Coup Makers Cannot Be Above The Law

[scorecard]

Somsak Kiartsuranon "The Hammer Man" he holds a Bachelor's degree from the Khon Kaen University, and a Master's degree from the Chulalongkorn University in engineering. No background in constitutional law so I guess we can take his statement as uneducated opinion not a statement of fact.

Correct as to education. However, PM Abhisit had no formal education in fiscal policy or law and yet there he was initiating fiscal policy and laws. Same for the current PM, right? The Speaker is served by qualified departmental staff and has access to outside legal counsel. He will have been briefed on the salient constitutional law issues. Please do not make the assumption that he is not informed. Considering the fact that the man is far better educated than the typical TVFer, why denigrate him , yet offer your uninformed opinion of how senior officials set policy?

Well the paymaster has no formal education in fiscal policy but he ran a one man band show including developing / espousing all sorts of fiscal policy (which has all since been criticized, several times, as unsustainable).

Additionally, no PM / president anywhere is an expert at everything, that's simle not possible and the elctorate is not expecting such, the clever and successful ones surround themselves with numerous experts and listen.

g'kid, are you suggesting that abhisit should not have been premier because he has no formal training in fiscal policy? He did have Khun Korn, who is well recognized for his finance and fiscal knowledge and strategy capabilities.

G'kid, are you suggesting that the permanent senior officials of every Thai ministry are world class / national experts with impressive track records?

Is that your New Years joke?

Somsaks education is in engineering, not in finance or economics, and his credibility (Europe grand tour) is a joke.

Edited December 30, 2012 by scorecard

[Jawnie]

Somsak says:

Q : Please analyse why opponents see amending section 309 as being linked to Thaksin?

A : All sides must reduce their stubbornness and personal interests. As for section 309, it has been cited with misgiving. It's untrue that Thaksin will benefit from it and escape from his two-year prison sentence, as charged by the Democrat Party, as legal sentences cannot be undone retroactively.

Section 309

(protecting coup makers)

has always been used to destroy [the] People's Power Party.

Comment:

- If section 309 is removed, then we need to see another or an enhanced section which strongly stops / prohibits leaders / individuals / parties from gaining too much power.

The most obvious should be a limit of 4 years for one leader who cannot ever be re-elected (no matter what the process of deciding which party / which coalition / which leaders is.

Also let's see the Electoral Commission become much more professional and with more teeth, and staffed by credible people, and electoral laws which can easily identify and punish vote buying.

Also let's see electoral laws which require that parties have a detailed and publically broadcast manifesto.

And electoral laws which require a number of forms of public debate, with activities (by law) which require active public participation.

And electoral laws which require that all materials handed out by parties / candidates are filed with the electoral commission and put on a public website.

- Somsak says removing section 309 will not cancel the 2 year convicion of the paymaster.

- Meanwhile there is renewed push for amnesty (as a seperate action to changing the constitution), which no doubt would include the paymaster.

- And you can bet your bottom dollar there is already detailed back room discussion of other strategies which could whitewash the paymaster, if needed.

- Somsak says: Section 309 (protecting coup makers) has always been used to destroy [the] People's Power Party.

Well sorry mr somsak, your not being balanced in that statement: the last coup makers tried to reinstate the Peoples Power, and fairly quickly. Unfortunately they were inept at this task.

Beware of the tricks behind the smokescreen.

It is a sad commentary regarding reconciliation when people oppose reconciliation and amnesty because ONE person they don't like might get amnesty, also. Those people are blackmailing and holding the entire country hostage to their neroutic hatred for one person. Get over it....move on.

[whybother]

A copy of both the 1997 and 2007 constitutions can be found in English by Googling for them.

Meanwhile here is Section 309 of the 2007 Constitution.

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.

Countersigned by:

Meechai Ruchuphan

President of the National Legislative Assembly

Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007 http://www.asianlii....2007/1.html#C02

86

If they take that out of the constitution does that mean they can go back and charge all leaders in past Coups?

That section has nothing to do with coups previous to 2006.

My question is, if they remove that clause, can they actually charge the leaders of the 2006 coup? Is that like changing the law to say that the speed limit is 60 km/h, and charging everyone that was over 60 km/h before the law was passed.

[scorecard]

Somsak says:

Q : Please analyse why opponents see amending section 309 as being linked to Thaksin?

A : All sides must reduce their stubbornness and personal interests. As for section 309, it has been cited with misgiving. It's untrue that Thaksin will benefit from it and escape from his two-year prison sentence, as charged by the Democrat Party, as legal sentences cannot be undone retroactively.

Section 309

(protecting coup makers)

has always been used to destroy [the] People's Power Party.

Comment:

- If section 309 is removed, then we need to see another or an enhanced section which strongly stops / prohibits leaders / individuals / parties from gaining too much power.

The most obvious should be a limit of 4 years for one leader who cannot ever be re-elected (no matter what the process of deciding which party / which coalition / which leaders is.

Also let's see the Electoral Commission become much more professional and with more teeth, and staffed by credible people, and electoral laws which can easily identify and punish vote buying.

Also let's see electoral laws which require that parties have a detailed and publically broadcast manifesto.

And electoral laws which require a number of forms of public debate, with activities (by law) which require active public participation.

And electoral laws which require that all materials handed out by parties / candidates are filed with the electoral commission and put on a public website.

- Somsak says removing section 309 will not cancel the 2 year convicion of the paymaster.

- Meanwhile there is renewed push for amnesty (as a seperate action to changing the constitution), which no doubt would include the paymaster.

- And you can bet your bottom dollar there is already detailed back room discussion of other strategies which could whitewash the paymaster, if needed.

- Somsak says: Section 309 (protecting coup makers) has always been used to destroy [the] People's Power Party.

Well sorry mr somsak, your not being balanced in that statement: the last coup makers tried to reinstate the Peoples Power, and fairly quickly. Unfortunately they were inept at this task.

Beware of the tricks behind the smokescreen.

It is a sad commentary regarding reconciliation when people oppose reconciliation and amnesty because ONE person they don't like might get amnesty, also. Those people are blackmailing and holding the entire country hostage to their neroutic hatred for one person. Get over it....move on.

On the other hand, maybe many people believe just the opposite.

Reconciliation, what does that mean?

All the rubbish currently spoken about reconciliation is aimed at giving more power and more immoral opportunities to politicians, it gives nothing to the people in terms of moving closer to a fairer civil sociey and equal justice.

There is only one way to move forward sucessfully and gain improvements to the current mess - total respect for the law, including stronger laws which severly punish vote buying, and more .

Edited December 30, 2012 by scorecard

[gatorsoft]

Somsak Kiartsuranon "The Hammer Man" he holds a Bachelor's degree from the Khon Kaen University, and a Master's degree from the Chulalongkorn University in engineering. No background in constitutional law so I guess we can take his statement as uneducated opinion not a statement of fact.

Correct as to education. However, PM Abhisit had no formal education in fiscal policy or law and yet there he was initiating fiscal policy and laws. Same for the current PM, right? The Speaker is served by qualified departmental staff and has access to outside legal counsel. He will have been briefed on the salient constitutional law issues. Please do not make the assumption that he is not informed. Considering the fact that the man is far better educated than the typical TVFer, why denigrate him , yet offer your uninformed opinion of how senior officials set policy?

Well the paymaster has no formal education in fiscal policy but he ran a one man band show including developing / espousing all sorts of fiscal policy (which has all since been criticized, several times, as unsustainable).

Additionally, no PM / president anywhere is an expert at everything, that's simle not possible and the elctorate is not expecting such, the clever and successful ones surround themselves with numerous experts and listen.

g'kid, are you suggesting that abhisit should not have been premier because he has no formal training in fiscal policy? He did have Khun Korn, who is well recognized for his finance and fiscal knowledge and strategy capabilities.

G'kid, are you suggesting that the permanent senior officials of every Thai ministry are world class / national experts with impressive track records?

Is that your New Years joke?

Somsaks education is in engineering, not in finance or economics, and his credibility (Europe grand tour) is a joke.

Cetainly an education in engineering, a discipline based on logical analysis of facts and available inforamtion, should disqualify anyone from a Thai political position.

[gatorsoft]

A copy of both the 1997 and 2007 constitutions can be found in English by Googling for them.

Meanwhile here is Section 309 of the 2007 Constitution.

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.

Countersigned by:

Meechai Ruchuphan

President of the National Legislative Assembly

Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007 http://www.asianlii....2007/1.html#C02

86

If they take that out of the constitution does that mean they can go back and charge all leaders in past Coups?

That section has nothing to do with coups previous to 2006.

My question is, if they remove that clause, can they actually charge the leaders of the 2006 coup? Is that like changing the law to say that the speed limit is 60 km/h, and charging everyone that was over 60 km/h before the law was passed.

Gee, that kind of sounds like how they convicted Thaksin.

[whybother]

My question is, if they remove that clause, can they actually charge the leaders of the 2006 coup? Is that like changing the law to say that the speed limit is 60 km/h, and charging everyone that was over 60 km/h before the law was passed.

Gee, that kind of sounds like how they convicted Thaksin.

Thaksin was convicted of laws that existed at the time that he broke them.

[waza]

Somsak says:

Q : Please analyse why opponents see amending section 309 as being linked to Thaksin?

A : All sides must reduce their stubbornness and personal interests. As for section 309, it has been cited with misgiving. It's untrue that Thaksin will benefit from it and escape from his two-year prison sentence, as charged by the Democrat Party, as legal sentences cannot be undone retroactively.

Section 309

(protecting coup makers)

has always been used to destroy [the] People's Power Party.

Comment:

- If section 309 is removed, then we need to see another or an enhanced section which strongly stops / prohibits leaders / individuals / parties from gaining too much power.

The most obvious should be a limit of 4 years for one leader who cannot ever be re-elected (no matter what the process of deciding which party / which coalition / which leaders is.

Also let's see the Electoral Commission become much more professional and with more teeth, and staffed by credible people, and electoral laws which can easily identify and punish vote buying.

Also let's see electoral laws which require that parties have a detailed and publically broadcast manifesto.

And electoral laws which require a number of forms of public debate, with activities (by law) which require active public participation.

And electoral laws which require that all materials handed out by parties / candidates are filed with the electoral commission and put on a public website.

- Somsak says removing section 309 will not cancel the 2 year convicion of the paymaster.

- Meanwhile there is renewed push for amnesty (as a seperate action to changing the constitution), which no doubt would include the paymaster.

- And you can bet your bottom dollar there is already detailed back room discussion of other strategies which could whitewash the paymaster, if needed.

- Somsak says: Section 309 (protecting coup makers) has always been used to destroy [the] People's Power Party.

Well sorry mr somsak, your not being balanced in that statement: the last coup makers tried to reinstate the Peoples Power, and fairly quickly. Unfortunately they were inept at this task.

Beware of the tricks behind the smokescreen.

It is a sad commentary regarding reconciliation when people oppose reconciliation and amnesty because ONE person they don't like might get amnesty, also. Those people are blackmailing and holding the entire country hostage to their neroutic hatred for one person. Get over it....move on.

On the other hand, maybe many people believe just the opposite.

Reconciliation, what does that mean?

All the rubbish currently spoken about reconciliation is aimed at giving more power and more immoral opportunities to politicians, it gives nothing to the people in terms of moving closer to a fairer civil sociey and equal justice.

There is only one way to move forward sucessfully and gain improvements to the current mess - total respect for the law, including stronger laws which severly punish vote buying, and more .

Which brings us back to the 2007 constitutional changes that took some authority from the politicians and gave it to the judiciary where it belongs. It has taken Thaksin 3 government to come terms with and is another reason he wants to rewrite it.

[bigbamboo]

Somsak says:

Q : Please analyse why opponents see amending section 309 as being linked to Thaksin?

A : All sides must reduce their stubbornness and personal interests. As for section 309, it has been cited with misgiving. It's untrue that Thaksin will benefit from it and escape from his two-year prison sentence, as charged by the Democrat Party, as legal sentences cannot be undone retroactively.

Section 309

(protecting coup makers)

has always been used to destroy [the] People's Power Party.

Comment:

- If section 309 is removed, then we need to see another or an enhanced section which strongly stops / prohibits leaders / individuals / parties from gaining too much power.

The most obvious should be a limit of 4 years for one leader who cannot ever be re-elected (no matter what the process of deciding which party / which coalition / which leaders is.

Also let's see the Electoral Commission become much more professional and with more teeth, and staffed by credible people, and electoral laws which can easily identify and punish vote buying.

Also let's see electoral laws which require that parties have a detailed and publically broadcast manifesto.

And electoral laws which require a number of forms of public debate, with activities (by law) which require active public participation.

And electoral laws which require that all materials handed out by parties / candidates are filed with the electoral commission and put on a public website.

- Somsak says removing section 309 will not cancel the 2 year convicion of the paymaster.

- Meanwhile there is renewed push for amnesty (as a seperate action to changing the constitution), which no doubt would include the paymaster.

- And you can bet your bottom dollar there is already detailed back room discussion of other strategies which could whitewash the paymaster, if needed.

- Somsak says: Section 309 (protecting coup makers) has always been used to destroy [the] People's Power Party.

Well sorry mr somsak, your not being balanced in that statement: the last coup makers tried to reinstate the Peoples Power, and fairly quickly. Unfortunately they were inept at this task.

Beware of the tricks behind the smokescreen.

It is a sad commentary regarding reconciliation when people oppose reconciliation and amnesty because ONE person they don't like might get amnesty, also. Those people are blackmailing and holding the entire country hostage to their neroutic hatred for one person. Get over it....move on.

Or to put it another way...... it's even sadder that the reconcilation of an entire country is put in jeopardy for the sake for just one man.

[scorecard]

NEITHER can the Government ( the people in Parliment), Senior Thaksin, or the Heir of Red Bull and others like him ad-infinitum, BUT THEY ARE! Ab solutely New Here!!!!!!!!!!

It seems to me that efforts to change that culture should be applauded instead of criticized and ridiculed. The ubiquitous argument that if something was permitted to happen previously, it should continue to be permitted (eg: Thaksin got away with extra-judicial killings so why shouldn't Abhisit and Suthep) seems like a poor and childish argument that will keep Thailand forever in turmoil.

1. I've never seen any suggestion that because the paymaster got away with mass killings therefore abhisit should get away with mass killings.

In fact the paymaster ran away with his tail between his legs on an abuse of power charge, whereas abhisit has now said several times he will face the music / go through the court process.

2. Here's another example, there have been many suggestions, now over many years, that corruption charges levelled at the paymaster are unfair because other people got away with corruption before the paymaster.

The reality is that people who get into corruption know that there is always the possbility the axe will fall, and it could be you. The reality is also like this, if I murder your wife or your son and there is solid evidence, someone could say it would be unfair to charge me because other people have previously got away with murder. Total nonsense of course.

Edited December 30, 2012 by scorecard

[scorecard]

A copy of both the 1997 and 2007 constitutions can be found in English by Googling for them.

Meanwhile here is Section 309 of the 2007 Constitution.

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.

Countersigned by:

Meechai Ruchuphan

President of the National Legislative Assembly

Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007 http://www.asianlii....2007/1.html#C02

86

If they take that out of the constitution does that mean they can go back and charge all leaders in past Coups?

That section has nothing to do with coups previous to 2006.

My question is, if they remove that clause, can they actually charge the leaders of the 2006 coup? Is that like changing the law to say that the speed limit is 60 km/h, and charging everyone that was over 60 km/h before the law was passed.

Gee, that kind of sounds like how they convicted Thaksin.

Yet aother poster who is clearly mistaken / ill-infomed, or simply enjoys telling untruths about how / why the paymaster was given a two year jail sentence.

[scorecard]

Somsak says:

Q : Please analyse why opponents see amending section 309 as being linked to Thaksin?

A : All sides must reduce their stubbornness and personal interests. As for section 309, it has been cited with misgiving. It's untrue that Thaksin will benefit from it and escape from his two-year prison sentence, as charged by the Democrat Party, as legal sentences cannot be undone retroactively.

Section 309

(protecting coup makers)

has always been used to destroy [the] People's Power Party.

Comment:

- If section 309 is removed, then we need to see another or an enhanced section which strongly stops / prohibits leaders / individuals / parties from gaining too much power.

The most obvious should be a limit of 4 years for one leader who cannot ever be re-elected (no matter what the process of deciding which party / which coalition / which leaders is.

Also let's see the Electoral Commission become much more professional and with more teeth, and staffed by credible people, and electoral laws which can easily identify and punish vote buying.

Also let's see electoral laws which require that parties have a detailed and publically broadcast manifesto.

And electoral laws which require a number of forms of public debate, with activities (by law) which require active public participation.

And electoral laws which require that all materials handed out by parties / candidates are filed with the electoral commission and put on a public website.

- Somsak says removing section 309 will not cancel the 2 year convicion of the paymaster.

- Meanwhile there is renewed push for amnesty (as a seperate action to changing the constitution), which no doubt would include the paymaster.

- And you can bet your bottom dollar there is already detailed back room discussion of other strategies which could whitewash the paymaster, if needed.

- Somsak says: Section 309 (protecting coup makers) has always been used to destroy [the] People's Power Party.

Well sorry mr somsak, your not being balanced in that statement: the last coup makers tried to reinstate the Peoples Power, and fairly quickly. Unfortunately they were inept at this task.

Beware of the tricks behind the smokescreen.

It is a sad commentary regarding reconciliation when people oppose reconciliation and amnesty because ONE person they don't like might get amnesty, also. Those people are blackmailing and holding the entire country hostage to their neroutic hatred for one person. Get over it....move on.

Or to put it another way...... it's even sadder that the reconcilation of an entire country is put in jeopardy for the sake for just one man.

Or to put it another way...... you would endorse a scenario whereby the leeches and thugs can quickly get back to the feeding frenzy that they paid for when they made their deposit to join the 'get real rich real quick club', no credentials or capabilities needed, lack of morals and lack of any respect for the law a plus and main rule - keep your mouth shut.

[daboyz1]

Let's see if the coup makers take a runner? Not likely. Regardless of what side you take in this political mess, one fact remains. Only one person ran away to avoid the justice system.

[kimamey]

Somsak Kiartsuranon "The Hammer Man" he holds a Bachelor's degree from the Khon Kaen University, and a Master's degree from the Chulalongkorn University in engineering. No background in constitutional law so I guess we can take his statement as uneducated opinion not a statement of fact.

Correct as to education. However, PM Abhisit had no formal education in fiscal policy or law and yet there he was initiating fiscal policy and laws. Same for the current PM, right? The Speaker is served by qualified departmental staff and has access to outside legal counsel. He will have been briefed on the salient constitutional law issues. Please do not make the assumption that he is not informed. Considering the fact that the man is far better educated than the typical TVFer, why denigrate him , yet offer your uninformed opinion of how senior officials set policy?

Abhisit does have a degree in economics and politics which would seem relevant. However it's not likely that any politician will be educated in every aspect involved in running a country so as you say they have to rely on advice from experts.

[LaoPo]

Quite right.

Coup makers should not be above the law. Neither should any politicians convicted of crimes against the state.

I agree; the interesting question is: which Court and during which period politicians were convicted and for which kind of crimes during the Generals regime?

Were all those Courts and their members absolutely impartial and not influenced by whomever?

Interesting but rhetorical question, of course, since nobody is able to answer that, except the Courts; but we all believe the Courts are impartial, don't we?

Look at all the present accusations vice versa by all parties and politicians.

This bunch of politicians, past and present, is worse than putting your hands in a wasps nest.

You will get bitten, one way or another.

It's all about power and money or money and power, whatever comes first.

[whybother]

Quite right.

Coup makers should not be above the law. Neither should any politicians convicted of crimes against the state.

I agree; the interesting question is: which Court and during which period politicians were convicted and for which kind of crimes during the Generals regime?

Were all those Courts and their members absolutely impartial and not influenced by whomever?

Interesting but rhetorical question, of course, since nobody is able to answer that, except the Courts; but we all believe the Courts are impartial, don't we?

Look at all the present accusations vice versa by all parties and politicians.

This bunch of politicians, past and present, is worse than putting your hands in a wasps nest.

You will get bitten, one way or another.

It's all about power and money or money and power, whatever comes first.

I don't remember anyone being convicted during the junta regime. Maybe someone knows otherwise?

Sent from my HTC phone.

[Jim walker]

It will change nothing scrapping article 309, people with money are above the law in Thailand and that’s a fact that will not change, wealthy Thai people can get of with murder in this backward country.

[LaoPo]

My question is, if they remove that clause, can they actually charge the leaders of the 2006 coup? Is that like changing the law to say that the speed limit is 60 km/h, and charging everyone that was over 60 km/h before the law was passed.

You want to compare speeding limits with the actions of Coup Leaders?

hmmm

[LaoPo]

Of course the Coup Makers cannot be above the law. NEVER!

Look at Chile, Greece, Egypt the Philippines, Indonesia, Iraq, Tunisia, Lybia and now Syria and many more examples of coup makers and/or tyrants who twisted the laws and constitutions to their own will and benefit

One way or another, the people and democracy will always call them to stand trial and explain their moves, never mind the people who voted "yes" for the amendment of the 2007 charter which was misleading in the first place but drafted solely for the benefit of the Coup Makers.

JUSTICE IS CALLING!

Have to tell you they already are. It's in the constitution

Exactly; the constitution of the Coup Makers...declaring themselves "above the law".

Sooner or later that will be changed in an amendment to the Constitution.

Or have people forgotten about the Generals in Argentina who declared themselves above all laws also?

Very similar to what we had with Thaksin.

That doesn't make sense. Thaksin didn't change the Constitution, the Coup Makers who threw him out did.

Also, comparing Thaksin with the situation in "Chile, Greece, Egypt the Philippines, Indonesia, Iraq, Tunisia, Lybia and now Syria..." is like comparing rice with potatoes, oranges with bananas and the like.

This topic is about the amendment of the Constitution and the the Coup Makers can NOT be above the Thai law, nevermind the outcome of the voting.

NOBODY can declare himself or a group, above any countries law but I know...T.I.T.

That means also that another government can re-write or amend the present Consitution.....I know, that's Thailand also.

[Time Traveller]

Well three questions.

1 If the 1997 charter was so wonderful how did Thaksin manage to come so close to being a dictator?

2 He states

" As for the reconciliation bill, it will be considered when it's appropriate.

Appropriate for what. Would not Reconciliation be appropriate today?

Or is it inconvenient to the PT at this time.

Makes one wonder what the conditions are that would make it appropriate.

3

He states

Q : Do you think a new charter can reduce or solve political conflicts?

A : Political conflicts will not perish no matter what. But we can reduce it to a minimum by adhering to what is right and just. So the charter must be right and just and not enable one side to do whatever and consider it right and vice versa.

Is he saying that what the PT is doing now will be made wrong?

1. Because he had almost universal approval, at least initially. But more importantly do you think because the constitution had problems it should just be torn up by the side with the guns?

2. Both sides want reconciliation because both sides committed serious crimes. We all know who in the constitution is above the law. By starting to charge people like Abhisit with crimes is a start towards a rule of law where thais all face the same law and no one has the power to make or break governments by being above the law. That is the essence of the reason to change the constitution

3. Seems just like a general question. A better constitution would mean all face the same law. As Thailand is feudal country where peasants still support the traditional hierarchy it's unlikely thailand will ever change. As bad as Thaksin was, even if he did commit crimes, he was the only leader that tried to get the peasants to change the way they think. This means "invisible hands" should not be involved with military over throwing of civilian governments that were elected by the people. The choice is either democracy or totalitarian rule by hereditary leaders behind the scenes. Sure you do get some bad leaders in a democracy, but they don't stay in power for decades.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Time Traveller

[OzMick]

1. Because he had almost universal approval, at least initially. But more importantly do you think because the constitution had problems it should just be torn up by the side with the guns?

2. Both sides want reconciliation because both sides committed serious crimes. We all know who in the constitution is above the law. By starting to charge people like Abhisit with crimes is a start towards a rule of law where thais all face the same law and no one has the power to make or break governments by being above the law. That is the essence of the reason to change the constitution

3. Seems just like a general question. A better constitution would mean all face the same law. As Thailand is feudal country where peasants still support the traditional hierarchy it's unlikely thailand will ever change. As bad as Thaksin was, even if he did commit crimes, he was the only leader that tried to get the peasants to change the way they think. This means "invisible hands" should not be involved with military over throwing of civilian governments that were elected by the people. The choice is either democracy or totalitarian rule by hereditary leaders behind the scenes. Sure you do get some bad leaders in a democracy, but they don't stay in power for decades.

" Sure you do get some bad leaders in a democracy, but they don't stay in power for decades."

That might be true in a real democracy, but Thaksin planned to do EXACTLY that in Thailand

[waza]

"That doesn't make sense. Thaksin didn't change the Constitution, the Coup Makers who threw him out did.

Also, comparing Thaksin with the situation in "Chile, Greece, Egypt the Philippines, Indonesia, Iraq, Tunisia, Lybia and now Syria..." is like comparing rice with potatoes, oranges with bananas and the like.

This topic is about the amendment of the Constitution and the the Coup Makers can NOT be above the Thai law, nevermind the outcome of the voting.

NOBODY can declare himself or a group, above any countries law but I know...T.I.T.

That means also that another government can re-write or amend the present Consitution.....I know, that's Thailand also." LaoPo

But Thaksin did exploit loop holes in the 1997 constitution to pervert the intent of what was otherwise the most democratic one Thaland has had. The 2007 rewrite was an attempt closed those loophole as well as giving the coup leaders (now Thaksins allies) amnesty.

Edited December 31, 2012 by waza

[animatic]

Somsak Kiartsuranon "The Hammer Man" he holds a Bachelor's degree from the Khon Kaen University, and a Master's degree from the Chulalongkorn University in engineering. No background in constitutional law so I guess we can take his statement as uneducated opinion not a statement of fact.

Correct as to education. However, PM Abhisit had no formal education in fiscal policy or law and yet there he was initiating fiscal policy and laws. Same for the current PM, right? The Speaker is served by qualified departmental staff and has access to outside legal counsel. He will have been briefed on the salient constitutional law issues. Please do not make the assumption that he is not informed. Considering the fact that the man is far better educated than the typical TVFer, why denigrate him , yet offer your uninformed opinion of how senior officials set policy?

I quote you:

"...PM Abhisit had no formal education in fiscal policy or law and yet there he was initiating fiscal policy and laws.... "

Emphasis mine.

Response : Wrong.

PM Abhisit had an Oxford interdisciplinary degree tuned to national leadership,

which included a strong Fiscal Policy and Law component. Plus a Masters in Economics, and a BA in Law.

Making him more then uniquely qualified, compared to most all his contemporaries to understand the

width and breadth of all things a government head must deal with.

And that job ALWAYS has huge fiscal policy aspects in any and all nations.

" Mark A. Vejjajiva^[19] was born in Wallsend, Newcastle upon Tyne, England,

attended Eton College (where he was known as "Veggie" amongst his peers),^[20]

and earned a bachelor's degree in philosophy, politics and economics(PPE), first class honors,

and a master's degree in economics from St John's College, Oxford.

He also received a bachelor's degree in law from Thailand's Ramkhamhaeng University, "

If you must spout stuff, at least try and be partly informed about it.

Edited December 31, 2012 by metisdead

[scorecard]

Well three questions.

1 If the 1997 charter was so wonderful how did Thaksin manage to come so close to being a dictator?

2 He states

" As for the reconciliation bill, it will be considered when it's appropriate.

Appropriate for what. Would not Reconciliation be appropriate today?

Or is it inconvenient to the PT at this time.

Makes one wonder what the conditions are that would make it appropriate.

3

He states

Q : Do you think a new charter can reduce or solve political conflicts?

A : Political conflicts will not perish no matter what. But we can reduce it to a minimum by adhering to what is right and just. So the charter must be right and just and not enable one side to do whatever and consider it right and vice versa.

Is he saying that what the PT is doing now will be made wrong?

1. Because he had almost universal approval, at least initially. But more importantly do you think because the constitution had problems it should just be torn up by the side with the guns?

2. Both sides want reconciliation because both sides committed serious crimes. We all know who in the constitution is above the law. By starting to charge people like Abhisit with crimes is a start towards a rule of law where thais all face the same law and no one has the power to make or break governments by being above the law. That is the essence of the reason to change the constitution

3. Seems just like a general question. A better constitution would mean all face the same law. As Thailand is feudal country where peasants still support the traditional hierarchy it's unlikely thailand will ever change. As bad as Thaksin was, even if he did commit crimes, he was the only leader that tried to get the peasants to change the way they think. This means "invisible hands" should not be involved with military over throwing of civilian governments that were elected by the people. The choice is either democracy or totalitarian rule by hereditary leaders behind the scenes. Sure you do get some bad leaders in a democracy, but they don't stay in power for decades.

'As bad as Thaksin was, even if he did commit crimes, he was the only leader that tried to get the peasants to change the way they think.'

What do you mean, please share.

[animatic]

Well three questions.

1 If the 1997 charter was so wonderful how did Thaksin manage to come so close to being a dictator?

2 He states

" As for the reconciliation bill, it will be considered when it's appropriate.

Appropriate for what. Would not Reconciliation be appropriate today?

Or is it inconvenient to the PT at this time.

Makes one wonder what the conditions are that would make it appropriate.

3

He states

Q : Do you think a new charter can reduce or solve political conflicts?

A : Political conflicts will not perish no matter what. But we can reduce it to a minimum by adhering to what is right and just. So the charter must be right and just and not enable one side to do whatever and consider it right and vice versa.

Is he saying that what the PT is doing now will be made wrong?

1. Because he had almost universal approval, at least initially. But more importantly do you think because the constitution had problems it should just be torn up by the side with the guns?

2. Both sides want reconciliation because both sides committed serious crimes. We all know who in the constitution is above the law. By starting to charge people like Abhisit with crimes is a start towards a rule of law where thais all face the same law and no one has the power to make or break governments by being above the law. That is the essence of the reason to change the constitution

3. Seems just like a general question. A better constitution would mean all face the same law. As Thailand is feudal country where peasants still support the traditional hierarchy it's unlikely thailand will ever change. As bad as Thaksin was, even if he did commit crimes, he was the only leader that tried to get the peasants to change the way they think. This means "invisible hands" should not be involved with military over throwing of civilian governments that were elected by the people. The choice is either democracy or totalitarian rule by hereditary leaders behind the scenes. Sure you do get some bad leaders in a democracy, but they don't stay in power for decades.

'As bad as Thaksin was, even if he did commit crimes, he was the only leader that tried to get the peasants to change the way they think.'

What do you mean, please share.

It would appear, you can 'commit crimes in office IF you change the way peasants think'.

Seems to be pretty hinky that theory.

[whybother]

My question is, if they remove that clause, can they actually charge the leaders of the 2006 coup? Is that like changing the law to say that the speed limit is 60 km/h, and charging everyone that was over 60 km/h before the law was passed.

You want to compare speeding limits with the actions of Coup Leaders?

hmmm

No, I want to compare circumstances of changing a law.

[scorecard]

Well three questions.

1 If the 1997 charter was so wonderful how did Thaksin manage to come so close to being a dictator?

2 He states

" As for the reconciliation bill, it will be considered when it's appropriate.

Appropriate for what. Would not Reconciliation be appropriate today?

Or is it inconvenient to the PT at this time.

Makes one wonder what the conditions are that would make it appropriate.

3

He states

Q : Do you think a new charter can reduce or solve political conflicts?

A : Political conflicts will not perish no matter what. But we can reduce it to a minimum by adhering to what is right and just. So the charter must be right and just and not enable one side to do whatever and consider it right and vice versa.

Is he saying that what the PT is doing now will be made wrong?

1. Because he had almost universal approval, at least initially. But more importantly do you think because the constitution had problems it should just be torn up by the side with the guns?

2. Both sides want reconciliation because both sides committed serious crimes. We all know who in the constitution is above the law. By starting to charge people like Abhisit with crimes is a start towards a rule of law where thais all face the same law and no one has the power to make or break governments by being above the law. That is the essence of the reason to change the constitution

3. Seems just like a general question. A better constitution would mean all face the same law. As Thailand is feudal country where peasants still support the traditional hierarchy it's unlikely thailand will ever change. As bad as Thaksin was, even if he did commit crimes, he was the only leader that tried to get the peasants to change the way they think. This means "invisible hands" should not be involved with military over throwing of civilian governments that were elected by the people. The choice is either democracy or totalitarian rule by hereditary leaders behind the scenes. Sure you do get some bad leaders in a democracy, but they don't stay in power for decades.

'As bad as Thaksin was, even if he did commit crimes, he was the only leader that tried to get the peasants to change the way they think.'

What do you mean, please share.

Dear time traveller, would love to read your thoughts on this, please share. And perhaps you would like to comment on the following, starting with your words:

Your point 1. '1. Because he had almost universal approval, at least initially. But more importantly do you think because the constitution had problems it should just be torn up by the side with the guns?'

A. 'Because he almost universal approval, at least initially'. Well you seem to have forgotten that this was achieved through massive cash vote buying and popular policies, which did gain large numbers of votes.

Ethical? I think not.

Clever, well some would try to say the man is very smart. In fact the vote buying / popular policies is a very simple equation, not rocket science. What is more relevant is that many people would not go this route because it's simply unethical and is also an exercise in nasty mass manipulation of very large numbers of unaware people. A few people would see it as unethical but who cares. And some would rush to engage in this appraoch because they just don't care - as long as it achives my aims, go for it.

Funny how one aligned party has been disbanded twice for massive vote buying. And let me hasten to add that all parties are guilty, to different degress of engaging in vote buying, none of which is ultimately acceptable.

But one man ramped it up like lightening, openly destroyed the check and balance mechanisms, gagged the media, moved family members (totally unqualified / totally inexperienced) into key strategic positions and put yes men into many more positions. And was moving fast towards creating a dictatorship. Ultimately he got some very strong negative reactions

B. 'But more importantly do you think because the constitution had problems it should just be torn up by the side with the guns?'

Well many see this in a very different way, the military didn't 'tear up' the existing constitution, however the coup leaders did want to change the constitution to gain better protection (for Thailand / all Thai people - not for the specific interests of the miliitary) from vote buying / much stronger punishment for vote buying,

In my humble view there's nothing wrong with that, not at all. (But I will also add that they didn't go far enough and make enough gains on these points.)

Whats' your view?

Edited December 31, 2012 by scorecard