Road Ahead For Charter Reform Is A Minefield: Thai Talk

[webfact]

THAI TALK

Road ahead for charter reform is a minefield

Suthichai Yoon

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Things are getting more confusing each day with the Pheu Thai Party's plan to amend the Constitution. Trouble is just around the corner and the political landscape is littered with new time bombs.

As the plan proceeds, the conflict isn't confined to a confrontation between the government and opposition anymore. Pheu Thai and the Democrats are natural opponents on this, but for Thaksin Shinawatra and Jatuporn Promphan, speaking for the red-shirt movement, to be airing divergent strategies is a sign of further political turbulence.

Former premier Thaksin made another "phone-in" on Saturday evening to a huge gathering of red shirts who organised an "anti-coup concert" in Khao Yai, insisting that all effort must be exerted to press ahead with the much-hyped referendum.

He shot down scepticism from some of his own party members and red-shirt leaders that it will be almost impossible to get half of voters to cast "yes" ballots even if half of all eligible voters (estimated at 49 million next year) turned out, as required by the Constitution.

"To get 24.3 million votes in the referendum is a walkover," Thaksin declared, arguing that Pheu Thai forcing a vote on the third and final reading on the pending charter-amendment bill without a referendum would be too risky. He suggested that the ruling party might not get sufficient votes to pass the bill - and even if that obstacle were overcome, there was still the risk of running afoul of the Constitutional Court's earlier ruling that a referendum would legitimise the move.

But Jatuporn, one of Thaksin's closest advocates, is calling for a course of action that runs counter to Thaksin's tactic. He said going ahead with the referendum would be engaging in a "war we will lose".

He said Pheu Thai should avoid certain defeat over a referendum and instead move ahead to a decisive end with a vote in Parliament to rewrite the whole charter. In other words, the red-shirt movement is against the referendum, or even an article-by-article amendment, as has been proposed as an alternative by other factions in the ruling party.

Where does Premier Yingluck Shinawatra stand, then? Nobody is quite sure. Perhaps she isn't certain herself as to what the next step should be. The party is divided. The red shirts are putting pressure on Pheu Thai. The party is supposed to follow Thaksin's instructions. But the core members are split between caution and going all out.

Officially, a panel set up by the party has vowed to move ahead with the plan to hold a referendum, brushing aside a proposal to amend the charter section by section. That sounds like the official party line. But upon closer scrutiny, that isn't necessarily the case.

Chalerm Yoobamrung, the deputy premier, is publicly against the referendum. He prefers to seek changes article by article, to avoid a new political stalemate in the face of strong opposition against a total overhaul. He runs against another faction within the party that calls for a total rewrite of the charter.

What a total "overhaul" of the Constitution means is basically to offer a higher degree of influence to the political powers-that-be and to reduce the authority of independent agencies that are supposed to serve as checks and balances against "parliamentary dictatorship" or the "tyranny of the majority".

Opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva of course knows exactly what Thaksin is after. He claims that Pheu Thai's sole purpose is to alter Article 309 of the 2007 charter, which deals with the actions of the 2006 coup-makers who ousted Thaksin. If this particular stipulation were removed from the new charter, all legal action taken against Thaksin since the coup would be automatically null and void.

And that alone could plunge the country into another period of turmoil. Opponents of the Pheu Thai move could be radicalised and the worst-case scenario would inevitably loom over us once again.

If past behaviour is any indication, Thaksin might yet change his tack. Warnings have emerged from various quarters - not confined to hardcore opponents of the government - that the road ahead for a referendum is shot through with holes, and surviving the political minefield is an uphill task, if not impossible.

Premier Yingluck gave some hints of a possible about-turn on Tuesday when she told reporters that if 24 million voters could be found to vote in favour of a total rewrite of the charter, "We will revert to amending the Constitution article by article."

A referendum would cost taxpayers an estimated Bt2 billion. But the higher price to pay in case of a failed referendum is another prolonged period of political confrontation. The damage would be incalculable.

-- The Nation 2012-12-27

[ChrisY1]

Quote---"to get 24.3 million votes in the referendum is a walkover".....but...it'll cost a lot!!...bugger!!

[waza]

Premier Yingluck gave some hints of a possible about-turn on Tuesday when she told reporters that if 24 million voters could be found to vote in favour of a total rewrite of the charter, "We will revert to amending the Constitution article by article."

Whats the point then?

[muttley]

Premier Yingluck gave some hints of a possible about-turn on Tuesday when she told reporters that if 24 million voters could be found to vote in favour of a total rewrite of the charter, "We will revert to amending the Constitution article by article."

Whats the point then?

Why not ask the Democratic Party and the PAD. They are the ones responsible for forcing this issue with their call for the 3rd reading to be stopped by invoking Article 68.

[waza]

Premier Yingluck gave some hints of a possible about-turn on Tuesday when she told reporters that if 24 million voters could be found to vote in favour of a total rewrite of the charter, "We will revert to amending the Constitution article by article."

Whats the point then?

Why not ask the Democratic Party and the PAD. They are the ones responsible for forcing this issue with their call for the 3rd reading to be stopped by invoking Article 68.

Really I thought its was the CC that indicated this was the legal method for a complete constitutional rewrite. But I dont remember them saying that if you dont get a favourable result then its ok to ignore the Thais voters and amend it against their mandate.

[waza]

Premier Yingluck gave some hints of a possible about-turn on Tuesday when she told reporters that if 24 million voters could be found to vote in favour of a total rewrite of the charter, "We will revert to amending the Constitution article by article."

Whats the point then?

Why not ask the Democratic Party and the PAD. They are the ones responsible for forcing this issue with their call for the 3rd reading to be stopped by invoking Article 68.

Really I thought its was the CC that indicated this was the legal method for a complete constitutional rewrite. But I dont remember them saying that if you dont get a favourable result then its ok to ignore the Thais voters and amend it against their mandate.

But I guess your right, How dare the opposition engage in their democratic right to ensure the government act in a legal and moral manner in such a profoundly important matter.

[muttley]

Premier Yingluck gave some hints of a possible about-turn on Tuesday when she told reporters that if 24 million voters could be found to vote in favour of a total rewrite of the charter, "We will revert to amending the Constitution article by article."

Whats the point then?

Why not ask the Democratic Party and the PAD. They are the ones responsible for forcing this issue with their call for the 3rd reading to be stopped by invoking Article 68.

Really I thought its was the CC that indicated this was the legal method for a complete constitutional rewrite. But I dont remember them saying that if you dont get a favourable result then its ok to ignore the Thais voters and amend it against their mandate.

The PTP's original idea was to amend one article of the constitution at first to allow for a setting up of a Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA). The third reading for this to go ahead was happening when the Dems and the PAD stuck their oar in. The constitution court got involved stated that the dems and pad were wrong but the CC "suggested" that either the PTP hold a referendum first before rewriting the constitution via a CDA. If the vote is yes than go ahead rewrite the referendum and then hold another referendum to accept the new rewrite, or not or amend the constitution piece by piece in parliament and then vote on each change - of course with the majority of votes this would be a walkover.

So the Constitutional Court have actually made the process of rewriting the constitution less democratic than the PTP had proposed. First of all the idea of having a referendum to see whether a new rewrite of the constitution will be done via a CDA (with its consequent democratic arrangement of citizens and academics writing it, no politicians allowed) is ridiculous. The CC "reasoned" that the constitution of the military junta had been through a referendum process and to change it the PTP ought to as well - they seem to have forgotten that the junta scrapped the former Peoples Charter without a word let alone a constitution but it has already been seen that the CC makes up the rules as it goes along (one of the reasons for a constitutional rewrite is a reform of the CC).

So now the PTP has to jump through two hoops (and the extra expense) to go through the truly democratic way of rewriting the Constitution. But the CC also suggested the PTP could rewrite the Constitution in parliament without any civilian involvement whatsoever. Before people jump up and down and say why does it need to be changed perhaps they ought to look at what Abhisit said at the time which was to say that although it was flawed it could be amended at a later date - a task he achieved and failed at on different occasions.

If the 3rd reading had gone ahead the relevant article would have been amended, a CDA formed and Thai citizens would have spent the New Year rewriting their own constitution.

But of course, the nattering nabob of negativity, Abhisit, came along and at first threw Article 68 at it and when that didn't work is now trying to sabotage the Constitution Vote with his bleatings on his facebook page.

Lets face it, he and his ilk want to keep the status quo where they have the power (and the backing of the Army) and stuff the little man.

[Nickymaster]

Premier Yingluck gave some hints of a possible about-turn on Tuesday when she told reporters that if 24 million voters could be found to vote in favour of a total rewrite of the charter, "We will revert to amending the Constitution article by article."

Whats the point then?

Why not ask the Democratic Party and the PAD. They are the ones responsible for forcing this issue with their call for the 3rd reading to be stopped by invoking Article 68.

Really I thought its was the CC that indicated this was the legal method for a complete constitutional rewrite. But I dont remember them saying that if you dont get a favourable result then its ok to ignore the Thais voters and amend it against their mandate.

But I guess your right, How dare the opposition engage in their democratic right to ensure the government act in a legal and moral manner in such a profoundly important matter.

As Thida said, if we don't get 50% of the votes, people might think that the 2007 constitution is acceptable.

The 2007 constitution was approved by 26 million out of 43 million (or so) eligible voters.

So let’s move on working for the country. There are still enough problems in this country that can very well be solved using the 2007 constitution.

[waza]

Premier Yingluck gave some hints of a possible about-turn on Tuesday when she told reporters that if 24 million voters could be found to vote in favour of a total rewrite of the charter, "We will revert to amending the Constitution article by article."

Whats the point then?

Why not ask the Democratic Party and the PAD. They are the ones responsible for forcing this issue with their call for the 3rd reading to be stopped by invoking Article 68.

Really I thought its was the CC that indicated this was the legal method for a complete constitutional rewrite. But I dont remember them saying that if you dont get a favourable result then its ok to ignore the Thais voters and amend it against their mandate.

The PTP's original idea was to amend one article of the constitution at first to allow for a setting up of a Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA). The third reading for this to go ahead was happening when the Dems and the PAD stuck their oar in. The constitution court got involved stated that the dems and pad were wrong but the CC "suggested" that either the PTP hold a referendum first before rewriting the constitution via a CDA. If the vote is yes than go ahead rewrite the referendum and then hold another referendum to accept the new rewrite, or not or amend the constitution piece by piece in parliament and then vote on each change - of course with the majority of votes this would be a walkover.

So the Constitutional Court have actually made the process of rewriting the constitution less democratic than the PTP had proposed. First of all the idea of having a referendum to see whether a new rewrite of the constitution will be done via a CDA (with its consequent democratic arrangement of citizens and academics writing it, no politicians allowed) is ridiculous. The CC "reasoned" that the constitution of the military junta had been through a referendum process and to change it the PTP ought to as well - they seem to have forgotten that the junta scrapped the former Peoples Charter without a word let alone a constitution but it has already been seen that the CC makes up the rules as it goes along (one of the reasons for a constitutional rewrite is a reform of the CC).

So now the PTP has to jump through two hoops (and the extra expense) to go through the truly democratic way of rewriting the Constitution. But the CC also suggested the PTP could rewrite the Constitution in parliament without any civilian involvement whatsoever. Before people jump up and down and say why does it need to be changed perhaps they ought to look at what Abhisit said at the time which was to say that although it was flawed it could be amended at a later date - a task he achieved and failed at on different occasions.

If the 3rd reading had gone ahead the relevant article would have been amended, a CDA formed and Thai citizens would have spent the New Year rewriting their own constitution.

But of course, the nattering nabob of negativity, Abhisit, came along and at first threw Article 68 at it and when that didn't work is now trying to sabotage the Constitution Vote with his bleatings on his facebook page.

Lets face it, he and his ilk want to keep the status quo where they have the power (and the backing of the Army) and stuff the little man.

What a myopic opinion you have of the whole process. Originally the PTP had no plans to involve anyone but their own party and syncopant in the complete charter rewrite, arguing that they had a mandate from the Thai masses because they were elected (and stuff the little man). This view was challenged and defeated by the Democrat Party using the democratic process of judical review and backed up by a spontaneous protest by Thai citizens , the only power that an opposition party has. So now the PTP has agreed to follow the recomended legal route for the charter rewrite as indicated by the CC. After all a constitution that was adopted following a referendum that was agreed by the majority of Thai voters should be changed in a likewise manner. However, if they fail to achieve the result Thaksin wants then all bet are off and the PTP will do as they please, or so they threaten. I have yet to see or hear of any involvement in this process by the military or any other third party.

Edited December 27, 2012 by waza

[whybother]

<snip>

I have yet to see or hear of any involvement in this process by the military or any other third party.

PTP have said they will use the military to "help cajole the public to vote".

[ratcatcher]

Premier Yingluck gave some hints of a possible about-turn on Tuesday when she told reporters that if 24 million voters could be found to vote in favour of a total rewrite of the charter, "We will revert to amending the Constitution article by article."

Whats the point then?

Why not ask the Democratic Party and the PAD. They are the ones responsible for forcing this issue with their call for the 3rd reading to be stopped by invoking Article 68.

Really I thought its was the CC that indicated this was the legal method for a complete constitutional rewrite. But I dont remember them saying that if you dont get a favourable result then its ok to ignore the Thais voters and amend it against their mandate.

The PTP's original idea was to amend one article of the constitution at first to allow for a setting up of a Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA). The third reading for this to go ahead was happening when the Dems and the PAD stuck their oar in. The constitution court got involved stated that the dems and pad were wrong but the CC "suggested" that either the PTP hold a referendum first before rewriting the constitution via a CDA. If the vote is yes than go ahead rewrite the referendum and then hold another referendum to accept the new rewrite, or not or amend the constitution piece by piece in parliament and then vote on each change - of course with the majority of votes this would be a walkover.

So the Constitutional Court have actually made the process of rewriting the constitution less democratic than the PTP had proposed. First of all the idea of having a referendum to see whether a new rewrite of the constitution will be done via a CDA (with its consequent democratic arrangement of citizens and academics writing it, no politicians allowed) is ridiculous. The CC "reasoned" that the constitution of the military junta had been through a referendum process and to change it the PTP ought to as well - they seem to have forgotten that the junta scrapped the former Peoples Charter without a word let alone a constitution but it has already been seen that the CC makes up the rules as it goes along (one of the reasons for a constitutional rewrite is a reform of the CC).

So now the PTP has to jump through two hoops (and the extra expense) to go through the truly democratic way of rewriting the Constitution. But the CC also suggested the PTP could rewrite the Constitution in parliament without any civilian involvement whatsoever. Before people jump up and down and say why does it need to be changed perhaps they ought to look at what Abhisit said at the time which was to say that although it was flawed it could be amended at a later date - a task he achieved and failed at on different occasions.

If the 3rd reading had gone ahead the relevant article would have been amended, a CDA formed and Thai citizens would have spent the New Year rewriting their own constitution.

But of course, the nattering nabob of negativity, Abhisit, came along and at first threw Article 68 at it and when that didn't work is now trying to sabotage the Constitution Vote with his bleatings on his facebook page.

Lets face it, he and his ilk want to keep the status quo where they have the power (and the backing of the Army) and stuff the little man.

Yessir. "Stuff the little man" while we take care of "THE BIG MAN" in Dubai.

[khunken]

Premier Yingluck gave some hints of a possible about-turn on Tuesday when she told reporters that if 24 million voters could be found to vote in favour of a total rewrite of the charter, "We will revert to amending the Constitution article by article."

Whats the point then?

Why not ask the Democratic Party and the PAD. They are the ones responsible for forcing this issue with their call for the 3rd reading to be stopped by invoking Article 68.

Really I thought its was the CC that indicated this was the legal method for a complete constitutional rewrite. But I dont remember them saying that if you dont get a favourable result then its ok to ignore the Thais voters and amend it against their mandate.

The PTP's original idea was to amend one article of the constitution at first to allow for a setting up of a Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA). The third reading for this to go ahead was happening when the Dems and the PAD stuck their oar in. The constitution court got involved stated that the dems and pad were wrong but the CC "suggested" that either the PTP hold a referendum first before rewriting the constitution via a CDA. If the vote is yes than go ahead rewrite the referendum and then hold another referendum to accept the new rewrite, or not or amend the constitution piece by piece in parliament and then vote on each change - of course with the majority of votes this would be a walkover.

So the Constitutional Court have actually made the process of rewriting the constitution less democratic than the PTP had proposed. First of all the idea of having a referendum to see whether a new rewrite of the constitution will be done via a CDA (with its consequent democratic arrangement of citizens and academics writing it, no politicians allowed) is ridiculous. The CC "reasoned" that the constitution of the military junta had been through a referendum process and to change it the PTP ought to as well - they seem to have forgotten that the junta scrapped the former Peoples Charter without a word let alone a constitution but it has already been seen that the CC makes up the rules as it goes along (one of the reasons for a constitutional rewrite is a reform of the CC).

So now the PTP has to jump through two hoops (and the extra expense) to go through the truly democratic way of rewriting the Constitution. But the CC also suggested the PTP could rewrite the Constitution in parliament without any civilian involvement whatsoever. Before people jump up and down and say why does it need to be changed perhaps they ought to look at what Abhisit said at the time which was to say that although it was flawed it could be amended at a later date - a task he achieved and failed at on different occasions.

If the 3rd reading had gone ahead the relevant article would have been amended, a CDA formed and Thai citizens would have spent the New Year rewriting their own constitution.

But of course, the nattering nabob of negativity, Abhisit, came along and at first threw Article 68 at it and when that didn't work is now trying to sabotage the Constitution Vote with his bleatings on his facebook page.

Lets face it, he and his ilk want to keep the status quo where they have the power (and the backing of the Army) and stuff the little man.

Boy you do write rubbish.

As the current constitution was accepted by a vote of the people (a first), the constitution court said that if you want to rewrite it, ask the people first. Quite democratic to those who understand the term. However, if you want to amend parts of it, then go ahead and allow the people to vote on the amendments. Nothing undemocratic there either.

What the PTP acolytes really mean it that it is so inconvenient to have PTP to do things properly.

The army have nothing to do with the current process and I'm sure that Abhisit is not satisfied with the status quo where he has virtually no power. (Did you write the above 2 years ago?) He, like many others, is only trying to make sure that the constitution isn't rewritten/amended solely to benefit the dear leader - something the PTP have lied about.

No, it's the little man who will be screwed by this government & the big one (no name necessary) who stands to benefit.

Edited December 27, 2012 by khunken

[Pimay1]

Premier Yingluck gave some hints of a possible about-turn on Tuesday when she told reporters that if 24 million voters could be found to vote in favour of a total rewrite of the charter, "We will revert to amending the Constitution article by article."

Déjà vu all over again. Screw your mothers you Thai people my brother and I will do what we want to do and you have no say in it.

[muttley]

Answer removed - editor gave up will try again.

Edited December 27, 2012 by muttley

[muttley]

Why not ask the Democratic Party and the PAD. They are the ones responsible for forcing this issue with their call for the 3rd reading to be stopped by invoking Article 68.

Really I thought its was the CC that indicated this was the legal method for a complete constitutional rewrite. But I dont remember them saying that if you dont get a favourable result then its ok to ignore the Thais voters and amend it against their mandate.

The PTP's original idea was to amend one article of the constitution at first to allow for a setting up of a Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA). The third reading for this to go ahead was happening when the Dems and the PAD stuck their oar in. The constitution court got involved stated that the dems and pad were wrong but the CC "suggested" that either the PTP hold a referendum first before rewriting the constitution via a CDA. If the vote is yes than go ahead rewrite the referendum and then hold another referendum to accept the new rewrite, or not or amend the constitution piece by piece in parliament and then vote on each change - of course with the majority of votes this would be a walkover.

So the Constitutional Court have actually made the process of rewriting the constitution less democratic than the PTP had proposed. First of all the idea of having a referendum to see whether a new rewrite of the constitution will be done via a CDA (with its consequent democratic arrangement of citizens and academics writing it, no politicians allowed) is ridiculous. The CC "reasoned" that the constitution of the military junta had been through a referendum process and to change it the PTP ought to as well - they seem to have forgotten that the junta scrapped the former Peoples Charter without a word let alone a constitution but it has already been seen that the CC makes up the rules as it goes along (one of the reasons for a constitutional rewrite is a reform of the CC).

So now the PTP has to jump through two hoops (and the extra expense) to go through the truly democratic way of rewriting the Constitution. But the CC also suggested the PTP could rewrite the Constitution in parliament without any civilian involvement whatsoever. Before people jump up and down and say why does it need to be changed perhaps they ought to look at what Abhisit said at the time which was to say that although it was flawed it could be amended at a later date - a task he achieved and failed at on different occasions.

If the 3rd reading had gone ahead the relevant article would have been amended, a CDA formed and Thai citizens would have spent the New Year rewriting their own constitution.

But of course, the nattering nabob of negativity, Abhisit, came along and at first threw Article 68 at it and when that didn't work is now trying to sabotage the Constitution Vote with his bleatings on his facebook page.

Lets face it, he and his ilk want to keep the status quo where they have the power (and the backing of the Army) and stuff the little man.

Yessir. "Stuff the little man" while we take care of "THE BIG MAN" in Dubai.

So you didn't bother reading it at all then? I really don't know why I bother.

[muttley]

<snip>

I have yet to see or hear of any involvement in this process by the military or any other third party.

PTP have said they will use the military to "help cajole the public to vote".

oh please show me where you got that from in those words.

[whybother]

<snip>

I have yet to see or hear of any involvement in this process by the military or any other third party.

PTP have said they will use the military to "help cajole the public to vote".

oh please show me where you got that from in those words.

"[We] will use all the state's mechanisms at our disposal, be it the Interior Ministry, the military and other state agencies to help cajole the public to vote. MPs will also come up with targets of how many people they get to come out to vote,"

[muttley]

But I guess your right, How dare the opposition engage in their democratic right to ensure the government act in a legal and moral manner in such a profoundly important matter.

As Thida said, if we don't get 50% of the votes, people might think that the 2007 constitution is acceptable.

The 2007 constitution was approved by 26 million out of 43 million (or so) eligible voters.

So let’s move on working for the country. There are still enough problems in this country that can very well be solved using the 2007 constitution.

"The 2007 constitution was approved by 26 million out of 43 million (or so) eligible voters" WRONG

Nearly 26 million voted, 14,727,306 voted Yes, 10,747,441 voted No, 19 million odd didn't vote.

[muttley]

oh please show me where you got that from in those words.

"[We] will use all the state's mechanisms at our disposal, be it the Interior Ministry, the military and other state agencies to help cajole the public to vote. MPs will also come up with targets of how many people they get to come out to vote,"

http://www.thaivisa....ays-referendum/

Oh another selective out of context part of a quote by a mysterious source aka nation reporter.

The full quote from the rag is

"[We] will use all the state's mechanisms at our disposal, be it the Interior Ministry, the military and other state agencies to help cajole the public to vote. MPs will also come up with targets of how many people they get to come out to vote," said the source.

Which is quite a reasonable thing to say even if it is a source, as opposed to your version, the slightly menacing sounding

"PTP have said they will use the military to "help cajole the public to vote", indicating applying pressure on people to vote for the right thing.

Thats more of a democrat tactic, sending the Army around red shirt villages before the voting last time round and Prayuth even pointing the Public to vote for the right people.

Don't you ever tire of such juvenile debating "techniques".

[whybother]

"[We] will use all the state's mechanisms at our disposal, be it the Interior Ministry, the military and other state agencies to help cajole the public to vote. MPs will also come up with targets of how many people they get to come out to vote,"

http://www.thaivisa....ays-referendum/

Oh another selective out of context part of a quote by a mysterious source aka nation reporter.

The full quote from the rag is

"[We] will use all the state's mechanisms at our disposal, be it the Interior Ministry, the military and other state agencies to help cajole the public to vote. MPs will also come up with targets of how many people they get to come out to vote," said the source.

Which is quite a reasonable thing to say even if it is a source, as opposed to your version, the slightly menacing sounding

"PTP have said they will use the military to "help cajole the public to vote", indicating applying pressure on people to vote for the right thing.

Thats more of a democrat tactic, sending the Army around red shirt villages before the voting last time round and Prayuth even pointing the Public to vote for the right people.

Don't you ever tire of such juvenile debating "techniques".

Out of context? Are you saying that the source didn't say that they would use the military to help cajole the public to vote?

[Hugo6]

the above process too democratic for the democrats which is why they ran to the courts to throw up the road blocks.

[muttley]

Which is quite a reasonable thing to say even if it is a source, as opposed to your version, the slightly menacing sounding

"PTP have said they will use the military to "help cajole the public to vote", indicating applying pressure on people to vote for the right thing.

Thats more of a democrat tactic, sending the Army around red shirt villages before the voting last time round and Prayuth even pointing the Public to vote for the right people.

Don't you ever tire of such juvenile debating "techniques".

Out of context? Are you saying that the source didn't say that they would use the military to help cajole the public to vote?

I'll play your word games for a while but once I'm bored that's it. Here goes:

No, I am not saying that the "source didn't say that they would use the military to help cajole the public to vote".

I'm saying that the source referred to the military being only part of the various governmental sources of manpower to help convince the public the importance of a vote. Note also that I have used the word convince whereas the nation rag used the word cajole which again has negative connotations of fooling the public into doing something. The nation rag has been at the game of juvenile wordplay longer than you, I expect.

[muttley]

The PTP's original idea was to amend one article of the constitution at first to allow for a setting up of a Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA). The third reading for this to go ahead was happening when the Dems and the PAD stuck their oar in. The constitution court got involved stated that the dems and pad were wrong but the CC "suggested" that either the PTP hold a referendum first before rewriting the constitution via a CDA. If the vote is yes than go ahead rewrite the referendum and then hold another referendum to accept the new rewrite, or not or amend the constitution piece by piece in parliament and then vote on each change - of course with the majority of votes this would be a walkover.

So the Constitutional Court have actually made the process of rewriting the constitution less democratic than the PTP had proposed. First of all the idea of having a referendum to see whether a new rewrite of the constitution will be done via a CDA (with its consequent democratic arrangement of citizens and academics writing it, no politicians allowed) is ridiculous. The CC "reasoned" that the constitution of the military junta had been through a referendum process and to change it the PTP ought to as well - they seem to have forgotten that the junta scrapped the former Peoples Charter without a word let alone a constitution but it has already been seen that the CC makes up the rules as it goes along (one of the reasons for a constitutional rewrite is a reform of the CC).

So now the PTP has to jump through two hoops (and the extra expense) to go through the truly democratic way of rewriting the Constitution. But the CC also suggested the PTP could rewrite the Constitution in parliament without any civilian involvement whatsoever. Before people jump up and down and say why does it need to be changed perhaps they ought to look at what Abhisit said at the time which was to say that although it was flawed it could be amended at a later date - a task he achieved and failed at on different occasions.

If the 3rd reading had gone ahead the relevant article would have been amended, a CDA formed and Thai citizens would have spent the New Year rewriting their own constitution.

But of course, the nattering nabob of negativity, Abhisit, came along and at first threw Article 68 at it and when that didn't work is now trying to sabotage the Constitution Vote with his bleatings on his facebook page.

Lets face it, he and his ilk want to keep the status quo where they have the power (and the backing of the Army) and stuff the little man.

Boy you do write rubbish.

As the current constitution was accepted by a vote of the people (a first), the constitution court said that if you want to rewrite it, ask the people first. Quite democratic to those who understand the term. However, if you want to amend parts of it, then go ahead and allow the people to vote on the amendments. Nothing undemocratic there either.

What the PTP acolytes really mean it that it is so inconvenient to have PTP to do things properly.

The army have nothing to do with the current process and I'm sure that Abhisit is not satisfied with the status quo where he has virtually no power. (Did you write the above 2 years ago?) He, like many others, is only trying to make sure that the constitution isn't rewritten/amended solely to benefit the dear leader - something the PTP have lied about.

No, it's the little man who will be screwed by this government & the big one (no name necessary) who stands to benefit.

I didn't mention the army being involved in the current process try Waza.

On the contrary - it is you who has no idea of what has gone on and is disposed to write an account of your understanding of the democratic process of writing a constitution in this country which quite frankly is devoid of intelligence. Though that is probably understandable for a person who thinks that the army tearing up one constitution, rewriting it to suit themselves both then and in the future, and then holding a questionable referendum to uphold it is a democratic process to be a shining beacon to one and all.

The following was the process to be followed by the PTP if the dems and the flakier members of Thai Society knowns as PAD hadn't stuck their oar in bleating about article 68 which was a complete red herring. Once the CC got involved you ended up with the abortion of a process that will now have to happen.

KORNCHANOK RAKSASERI

THE NATION May 15, 2012 1:00 am

The second reading of a bill to allow the establishment of a Constitutional Drafting Assembly finished yesterday with the final article requiring the recruitment of CDA members to begin within 15 days after the law takes effect.

Yesterday was the 15th day of deliberation in the second reading of the bill in Parliament. After, the House-Senate joint meeting voted for almost all of the draft proposed by a parliamentary ad hoc committee on charter amendment led by Samart Kaewmeechai, a former charter drafter and MP from the ruling Pheu Thai Party.

The only change from the panel's draft was that instead of applying local administration election law, the election of members of the drafting assembly would be based on the law citing requirements for people who seek to be MPs and senators.

The bill - a change to Article 291 of the 2007 Constitution that cites only the process of charter amendment - allows the setting up of a new drafting body to draw up a new version of the supreme law.

The new CDA will be made up of 99 members - 77 elected to represent each of the provinces, and 22 members appointed by the Parliament. Six of them will be experts in public law, with six experts in political science or public administration, plus 10 with experience in politics, public administration, economic or social fields, or charter drafting.

The Parliament President is authorised to issue selection regulations and a 15-member panel will verify the qualifications of candidates nominated by university councils, social, economic and private agencies.

After the members are selected, the Assembly is required to finish drafting the new charter within 240 days. The time count will pause if the House of Representatives reaches the end of a term or is dissolved. But it can continue working after a new House is formed.

In drafting the new constitution, the assembly is required to hear opinions from people in all regions.

However, the amendment prohibits changing the political system from a constitutional monarchy. It also prohibits changing the form of the state from a single state, and prohibits changing any clause in the chapter on the monarchy in the current Constitution.

The Election Commission will be required to hold a national referendum on the CDA's new charter within 60 days after it receives the draft passed on by the Parliament President. However, the EC must leave at least 45 days before holding the referendum as time to promote the ballot and publicising the charter draft. This must be done within 60 days but not before 45 days after the EC receives the draft.

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

Now tell me the above process isn't democratic and completely different to my understanding of the process.

Edit to add "Now tell me the above process isn't democratic and completely different to my understanding of the process" should read

"Now tell me the above process isn't democratic and is exactly the same as my understanding of the process as written in my previous post"

[whybother]

I'll play your word games for a while but once I'm bored that's it. Here goes:

No, I am not saying that the "source didn't say that they would use the military to help cajole the public to vote".

I'm saying that the source referred to the military being only part of the various governmental sources of manpower to help convince the public the importance of a vote. Note also that I have used the word convince whereas the nation rag used the word cajole which again has negative connotations of fooling the public into doing something. The nation rag has been at the game of juvenile wordplay longer than you, I expect.

Check out the definition of "cajole". "Fooling" doesn't come into it.

I see it more as "persuade" or "encourage".

But what ever it is, and whatever else they will use, he still said that they will use the military to do it.

[muttley]

I'll play your word games for a while but once I'm bored that's it. Here goes:

No, I am not saying that the "source didn't say that they would use the military to help cajole the public to vote".

I'm saying that the source referred to the military being only part of the various governmental sources of manpower to help convince the public the importance of a vote. Note also that I have used the word convince whereas the nation rag used the word cajole which again has negative connotations of fooling the public into doing something. The nation rag has been at the game of juvenile wordplay longer than you, I expect.

Check out the definition of "cajole". "Fooling" doesn't come into it.

I see it more as "persuade" or "encourage".

But what ever it is, and whatever else they will use, he still said that they will use the military to do it.

So what?

[whybother]

I'll play your word games for a while but once I'm bored that's it. Here goes:

No, I am not saying that the "source didn't say that they would use the military to help cajole the public to vote".

I'm saying that the source referred to the military being only part of the various governmental sources of manpower to help convince the public the importance of a vote. Note also that I have used the word convince whereas the nation rag used the word cajole which again has negative connotations of fooling the public into doing something. The nation rag has been at the game of juvenile wordplay longer than you, I expect.

Check out the definition of "cajole". "Fooling" doesn't come into it.

I see it more as "persuade" or "encourage".

But what ever it is, and whatever else they will use, he still said that they will use the military to do it.

So what?

Don't the PTP and red shirts continuously complain about the involvement of the military in politics?

[waza]

I'll play your word games for a while but once I'm bored that's it. Here goes:

No, I am not saying that the "source didn't say that they would use the military to help cajole the public to vote".

I'm saying that the source referred to the military being only part of the various governmental sources of manpower to help convince the public the importance of a vote. Note also that I have used the word convince whereas the nation rag used the word cajole which again has negative connotations of fooling the public into doing something. The nation rag has been at the game of juvenile wordplay longer than you, I expect.

Check out the definition of "cajole". "Fooling" doesn't come into it.

I see it more as "persuade" or "encourage".

But what ever it is, and whatever else they will use, he still said that they will use the military to do it.

So what?

Don't the PTP and red shirts continuously complain about the involvement of the military in politics?

We all know that Thaksin would, perrsonally or through his clone, jump into bed with satan himself if it would further his agends............

EG: General Sonthi Boonyaratglin who led the 2006 coup that toppled Yingluck's big brother, Thaksin Shinawatra was appionted by Yingluck to head the house committee on national reconciliation.

Yingluck's brother Thaksin made veiled attacks about Prem's involvement in bringing about his downfall. The attacks seem to have stopped after the Pheu Thai's election victory....... Yingluck had her first public meeting with Prem for the first time since assuming office. She led the welcoming party to greet him

Edited December 27, 2012 by waza

[muttley]

The PTP's original idea was to amend one article of the constitution at first to allow for a setting up of a Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA). The third reading for this to go ahead was happening when the Dems and the PAD stuck their oar in. The constitution court got involved stated that the dems and pad were wrong but the CC "suggested" that either the PTP hold a referendum first before rewriting the constitution via a CDA. If the vote is yes than go ahead rewrite the referendum and then hold another referendum to accept the new rewrite, or not or amend the constitution piece by piece in parliament and then vote on each change - of course with the majority of votes this would be a walkover.

So the Constitutional Court have actually made the process of rewriting the constitution less democratic than the PTP had proposed. First of all the idea of having a referendum to see whether a new rewrite of the constitution will be done via a CDA (with its consequent democratic arrangement of citizens and academics writing it, no politicians allowed) is ridiculous. The CC "reasoned" that the constitution of the military junta had been through a referendum process and to change it the PTP ought to as well - they seem to have forgotten that the junta scrapped the former Peoples Charter without a word let alone a constitution but it has already been seen that the CC makes up the rules as it goes along (one of the reasons for a constitutional rewrite is a reform of the CC).

So now the PTP has to jump through two hoops (and the extra expense) to go through the truly democratic way of rewriting the Constitution. But the CC also suggested the PTP could rewrite the Constitution in parliament without any civilian involvement whatsoever. Before people jump up and down and say why does it need to be changed perhaps they ought to look at what Abhisit said at the time which was to say that although it was flawed it could be amended at a later date - a task he achieved and failed at on different occasions.

If the 3rd reading had gone ahead the relevant article would have been amended, a CDA formed and Thai citizens would have spent the New Year rewriting their own constitution.

But of course, the nattering nabob of negativity, Abhisit, came along and at first threw Article 68 at it and when that didn't work is now trying to sabotage the Constitution Vote with his bleatings on his facebook page.

Lets face it, he and his ilk want to keep the status quo where they have the power (and the backing of the Army) and stuff the little man.

Boy you do write rubbish.

As the current constitution was accepted by a vote of the people (a first), the constitution court said that if you want to rewrite it, ask the people first. Quite democratic to those who understand the term. However, if you want to amend parts of it, then go ahead and allow the people to vote on the amendments. Nothing undemocratic there either.

What the PTP acolytes really mean it that it is so inconvenient to have PTP to do things properly.

The army have nothing to do with the current process and I'm sure that Abhisit is not satisfied with the status quo where he has virtually no power. (Did you write the above 2 years ago?) He, like many others, is only trying to make sure that the constitution isn't rewritten/amended solely to benefit the dear leader - something the PTP have lied about.

No, it's the little man who will be screwed by this government & the big one (no name necessary) who stands to benefit.

"Boy you do write rubbish."

Do I really? Lets look shall we, an article from the Nation, dated 15th May 2012, regarding the second reading of the constitution bill being finalised - that means agreed, even by the democrats. The article details what was agreed i.e what was the next step for the bill, the amendment to Section/Article 291 to enable a CDA to be formed.

The only reason it ended up with the idea of having a referendum first OR the option of taking the constitution and amending the constitution in parliament (with the existing majority, that option is arguably less democratic than what the PTP had proposed and was agreed by the democrats in the second reading) was due to the Dems and the PAD insisting on throwing Section 68 at the idea arguing that the PTP were going to change the constitution with the King as thead of State.

This could not happen as Section/Article 291 states :

Section 291. An amendment of the Constitution may be made only under the rules and procedure as follows:

(1) a motion for amendment must be proposed either by the Council of Ministers or members of the House of Representatives of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members of the House of Representatives or members of both Houses of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members thereof or persons having the right to votes of not less than fifty thousand in number under the law on the public submission of a bill;

A

motion for amendment which has the effect of changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of State shall be prohibited;

(2) a motion for amendment must be proposed in the form of a draft Constitution Amendment and the National Assembly shall consider it in three readings;

(3) the voting in the first reading for acceptance in principle shall be by roll call and open voting, and the amendment must be approved by votes of not less than one-half of the total number of the existing members of both Houses;

(4) in the consideration section by section in the second reading, consultation with the people who submit a draft Constitution Amendment shall be held;

The voting in the second reading for consideration section by section shall be decided by a simple majority of votes;

(5) at the conclusion of the second reading, there shall be an interval of fifteen days after which the National Assembly shall proceed with its third reading;

(6) the voting in the third and final reading shall be by roll call and open voting, and its promulgation as the Constitution must be approved by votes of more than one-half of the total number of the existing members of both Houses;

(7) after the resolution has been passed in accordance with the above rules and procedure, the draft Constitution Amendment shall be presented to the King, and the provisions of section 150 and section 151 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

After a ruling that the dems' accusations about Article 68 were completely unfounded (and a waste of peoples time by throwing around spurious law suits, not for the first time) for reasons best known to itself the Constitutional Court decided that a referendum was necessary before forming a CDA but also suggested that the PTP could rewrite the constitution in parts in parliament.

So tell me why, when the Military Junta and its coup ripped up the Peoples 1997 Constitution and rewrote it without asking their permission, that this is somehow MORE democratic than the PTP following the same rules as those for the writing of the Peoples Constitution (widely thought of as the most democratic of all Thai Constitutions with its introduction of Human Rights watchdogs etc) with the ADDITION of a referendum at the end that the Thai citizen can vote yes or no on?

And I'm the one writing rubbish, khunken?

Best you redefine rubbish.

[muttley]

I'll play your word games for a while but once I'm bored that's it. Here goes:

No, I am not saying that the "source didn't say that they would use the military to help cajole the public to vote".

I'm saying that the source referred to the military being only part of the various governmental sources of manpower to help convince the public the importance of a vote. Note also that I have used the word convince whereas the nation rag used the word cajole which again has negative connotations of fooling the public into doing something. The nation rag has been at the game of juvenile wordplay longer than you, I expect.

Check out the definition of "cajole". "Fooling" doesn't come into it.

I see it more as "persuade" or "encourage".

But what ever it is, and whatever else they will use, he still said that they will use the military to do it.

So what?

Don't the PTP and red shirts continuously complain about the involvement of the military in politics?

OK another day and I'm not bored.

The PTP and red shirts complain when they get involved with politics in making abhisit their puppet PM.

Of course you knew that was what the meaning of the phrase was but as usual reverted back to smug point scoring wordplay whilst your playmates cheer in the sidelines with their "likes".

Pure childish debating. See yah.

[muttley]

Don't the PTP and red shirts continuously complain about the involvement of the military in politics?

We all know that Thaksin would, perrsonally or through his clone, jump into bed with satan himself if it would further his agends............

EG: General Sonthi Boonyaratglin who led the 2006 coup that toppled Yingluck's big brother, Thaksin Shinawatra was appionted by Yingluck to head the house committee on national reconciliation.

Yingluck's brother Thaksin made veiled attacks about Prem's involvement in bringing about his downfall. The attacks seem to have stopped after the Pheu Thai's election victory....... Yingluck had her first public meeting with Prem for the first time since assuming office. She led the welcoming party to greet him

I was guilty of being led astray by whybothers baiting post but this is getting ridiculous - the topic, as if you care, is

"road ahead for a charter reform is a minefield"

Try answering it.