader. However, what I think is academic.

http://www.nationmul...d-30181992.html

what's the second last paragraph in this all about then?

Do you really believe it will be that black and white? Do you really think Thaksin would acquiescence to his little sister and clone?

Yingluck has nothing to loose, Thaksin has everything.