Yingluck: 2006 Military Coup Makes Country Lose Opportunities; Thus Amendment Needed

[Thait Spot]

Well isn't this interesting. Yesterday those of you that commented were reasonable and rational. Today after reading one inoffensive talk by the PM you are back with your bad language and insults. God know's how long it is going to take for you guy's to realize that it is you that are the problem. You and Khun Abhisit. One illegal coups d'tete and you are so sure that you have Thailand by the throat. Thailand has a legitimate government that has an impressive and strong mandate. The Thai PM rules with the authority and dignity of the Monarchy. The current orderly conduct of government is something that you Democrat's don't seem to know anything about. It is this orderliness that is responsible for Thaland's gradual return to the World Stage with dignity.

Your visions are as strong as your French.

Try knitting

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[Thai at Heart]

Giving a view is not propaganda, if it is your view. One can claim it is misinformed, or inaccurate, but if you have no vested interest, it is not part of a strategy. Is he promoting a biased view in the article?

There are plenty of anti ptp pundits giving their opinions, that doesn't make their view propaganda.

By your definition all political comment its propaganda.

All comment which is not stated to be the view of the author, which is backed with unbias facts and figures is unscholarly. Therefore it is open to criticism by its' opponents.

What is taking place in Thai politics at the moment (the attempted use of political power and influence to absolve the criminal actions of another without proof of innosence) is illegal in most countries - fact.

The use of the court system to bog down the opponent is an American style of politics which is foreign to many, including myself and seems counter productive to the development of the country. This is something that for me personally is clouding my motivation to invest any small capital I have in the Kingdom.

Open discrimination against al foreigners, to varying degrees is another thing which unsettles me personally and makes me feel very unwelcome by the Thai establishment.

Of course it is open to criticism, but tarring it as blatent propaganda is hardly constructive. I can't find any reference that this guy has a vested interest in furthering the PTP cause, and the piece he wrote, shows why he considers the current constitution to not be democratic.

Now the facts of the matter are, that the way the thing was put together and the way it was voted on, wasn't ideal in giving the constitution complete legitimacy, but yes, it passed muster. Now, in and of itself, if a government wants to find a way to change a constitution, it should be able to with a referendum from the people. There are issues with the constitution that aren't ideal in my opinion, others think it is fine, but at the end of the day, if it passes muster at a referendum, if someone says the 2007 vote was legitimate (despite the limitations on campaigning etc, and formulating the drafting committee), how can one not accept any changes through referendum by the current government?

None of these are unreasonable views, although, i wouldn't go along with using the constitution to pardon Thaksin, but then, why should it be allowed that a coup maker can write his own get out clause when they break the law? Beacuse they have lots of guns? 1997 wasn't a perfect constitution, 2007 tightens things up, but was held under the cloud of the coup and the junta, so lets see what they come up with next.

[hellodolly]

Giving a view is not propaganda, if it is your view. One can claim it is misinformed, or inaccurate, but if you have no vested interest, it is not part of a strategy. Is he promoting a biased view in the article?

There are plenty of anti ptp pundits giving their opinions, that doesn't make their view propaganda.

By your definition all political comment its propaganda.

All comment which is not stated to be the view of the author, which is backed with unbias facts and figures is unscholarly. Therefore it is open to criticism by its' opponents.

What is taking place in Thai politics at the moment (the attempted use of political power and influence to absolve the criminal actions of another without proof of innosence) is illegal in most countries - fact.

The use of the court system to bog down the opponent is an American style of politics which is foreign to many, including myself and seems counter productive to the development of the country. This is something that for me personally is clouding my motivation to invest any small capital I have in the Kingdom.

Open discrimination against al foreigners, to varying degrees is another thing which unsettles me personally and makes me feel very unwelcome by the Thai establishment.

Well you are certainly rite and it is your right to put your money where ever you wish.

What I was thinking was that to be investing in Thailand you would be looking for a country with cheap labor and a growing economy. All though the economy will probably slow down now until all the problems that go along with the wage jump are ironed out.

What I was wondering what other country has the same to offer but has a better government. Most of them are far down the list of corruption.

[Buchholz]

I believe she forgets (conveniently) that if it had not been for the last coup Thailand would now be a dictatorship.

Isnt that PTP's real goal here... to undo that and set the train back on the dictatorship tracks?

It would seem so. Working back towards Thaksin's infamous 20 Year Rule Proclamation.

.

[Thai at Heart]

^^

Too many quotes again.

Yes, there was a state of emergency in a FEW parts of the country (& there still is). There was no campaigning at all - a very good move to prevent vote buying. And the army didn't say they would stay - they said another constitution would be adopted. Who appoints any committee? Just as in 1997 the existing government appointed it. You seem to be pushing PTP propaganda.

Yes, a referendum should now be called allowing the people to vote on whether they want a new constitution or not. Unfortunately, because PTP are worried that they won't get enough voters not to mention a 'yes', the have said they will ignore the result if they lose & move to a bit-by-bit amendment process - very democratic! Very Thaksin.

It was widely written at the time that the creation of the committee to create the draft was put together to the CNS wishes. Comparing it with how the 1997 one was put together, it was completely and utterly different. Not exactly the way it should be, and not how i would wish any committee to be put together to come up with any changes now. It was declared illegal to campaign for a "no" vote, which was ridiculous. It isn't that it is an inherently bad document, it is that it didn't go through a completely free debating process.

Funny you say that it was effective in stopping vote buying, didn't PPP under Samak win that election? Nice to know they apparently bought less votes that time. LOL

[Beng]

Yingluck, the reason the foreign community is losing confidence in Thailand is because:

1. You and your "team" are not capable of running this country.

2. Your government puts personal interest before national interest.

3. Whitewashing crimes is seen as something very undemocratic in the eyes of the developed world.

4. Abusing power to silence the oppositions is not very democratic neither.

Yiingluck, maybe the problems lies with you, your criminal brother and your self-serving government? Ever thought about that?

Well said

[muttley]

AI think the phrase might be "pro-PTP", and to suggest that it is propaganda, implies that it is in someway orchestrated falsehood.

A private individuals opinion can't really be construed as propaganda, it's just an opinion. Is he part of the PTP party, or managament, does he have a vested interest in PTP?

I'm not sure if you are misinterpreting my statement deliberately or not. Once more, assuming the latter, the propaganda is PTP's & yes, it is orchestrated by that party & the red-shirts. The writer - Mr Songkran - wrote a piece supporting (almost mirroring) that propaganda. Yes, it's his opinion but in my opinion it's not in any way original.

I have no idea if he is involved with PTP & it's totally irrelevant. That's not what I accused him of anyway.

So, if it was the other way opinionated, it would represent democrat propaganda?

prop·a·gan·da /ˌpräpəˈgandə/

Noun 1. Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. 2. The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.

Giving a view is not propaganda, if it is your view. One can claim it is misinformed, or inaccurate, but if you have no vested interest, it is not part of a strategy. Is he promoting a biased view in the article?

He claims in his opinion that the previous referendum was tainted because it was held under the junta. Not untrue at all

there are plenty of facts in his p piece that are completely true. If someone called me up and asked me for an opinion piece on the constitution and i give it, this doesn't make it propaganda.

There are plenty of anti ptp pundits giving their opinions, that doesn't make their view propaganda.

Ok, so you are just distorting what I said - no more pointless explanations.

As far as the existing constitution goes it was drafted by a committee (not by the 'junta') every bit as eminent as that which drafted the 1997 constitution. So, calling it a 'junta constitution' is rubbish. It was accepted by the Thai people in a referendum, which no previous constitution had been. IMO there is very little wrong with it & the push to amend it is purely to get the convicted ex-PM off his conviction & all the cases outstanding against him. Everything PTP & the red-shirts have said about the current constitution is propaganda which include lies about what their motive is for amending or rewriting it.

Can't you understand that writing to support propaganda is not in itself propaganda? It is, however mindless. Why do you keep repeating this misconception? I can only assume that you are just doing it for the fun of it because it's not a hard concept to grasp.

I think you're slightly naive to think that the the CDA comprised a variation of unbiased people as good as that of the 1997 version. I take it you have read and ignored the small paragraph in Wiki which pretty much sums up the one sided nature of the CDA formation:

"Under Interim Constitution articles 19 and 21, the CNS would appoint a 2000-member National Assembly which would in 7 days have to select 200 of its members to be candidates for the Constitution Drafting Assembly. Under charter articles 22 and 24, the CNS would select 100 of those candidates for royal appointment to the Assembly; it would also select the Assembly head. The Assembly would then appoint 25 of its members as constitution writers, with the CNS directly appointing 10 writers. This process effectively gave the junta complete control over the permanent constitution".

One tale by Andrew Walker gives some of the truth - Who is Okas Tepalakul? OT (for brevity) was one of those people plucked from the citizenry to be one of the 200 members of the CDA having been voted by the junta appointed National Assembly. He was interesting because he got the most votes (55)

"The Nation’s investigative journalists have been working overtime to compile the following profile:

… who is Okas and why did he receive the highest vote of 55, which ranked him as number one? No one seems to have a clue.

“How did he make it?” queried Maj Pol Gen Krerk Kalayanimitr, who received 13 votes and came in at number 69.

While The Nation couldn’t reach the 59-year-old Okas as of press time, his brief bio-data compiled by the Parliament, which organised the election, listed him as a businessman and owner of a provincial Japanese car dealership with an engineering degree from the prestigious Waseda University in Tokyo.

Okas is currently a member of the National Economic and Social Advisory Council. He was also in Class 12 of the National Defence College’s Joint State-Private Course,

and a classmate of the Council for National Security (CNS) chairman General Sonthi Boonyaratglin

.

Oh.

And as for your belief in the unstinted fairness of constitution referendum there are plenty of studies out there to explain how it wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination but you either haven't read them or have not been swayed by their powerful arguments.

I'll try once more with this from the highly respected Michael H Nelson's article regarding Thailand's Constitutional Referendum and

the Election of 2007.

"On the other hand, at the time of the referendum, Thailand had been under military rule since September 2006, with martial law in effect in a large number of provinces. Moreover, the drafting of a new constitution was part of the military coup plotters’ strategy of eradicating the so-called “Thaksin system.” From this perspective, the success of the referendum was not to be measured by its compliance with principles of direct democracy. Success here merely meant that the military and its numerous technocratic, bureaucratic, and academic collaborators could manage to render some semblance of legitimacy to their document by having it accepted in a popular vote. Therefore, measures had to be taken to prevent those groups who were against the draft constitution—primarily Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai Party—from derailing its passing in the referendum."

He goes on to record the ways this was done. And various other dirty tricks, even, as has been often said but denied by certain folk on here, that old chestnut that if you don't say Yes to this you won't get an election;

" In fact, the CDA itself seemed intentionally to attempt to deceive voters in order to make them vote “yes.” In a full-page advertisement campaign, the text read, “accept the new constitution so that Thailand would have an election.” This seemed to imply that there would not be an election if voters rejected the draft."

And then there was the fact that none of the referendum correspondence was translated into Malay but all the southern states voted Yes anyway, of course it was free and fair

[MAJIC]

Here we go: Change History to suit the cause,maybe she could change Thaksins non existant efforts at Democracy,while she is at it.

I guess she has forgotten the reason for the Coup,was entirely due to her Brothers flagrant abuse,and mismanagement,of the Country.

Never mind though, i'm sure the Red Shirts deadly and bloody hijack of Bangkok for 3 months in 2010 improved Thailands International image...................not!

Edited January 8, 2013 by MAJIC

[khunken]

^^

Too many quotes again.

Yes, there was a state of emergency in a FEW parts of the country (& there still is). There was no campaigning at all - a very good move to prevent vote buying. And the army didn't say they would stay - they said another constitution would be adopted. Who appoints any committee? Just as in 1997 the existing government appointed it. You seem to be pushing PTP propaganda.

Yes, a referendum should now be called allowing the people to vote on whether they want a new constitution or not. Unfortunately, because PTP are worried that they won't get enough voters not to mention a 'yes', the have said they will ignore the result if they lose & move to a bit-by-bit amendment process - very democratic! Very Thaksin.

It was widely written at the time that the creation of the committee to create the draft was put together to the CNS wishes. Comparing it with how the 1997 one was put together, it was completely and utterly different. Not exactly the way it should be, and not how i would wish any committee to be put together to come up with any changes now. It was declared illegal to campaign for a "no" vote, which was ridiculous. It isn't that it is an inherently bad document, it is that it didn't go through a completely free debating process.

Funny you say that it was effective in stopping vote buying, didn't PPP under Samak win that election? Nice to know they apparently bought less votes that time. LOL

You seem to have an innate ability to twist things around to you're way of thinking.

There was no difference between the way the constitution drafting committee was put together for the 1997 version & the current one. There was no campaigning in 2007 - either for yes or no. As for a debating process neither constitution went through that.

You, of course, ignore the vote. I didn't say that no campaigning in 2007 would reduce vote buying in future. It stopped vote buying in the vote for the 2007 referendum - don't twist my words.

Yes, Samak won the election based on the new constitution - so it was acceptable then, as it was for Somchai & then Yingluck. But it's not acceptable to PTP now & everyone knows why. If you feel that Thaksin shouldn't be whitewashed it's a bit of a conundrum to support PTP when that's their number one aim.

[Buchholz]

Yingluck, the reason the foreign community is losing confidence in Thailand is because:

1. You and your "team" are not capable of running this country.

2. Your government puts personal interest before national interest.

3. Whitewashing crimes is seen as something very undemocratic in the eyes of the developed world.

4. Abusing power to silence the oppositions is not very democratic neither.

Yiingluck, maybe the problems lies with you, your criminal brother and your self-serving government? Ever thought about that?

Well said

To add, what do these democratic countries have to say about someone ruling as a proxy for a convicted fugitive? What is their take on a proclaimed "clone" running a country?

.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Buchholz

[rubl]

of course it was free and fair

Once again, links to 1997 and 2007 constitution plus comments on the differences from a non-aligned, but legal view. So tell me, what is wrong with it, regarding it's contents, coverage, clarity, completeness, other?

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

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

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

[Thai at Heart]

^^

Too many quotes again.

Yes, there was a state of emergency in a FEW parts of the country (& there still is). There was no campaigning at all - a very good move to prevent vote buying. And the army didn't say they would stay - they said another constitution would be adopted. Who appoints any committee? Just as in 1997 the existing government appointed it. You seem to be pushing PTP propaganda.

Yes, a referendum should now be called allowing the people to vote on whether they want a new constitution or not. Unfortunately, because PTP are worried that they won't get enough voters not to mention a 'yes', the have said they will ignore the result if they lose & move to a bit-by-bit amendment process - very democratic! Very Thaksin.

It was widely written at the time that the creation of the committee to create the draft was put together to the CNS wishes. Comparing it with how the 1997 one was put together, it was completely and utterly different. Not exactly the way it should be, and not how i would wish any committee to be put together to come up with any changes now. It was declared illegal to campaign for a "no" vote, which was ridiculous. It isn't that it is an inherently bad document, it is that it didn't go through a completely free debating process.

Funny you say that it was effective in stopping vote buying, didn't PPP under Samak win that election? Nice to know they apparently bought less votes that time. LOL

You seem to have an innate ability to twist things around to you're way of thinking.

There was no difference between the way the constitution drafting committee was put together for the 1997 version & the current one. There was no campaigning in 2007 - either for yes or no. As for a debating process neither constitution went through that.

You, of course, ignore the vote. I didn't say that no campaigning in 2007 would reduce vote buying in future. It stopped vote buying in the vote for the 2007 referendum - don't twist my words.

Yes, Samak won the election based on the new constitution - so it was acceptable then, as it was for Somchai & then Yingluck. But it's not acceptable to PTP now & everyone knows why. If you feel that Thaksin shouldn't be whitewashed it's a bit of a conundrum to support PTP when that's their number one aim.

One was with a majority of those writing it found by vote from all the provinces, one was with a majority appointed by the cns.

2007

the CNS would select 100 of those candidates for royal appointment to the Assembly; it would also select the Assembly head. The Assembly would then appoint 25 of its members as constitution writers, with the CNS directly appointing 10 writers. This process effectively gave the junta complete control over the permanent constitution".

1997

The 1996 amendment called for the creation of an entirely new constitution by a 99-member Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA). Seventy-six members would be directly elected from each province and 23 members would be selected by the Parliament

http://en.wikipedia....rafting_process

How is that the same?

As for twisting my views, if you really believe that the 2007 constitution is a perfect document with no flaws, no possible accusation of bias in its construction, and no possible lack of credibility because of the way it was voted upon, it may be you who needs to broaden their views not me.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[muttley]

^^

Too many quotes again.

Yes, there was a state of emergency in a FEW parts of the country (& there still is). There was no campaigning at all - a very good move to prevent vote buying. And the army didn't say they would stay - they said another constitution would be adopted. Who appoints any committee? Just as in 1997 the existing government appointed it. You seem to be pushing PTP propaganda.

Yes, a referendum should now be called allowing the people to vote on whether they want a new constitution or not. Unfortunately, because PTP are worried that they won't get enough voters not to mention a 'yes', the have said they will ignore the result if they lose & move to a bit-by-bit amendment process - very democratic! Very Thaksin.

It was widely written at the time that the creation of the committee to create the draft was put together to the CNS wishes. Comparing it with how the 1997 one was put together, it was completely and utterly different. Not exactly the way it should be, and not how i would wish any committee to be put together to come up with any changes now. It was declared illegal to campaign for a "no" vote, which was ridiculous. It isn't that it is an inherently bad document, it is that it didn't go through a completely free debating process.

Funny you say that it was effective in stopping vote buying, didn't PPP under Samak win that election? Nice to know they apparently bought less votes that time. LOL

You seem to have an innate ability to twist things around to you're way of thinking.

There was no difference between the way the constitution drafting committee was put together for the 1997 version & the current one. There was no campaigning in 2007 - either for yes or no. As for a debating process neither constitution went through that.

You, of course, ignore the vote. I didn't say that no campaigning in 2007 would reduce vote buying in future. It stopped vote buying in the vote for the 2007 referendum - don't twist my words.

Yes, Samak won the election based on the new constitution - so it was acceptable then, as it was for Somchai & then Yingluck. But it's not acceptable to PTP now & everyone knows why. If you feel that Thaksin shouldn't be whitewashed it's a bit of a conundrum to support PTP when that's their number one aim.

Who's twisting words here - You just don't understand.

There was no difference between the way the constitution drafting committee was put together for the 1997 version & the current one

Have another look

2006/7

Under Interim Constitution articles 19 and 21, the CNS would appoint a 2000-member National Assembly which would in 7 days have to select 200 of its members to be candidates for the Constitution Drafting Assembly. Under charter articles 22 and 24, the CNS would select 100 of those candidates for royal appointment to the Assembly; it would also select the Assembly head. The Assembly would then appoint 25 of its members as constitution writers, with the CNS directly appointing 10 writers. This process effectively gave the junta complete control over the permanent constitution

1996/7

The 1996 amendment called for the creation of an entirely new constitution by a special committee outside the National Assembly. The Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) was formed with 99 members: seventy-six of them directly elected from each of the provinces and 23 qualified persons short-listed by the Parliament from academia and other sources

"There was no campaigning in 2007 - either for yes or no"

There is a lot of eminent people who will disagree with you on that, Michael H Nelson for one.

"As for a debating process neither constitution went through that"

What do you think the the people in the CDA's ( or in the 1996 CDA at least) did, write a section each without talking to each other?

[muttley]

of course it was free and fair

Once again, links to 1997 and 2007 constitution plus comments on the differences from a non-aligned, but legal view. So tell me, what is wrong with it, regarding it's contents, coverage, clarity, completeness, other?

http://www.asianlii....gis/const/1997/

http://www.asianlii....gis/const/2007/

http://www.thailawfo...sititution.html

What on earth do your questions have to do with my questioning the validity of the referendum vote rubl, you tell me?

[rubl]

of course it was free and fair

Once again, links to 1997 and 2007 constitution plus comments on the differences from a non-aligned, but legal view. So tell me, what is wrong with it, regarding it's contents, coverage, clarity, completeness, other?

http://www.asianlii....gis/const/1997/

http://www.asianlii....gis/const/2007/

http://www.thailawfo...sititution.html

What on earth do your questions have to do with my questioning the validity of the referendum vote rubl, you tell me?

Let's just say I'm happy that after a month of back-and-forth our creative PM has found the main reason why a rewrite of some laws (and the constitution) is necessary: Some foreigners don't like it and that keeps Thailand back.

As for the validity of the previous referendum, sorry off topic.

[muttley]

Yingluck, the reason the foreign community is losing confidence in Thailand is because:

1. You and your "team" are not capable of running this country.

2. Your government puts personal interest before national interest.

3. Whitewashing crimes is seen as something very undemocratic in the eyes of the developed world.

4. Abusing power to silence the oppositions is not very democratic neither.

Yiingluck, maybe the problems lies with you, your criminal brother and your self-serving government? Ever thought about that?

Well said

To add, what do these democratic countries have to say about someone ruling as a proxy for a convicted fugitive? What is their take on a proclaimed "clone" running a country?

.

I very much doubt there is any diplomatic ruling anywhere that covers your version of events. Where would you find such a country that is run like that? You of course would need to obtain internationally agreed definitions of how and when it would be possible to run a country like that.

Stop trolling.

[muttley]

of course it was free and fair

Once again, links to 1997 and 2007 constitution plus comments on the differences from a non-aligned, but legal view. So tell me, what is wrong with it, regarding it's contents, coverage, clarity, completeness, other?

http://www.asianlii....gis/const/1997/

http://www.asianlii....gis/const/2007/

http://www.thailawfo...sititution.html

What on earth do your questions have to do with my questioning the validity of the referendum vote rubl, you tell me?

Let's just say I'm happy that after a month of back-and-forth our creative PM has found the main reason why a rewrite of some laws (and the constitution) is necessary: Some foreigners don't like it and that keeps Thailand back.

As for the validity of the previous referendum, sorry off topic.

So off topic and pointless then?

[khunken]

^^

Too many quotes again.

Yes, there was a state of emergency in a FEW parts of the country (& there still is). There was no campaigning at all - a very good move to prevent vote buying. And the army didn't say they would stay - they said another constitution would be adopted. Who appoints any committee? Just as in 1997 the existing government appointed it. You seem to be pushing PTP propaganda.

Yes, a referendum should now be called allowing the people to vote on whether they want a new constitution or not. Unfortunately, because PTP are worried that they won't get enough voters not to mention a 'yes', the have said they will ignore the result if they lose & move to a bit-by-bit amendment process - very democratic! Very Thaksin.

It was widely written at the time that the creation of the committee to create the draft was put together to the CNS wishes. Comparing it with how the 1997 one was put together, it was completely and utterly different. Not exactly the way it should be, and not how i would wish any committee to be put together to come up with any changes now. It was declared illegal to campaign for a "no" vote, which was ridiculous. It isn't that it is an inherently bad document, it is that it didn't go through a completely free debating process.

Funny you say that it was effective in stopping vote buying, didn't PPP under Samak win that election? Nice to know they apparently bought less votes that time. LOL

You seem to have an innate ability to twist things around to you're way of thinking.

There was no difference between the way the constitution drafting committee was put together for the 1997 version & the current one. There was no campaigning in 2007 - either for yes or no. As for a debating process neither constitution went through that.

You, of course, ignore the vote. I didn't say that no campaigning in 2007 would reduce vote buying in future. It stopped vote buying in the vote for the 2007 referendum - don't twist my words.

Yes, Samak won the election based on the new constitution - so it was acceptable then, as it was for Somchai & then Yingluck. But it's not acceptable to PTP now & everyone knows why. If you feel that Thaksin shouldn't be whitewashed it's a bit of a conundrum to support PTP when that's their number one aim.

One was with a majority of those writing it found by vote from all the provinces, one was with a majority appointed by the cns.

2007

the CNS would select 100 of those candidates for royal appointment to the Assembly; it would also select the Assembly head. The Assembly would then appoint 25 of its members as constitution writers, with the CNS directly appointing 10 writers. This process effectively gave the junta complete control over the permanent constitution".

1997

The 1996 amendment called for the creation of an entirely new constitution by a 99-member Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA). Seventy-six members would be directly elected from each province and 23 members would be selected by the Parliament

http://en.wikipedia....rafting_process

How is that the same?

Why are you ignoring my comments about twisting my words? I could twist yours but I won't. There wasn't much difference as the 2007 committee wasn't selected by the 'junta' but by the assembly (the majority) & the rest by the 'junta' - not much difference really as in 1997 there was a similar mix of selection.

This discussion is at an end for me tonight- carry on if you wish & we'll see how the current 'democratic' regime handles the amendment or rewrite. The omens are not good.

[Thai at Heart]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Constitution_of_Thailand#cite_note-40

Democrat Party

The Democrat Party supported the draft constitution. Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said the Democrat Party considered the new constitution similar to the 1997 Constitution, but with improvements. "If we wanted to please the Council for National Security we would reject the draft so it could pick a charter of its own choosing. If we reject the draft, it will be like handing out power to the Council. We have come up with this stand because we care about the national interest and want democracy to be restored soon," he said.^[39]Acknowledging the flaws of the new Constitution, Abhisit has also proposed, along with asking for cooperation from other political parties, to amend the Constitution once he is in power.^[40]

Have never noticed this one before. And of course, he lost.......

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1655420,00.html

That leaves the Democrats in their strongest position since losing power to Thaksin back in 2001. Hardly a cocky politician, Abhisit is predicting success in December. "I believe that democracy will reward the Democrats," he says with a bashful grin. "Of course, you could say the same about the Democrats in America, too. Maybe we'll have both dreams come true."

The upshot: Thailand could soon return to days when weak coalition governments rose and fell with the predictability of the monsoons.

Abhisit proposes to fix that by amending the constitution should he assume the PM post. That could mean yet another referendum. "I have faith that the electorate will do what's right," he says, surprising words perhaps for a Bangkok patrician whose party was overwhelmed by Thaksin's populist tactics six years ago

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1655420,00.html#ixzz2HOjgsOQd

Isn't the internet a bummer. Every word, every sentiment, everything, preserved in perfect black and white.

[rubl]

Once again, links to 1997 and 2007 constitution plus comments on the differences from a non-aligned, but legal view. So tell me, what is wrong with it, regarding it's contents, coverage, clarity, completeness, other?

http://www.asianlii....gis/const/1997/

http://www.asianlii....gis/const/2007/

http://www.thailawfo...sititution.html

What on earth do your questions have to do with my questioning the validity of the referendum vote rubl, you tell me?

Let's just say I'm happy that after a month of back-and-forth our creative PM has found the main reason why a rewrite of some laws (and the constitution) is necessary: Some foreigners don't like it and that keeps Thailand back.

As for the validity of the previous referendum, sorry off topic.

So off topic and pointless then?

In this topic it is more to the point to discuss the reasons why the current constitution requires a rewrite. In terms of finer legal details and possibly referring to the 1997 version as well. As is in the topic title 'amendment needed'

To discuss the validity of the referendum on the 2007 constitution might be usefull in a separate topic, but in a topic with PM Tingluck stating an amendment to be needed we have an implicit acceptance of the current constitution as legal.

Mind you, you may be one of the foreigners who had a problem with the 2007 constitution and merely thereby create the need to amend it as mebntioned by our PM. Shame on you, you will lead this Nation to spend billions of Baht just to make you feel more happy

[Buchholz]

Let's just say I'm happy that after a month of back-and-forth our creative PM has found the main reason why a rewrite of some laws (and the constitution) is necessary: Some foreigners don't like it

Fabulously poignant..... As usual.

.

[Thai at Heart]

Why are you ignoring my comments about twisting my words? I could twist yours but I won't. There wasn't much difference as the 2007 committee wasn't selected by the 'junta' but by the assembly (the majority) & the rest by the 'junta' - not much difference really as in 1997 there was a similar mix of selection.

This discussion is at an end for me tonight- carry on if you wish & we'll see how the current 'democratic' regime handles the amendment or rewrite. The omens are not good.

Ok, well, shall we put on some rose tints, and say that the 2007 and 1997 committees were put together the same and lie to ourselves to make you feel better.

[Buchholz]

Yingluck, the reason the foreign community is losing confidence in Thailand is because:

1. You and your "team" are not capable of running this country.

2. Your government puts personal interest before national interest.

3. Whitewashing crimes is seen as something very undemocratic in the eyes of the developed world.

4. Abusing power to silence the oppositions is not very democratic neither.

Yiingluck, maybe the problems lies with you, your criminal brother and your self-serving government? Ever thought about that?

Well said

To add, what do these democratic countries have to say about someone ruling as a proxy for a convicted fugitive? What is their take on a proclaimed "clone" running a country?

.

I very much doubt there is any diplomatic ruling anywhere that covers your version of events. Where would you find such a country that is run like that? You of course would need to obtain internationally agreed definitions of how and when it would be possible to run a country like that.

Agreeably it is difficult to find another country run by a declared clone.

.

[Thai at Heart]

she would be outlawed by definition in many places

http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/countries-bans-human-cloning-andor-genetic-engineering

Countries with a ban on human cloning.

[philw]

She seems to be doing quite well.

Audiences with world leaders, growing economy, eminently re-electable, peace with Cambodia, growing economic and political stature within ASEAN, Active involvement in Myanmar, Foreign investment increasing, BOI approvals up, tourism up, domestic economy stable, apparent harmony with the Palace, Prem the Privy Council and the Military and last but not least increasing prosperity for the Thai citizen.

To paraphrase Churchil, "some chicken, some neck, some clone.........."

Not yet charged with murder, either..........

In response to bucholz

[rubl]

She seems to be doing quite well.

Audiences with world leaders, growing economy, eminently re-electable, peace with Cambodia, growing economic and political stature within ASEAN, Active involvement in Myanmar, Foreign investment increasing, BOI approvals up, tourism up, domestic economy stable, apparent harmony with the Palace, Prem the Privy Council and the Military and last but not least increasing prosperity for the Thai citizen.

To paraphrase Churchil, "some chicken, some neck, some clone.........."

Not yet charged with murder, either..........

In response to bucholz

Never mind, but emminently getting off topic. Unless the 'not yet charged for murder' is just a mere suggestion that PM Yingluck will be next when a police officer or soldier shoots someone, in line of duty of course as endorsed by the current government which is lead by the endearing Ms. Yingluck?

Edited January 8, 2013 by rubl

[MAJIC]

Anyone bemused by the reactionary drivel posted above should see the excellent opinion piece by Songkran Grachangnetara in the other paper today

How does letting Thaksin off his charges assist with reconciliation?

It doesn't ! In reality it makes reconciliation an impossibility,unless you are a PTP or Red Shirt member!

[philw]

She seems to be doing quite well.

Audiences with world leaders, growing economy, eminently re-electable, peace with Cambodia, growing economic and political stature within ASEAN, Active involvement in Myanmar, Foreign investment increasing, BOI approvals up, tourism up, domestic economy stable, apparent harmony with the Palace, Prem the Privy Council and the Military and last but not least increasing prosperity for the Thai citizen.

To paraphrase Churchil, "some chicken, some neck, some clone.........."

Not yet charged with murder, either..........

In response to bucholz

Never mind, but emminently getting off topic. Unless the 'not yet charged for murder' is just a mere suggestion that PM Yingluck will be next when a police officer or soldier shoots someone, in line of duty of course as endorsed by the current government which is lead by the endearing Ms. Yingluck?

Sorry, won't rise to this....

I think you mean clearly not emminently (sic) off topic.

She is rather endearing, is she not ?

[rubl]

She seems to be doing quite well.

Audiences with world leaders, growing economy, eminently re-electable, peace with Cambodia, growing economic and political stature within ASEAN, Active involvement in Myanmar, Foreign investment increasing, BOI approvals up, tourism up, domestic economy stable, apparent harmony with the Palace, Prem the Privy Council and the Military and last but not least increasing prosperity for the Thai citizen.

To paraphrase Churchil, "some chicken, some neck, some clone.........."

Not yet charged with murder, either..........

In response to bucholz

Never mind, but emminently getting off topic. Unless the 'not yet charged for murder' is just a mere suggestion that PM Yingluck will be next when a police officer or soldier shoots someone, in line of duty of course as endorsed by the current government which is lead by the endearing Ms. Yingluck?

Sorry, won't rise to this....

I think you mean clearly not emminently (sic) off topic.

She is rather endearing, is she not ?

What's a superfluous 'm' amongst friends, isn't it

[MAJIC]

Giving a view is not propaganda, if it is your view. One can claim it is misinformed, or inaccurate, but if you have no vested interest, it is not part of a strategy. Is he promoting a biased view in the article?

There are plenty of anti ptp pundits giving their opinions, that doesn't make their view propaganda.

By your definition all political comment its propaganda.

All comment which is not stated to be the view of the author, which is backed with unbias facts and figures is unscholarly. Therefore it is open to criticism by its' opponents.

What is taking place in Thai politics at the moment (the attempted use of political power and influence to absolve the criminal actions of another without proof of innosence) is illegal in most countries - fact.

The use of the court system to bog down the opponent is an American style of politics which is foreign to many, including myself and seems counter productive to the development of the country. This is something that for me personally is clouding my motivation to invest any small capital I have in the Kingdom.

Open discrimination against al foreigners, to varying degrees is another thing which unsettles me personally and makes me feel very unwelcome by the Thai establishment.

Of course it is open to criticism, but tarring it as blatent propaganda is hardly constructive. I can't find any reference that this guy has a vested interest in furthering the PTP cause, and the piece he wrote, shows why he considers the current constitution to not be democratic.

Now the facts of the matter are, that the way the thing was put together and the way it was voted on, wasn't ideal in giving the constitution complete legitimacy, but yes, it passed muster. Now, in and of itself, if a government wants to find a way to change a constitution, it should be able to with a referendum from the people. There are issues with the constitution that aren't ideal in my opinion, others think it is fine, but at the end of the day, if it passes muster at a referendum, if someone says the 2007 vote was legitimate (despite the limitations on campaigning etc, and formulating the drafting committee), how can one not accept any changes through referendum by the current government?

None of these are unreasonable views, although, i wouldn't go along with using the constitution to pardon Thaksin, but then, why should it be allowed that a coup maker can write his own get out clause when they break the law? Beacuse they have lots of guns? 1997 wasn't a perfect constitution, 2007 tightens things up, but was held under the cloud of the coup and the junta, so lets see what they come up with next.

The people Voted and accepted the Referendum,by the Temporary Military Government,(which they always claimed to be)with no coercion,or vote Campaigning,so the people must have been happy with the new Constitution.