if you can't beat it, shun it

so basically the 'democrats' will urge people not to use their democratic right to vote, to throw away their vote

the minority trying to get their way based on technicalities, rather than 'democrat'ic means.. fantastic.

if you can't coup it, shun it.

shunning a vote they know they won't win, now where do i remember this from.

You fail to see that this is a failed democracy.

When there is no chance that a debate will win the day due to external corrupting influence where politicians go through the motions in order to present a veneer of due process, the better option is to veto that process.

Those in power remain abusers making a circus out of the democratic process. The most powerful response is not to support that process in order to isolate it and expose it for what it is: a Sham.

That message is a clear and simple one that an ill-educated, ill-informed Thai populace can grasp.

Commenting from ivory western towers doesn't help.

Obama has a chance of chaning US gun law right now. It will be debated. He may well lose. But he will lose fairly or win fairly. He will not be subject to corrosive corrupting influence before he starts. That is a mature democracy in process.

Thailand?

Forget it. Use the boycott.

And you really think that the NRA and gun lobby in the US are any different. How many American politicians have taken money from them for their election campaigns and are therefore beholding to them when it come to voting on gun control legislation.

Sometimes I wonder about some of the posters (Farang) on TV. You seem to think that bribery and corruption is something that only happens in Thailand.

Try looking in your own back yards !!! This government was elected democratically by a majority of the Thai people. It is the government that they want.

If you don't agree with them and/or don't like the government, try to become Thai Citizens and vote in

in the elections.

If you really don't like it here there are many ways to leave the country, by air, car, train or boat. Then you can go back to your allegedly democratic, non corrupt, bribery free country.

Meanwhile,the government that the Thais want is really none of your business, just as the government that your countrymen want is none of the Thais business.

You might want to bone up on what is going on in the states now.

As for your childish if you don't like it leave. There is a big appeal there now for control of the guns.

I might suggest to you if you don't like the in put don't open Thai Visa up and you won't have to put up with it.

Are those supporting not changing the constitution actually saying that it is OK to have a military coup and then rewrite the constitution to give those involved amnesty?

Are those supporting not changing the constitution actually saying that it is OK to have a military coup and then rewrite the constitution to give those involved amnesty?

No.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Are those supporting not changing the constitution actually saying that it is OK to have a military coup and then rewrite the constitution to give those involved amnesty?

No.

Sent from my HTC phone.

So what should be done about Section 309?

Are those supporting not changing the constitution actually saying that it is OK to have a military coup and then rewrite the constitution to give those involved amnesty?

No.

Sent from my HTC phone.

So what should be done about Section 309?

Why does it need changing? It doesn't legalise future coups, and nothing can be done about the last coup.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Why does it need changing? It doesn't legalise future coups, and nothing can be done about the last coup.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Article 309 states

Article 309 says: "Any act that in its legality and constitutionality has been recognised by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2549, including all acts related therewith committed whether before or after the date of promulgation of this Constitution shall be deemed constitutionally under this Constitution."

The part in bold doesn't seem to be very well written to me. I could read that as "seeing as the coup of 2006 was recognised as legitimate wrt the 2007 Constitution, another "act related therewith" i.e Coup 2 (actually it would be about #19 now, I think) would also be legitimate" - all they have to say is a coup was necessary because the government of the time were threatening the existing Constitution (by removing Article 309 for example).

The second coup keeps the existing constitution or re-writes it even more to their favour (ie to promote weak coalition governments through the manipulation of the Senate/Judge voting system and the Courts themselves, as they did in 2007) yet again inserting an Article 309 or similar.

Tell me I'm wrong - with reasons.

Why does it need changing? It doesn't legalise future coups, and nothing can be done about the last coup.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Article 309 states

Article 309 says: "Any act that in its legality and constitutionality has been recognised by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2549, including all acts related therewith committed whether before or after the date of promulgation of this Constitution shall be deemed constitutionally under this Constitution."

The part in bold doesn't seem to be very well written to me. I could read that as "seeing as the coup of 2006 was recognised as legitimate wrt the 2007 Constitution, another "act related therewith" i.e Coup 2 (actually it would be about #19 now, I think) would also be legitimate" - all they have to say is a coup was necessary because the government of the time were threatening the existing Constitution (by removing Article 309 for example).

The second coup keeps the existing constitution or re-writes it even more to their favour (ie to promote weak coalition governments through the manipulation of the Senate/Judge voting system and the Courts themselves, as they did in 2007) yet again inserting an Article 309 or similar.

Tell me I'm wrong - with reasons.

Article 309 relates to the interim constitution of 2006 (2549). Paraphrasing ... "Anything that has been recognised in the 2549 (2006) constitution, including all related acts committed before or after the date of this (2007) constitution will deemed constitutional under this (2007) constitution".

The 2006 interim constitution said that the 2006 coup was lawful, and acts related to the coup before and after the date of the 2007 constitution were deemed lawful. So things they did after the date of the 2007 constitution, like organising the election, was lawful.

edit: Do you seriously believe that they would make future coups legal?

So it seems that Chalerm doesn't want a referendum anymore and Yingluck is not sure. Meanwhile, DSI is working OT.

Sooooo funny.