Road Ahead For Charter Reform Is A Minefield: Thai Talk

[Pimay1]

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.

Oops ran out of any defence. Time to attack the messenger.

[waza]

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.

Hmmm nice quote from wikipedia, heres another..........."

Most criticism was based on the perspective that the Constitution was too effective in some of its reforms. One of the members of the Drafting Committee, Amorn Chantarasomboon, claimed that an overly strong and stable government brought on a "tyranny of the majority" and a "parliamentary dictatorship."^[43] Following House elections in April 2006, the Election Commissioners were jailed and the election results overturned by the Constitutional Court.

The constitution was also criticized for the lack of clarity with which it defines the King's role in politics (see Royal powers and 2006 demand for royal intervention). The Senate's role in scrutinizing Constitutional Court appointments came under much criticism (see Appointment of the first Constitutional Court). Although the Senate was supposed to be non-partisan, bloc voting became common.^[44][45] A constitutional crisis almost occurred following April 2006 House elections (see April 2006 House election results). Governments were criticized for politicizing appointments to independent agencies.

[whybother]

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.

So the red shirts had no problem with the army promoting the 2007 constitution referendum? They mustn't have, since they're asking them to promote this referendum.

[muttley]

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.

Hmmm nice quote from wikipedia, heres another..........."

Most criticism was based on the perspective that the Constitution was too effective in some of its reforms. One of the members of the Drafting Committee, Amorn Chantarasomboon, claimed that an overly strong and stable government brought on a "tyranny of the majority" and a "parliamentary dictatorship."^[43] Following House elections in April 2006, the Election Commissioners were jailed and the election results overturned by the Constitutional Court.

The constitution was also criticized for the lack of clarity with which it defines the King's role in politics (see Royal powers and 2006 demand for royal intervention). The Senate's role in scrutinizing Constitutional Court appointments came under much criticism (see Appointment of the first Constitutional Court). Although the Senate was supposed to be non-partisan, bloc voting became common.^[44][45] A constitutional crisis almost occurred following April 2006 House elections (see April 2006 House election results). Governments were criticized for politicizing appointments to independent agencies.

No I got the pdf of the constitution from a google search. The text that is not in quote boxes is my own joined up thoughts on things constitutional.

By the way do you take turns on defending each others posts? Is it because you are embarrassed by your own posts or find the answer too hard to counter. I really don't care about your wiki quote because it adds nothing to the debate or answer my post.

Edited December 31, 2012 by muttley