Yingluck: Piece-By-Piece Charter Change If Referendum Fails

[smedly]

The first amendment I would make - would be to modify the rules on charter and constitutional change to require a referendum for all changes not just rewrites

[jbrain]

So in short :

If we don't get approval from the Thai people, we will ignore and do it anyway. How they dare it still call a people's charter.

Well just announced on bbc world 64% voted in Egypt for charter change.

Expect similar here IMO.

No wonder suthep's jumping up and down

No idea how Egypt fits in the picture here, but most of all, if you want to make a silly comment to support your red comrads get your facts straight or stay quiet.

[siampolee]

Some Pheu Thai politicians want the government to go ahead with passing the bill, while others say the court ruling regarding the referendum must be followed first.

This was just a matter of different viewpoints within the ruling party rather than a dispute, she said.

Sorry Madam Puppet Prime Minister, different viewpoints indicate that there are a number of people in the P.T.P. and no doubt the coalition parties membership of the current maladministration who are not all happy with the matter. I.E..the whitewashing of a convicted bail jumping criminal who is your brother Madam Puppet Prime Minister.

We are all well aware of the Machiavellian schemes that are hatched by politicians in this country and Madam Puppet Prime Minister you might do well to remember just how deep the currents of those Machiavellian waters run and how old the vested interests of certain politicians are. The return of the whitewashed bail jumping convicted criminal might well restrict the cash flows and the power bases of the aforementioned politicians. banned and otherwise, hence the differences nay opposition to your puppet masters ideas.

Chalerm is not to be trusted he has had his sights on your current position Madam Puppet Prime Minister for many a year, Chalerm would and will sell you and your puppet master down the river without a qualm. Politicians make strange bedfellows.

Finally I find it very strange nay worrying that the current maladministration that your puppet master brother lets you act as the figurehead for claims with a straight face that democracy and the removal of the amart is their dedicated aim.

Explain then Madam Puppet Prime Minister your comments concerning the result of a referendum.A,no vote but we will still change the constitution irrespective of the greater majority of the electorates wishes, and also ignoring the judicial branch ..

Could you please explain how that is democratic please ?

[nokbird]

So in short :

If we don't get approval from the Thai people, we will ignore and do it anyway. How they dare it still call a people's charter.

Thailand is a Joke

[EarthAlien]

One can only speculate about Yingluck's assertion to overhaul the constitution, as being of personal conviction, or forced upon her by her constituancy, which also just happens to be the electoral majority......She made a very astute observation about this referendum being 'birthed' by the Constitution Court. This Court claiming legitimacy of the existing Constitution, disregarding its "Coup source", is what leads to such comments....All this does, is simply characterize the CC for its' judicial orientation.......which have in the past led to Double-standards and judicial coup complaints...........Opposition types and their accolytes continue to beat the "Thaksin return motive" as a way of hiding their own...that being retention of the coup initiatives of which they were a part (198)

then you had to go and ruin the great work you had done previously with this red shirt propaganda crap, really starting to think you are actually a red shirt propaganda man/woman put in here to try to counter all the bullsh*t your friends in high places do but it doesnt work, we are not as stupid as those you pay to vote for you.

Hmmm,... me thinks the real identity of our friend "righteous" is most likely Robert Amsterdam,... or someone hired from his law offices to support all pro-constitution amendment posts and anything that would concern PTP and Thaksin with regards to reputation and credibility!

Merry Christmas Mr Amsterdam!

[Pimay1]

Piece-by-piece charter change if referendum fails: PM

Translation: Screw you Thai people my brother and I will do exactly what we want no matter what you say.

[Hugo6]

its stupid because instead of changing the constitution and taking it to a referendum thailand has a referendum on nothing specific in order to change the constitution.

the opps can claim any outlandish thing they want in the referendum in order to defeat it

then it goes back to the government to change article by artilcle taking the thai public referendum out of the picture

stupid indeed

Actually, the constitution has clauses on how it can be amended. Doing a wholesale re-write is not covered, so a referendum is needed to change the constitution to allow a wholesale rewrite.

Don't you follow the news?

more of those "..." questions

a referendum is not needed prior to a rewrite

i follow the judgements of the yellow courts. someone else made the point recently that the dems run to the courts at a drop of the hat because they know the courts are their friends and the people of the electorate are not

i remember earlier this year when the courts decided to hear the case - what a bunch of rhetorical ... gymnastics - just to hear the case and then do their best to put the brakes on the normally accepted means to create a committee - democratically at that - to write the proposed changes, send their work to parliament and then have a referendum by the country on something concrete; a new charter

but given your posts, im sure you live on a different planet where none of that happend in a country called thailand

[jbrain]

its stupid because instead of changing the constitution and taking it to a referendum thailand has a referendum on nothing specific in order to change the constitution.

the opps can claim any outlandish thing they want in the referendum in order to defeat it

then it goes back to the government to change article by artilcle taking the thai public referendum out of the picture

stupid indeed

Actually, the constitution has clauses on how it can be amended. Doing a wholesale re-write is not covered, so a referendum is needed to change the constitution to allow a wholesale rewrite.

Don't you follow the news?

more of those "..." questions

a referendum is not needed prior to a rewrite

i follow the judgements of the yellow courts. someone else made the point recently that the dems run to the courts at a drop of the hat because they know the courts are their friends and the people of the electorate are not

i remember earlier this year when the courts decided to hear the case - what a bunch of rhetorical ... gymnastics - just to hear the case and then do their best to put the brakes on the normally accepted means to create a committee - democratically at that - to write the proposed changes, send their work to parliament and then have a referendum by the country on something concrete; a new charter

but given your posts, im sure you live on a different planet where none of that happend in a country called thailand

But I understand that at that particular time, Chalerm had rewritten the whole constitution just over the time of a weekend.

[waza]

Given the huge popularity of Thaksin, Yingluck an the whole PTP one would assume that they will be given the votes they require to pass the referendum and give the government the moral mandate to make whatevr changes they want to the constitution of Thailand. However, as stated by Yingluck, Charlem et al if they fail to get that mandate they will change the constitution any way. Funny how red democracy sounds a lot like a dictatorship.

[hellodolly]

One can only speculate about Yingluck's assertion to overhaul the constitution, as being of personal conviction, or forced upon her by her constituancy, which also just happens to be the electoral majority......She made a very astute observation about this referendum being 'birthed' by the Constitution Court. This Court claiming legitimacy of the existing Constitution, disregarding its "Coup source", is what leads to such comments....All this does, is simply characterize the CC for its' judicial orientation.......which have in the past led to Double-standards and judicial coup complaints...........Opposition types and their accolytes continue to beat the "Thaksin return motive" as a way of hiding their own...that being retention of the coup initiatives of which they were a part (198)

I was wondering what you were referring to when you said "electoral majority"You are referring to around 500 people. Not Thailand.

I know that she does not have the popular majority. What she has in the election is 48% a figure only that high because Yellow shirts would not vote.

[hellodolly]

Given the huge popularity of Thaksin, Yingluck an the whole PTP one would assume that they will be given the votes they require to pass the referendum and give the government the moral mandate to make whatevr changes they want to the constitution of Thailand. However, as stated by Yingluck, Charlem et al if they fail to get that mandate they will change the constitution any way. Funny how red democracy sounds a lot like a dictatorship.

Well they may have a huge popularity but the election showed us that in the general population more wanted some one else and as I have earlier stated that was an inflated number becaise the yellow shirts did not vote.

I read about 5 lines of the article and stopped they cut right to the chase with it. A reword would have been we don't really care what people want we want this and you can go scr w yourself we are going to get it.

[muttley]

However, Yingluck dismissed any innuendoes of favouritism.

"The constitutional amendment is intended for the people. We want to have a people's charter - one that is in line with democracy," she said.

So if less than 50% of people turn out in favour of the CA then what is the democratic statement of the people? It would seem in that scenario that more than 50% say no to CA, so how can further CA be 'intended for the people'? Which people? Thaksin, Jatuporn and a few others perhaps?

Amazing Thailand.

Sorry thats just democracy and the result of the dems and pad throwing the toys out of the pram.

1. It is written in the constitution that if less than 50% of the electorate turn out for the referendum it is null and void.

2. As a result of the dems and pad frivilously invoking Article 68 in an attempt (successful, up to a point) to stop the 3rd reading of the constitution amendment bill to form a CDA to rewrite the constitution, the Constitutional Court came up with two rulings

one) that if the PTP wanted to form a CDA and ammend the constitution that way they would have to have a referendum first (seemingly ignoring the fact that the military junta did not hold a referendum before their rewriting of the 1997 Constitution or

two) change the constitution piece by piece in parliament.

You tell me that if not enough people turn out to vote on the referendum and the Government decides to ammend the constitution piece by piece in Parliament that it is not democratic.

How so? The Dems, PAD and the CC are all responsible for that situation.

[Pimay1]

However, Yingluck dismissed any innuendoes of favouritism.

"The constitutional amendment is intended for the people. We want to have a people's charter - one that is in line with democracy," she said.

So if less than 50% of people turn out in favour of the CA then what is the democratic statement of the people? It would seem in that scenario that more than 50% say no to CA, so how can further CA be 'intended for the people'? Which people? Thaksin, Jatuporn and a few others perhaps?

Amazing Thailand.

Sorry thats just democracy and the result of the dems and pad throwing the toys out of the pram.

1. It is written in the constitution that if less than 50% of the electorate turn out for the referendum it is null and void.

2. As a result of the dems and pad frivilously invoking Article 68 in an attempt (successful, up to a point) to stop the 3rd reading of the constitution amendment bill to form a CDA to rewrite the constitution, the Constitutional Court came up with two rulings

one) that if the PTP wanted to form a CDA and ammend the constitution that way they would have to have a referendum first (seemingly ignoring the fact that the military junta did not hold a referendum before their rewriting of the 1997 Constitution or

two) change the constitution piece by piece in parliament.

You tell me that if not enough people turn out to vote on the referendum and the Government decides to ammend the constitution piece by piece in Parliament that it is not democratic.

How so? The Dems, PAD and the CC are all responsible for that situation.

muttley I do not think you are in any way a stuipd person so don't read this into my post. Surely to goodness you can see through the facade of this. The reason for the supposed charter rewrite is to bring Khun T home free and clear of all his conviction and outstanding charges. I think you will not admit to knowing this but I am sure you realize it.

[smutcakes]

However, Yingluck dismissed any innuendoes of favouritism.

"The constitutional amendment is intended for the people. We want to have a people's charter - one that is in line with democracy," she said.

So if less than 50% of people turn out in favour of the CA then what is the democratic statement of the people? It would seem in that scenario that more than 50% say no to CA, so how can further CA be 'intended for the people'? Which people? Thaksin, Jatuporn and a few others perhaps?

Amazing Thailand.

Sorry thats just democracy and the result of the dems and pad throwing the toys out of the pram.

1. It is written in the constitution that if less than 50% of the electorate turn out for the referendum it is null and void.

2. As a result of the dems and pad frivilously invoking Article 68 in an attempt (successful, up to a point) to stop the 3rd reading of the constitution amendment bill to form a CDA to rewrite the constitution, the Constitutional Court came up with two rulings

one) that if the PTP wanted to form a CDA and ammend the constitution that way they would have to have a referendum first (seemingly ignoring the fact that the military junta did not hold a referendum before their rewriting of the 1997 Constitution or

two) change the constitution piece by piece in parliament.

You tell me that if not enough people turn out to vote on the referendum and the Government decides to ammend the constitution piece by piece in Parliament that it is not democratic.

How so? The Dems, PAD and the CC are all responsible for that situation.

muttley I do not think you are in any way a stuipd person so don't read this into my post. Surely to goodness you can see through the facade of this. The reason for the supposed charter rewrite is to bring Khun T home free and clear of all his conviction and outstanding charges. I think you will not admit to knowing this but I am sure you realize it.

Yes- that is no doubt one of the primary reasons, and the Thai people will vote accordingly on it.

To me it just all seems a bit hollow the protesting about changing the charter when it has been done time and time again throughout history. Don't tell me that all the other changes have been done for the good of the people either.

I am sure whoever gets in power next will probably try and amend it again- were the Democrat party not in talks at some point about amending themselves also before the election? (I may be incorrect on that)

[Pimay1]

Quotes got me again.

Yes- that is no doubt one of the primary reasons, and the Thai people will vote accordingly on it.

To me it just all seems a bit hollow the protesting about changing the charter when it has been done time and time again throughout history. Don't tell me that all the other changes have been done for the good of the people either.

I am sure whoever gets in power next will probably try and amend it again- were the Democrat party not in talks at some point about amending themselves also before the election? (I may be incorrect on that)

I understand where you are going with this but there has to be a point in time when enough is enough. Two, three, four............wrongs do not make a right. This is not the past. This is today.

[muttley]

However, Yingluck dismissed any innuendoes of favouritism.

"The constitutional amendment is intended for the people. We want to have a people's charter - one that is in line with democracy," she said.

So if less than 50% of people turn out in favour of the CA then what is the democratic statement of the people? It would seem in that scenario that more than 50% say no to CA, so how can further CA be 'intended for the people'? Which people? Thaksin, Jatuporn and a few others perhaps?

Amazing Thailand.

Sorry thats just democracy and the result of the dems and pad throwing the toys out of the pram.

1. It is written in the constitution that if less than 50% of the electorate turn out for the referendum it is null and void.

2. As a result of the dems and pad frivilously invoking Article 68 in an attempt (successful, up to a point) to stop the 3rd reading of the constitution amendment bill to form a CDA to rewrite the constitution, the Constitutional Court came up with two rulings

one) that if the PTP wanted to form a CDA and ammend the constitution that way they would have to have a referendum first (seemingly ignoring the fact that the military junta did not hold a referendum before their rewriting of the 1997 Constitution or

two) change the constitution piece by piece in parliament.

You tell me that if not enough people turn out to vote on the referendum and the Government decides to ammend the constitution piece by piece in Parliament that it is not democratic.

How so? The Dems, PAD and the CC are all responsible for that situation.

muttley I do not think you are in any way a stuipd person so don't read this into my post. Surely to goodness you can see through the facade of this. The reason for the supposed charter rewrite is to bring Khun T home free and clear of all his conviction and outstanding charges. I think you will not admit to knowing this but I am sure you realize it.

Tell me how? How are they going to do it? They would have to amend the laws/method (albeit made up by the military Junta) to retroactively pardon or retry (with a different "happy" ending) the Land transfer case and drop all others . Or retroactively drop all cases - to do that they would have to give him an amnesty - to do that they would have to ammend Section 309 of the Constitution - that would lead to the loss of amnesty of the coup officers and what do you think will happen then? There is only one way Thaksin will be coming to Thailand and it won't be as a result of an constitutional ammendment.

Think about it, before the dems and pad stuck their oar in the government was going ahead with a perfectly legitimate democratic method of writing a new constitution with representatives from all provinces etc. How were they going to be forced to change Section 309 for one man? Its typical dems hysterical rhetoric. They are so desperate to be back in power. Whatever it takes, as they know they cannot do it by normal electoral means.

Edited January 22, 2013 by muttley

[smutcakes]

Quotes got me again.

Yes- that is no doubt one of the primary reasons, and the Thai people will vote accordingly on it.

To me it just all seems a bit hollow the protesting about changing the charter when it has been done time and time again throughout history. Don't tell me that all the other changes have been done for the good of the people either.

I am sure whoever gets in power next will probably try and amend it again- were the Democrat party not in talks at some point about amending themselves also before the election? (I may be incorrect on that)

I understand where you are going with this but there has to be a point in time when enough is enough. Two, three, four............wrongs do not make a right. This is not the past. This is today.

You are right in an ideal scenario, but why NOW? why not leave the time before or the time before that. Whichever party is in power would say 'Okay, this is the last time'

People who support the amendment will vote for it, and people against it will vote against.

I would say in any country however sacrosanct certain laws etc are, there must always be mechanisms for changing them. Perhaps the military who were the last people to amend it had the ideal opportunity to set it pretty much in stone, and make the requirements so cumbersome and unobtainable that it would be nigh on impossible to amend it. However i dont think either the PTP or the Democrats would really want that.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed.

Edit: Trolling nonsense posts have been removed.

Edited January 22, 2013 by metisdead

[rubl]

Sorry thats just democracy and the result of the dems and pad throwing the toys out of the pram.

1. It is written in the constitution that if less than 50% of the electorate turn out for the referendum it is null and void.

2. As a result of the dems and pad frivilously invoking Article 68 in an attempt (successful, up to a point) to stop the 3rd reading of the constitution amendment bill to form a CDA to rewrite the constitution, the Constitutional Court came up with two rulings

one) that if the PTP wanted to form a CDA and ammend the constitution that way they would have to have a referendum first (seemingly ignoring the fact that the military junta did not hold a referendum before their rewriting of the 1997 Constitution or

two) change the constitution piece by piece in parliament.

You tell me that if not enough people turn out to vote on the referendum and the Government decides to ammend the constitution piece by piece in Parliament that it is not democratic.

How so? The Dems, PAD and the CC are all responsible for that situation.

muttley I do not think you are in any way a stuipd person so don't read this into my post. Surely to goodness you can see through the facade of this. The reason for the supposed charter rewrite is to bring Khun T home free and clear of all his conviction and outstanding charges. I think you will not admit to knowing this but I am sure you realize it.

Tell me how? How are they going to do it? They would have to amend the laws/method (albeit made up by the military Junta) to retroactively pardon or retry (with a different "happy" ending) the Land transfer case and drop all others . Or retroactively drop all cases - to do that they would have to give him an amnesty - to do that they would have to ammend Section 309 of the Constitution - that would lead to the loss of amnesty of the coup officers and what do you think will happen then? There is only one way Thaksin will be coming to Thailand and it won't be as a result of an constitutional ammendment.

Think about it, before the dems and pad stuck their oar in the government was going ahead with a perfectly legitimate democratic method of writing a new constitution with representatives from all provinces etc. How were they going to be forced to change Section 309 for one man? Its typical dems hysterical rhetoric. They are so desperate to be back in power. Whatever it takes, as they know they cannot do it by normal electoral means.

What the Dem's want or like doesn't matter in the context of charter rewriting. A few weeks ago PM Yingluck gave us the real reason. Foreginers don't like the current constitution and that holds Thailand back. consequently a rewrite is really, really necessary.

Apart from this I'm still waiting for an explanation as to the difference between 1997 ans 2997 version and why that explains a complete rewrite to be necessary. I don't need info on how the 1997 or 2007 constitution came to be, I would like clear info on the contents

[hellodolly]

However, Yingluck dismissed any innuendoes of favouritism.

"The constitutional amendment is intended for the people. We want to have a people's charter - one that is in line with democracy," she said.

So if less than 50% of people turn out in favour of the CA then what is the democratic statement of the people? It would seem in that scenario that more than 50% say no to CA, so how can further CA be 'intended for the people'? Which people? Thaksin, Jatuporn and a few others perhaps?

Amazing Thailand.

Sorry thats just democracy and the result of the dems and pad throwing the toys out of the pram.

1. It is written in the constitution that if less than 50% of the electorate turn out for the referendum it is null and void.

2. As a result of the dems and pad frivilously invoking Article 68 in an attempt (successful, up to a point) to stop the 3rd reading of the constitution amendment bill to form a CDA to rewrite the constitution, the Constitutional Court came up with two rulings

one) that if the PTP wanted to form a CDA and ammend the constitution that way they would have to have a referendum first (seemingly ignoring the fact that the military junta did not hold a referendum before their rewriting of the 1997 Constitution or

two) change the constitution piece by piece in parliament.

You tell me that if not enough people turn out to vote on the referendum and the Government decides to ammend the constitution piece by piece in Parliament that it is not democratic.

How so? The Dems, PAD and the CC are all responsible for that situation.

You remind me of a picture I once saw of a little kid who could not get his way sitting there and crying. The PT tried to ram through a change that would bring Thaksin back in glory. It didn't work live with it.

As the man said if 50% don't show up to vote for it when they know for it to pass they will have to show up and vote for it that would be 50% who really aren't interested in it. Hence no go the voting public has spoken.

People will have a chance there to grow up and except it. Or be like the sniviling PT and suck there thumb as they say we are going to igniore you we don't care what you want you are not rich and corrupt like us. You will see it changed to be what we want.

[MAJIC]

"According to the Constitution, a referendum can be passed if half of all eligible voters turn out to cast ballots, and a majority of that turnout then votes in favour"

Am I reading this correct:

If only half the eligible Voters turn out to vote,then it only needs half of those in favour to change the charter! i.e. 50% of the population vote, divide 2 = 25%,so it only needs 26% of the population to claim the Referendum was successful?

[hellodolly]

"According to the Constitution, a referendum can be passed if half of all eligible voters turn out to cast ballots, and a majority of that turnout then votes in favour"

Am I reading this correct:

If only half the eligible Voters turn out to vote,then it only needs half of those in favour to change the charter! i.e. 50% of the population vote, divide 2 = 25%,so it only needs 26% of the population to claim the Referendum was successful?

Thats the way I read it. You can bet your bottom baht the red shirts will be out there beating the bushes for people to vote for it.

[rubl]

"According to the Constitution, a referendum can be passed if half of all eligible voters turn out to cast ballots, and a majority of that turnout then votes in favour"

Am I reading this correct:

If only half the eligible Voters turn out to vote,then it only needs half of those in favour to change the charter! i.e. 50% of the population vote, divide 2 = 25%,so it only needs 26% of the population to claim the Referendum was successful?

It does seem a wee bit strange, now doesn't it?

Well, anyway, no need to worry. Obviously and clearly for all to see and know, a complete rewrite of the constitution is really, really necessary (even pesky foreigners think so). It should therefor be no problem at all for this government, which got such a clear and overwelming mandate, to get the complete Thai electorate of 46 million people aroused to do their patriotic duty and vote

[Pimay1]

"According to the Constitution, a referendum can be passed if half of all eligible voters turn out to cast ballots, and a majority of that turnout then votes in favour"

Am I reading this correct:

If only half the eligible Voters turn out to vote,then it only needs half of those in favour to change the charter! i.e. 50% of the population vote, divide 2 = 25%,so it only needs 26% of the population to claim the Referendum was successful?

It does seem a wee bit strange, now doesn't it?

Well, anyway, no need to worry. Obviously and clearly for all to see and know, a complete rewrite of the constitution is really, really necessary (even pesky foreigners think so). It should therefor be no problem at all for this government, which got such a clear and overwelming mandate, to get the complete Thai electorate of 46 million people aroused to do their patriotic duty and vote

Well if they don't get the necessary votes then it is on to "screw your mothers we will do it anyway". Thaksin thinks Pheu Thai acts.

[otherstuff1957]

The irony of this whole situation is that the constitution really is flawed and needs to be revised:

1. Appointed senators - they should all be elected.

2. The LM is too strict.

3. Protections of freedom of speech are too weak.

4. The government's ability to censor to Internet should be restricted or eliminated entirely.

There a probably more changes, but those are the obvious ones. However, because country is so badly divided into Pro and Anti Thaksin camps neither side trusts the other enough to find a compromise.

Basically, one person is causing most of Thailand's problems.

[Hugo6]

So if less than 50% of people turn out in favour of the CA then what is the democratic statement of the people? It would seem in that scenario that more than 50% say no to CA, so how can further CA be 'intended for the people'? Which people? Thaksin, Jatuporn and a few others perhaps?

Amazing Thailand.

Sorry thats just democracy and the result of the dems and pad throwing the toys out of the pram.

1. It is written in the constitution that if less than 50% of the electorate turn out for the referendum it is null and void.

2. As a result of the dems and pad frivilously invoking Article 68 in an attempt (successful, up to a point) to stop the 3rd reading of the constitution amendment bill to form a CDA to rewrite the constitution, the Constitutional Court came up with two rulings

one) that if the PTP wanted to form a CDA and ammend the constitution that way they would have to have a referendum first (seemingly ignoring the fact that the military junta did not hold a referendum before their rewriting of the 1997 Constitution or

two) change the constitution piece by piece in parliament.

You tell me that if not enough people turn out to vote on the referendum and the Government decides to ammend the constitution piece by piece in Parliament that it is not democratic.

How so? The Dems, PAD and the CC are all responsible for that situation.

muttley I do not think you are in any way a stuipd person so don't read this into my post. Surely to goodness you can see through the facade of this. The reason for the supposed charter rewrite is to bring Khun T home free and clear of all his conviction and outstanding charges. I think you will not admit to knowing this but I am sure you realize it.

Tell me how? How are they going to do it? They would have to amend the laws/method (albeit made up by the military Junta) to retroactively pardon or retry (with a different "happy" ending) the Land transfer case and drop all others . Or retroactively drop all cases - to do that they would have to give him an amnesty - to do that they would have to ammend Section 309 of the Constitution - that would lead to the loss of amnesty of the coup officers and what do you think will happen then? There is only one way Thaksin will be coming to Thailand and it won't be as a result of an constitutional ammendment.

Think about it, before the dems and pad stuck their oar in the government was going ahead with a perfectly legitimate democratic method of writing a new constitution with representatives from all provinces etc. How were they going to be forced to change Section 309 for one man? Its typical dems hysterical rhetoric. They are so desperate to be back in power. Whatever it takes, as they know they cannot do it by normal electoral means.

hit it on the head.

there s no change to the charter that will bring back big t.

might help, but can t do it alone with the constitution

so maybe they just want one that is more democratic

that is a good reason for the cc to get a bit nervous

[muttley]

Tell me how? How are they going to do it? They would have to amend the laws/method (albeit made up by the military Junta) to retroactively pardon or retry (with a different "happy" ending) the Land transfer case and drop all others . Or retroactively drop all cases - to do that they would have to give him an amnesty - to do that they would have to ammend Section 309 of the Constitution - that would lead to the loss of amnesty of the coup officers and what do you think will happen then? There is only one way Thaksin will be coming to Thailand and it won't be as a result of an constitutional ammendment.

Think about it, before the dems and pad stuck their oar in the government was going ahead with a perfectly legitimate democratic method of writing a new constitution with representatives from all provinces etc. How were they going to be forced to change Section 309 for one man? Its typical dems hysterical rhetoric. They are so desperate to be back in power. Whatever it takes, as they know they cannot do it by normal electoral means.

hit it on the head.

there s no change to the charter that will bring back big t.

might help, but can t do it alone with the constitution

so maybe they just want one that is more democratic

that is a good reason for the cc to get a bit nervous

"that is a good reason for the cc to get a bit nervous"

And some "elected" Senators, and some "elected" Judges and of course, the Democratic Party who historically have had to rely upon the previously mentioned people to get into power and stay there (for a while anyway). So just why would it be in the Democrat Partys' interests to keep the status quo and keep the military junta constitution? mmmm.

[muttley]

"According to the Constitution, a referendum can be passed if half of all eligible voters turn out to cast ballots, and a majority of that turnout then votes in favour"

Am I reading this correct:

If only half the eligible Voters turn out to vote,then it only needs half of those in favour to change the charter! i.e. 50% of the population vote, divide 2 = 25%,so it only needs 26% of the population to claim the Referendum was successful?

It does seem a wee bit strange, now doesn't it?

Well, anyway, no need to worry. Obviously and clearly for all to see and know, a complete rewrite of the constitution is really, really necessary (even pesky foreigners think so). It should therefor be no problem at all for this government, which got such a clear and overwelming mandate, to get the complete Thai electorate of 46 million people aroused to do their patriotic duty and vote

Apparently nobody seems to be worried that this was the case with the military junta referendum.................

[rubl]

Why would the Democrats keep the 2007 constitution with the article 309 which absolves amongst other the former coup leader General and currently part of the coalition as Mathumbum party leader and MP, Sonthi Boonyaratkalin ?

Mind you, piece-by-piece if referendum fails :-)

[rubl]

Not switching browser again, so just in response to #58 muttley:

"Apparently nobody seems to be worried that this was the case with the military junta referendum................."

So what? 'seems worried, this was the case'? The 2007 constitution is here as a legal document whatever one may think about how it got voted for. Amend what needs to be amended, what can be clearly justified as improvements and for all. Too many times now the current government and it's driving force Pheu Thai have talked about the 'clear' and 'obvious' need for a rewrite without even barely indicating why, apart from 'democracy', 'good for all and one', 'reconciliation', 'amnesty except for k. A and k. S. of course', etc., bla, blabla.