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

[muttley]

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.

Do some research, remove the blinkers and voila! you will see why. But seeing as you refuse to see the part the military junta version of the constitution has played in Thai politics and in particular how it has been used against the TRT, PPP and now the PTP it is pointless trying to discuss this further with you.

Oh and in future do you think you could quote me in full or not at all - all this "So what? 'seems worried, this was the case" nonsense does not make sense in english and only further confuses what you are trying to comment on.

Edited January 22, 2013 by muttley

[muttley]

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 :-)

Precisely, what does it matter to the dems if Gen Sonthi, ex Coup Leader is currently part of the coalition - he'd already done his part.

[MAJIC]

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.

I can't see the Militaries 2007 Constitution Charter (with a Peoples Referendum) has done any wrong to Thailand,in fact anything that keeps the Great Dubai Manipulater out of Thailand,because he doesnt want to answer for his Sins,and serve his Prison time, can't be all bad,In fact it does the Thai people a great service!

[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 :-)

Precisely, what does it matter to the dems if Gen Sonthi, ex Coup Leader is currently part of the coalition - he'd already done his part.

So, does that explain why the constitution really, really needs to be modified? Does it explain why the current government keeps on hammering 'the constitution needs to be modified', "it's no good", "it must be modified" and furthermore "Carthago delenda est"

[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.

Do some research, remove the blinkers and voila! you will see why. But seeing as you refuse to see the part the military junta version of the constitution has played in Thai politics and in particular how it has been used against the TRT, PPP and now the PTP it is pointless trying to discuss this further with you.

Oh and in future do you think you could quote me in full or not at all - all this "So what? 'seems worried, this was the case" nonsense does not make sense in english and only further confuses what you are trying to comment on.

Research? I have provided a few times pointers to 1997, 2007 constitution and a fairly interesting comparision of the both and all I get is 'do you know how it got to be', 'it's junta material', 'we need a new one', 'take of your blinkers'.

Well, one more time then:

- http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/1997/

- http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/

- http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

[rubl]

Do some research, remove the blinkers and voila! you will see why. But seeing as you refuse to see the part the military junta version of the constitution has played in Thai politics and in particular how it has been used against the TRT, PPP and now the PTP it is pointless trying to discuss this further with you.

The TRT dissolution ruled by the Constitutional Tribunal on 2007-05-30 was still using the 1997 constitution as reference. The 2007 constitution was voted on in a referendum 2007-08-19. The December 2007 general election and the late 2008 dissolution of PPP was under the 2007 constitution.

Pointless to discuss this further with you. 'blinkers', 'do some research' and such, methinks

[muttley]

Do some research, remove the blinkers and voila! you will see why. But seeing as you refuse to see the part the military junta version of the constitution has played in Thai politics and in particular how it has been used against the TRT, PPP and now the PTP it is pointless trying to discuss this further with you.

The TRT dissolution ruled by the Constitutional Tribunal on 2007-05-30 was still using the 1997 constitution as reference. The 2007 constitution was voted on in a referendum 2007-08-19. The December 2007 general election and the late 2008 dissolution of PPP was under the 2007 constitution.

Pointless to discuss this further with you. 'blinkers', 'do some research' and such, methinks

A perfect example of your lack of research.

Do you not regard the fact that the Executive of the TRT were banned for 5 years from politics by the retroactive use of a junta ruling, just maybe an example of how the TRT were affected by the Junta Constitution of 2007?

The Constitution Tribunal rules that the Thai Rak Thai executives must be banned from politics for five years in line with a coup order.

Suthee said he did not expect the revocation to be backdated. Council of National Security has issued an order after the coup d'etat that executive members of the party that is dissolved would be banned of their voting rights for five years.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/30/headlines/headlines_30035565.php

Oh by the way I've asked you before to quote me in full or not at all.

'blinkers', 'do some research' and such, methinks

but you persist no doubt thinking you are being funny. You're not. It's just rude. Do some more research.

[Thai at Heart]

Why not just cut to the chase and have a referendum on Thaksin being pardoned and all his pending cases dropped Yes or No - and put an end to this nonesense once and for all

Lets face it, everyone knows that is exactly what this is all about

also the current constitution seems to be pretty good as it has this government jumping through hoops trying to change it, if anything it needs a few things added to shore up some government agencies and give them the teeth to do their job, I would also remove the immunity clause for MP's - everyone should answer to the law no matter and modify the defamation act or remove it altogether as all it does is create silly lawsuits and clogs up the courts

A recent poll showed Yingluck to be three times as popular as Big Brother. There does seem to be a mood change even here in the north that suggests more and more people want stability and there is a better chance of that if Yingluck is PM and Thaksin stays in Dubai.... at least for the time being.

Do you really put any credence to any poll conducted in Thailand. A general election is dodgy enough, any private poll in Thailand is ridiculously skewed by the pollsters themselves.

[A_Traveller]

As to party executive banning, if memory serves even without the Constitutional element the Thai Political Parties Act provided for such swinging punishments. Indeed much of the legalese in the present Constitution on this matter came from that the earlier legislation. Also it is incorrect to x-ref from one charter to the other so freely. It should be noted that 1997 was full of set-up provisions for the legal bodies necessary to make the constitution workable.

That didn't play out so well.

Regards

[animatic]

Soooo, if the people will not go a long with it,

PTP will do it piece meal, on their own,

but for the people... who aren't going along with it.

Nothing more than PTP going for it, no matter what they Thai populace thinks.

Edited January 22, 2013 by animatic

[Buchholz]

The TRT dissolution ruled by the Constitutional Tribunal on 2007-05-30 was still using the 1997 constitution as reference. The 2007 constitution was voted on in a referendum 2007-08-19. The December 2007 general election and the late 2008 dissolution of PPP was under the 2007 constitution.

Pointless to discuss this further with you. 'blinkers', 'do some research' and such, methinks

Regarding the TRT dissolution, it's time for 2013 to be added to the list.

Deja vu on this banning a party discussion.

The very valid reasons for it...

2010 discussion

QUOTE ianh68

"There are very good reasons why political parties should be banned, that's why the provisions for banning were beefed up in the 2007 constitution."

Disagree. Why not target the guilty individuals rather than the whole party?

UNQUOTE

It falls along the lines of the effective Rico Act in the US.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. http://en.wikipedia....ganizations_Act

As the executives in these gangs know what's up with inner workings of the gang. It's best to toss out the whole gang and bar the leaders from politics.

There's no baby in this throwing out of the bath water.

2011 discussion

QUOTE

Did you miss the day-long reading by the judges in the cases when they handed down their verdicts explicitly detailing the wrong doings and the evidence presented?

If they are on the Executive Board, they are guilty of the duplicity of the illegal acts as they are presumed to have had knowledge of the conspiracy.

It's a good constitutional rule that works well with, for example, Mafia family convictions in other countries.

UNQUOTE

In the USA, RICO Statutes work very similarly to curtail the activities of those involved in ongoing conspiracy and rackateering activities. Thailand would benefit from such a group of laws, assuming they can find an honest judge someplace to apply the law. Similarly |Under Color Of Authority" laws might begin to make a dent in that who;;y corrupt body known as the Royal Thai Police.

http://www.wisegeek....ico-statute.htm

http://familyrightsa...olor_of_law.htm

[animatic]

Why not just cut to the chase and have a referendum on Thaksin being pardoned and all his pending cases dropped Yes or No - and put an end to this nonesense once and for all

Lets face it, everyone knows that is exactly what this is all about

also the current constitution seems to be pretty good as it has this government jumping through hoops trying to change it, if anything it needs a few things added to shore up some government agencies and give them the teeth to do their job, I would also remove the immunity clause for MP's - everyone should answer to the law no matter and modify the defamation act or remove it altogether as all it does is create silly lawsuits and clogs up the courts

A recent poll showed Yingluck to be three times as popular as Big Brother. There does seem to be a mood change even here in the north that suggests more and more people want stability and there is a better chance of that if Yingluck is PM and Thaksin stays in Dubai.... at least for the time being.

Do you really put any credence to any poll conducted in Thailand. A general election is dodgy enough, any private poll in Thailand is ridiculously skewed by the pollsters themselves.

There are 2 main regular polls, one consistently favors PTP and one consistently favors Dems.

Some smaller ones favor the aims of smaller parties or blocks.

Any competent pollster can massage the questions to return the desired answers.

Any GOOD polster can actually get answers that reflect the true feelings of the populace,

but they don't work in Thailand.

Edited January 22, 2013 by animatic

[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.

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.

Well that thought had passed through my mind also. I was wondering if he just post's his drival to get attention.

[muttley]

Regarding the TRT dissolution, it's time for 2013 to be added to the list.

Deja vu on this banning a party discussion.

The very valid reasons for it...

2010 discussion

QUOTE ianh68

"There are very good reasons why political parties should be banned, that's why the provisions for banning were beefed up in the 2007 constitution."

Disagree. Why not target the guilty individuals rather than the whole party?

UNQUOTE

It falls along the lines of the effective Rico Act in the US.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. http://en.wikipedia....ganizations_Act

As the executives in these gangs know what's up with inner workings of the gang. It's best to toss out the whole gang and bar the leaders from politics.

There's no baby in this throwing out of the bath water.

2011 discussion

QUOTE

Did you miss the day-long reading by the judges in the cases when they handed down their verdicts explicitly detailing the wrong doings and the evidence presented?

If they are on the Executive Board, they are guilty of the duplicity of the illegal acts as they are presumed to have had knowledge of the conspiracy.

It's a good constitutional rule that works well with, for example, Mafia family convictions in other countries.

UNQUOTE

In the USA, RICO Statutes work very similarly to curtail the activities of those involved in ongoing conspiracy and rackateering activities. Thailand would benefit from such a group of laws, assuming they can find an honest judge someplace to apply the law. Similarly |Under Color Of Authority" laws might begin to make a dent in that who;;y corrupt body known as the Royal Thai Police.

http://www.wisegeek....ico-statute.htm

http://familyrightsa...olor_of_law.htm

So you state the very valid reasons for it is an argument you proposed based on the american RICO act which was aimed at crime organisations!

Sorry, but in as much as I am staggered by your massive own sense of worth you forget that this is Thailand, and we are talking about political parties, not mafia organisations (cue the infantile "well the government is a mafia organisation" posts).

No mention whatsoever about how a ruling can be made retroactively? Does the RICO Act cover that?

[muttley]

Well that thought had passed through my mind also. I was wondering if he just post's his drival to get attention.

Well, when you feel adult enough to enter a discussion about another persons viewpoint that might not reflect your own without resorting to lame insults, please do.

[hellodolly]

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.

well i agree with most of what you say. I was a little week wirth the senators as I am not sure of there role in this and it would open the door to unqualified people with a lot of money. Not sure on that point.

I kind of like the LM laws. It helps to keep a sense of respect for the royalty instatution. While I realize it might be technically wrong but with out it the very small miojnority would take over after all we never here of people who believe in them they stay silent it is only a few who want to cause trouble. They have points that can and are used as political weapons and that is sad speaks to the lack of concern for the over all good of the Thai people. I think they wouid not be a big deal if they were not used for political postering.

Sorry about the spelling my spell checker won't work for me here on TV. It does every place else and I am tech chalenged. Will work on it.

[Buchholz]

QUOTE Buchholz

Regarding the TRT dissolution, it's time for 2013 to be added to the list.

UNQUOTE.

Deja vu on this banning a party discussion.

The very valid reasons for it...

2010 discussion

QUOTE ianh68

"There are very good reasons why political parties should be banned, that's why the provisions for banning were beefed up in the 2007 constitution."

Disagree. Why not target the guilty individuals rather than the whole party?

UNQUOTE

It falls along the lines of the effective Rico Act in the US.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. http://en.wikipedia....ganizations_Act

As the executives in these gangs know what's up with inner workings of the gang. It's best to toss out the whole gang and bar the leaders from politics.

There's no baby in this throwing out of the bath water.

2011 discussion

QUOTE

Did you miss the day-long reading by the judges in the cases when they handed down their verdicts explicitly detailing the wrong doings and the evidence presented?

If they are on the Executive Board, they are guilty of the duplicity of the illegal acts as they are presumed to have had knowledge of the conspiracy.

It's a good constitutional rule that works well with, for example, Mafia family convictions in other countries.

UNQUOTE

In the USA, RICO Statutes work very similarly to curtail the activities of those involved in ongoing conspiracy and rackateering activities. Thailand would benefit from such a group of laws, assuming they can find an honest judge someplace to apply the law. Similarly |Under Color Of Authority" laws might begin to make a dent in that who;;y corrupt body known as the Royal Thai Police.

http://www.wisegeek....ico-statute.htm

http://familyrightsa...olor_of_law.htm

So you state the very valid reasons for it is an argument you proposed based on the american RICO act which was aimed at crime organisations

you forget that this is Thailand, and we are talking about political parties, not mafia organisations

The RICO Act has been effective when dealing with all different sorts criminals that conspire together.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows for the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed someone who told a man to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because they did not actually do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

For Thailand, it's not altogether dissimilar. Holding the Party Executives of a political party accountable as a group is a reasonable variation.

It was their conspiracy to commit electoral fraud that got them banned.

If anything the laws should be made stronger, not weaker. If the penalties were more severe and included jail time and a honest-to-god and real banishment from politics, the recidivism would likely diminish.

,

[hellodolly]

Well that thought had passed through my mind also. I was wondering if he just post's his drival to get attention.

Well, when you feel adult enough to enter a discussion about another persons viewpoint that might not reflect your own without resorting to lame insults, please do.

No insult it was a stated thought. It was made in response to an earlier post by another poster.

I based it on many of the posts you have spread through the forum.

[rubl]

Do some research, remove the blinkers and voila! you will see why. But seeing as you refuse to see the part the military junta version of the constitution has played in Thai politics and in particular how it has been used against the TRT, PPP and now the PTP it is pointless trying to discuss this further with you.

The TRT dissolution ruled by the Constitutional Tribunal on 2007-05-30 was still using the 1997 constitution as reference. The 2007 constitution was voted on in a referendum 2007-08-19. The December 2007 general election and the late 2008 dissolution of PPP was under the 2007 constitution.

Pointless to discuss this further with you. 'blinkers', 'do some research' and such, methinks

A perfect example of your lack of research.

Do you not regard the fact that the Executive of the TRT were banned for 5 years from politics by the retroactive use of a junta ruling, just maybe an example of how the TRT were affected by the Junta Constitution of 2007?

(quote)

The Constitution Tribunal rules that the Thai Rak Thai executives must be banned from politics for five years in line with a coup order.

Suthee said he did not expect the revocation to be backdated. Council of National Security has issued an order after the coup d'etat that executive members of the party that is dissolved would be banned of their voting rights for five years.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/30/headlines/headlines_30035565.php (endquote)

Zigzagging along,aren't you?

You mentioned 'against TRT', I said that dissolution was already in the 1997 constitution. Now you complain about the addition of '5 year ban for party executives' which later made it's way in the 2007 constitution. That may be a bit stiff, but neither 1997 nor 2007 version are perfect. Legal minds seem to have suggested that the 2007 version clarifies a number of points nicely though. So keep on improving rather than rewriting!

BTW Constitution 1997:

"Section 63

No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act

shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party."

PS you may already see why the Junta inspired drafting committee had to add article 309 to the new constitution, although we have had lots of topics on whether or not there was a legitimate government at the time of the coup. No need to go into that again. Please stick to article by article commenting

[muttley]

Zigzagging along,aren't you?

You mentioned 'against TRT', I said that dissolution was already in the 1997 constitution. Now you complain about the addition of '5 year ban for party executives' which later made it's way in the 2007 constitution. That may be a bit stiff, but neither 1997 nor 2007 version are perfect. Legal minds seem to have suggested that the 2007 version clarifies a number of points nicely though. So keep on improving rather than rewriting!

BTW Constitution 1997:

"Section 63

No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act

shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party."

PS you may already see why the Junta inspired drafting committee had to add article 309 to the new constitution, although we have had lots of topics on whether or not there was a legitimate government at the time of the coup. No need to go into that again. Please stick to article by article commenting

No zipzagging involved, just pointing out where you are wrong.

Oh dear. I'm not sure what your point is of quoting Section 63 of the 1997 constitution other than to say it was about the dissolution of the party, yeah, yeah, yeah, we know that done under 1997 constitution - However

I'm not sure if you are aware that Section 63 of the 1997 constitution become Article 68 of the 2007 constitution with this addition by the Junta:

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes the dissolution order under paragraph three, the right to vote of the President and the executive board of directors of the dissolved political party at the time the act under paragraph one has been committed shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date the Constitutional Court makes such order.

It was this part that the Junta applied retroactively to the TRT hence my trying to get the point through to you that the TRT were affected by the military juntas 2007 constitution. Now do you get it?

As for Section 309 it's painfully obvious why the Junta put that caveat in. It's also painfully obvious that it has to be amended to avoid future coups using the same excuse

Section 309. Any act that 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.

[rubl]

Zigzagging along,aren't you?

You mentioned 'against TRT', I said that dissolution was already in the 1997 constitution. Now you complain about the addition of '5 year ban for party executives' which later made it's way in the 2007 constitution. That may be a bit stiff, but neither 1997 nor 2007 version are perfect. Legal minds seem to have suggested that the 2007 version clarifies a number of points nicely though. So keep on improving rather than rewriting!

BTW Constitution 1997:

"Section 63

No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act

shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party."

PS you may already see why the Junta inspired drafting committee had to add article 309 to the new constitution, although we have had lots of topics on whether or not there was a legitimate government at the time of the coup. No need to go into that again. Please stick to article by article commenting

No zipzagging involved, just pointing out where you are wrong.

Oh dear. I'm not sure what your point is of quoting Section 63 of the 1997 constitution other than to say it was about the dissolution of the party, yeah, yeah, yeah, we know that done under 1997 constitution - However

I'm not sure if you are aware that Section 63 of the 1997 constitution become Article 68 of the 2007 constitution with this addition by the Junta:

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes the dissolution order under paragraph three, the right to vote of the President and the executive board of directors of the dissolved political party at the time the act under paragraph one has been committed shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date the Constitutional Court makes such order.

It was this part that the Junta applied retroactively to the TRT hence my trying to get the point through to you that the TRT were affected by the military juntas 2007 constitution. Now do you get it?

'against TRT', 'according to 1997 constitution', then gets added ' 5-year ban against party executives' and me saying 'that found it's way into the 2007 constitution. So yes I am aware, I told you so. I did give a pointer to both 1997, 2007 constitutions for you to read and now you point out details to me almost as if I didn't say 'found it's way into 2007 version' ?

Now TRT was affected by the 1997 constitution and TRT party executives by the Constitution Tribunal addingthe five year ban. Now do you get it? I hope so as I will finish our somewhat amuzing get-together, early day tomorrow with lots of things to do. Don't worry I'll be back tomorrow evening with some doggybones for my special mutt

[OzMick]

So you state the very valid reasons for it is an argument you proposed based on the american RICO act which was aimed at crime organisations!

Sorry, but in as much as I am staggered by your massive own sense of worth you forget that this is Thailand, and we are talking about political parties, not mafia organisations (cue the infantile "well the government is a mafia organisation" posts).

No mention whatsoever about how a ruling can be made retroactively? Does the RICO Act cover that?

I see very little difference between PTP and a mafia "family" however infantile you find that. Both are based on nepotism and cronyism, aimed at illegal enrichment of its members while hiding behind a facade of legitimate business, use bribes, violence, and the legal system to stifle investigation and criticism, and are prepared to kill to maintain their power.

Also a number of their members a facing lengthy prison sentences which they are trying their utmost to delay and negate, while others are convicted and serving or on organisation paid bail. Before you mention "elected", may I point out that none of the upper hierarchy, and most of those facing criminal charges, have ever faced an electorate but were appointed by the party list system.

I await your differences.

Edited January 22, 2013 by OzMick

[whybother]

As for Section 309 it's painfully obvious why the Junta put that caveat in. It's also painfully obvious that it has to be amended to avoid future coups using the same excuse

Section 309. Any act that 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.

You can't just highlight two words and make it apply to future coups. That sentence only applies to acts related to the 2006 coup.

Edited January 22, 2013 by whybother

[whybother]

A perfect example of your lack of research.

Do you not regard the fact that the Executive of the TRT were banned for 5 years from politics by the retroactive use of a junta ruling, just maybe an example of how the TRT were affected by the Junta Constitution of 2007?

The Constitution Tribunal rules that the Thai Rak Thai executives must be banned from politics for five years in line with a coup order.

Suthee said he did not expect the revocation to be backdated. Council of National Security has issued an order after the coup d'etat that executive members of the party that is dissolved would be banned of their voting rights for five years.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/30/headlines/headlines_30035565.php

Oh by the way I've asked you before to quote me in full or not at all.

'blinkers', 'do some research' and such, methinks

but you persist no doubt thinking you are being funny. You're not. It's just rude. Do some more research.

Thanks for highlighting that. I always thought that the banning of the executive was added in the 2007 constitution, but know I can see that it was in the 1997 "peoples constitution".

[muttley]

Zigzagging along,aren't you?

You mentioned 'against TRT', I said that dissolution was already in the 1997 constitution. Now you complain about the addition of '5 year ban for party executives' which later made it's way in the 2007 constitution. That may be a bit stiff, but neither 1997 nor 2007 version are perfect. Legal minds seem to have suggested that the 2007 version clarifies a number of points nicely though. So keep on improving rather than rewriting!

BTW Constitution 1997:

"Section 63

No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act

shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party."

PS you may already see why the Junta inspired drafting committee had to add article 309 to the new constitution, although we have had lots of topics on whether or not there was a legitimate government at the time of the coup. No need to go into that again. Please stick to article by article commenting

No zipzagging involved, just pointing out where you are wrong.

Oh dear. I'm not sure what your point is of quoting Section 63 of the 1997 constitution other than to say it was about the dissolution of the party, yeah, yeah, yeah, we know that done under 1997 constitution - However

I'm not sure if you are aware that Section 63 of the 1997 constitution become Article 68 of the 2007 constitution with this addition by the Junta:

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes the dissolution order under paragraph three, the right to vote of the President and the executive board of directors of the dissolved political party at the time the act under paragraph one has been committed shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date the Constitutional Court makes such order.

It was this part that the Junta applied retroactively to the TRT hence my trying to get the point through to you that the TRT were affected by the military juntas 2007 constitution. Now do you get it?

'against TRT', 'according to 1997 constitution', then gets added ' 5-year ban against party executives' and me saying 'that found it's way into the 2007 constitution. So yes I am aware, I told you so. I did give a pointer to both 1997, 2007 constitutions for you to read and now you point out details to me almost as if I didn't say 'found it's way into 2007 version' ?

Now TRT was affected by the 1997 constitution and TRT party executives by the Constitution Tribunal addingthe five year ban. Now do you get it? I hope so as I will finish our somewhat amuzing get-together, early day tomorrow with lots of things to do. Don't worry I'll be back tomorrow evening with some doggybones for my special mutt

You see thats the problem, you think you know what is right when you don't. It's simple. I stated that the the TRT and other parties were affected by the military junta constitution of 2007, end of statement. You then stated that No the party was dissolved by the 1997 constitution (which I hadn't mentioned). I then highlighted the fact that the executive were banned from politics for 5 years under a retroactive application of the 2007 constitution - now if that isn't "being affected by the military junta constitution" I don't know what is.

Why is it you people find it so hard to admit you're wrong?

[muttley]

A perfect example of your lack of research.

Do you not regard the fact that the Executive of the TRT were banned for 5 years from politics by the retroactive use of a junta ruling, just maybe an example of how the TRT were affected by the Junta Constitution of 2007?

The Constitution Tribunal rules that the Thai Rak Thai executives must be banned from politics for five years in line with a coup order.

Suthee said he did not expect the revocation to be backdated. Council of National Security has issued an order after the coup d'etat that executive members of the party that is dissolved would be banned of their voting rights for five years.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/30/headlines/headlines_30035565.php

Oh by the way I've asked you before to quote me in full or not at all.

'blinkers', 'do some research' and such, methinks

but you persist no doubt thinking you are being funny. You're not. It's just rude. Do some more research.

Thanks for highlighting that. I always thought that the banning of the executive was added in the 2007 constitution, but know I can see that it was in the 1997 "peoples constitution".

Well you'd be wrong if you thought that. The banning of the executive was added in the 2007 constitution in as much as it was added to Section 63 of the 1997 constitution and retitled Section 68 in the 2007 military junta imposed constitution.

[muttley]

As for Section 309 it's painfully obvious why the Junta put that caveat in. It's also painfully obvious that it has to be amended to avoid future coups using the same excuse

Section 309. Any act that 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.

You can't just highlight two words and make it apply to future coups. That sentence only applies to acts related to the 2006 coup.

Just where does it qualify that the sentence only applies to acts related to the 2006 coup? "

"All acts related therewith comitted" could refer to the constitutional sections per se, more importantly it can be more directly related to the action of having a coup in the first place.

You've only got to look at the cock the cc made over the interpretation of "and" and "or" to see what they could do with the above.

Edited January 23, 2013 by muttley

[AleG]

It's heartwarming to see such a passionate defense of electoral fraud.

[whybother]

Just where does it qualify that the sentence only applies to acts related to the 2006 coup? "

"All acts related therewith comitted" could refer to the constitutional sections per se, more importantly it can be more directly related to the action of having a coup in the first place.

You've only got to look at the cock the cc made over the interpretation of "and" and "or" to see what they could do with the above.

It qualifies it in the first part of the sentence.

Section 309. Any act that 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.

Unless there is something in the 2006 constitution that says future coups are legal.

[whybother]

Well you'd be wrong if you thought that. The banning of the executive was added in the 2007 constitution in as much as it was added to Section 63 of the 1997 constitution and retitled Section 68 in the 2007 military junta imposed constitution.

So the same clause existed in both constitutions. The banning of executives wasn't a new thing in the 2007 "evil junta" constitution.