Yingluck: We Will Seek Consensus On Constitution

[webfact]

CHARTER REVIEW

PM: We'll seek consensus on constitution

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has downplayed concerns that changing the Constitution will cause turmoil, saying efforts will be made in the coming year to engage the public to reach a consensus ahead of the actual rewriting.

Yingluck argues that the new charter will not be ready for enactment within a year as has been speculated and that charter amendments are not being designed to grant amnesty to her brother, fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

"At this juncture, the government-appointed working group is conducting a review before recommending a best option on how to amend the charter," she said.

One of the options is to hold a referendum vote before activating the charter rewriting process, she said. Should this option be chosen, the working group will outline how the vote should be organised.

Other options include bypassing the referendum and just amending provision by provision in lieu of an overhaul of the whole Constitution. If the referendum is bypassed, Parliament would cast the final vote on the charter amendment bill to pave the way for formation of a charter drafting assembly.

The prime minister said her government wants to promulgate a people's charter to replace the one overseen by coup-makers.

She claimed that critics should not draw a hasty conclusion about an ulterior motive to rescue Thaksin from his legal predicament because no one in the government or the opposition could wield influence over charter writers, elected to form the CDA.

"I call on all sides to think hard about the end result - what the people will gain from the new charter - rather than bickering about the process of rewriting."

She voiced optimism that the country would eventually push through an improved charter after overcoming differences over the rewriting format.

While conceding that Thaksin had his ideas on the matter, she said her government would finalise its decision after factoring in the opinions of all sides.

The charter amendments might take years to complete and next year would be just the beginning of change, she said.

Senate Speaker Nikom Wairatpanij said he expected the government to choose the least controversial option to push for charter change.

Nikom said the Senate would be willing to support the option that leads to social peace, reminding the government that senators would not condone any bullying tactics.

The holding of a referendum might be risky but to compensate, the authorities could step up an awareness campaign to sway public sentiment, he said, adding that this may be the only way to reconcile differences over a charter rewrite.

Democrat MP Ong-art Klampai-boon said the main opposition party would closely monitor government efforts to amend the charter. He said he had doubts that the government could build a consensus on the planned charter amendments.

-- The Nation 2012-12-31

[waza]

Sounds good in theory, I wonder how it will go in practice. Or maybe its all a rues to divert attention from the corrupt self enriching schemes the government has in place.

[looping]

Once they manage to pin something on Abhisit it will be much easier to have a charter which 'benefits all', not just her brother. I guess that's what they have to wait for, a 'solid' conviction to balance out Thaksin's. I wouldn't be surprised if Abhisit ends up in jail before a deal is reached to bring Thaksin back scott free. Very sad.

[Thait Spot]

How will anyone, who isn't a politician, benefit from any constitutional change?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[fareastguy]

Quote:

"At this juncture, the government-appointed working group is conducting a review before recommending a best option on how to amend the charter," she said

The problem at the moment facing this farce is not the best option on how to amend the current charter as Yingluk states.. it's on what is to be amended that people are waiting for.

If the government actually came out and stated the individual articles that were to be dropped or amended & what are the new articles to be included then people could make the necessary judgments in whichever fashion was best suited, a referendum or other means.

[yoshiwara]

Loose translation: We are still having difficulty making constitutional changes explicitly benefiting Thakin without appearing to do so.

[Thai at Heart]

Seek and ye shall find huh?

How does consensus translate in Thai? Divide and conquer?

[Payboy]

A "con" on the "con". Not a bad idea.

[jerrysteve]

No doubt SHE will Seek the Consensus with HER dearly Beloved Criminal Brother....FIRST & Foremost!

[bigbamboo]

But we had a 'peoples charter' before with all sorts of lovely checks and balances in it to keep the politicians in line only for it to be trampled over by the PM at the time resulting in a coup and the subsequent six years and counting of conflict.

Surely we don't want that happening all over again?

[RisqEM]

I call for n impartial group with no conflict of interest to examine this. Oh wait!! The gov't is full of biased people led by the one person with the most conflict of interest!!!

Good luck Thailand!!! Lor knows you need it!

[khunken]

As this government, both collectively & individually, has stated many times that their aim is to bring big bro' back without facing the courts, how do they aim to do it? Methinks that the Yingluck statement has more than a few 'white lies'.

[rubl]

We seek consensus just like we seek reconciliation and amnesty for all, except for k. Abhisit and k. Suthep of course. But then that should be obvious to all.

Unity, reviewing the best way to push this through, all legally, listening to all and accepting advise from the knowledgeble

I call on all sides to think hard about the end result - what the people will gain from the new charter

One of these days even the government will have thought of all those things the people will/might/should gain, I think

[EarthAlien]

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has downplayed concerns that changing the Constitution will cause turmoil

Well I hope she remembers that comment if martial law or civil war ever break out because of it.

[muttley]

Sounds good in theory, I wonder how it will go in practice. Or maybe its all a rues to divert attention from the corrupt self enriching schemes the government has in place.

You've changed your tune:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/607723-road-ahead-for-charter-reform-is-a-minefield-thai-talk/#entry5966724

[muttley]

Seek and ye shall find huh?

How does consensus translate in Thai? Divide and conquer?

If people would read the second reading of the constitution amendment bill they would be more aware of the constitution amendment process and how the formation of a CDA would be far more democratic than the other option thrown up by the constitutional court i.e. change the constitution section by section in parliament with no say by the thai citizens in its creation.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/607723-road-ahead-for-charter-reform-is-a-minefield-thai-talk/#entry5968047

[muttley]

But we had a 'peoples charter' before with all sorts of lovely checks and balances in it to keep the politicians in line only for it to be trampled over by the PM at the time resulting in a coup and the subsequent six years and counting of conflict.

Surely we don't want that happening all over again?

It wasn't the PM that ripped up the Peoples Charter without a choice was it. You can thank the coup for that, and the resultant nepotism caused by the Senate and Judges voting each other in thus creating too much power in the hands of the Judges. What's it to be, Rule of Law or Rule by Law?

[waza]

Sounds good in theory, I wonder how it will go in practice. Or maybe its all a rues to divert attention from the corrupt self enriching schemes the government has in place.

You've changed your tune:

http://www.thaivisa....k/#entry5966724

How so? This speech isnt a concise road map for constitutional change just a lot of speculation about what could happen. More sound bites and very little substance that why it may be more window dressing covering the real agenda. I personally believe there is no need to rewrite the constitution and doing so is causing further disunity and turmoil in Thai society all for the benefit of 1 criminal.

"While conceding that Thaksin had his ideas on the matter, she said her government would finalise its decision after factoring in the opinions of all sides".

Yingluck's rivals see her as a novelty people will grow tired of if more problems arise from the government's pursuit of reconciliation and constitutional changes, and bringing Thaksin back, that she has managed to distance herself from up to now.

Edited January 1, 2013 by waza

[bigbamboo]

But we had a 'peoples charter' before with all sorts of lovely checks and balances in it to keep the politicians in line only for it to be trampled over by the PM at the time resulting in a coup and the subsequent six years and counting of conflict.

Surely we don't want that happening all over again?

It wasn't the PM that ripped up the Peoples Charter without a choice was it. You can thank the coup for that, and the resultant nepotism caused by the Senate and Judges voting each other in thus creating too much power in the hands of the Judges. What's it to be, Rule of Law or Rule by Law?

Yes it was. However much you love and support Thaksin it cannot be denied he systematically took apart the failsafe mechanisms of the 1997 charter as he became 'Thailand's CEO'. Basically he went to far and then we had the coup. Messing with the military promotion process didn't help either.

Edited January 1, 2013 by bigbamboo

[waza]

But we had a 'peoples charter' before with all sorts of lovely checks and balances in it to keep the politicians in line only for it to be trampled over by the PM at the time resulting in a coup and the subsequent six years and counting of conflict.

Surely we don't want that happening all over again?

It wasn't the PM that ripped up the Peoples Charter without a choice was it. You can thank the coup for that, and the resultant nepotism caused by the Senate and Judges voting each other in thus creating too much power in the hands of the Judges. What's it to be, Rule of Law or Rule by Law?

Yes it was. However much you love and support Thaksin it cannot be denied he systematically took apart the failsafe mechanisms of the 1997 charter as he became 'Thailand's CEO'. Basically he went to far and then we had the coup. Messing with the military promotion process didn't help either.

Ah the good old Thaksinocracy.

[rubl]

But we had a 'peoples charter' before with all sorts of lovely checks and balances in it to keep the politicians in line only for it to be trampled over by the PM at the time resulting in a coup and the subsequent six years and counting of conflict.

Surely we don't want that happening all over again?

It wasn't the PM that ripped up the Peoples Charter without a choice was it. You can thank the coup for that, and the resultant nepotism caused by the Senate and Judges voting each other in thus creating too much power in the hands of the Judges. What's it to be, Rule of Law or Rule by Law?

'ripped up the people's charter'? You mean the differences between the 1997 and the 2007 version?

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

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

Plus some lawyer organisation's comments

"Deconstructing Thailand's (New) Eighteenth Constitution"

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

[muttley]

But we had a 'peoples charter' before with all sorts of lovely checks and balances in it to keep the politicians in line only for it to be trampled over by the PM at the time resulting in a coup and the subsequent six years and counting of conflict.

Surely we don't want that happening all over again?

It wasn't the PM that ripped up the Peoples Charter without a choice was it. You can thank the coup for that, and the resultant nepotism caused by the Senate and Judges voting each other in thus creating too much power in the hands of the Judges. What's it to be, Rule of Law or Rule by Law?

Yes it was. However much you love and support Thaksin it cannot be denied he systematically took apart the failsafe mechanisms of the 1997 charter as he became 'Thailand's CEO'. Basically he went to far and then we had the coup. Messing with the military promotion process didn't help either.

You won't win arguments with me by stating that I love and support thaksin just because I happen to have a different view to things than you - havent you lot understood that some people think in a different way to you. Just because you think you are right and know the truth doesn't mean that you are or do.

The failsafe to the constitution is an election. Coups are a threat to the constitution. if someone is perceived as a threat to the nation and its constitution you have an election. If you don't understand that basic tenet of democracy what hope is there.

There were elections due in April. You are just parroting Abhisit

Abhisit said that the elections "lacked legitimacy' and were an attempt by Thaksin to "divert public attention." from the Shin Corp scandal.

"Boycotting the poll is one option but the parties still have to explore other possibilities allowed by the constitution," he said. Thaksin's behaviour was "exposing the country to a new political system, the Thaksin system, which bent the constitution,". Abhisit said. "The charter was once the people's charter. Now it has been hijacked."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2006

The constitution was only hijacked by the Junta - and that came about because of the cowardly abhisit and other minority parties boycott of a legitimate election thus creating a constitutional crisis.

[waza]

Very emotive words there muttley, the use of histrionics cant cloak your lack of facts. The reality is "Thaksinocracy" mark 1 had pervert the essence of the 1997 constitution and was attempting to change Thai law to justify his corrupt practices, This combined with the Dems boycott of the election, the yellowshirts demonstrations, Thaksins delay in stepping down as caretaker PM and the rumours of the Finland Plot all added to the constitutional and social crisis that caused the coup.

Edited January 1, 2013 by waza

[slapout]

In my opinion, no matter which side of the fence you argue from, we can see the direct results of Thaksin and his cronies at the helm of Thai politics/government. It would appear that very little has been done, that resulted in benfit for, the majority of those living in Thailand. Would you trust the welfare of your family/belongings to the individuals that we see running this country? Its almost like they have adoped a scoarched earth policy in their effort to win, but neglect to give any warning to the direction of the wind, nor what sets between them and the target.

.Most of us were brought up to realize that we are not indispensible as a part of the big picture.

This concept seems to be lost on this colalition as well as those, from which this one was created and most definitely on 'big brother'. If this government is the best that Thailand can produce, offer or elect, it is a sad reflection on the progress of mankinds attempts at governing themselves..

[muttley]

Very emotive words there muttley, the use of histrionics cant cloak your lack of facts. The reality is "Thaksinocracy" mark 1 had pervert the essence of the 1997 constitution and was attempting to change Thai law to justify his corrupt practices, This combined with the Dems boycott of the election, the yellowshirts demonstrations, Thaksins delay in stepping down as caretaker PM and the rumours of the Finland Plot all added to the constitutional and social crisis that caused the coup.

The Finland Coup rumours were exactly that, rumours and not a fact. The PAD said they wouldn't accept the results of the elections but seeing as they were not participating in them through their political wing, the dems what difference would that make, the dems had already boycotted the April elections. Thaksin was legally caretaker PM until the second lot of elections were arranged for 2006 which the dems said they would contest If the people wanted thaksin out they had the chance to vote his party out in the forthcoming elections just weeks away, when the coup come along and ripped up the peoples charter, as I said.

So apart from the non existant Finland Coup, what were the facts that I was lacking?

[rubl]

Very emotive words there muttley, the use of histrionics cant cloak your lack of facts. The reality is "Thaksinocracy" mark 1 had pervert the essence of the 1997 constitution and was attempting to change Thai law to justify his corrupt practices, This combined with the Dems boycott of the election, the yellowshirts demonstrations, Thaksins delay in stepping down as caretaker PM and the rumours of the Finland Plot all added to the constitutional and social crisis that caused the coup.

The Finland Coup rumours were exactly that, rumours and not a fact. The PAD said they wouldn't accept the results of the elections but seeing as they were not participating in them through their political wing, the dems what difference would that make, the dems had already boycotted the April elections. Thaksin was legally caretaker PM until the second lot of elections were arranged for 2006 which the dems said they would contest If the people wanted thaksin out they had the chance to vote his party out in the forthcoming elections just weeks away, when the coup come along and ripped up the peoples charter, as I said.

So apart from the non existant Finland Coup, what were the facts that I was lacking?

Maybe not facts lacking, but a mingling of facts to make them somewhat unrecognisable from opinion.

Anyway the topic is on "seeking concensus on constitution". That's why I posted #21 so people may better understand the constitution. Surely regarding that post not even a mutt would condemn me for wasting space

[muttley]

Very emotive words there muttley, the use of histrionics cant cloak your lack of facts. The reality is "Thaksinocracy" mark 1 had pervert the essence of the 1997 constitution and was attempting to change Thai law to justify his corrupt practices, This combined with the Dems boycott of the election, the yellowshirts demonstrations, Thaksins delay in stepping down as caretaker PM and the rumours of the Finland Plot all added to the constitutional and social crisis that caused the coup.

The Finland Coup rumours were exactly that, rumours and not a fact. The PAD said they wouldn't accept the results of the elections but seeing as they were not participating in them through their political wing, the dems what difference would that make, the dems had already boycotted the April elections. Thaksin was legally caretaker PM until the second lot of elections were arranged for 2006 which the dems said they would contest If the people wanted thaksin out they had the chance to vote his party out in the forthcoming elections just weeks away, when the coup come along and ripped up the peoples charter, as I said.

So apart from the non existant Finland Coup, what were the facts that I was lacking?

Maybe not facts lacking, but a mingling of facts to make them somewhat unrecognisable from opinion.

Anyway the topic is on "seeking concensus on constitution". That's why I posted #21 so people may better understand the constitution. Surely regarding that post not even a mutt would condemn me for wasting space

If I didn't have an opinion when I posted facts all my posts would read like a wiki page. I'm sure some would appreciate that more judging from some of the "facts" floating around here.

I applaud your posting the links to the constitution. They should be kept as a sticky. Now if only people would read and understand them it would be useful. It isn't hard - there's not much legalese that you can't find out about.

[rubl]

Anyway the topic is on "seeking concensus on constitution". That's why I posted #21 so people may better understand the constitution. Surely regarding that post not even a mutt would condemn me for wasting space

If I didn't have an opinion when I posted facts all my posts would read like a wiki page. I'm sure some would appreciate that more judging from some of the "facts" floating around here.

I applaud your posting the links to the constitution. They should be kept as a sticky. Now if only people would read and understand them it would be useful. It isn't hard - there's not much legalese that you can't find out about.

If law was that easy to read AND interpret we wouldn't need lawyers or judges, or courts. IMHO only, that is.

[yoshiwara]

The constitution was only hijacked by the Junta - and that came about because of the cowardly abhisit and other minority parties boycott of a legitimate election thus creating a constitutional crisis.

If the dynamic behind changes to the constitution were specifically that of democratisation then everybody would be happy, but they are not. The waffle about democracy is purely a mirage of mealy-mouthed cover designed to provide cover for wiping out Thaksin's convictions and restoring his monies. The desperate wrapping of arguments in the democracy flag are thoroughly threadbare and the Thaksin apologists know it. However many cabinet reshuffles and insertion of family members into positions of power take place the attempts to restore Thaksin to a position of legitimacy repeatedly break down as they are exposed for what they are. Even crude intimidation has been tried with putting an armlock on Abhisit to support the failed initiatives and have it all waved through. Every time the question is asked as to the detail of the specific amendments the Thaksin crew go red-faced and retreat accordingly. The reds on the other hand aren't bothered by constitutional niceties and just think something can be rammed through, but all of this exposes the fact that Thaksin doesn't yet have untrammeled state power. So Yingluck plays nice about 'consensus'. As if we have seen any of that recently.

[muttley]

The constitution was only hijacked by the Junta - and that came about because of the cowardly abhisit and other minority parties boycott of a legitimate election thus creating a constitutional crisis.

If the dynamic behind changes to the constitution were specifically that of democratisation then everybody would be happy, but they are not. The waffle about democracy is purely a mirage of mealy-mouthed cover designed to provide cover for wiping out Thaksin's convictions and restoring his monies. The desperate wrapping of arguments in the democracy flag are thoroughly threadbare and the Thaksin apologists know it. However many cabinet reshuffles and insertion of family members into positions of power take place the attempts to restore Thaksin to a position of legitimacy repeatedly break down as they are exposed for what they are. Even crude intimidation has been tried with putting an armlock on Abhisit to support the failed initiatives and have it all waved through. Every time the question is asked as to the detail of the specific amendments the Thaksin crew go red-faced and retreat accordingly. The reds on the other hand aren't bothered by constitutional niceties and just think something can be rammed through, but all of this exposes the fact that Thaksin doesn't yet have untrammeled state power. So Yingluck plays nice about 'consensus'. As if we have seen any of that recently.

Have you read any of this thread and the way constitutional change is carried out?