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

[muttley]

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.

You'll be waiting a long time, I've already described why.

[muttley]

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.

No, No, No! How hard is it for you to understand.

1997 Constitution

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.

2007 Constitution

Section 68. 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 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.

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.

Now please tell me you understand.

[A_Traveller]

^

But you are ignoring the organic law. The then extant Political Parties Act which has since been amended provided for the Constitutional Court to proceed against a political party. That act was the basis for the amendment to the Constitution.

In short the ability to prosecute a political party was in place, the only difference was to elevate elements of that act into the 2007 Constitution.

Regards

Edited January 23, 2013 by A_Traveller

[rubl]

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".

The party dissolution was in the 1997 constitution. The 2006 TRT party dissolution was under the 2006 Interim Connstitution which saw the 'ban of party executives for 5 years' added. The last also found it's way in the 2007 which was voted on in a referendum a few months later.

[rubl]

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?

In simple words:

- a party is not the same as a parties executives (with the exception of the Shinawatra party maybe )

- TRT was dissolved under a section of the 1997 constitution

- TRT party executives were banned for five years under a provision in the 2006 Interim Constitution (promulgated 1 October 2006) which in many aspects still relied heavily on the 1997 version.

- The verdict on TRT and TRT executives was read by the Constitutional Tribunal on 2007-05-30

- The final draft of the 2007 constitution was accepted unanimously by the CDA on 2007-07-06

- The 2007 constitution was voted on in a referendum 2007-08-19

Therefore the Constitutional Tribunal could never ever apply the new 2007 constitution retroactively before their verdict on the 30th of May, 2007.

Now again, here's a , hop along and go play elsewhere

Edited January 23, 2013 by rubl

[muttley]

^

But you are ignoring the organic law. The then extant Political Parties Act which has since been amended provided for the Constitutional Court to proceed against a political party. That act was the basis for the amendment to the Constitution.

In short the ability to prosecute a political party was in place, the only difference was to elevate elements of that act into the 2007 Constitution.

Regards

Look, I know that. I am trying to point out that the TRT were affected by a piece of legislation brought about by the military junta which did not exist in the 1997 constitution. Doesn't matter how much go on, the executive ban was not in the 1997 constitution. That was my point not the fact that a party could be dissolved using the 1997 constitution.

If whybother was honest he would have accepted he was wrong when he queried me in the first place. As usual that isn't going to happen and the digging just gets deeper and deeper trying to avoid admitting to being wrong. It's like an artform for you guys.

A classic example of the artform shown above by rubl - all pomp and circumstance but misses the point entirely.

Edited January 23, 2013 by muttley

[muttley]

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?

In simple words:

- a party is not the same as a parties executives (with the exception of the Shinawatra party maybe )

- TRT was dissolved under a section of the 1997 constitution

- TRT party executives were banned for five years under a provision in the 2006 Interim Constitution (promulgated 1 October 2006) which in many aspects still relied heavily on the 1997 version.

- The verdict on TRT and TRT executives was read by the Constitutional Tribunal on 2007-05-30

- The final draft of the 2007 constitution was accepted unanimously by the CDA on 2007-07-06

- The 2007 constitution was voted on in a referendum 2007-08-19

Therefore the Constitutional Tribunal could never ever apply the new 2007 constitution retroactively before their verdict on the 30th of May, 2007.

Now again, here's a , hop along and go play elsewhere

What is the <Snipping!> point of trying to put something across to you guys. Excuse my use of the vernacular but its like getting blood out of a stone. Just get all three constitutions side by side read them and come back when you're ready. But don't read too much because I've had it with trying to get my point across.

Edited January 23, 2013 by muttley

[yoshiwara]

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?

In simple words:

- a party is not the same as a parties executives (with the exception of the Shinawatra party maybe )

- TRT was dissolved under a section of the 1997 constitution

- TRT party executives were banned for five years under a provision in the 2006 Interim Constitution (promulgated 1 October 2006) which in many aspects still relied heavily on the 1997 version.

- The verdict on TRT and TRT executives was read by the Constitutional Tribunal on 2007-05-30

- The final draft of the 2007 constitution was accepted unanimously by the CDA on 2007-07-06

- The 2007 constitution was voted on in a referendum 2007-08-19

Therefore the Constitutional Tribunal could never ever apply the new 2007 constitution retroactively before their verdict on the 30th of May, 2007.

Now again, here's a , hop along and go play elsewhere

What is the <Snipping!> point of trying to put something across to you guys. Excuse my use of the vernacular but its like getting blood out of a stone. Just get all three constitutions side by side read them and come back when you're ready. But don't read too much because I've had it with trying to get my point across.

Another failed shadow play for the forum constitutional amendments drafting team to slip one in for Thaksin.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

As usual that isn't going to happen and the digging just gets deeper and deeper trying to avoid admitting to being wrong. It's like an artform for you guys.

A classic example of the artform shown above by rubl - all pomp and circumstance but misses the point entirely.

Ah, I start to understand! Not seeing your point and not seeing your point as correct means missing the point. Honest John once told me something similar without succeeding in convincing either

[rubl]

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?

In simple words:

- a party is not the same as a parties executives (with the exception of the Shinawatra party maybe )

- TRT was dissolved under a section of the 1997 constitution

- TRT party executives were banned for five years under a provision in the 2006 Interim Constitution (promulgated 1 October 2006) which in many aspects still relied heavily on the 1997 version.

- The verdict on TRT and TRT executives was read by the Constitutional Tribunal on 2007-05-30

- The final draft of the 2007 constitution was accepted unanimously by the CDA on 2007-07-06

- The 2007 constitution was voted on in a referendum 2007-08-19

Therefore the Constitutional Tribunal could never ever apply the new 2007 constitution retroactively before their verdict on the 30th of May, 2007.

Now again, here's a , hop along and go play elsewhere

What is the <Snipping!> point of trying to put something across to you guys. Excuse my use of the vernacular but its like getting blood out of a stone. Just get all three constitutions side by side read them and come back when you're ready. But don't read too much because I've had it with trying to get my point across.

I really commiserate with you, dear mutt. It's not easy to convince people you're right when you're wrong. It's like the last thing Sisyphus is still working on, tiresome and impossible

Now back to content. You wrote in #61

"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"

I brought up some info and pointers to show that what you wrote was not really complete, exact or true. It was I who pointed out that we had three constitutions, (1997, interim 2006, 2007), it was I who indicated that dissolution was 1997, ban for 5 years interim 2006 finding it's way in 2007 a year later. It was I who pointed out that retro in May 2007 pointing to August 2007 didn't work. It was I who tried to explain that party and party executives is NOT the same (except in the Shinawatra party case).It is you who keeps on zigzagging along accusing others of being wrong, accusing others of being unwilling to admit to you obvious being right. The only thing missing is a reference to higher powers (no, not Thaksin )

Now please start reading the 1997 and 2007 constitution and tell me why 2007 is so much worse than 1997 that it really requires a complete rewrite again.

PS You do not have to refer to PM Yingluck's comment 'foreigners don't like it'

Edited January 23, 2013 by rubl

[OzMick]

IMHO the penalty of a 5 year ban from politics is far from efficient as it is easily by-passed by appointing stooges to executive positions, and doesn't enable sufficient penalty for the serious (and lucrative) matter of electoral fraud. If the penalty was upgraded to 5 years incarceration with no bail after sufficient evidence is provided to a court, then the act may have some teeth.

Unlikely to happen while the Thaksinistas are in power, as electoral fraud is SOP for them, and reducing the effect of anti-corruption agencies seems to be one of the main reasons for constitution change.

[Buchholz]

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?

In simple words:

- a party is not the same as a parties executives (with the exception of the Shinawatra party maybe )

- TRT was dissolved under a section of the 1997 constitution

- TRT party executives were banned for five years under a provision in the 2006 Interim Constitution (promulgated 1 October 2006) which in many aspects still relied heavily on the 1997 version.

- The verdict on TRT and TRT executives was read by the Constitutional Tribunal on 2007-05-30

- The final draft of the 2007 constitution was accepted unanimously by the CDA on 2007-07-06

- The 2007 constitution was voted on in a referendum 2007-08-19

Therefore the Constitutional Tribunal could never ever apply the new 2007 constitution retroactively before their verdict on the 30th of May, 2007.

Now again, here's a , hop along and go play elsewhere

What is the <Snipping!> point of trying to put something across to you guys. Excuse my use of the vernacular but its like getting blood out of a stone. Just get all three constitutions side by side read them and come back when you're ready. But don't read too much because I've had it with trying to get my point across.

Another failed shadow play for the forum constitutional amendments drafting team to slip one in for Thaksin.

FAIL by Team FCAD...

.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Buchholz

[Noistar]

"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.................

Yep, let's nip back to the past - again & again & again & ...................

[Noistar]

Let's face it.

Eventually, the Government, elected and supported by a disinterested population, will gets its way.

The Shiniwatras will have absolute power. This is Thailand's future and I'd think that a significant number of posters realise that.

IMHO

[yoshiwara]

Let's face it.

Eventually, the Government, elected and supported by a disinterested population, will gets its way.

The Shiniwatras will have absolute power. This is Thailand's future and I'd think that a significant number of posters realise that.

IMHO

Unless they get Thaksin back they will have failed and so far they have.

Tickle your own tummy.

[Noistar]

Let's face it.

Eventually, the Government, elected and supported by a disinterested population, will gets its way.

The Shiniwatras will have absolute power. This is Thailand's future and I'd think that a significant number of posters realise that.

IMHO

Unless they get Thaksin back they will have failed and so far they have.

Tickle your own tummy.

That's the point of course 'so far'. When the 'mandate' is finally achieved, the country will get what it's apparently been screaming for, since the election.

I stand, reluctantly, by my prediction, hoping I will be proved wrong.

Don't know what 'tickle your own tummy' means, in the context you raise it.