Revising Law On Dissolution Key To Thai Charter Change

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Revising law on dissolution key to charter change
Avudh Panananda
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Pheu Thai Party seeks a master key to unlock all the political barriers standing in the way of its drive to bring about amnesty and charter change.

That key is the revocation of the party dissolution clause in the Constitution.

Opponents of former PM Thaksin Shinawatra successfully invoked this clause to disband Pheu Thai's predecessors, Thai Rak Thai and People Power parties. And the pro-Thaksin camp is well aware of the potential for another party dissolution if Pheu Thai crosses the line on two contentious issues - granting amnesty to Thaksin and revamping the political system. Last year, the ruling party sponsored a draft bill designed to revamp the political system via the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA).

The Constitution Court intervened at the 11th hour to cast doubt on the legislative mandate to rewrite the entire charter without holding a referendum beforehand.

For months, the CDA bill has been in limbo because Pheu Thai feels it cannot be certain about the outcome of such a referendum. This week the ruling party switched its charter-change strategy.

Instead of attempting to amend the charter in one fell swoop, it will take baby steps towards amnesty and transformation of the political system.

The CDA bill will be left to languish and expire in Parliament while a fresh legislative push will be scaled down to focus on "certain" provisions of the Constitution.

In other words, the ruling party will go about amending the charter provision by provision, in lieu of a wholesale rewrite.

In the newly introduced charter-amendment bill, the ruling party has opted to present the draft in a bundle comprising legislation tackling three separate issues. This is a legislative ploy aimed at ensuring the survival of the bill if opponents activate a judicial review by the Constitution Court.

Of the bill's three issues, only one is critical, while the other two are designed to test the strength of the opposition. The latter two are draft provisions for revamping the Senate and for toning down the legislative oversight for negotiating international agreements. Under these proposals, the Senate will become a fully elected body instead of the current mixed system of appointed and elected senators.

Presently, the anti-Thaksin camp wields some influence through the appointed senators. Success or failure to transform the Senate would be a litmus test of the respective strengths of the pro- and anti-Thaksin camps. In regard to legislative oversight, successive governments have found it cumbersome.

The oversight clause was amended earlier at the initiation of the Democrats, but the Pheu Thai administration still wants to further revise legislative involvement in international affairs. Without the revision, it sees virtually no chance of successfully negotiating free-trade agreements with the EU and other countries and groups.

At the heart of the proposed charter amendments is the plan to do away with the disbanding of parties as a punishment for political offences. The anti-Thaksin camp sees this penalty as a powerful tool to rein in abuses by ruling majorities, while supporters view it as a hindrance to the democratic system. Without the threat of being disbanded, they say, the ruling party could sideline its opponents in order to accomplish whatever it sets out to do.


-- The Nation 2013-03-22

[waza]

The consitution is the keystone of any society and in a democracy it provides the foundation for the basic rights of the individual and society as a whole. It is a blue print for the political process and places limitations on the power of the politicians. Its not something that is messed with in the dark with only a few allowed to decide its changes and amendment. Changes should be agreed by consensus by the parliment, then measured against the consttutional laws by Judges and finally those changes should be voted on by the electrate, it may be a slow system but its democratic.

Edited March 22, 2013 by waza

[angmo]

Incredible how everyone carries on about the current government tries to change the constitution democratically when the Military junta did what they did. It was against the law to even criticise the draft.

See wikipedia

Restrictions against campaigning to reject the draft

The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.^[2]

The restrictions against opposition to the draft were criticized by human rights bodies. “Even if amended to allow for ‘factual’ campaigning on the referendum, it is clear that the main purpose of the law is to intimidate and silence persons who don’t share the official view,” the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said. “Meanwhile the administration is pumping vast amounts of money into Yes propaganda that is set to increase quickly.”^[51]

The ban against campaigning against the constitution was enforced. In July, 20 soldiers and 10 policemen raided the house of a politician and seized anti-charter t-shirts, banners, documents, and recorded speeches.^[52] Police also raided the Duang Prateep Foundation of former Senator Prateep Ungsongtham Hata and confiscated 4,000 posters which carried the message “It’s not illegal to vote against the draft constitution.” No charges were filed. The police claimed they were acting on orders from the military. “They could not cite any law to back up their actions,” said Sombat Boon-ngam-anong. Prateep filed a complaint with the police, claiming that they had committed an “unlawful” act, citing her human rights under the abrogated 1997 constitution.

The junta also claimed to the public that general democratic elections would only occur if the draft were approved. Defense Minister Boonrawd Somtas told reporters that an election “can take place only if the new constitution passes the referendum,” implying that a a "No" would result in indefinite military rule.^[51]

Taxi-drivers were banned from putting anti-draft bumper stickers on their vehicles.^[45]

Interior minister Aree Wong-Arya has warned those campaigning against the draft by distributing leaflets to voters that they will be severely punished if there is proof against them.^[53]

On 11 August in Kamphaeng Phet province, military officers raided a shop printing leaflets that attacked the draft. Eight boxes of leaflets and the printing press were seized for investigation. The raid was conducted under a government Emergency Decree.^[54]

At the time of the referendum, martial law was in place in 35 provinces, intimidating those who wished to campaign against the draft.^[45]

[waza]

Incredible how everyone carries on about the current government tries to change the constitution democratically when the Military junta did what they did. It was against the law to even criticise the draft.

See wikipedia

Restrictions against campaigning to reject the draft

The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.^[2]

The restrictions against opposition to the draft were criticized by human rights bodies. “Even if amended to allow for ‘factual’ campaigning on the referendum, it is clear that the main purpose of the law is to intimidate and silence persons who don’t share the official view,” the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said. “Meanwhile the administration is pumping vast amounts of money into Yes propaganda that is set to increase quickly.”^[51]

The ban against campaigning against the constitution was enforced. In July, 20 soldiers and 10 policemen raided the house of a politician and seized anti-charter t-shirts, banners, documents, and recorded speeches.^[52] Police also raided the Duang Prateep Foundation of former Senator Prateep Ungsongtham Hata and confiscated 4,000 posters which carried the message “It’s not illegal to vote against the draft constitution.” No charges were filed. The police claimed they were acting on orders from the military. “They could not cite any law to back up their actions,” said Sombat Boon-ngam-anong. Prateep filed a complaint with the police, claiming that they had committed an “unlawful” act, citing her human rights under the abrogated 1997 constitution.

The junta also claimed to the public that general democratic elections would only occur if the draft were approved. Defense Minister Boonrawd Somtas told reporters that an election “can take place only if the new constitution passes the referendum,” implying that a a "No" would result in indefinite military rule.^[51]

Taxi-drivers were banned from putting anti-draft bumper stickers on their vehicles.^[45]

Interior minister Aree Wong-Arya has warned those campaigning against the draft by distributing leaflets to voters that they will be severely punished if there is proof against them.^[53]

On 11 August in Kamphaeng Phet province, military officers raided a shop printing leaflets that attacked the draft. Eight boxes of leaflets and the printing press were seized for investigation. The raid was conducted under a government Emergency Decree.^[54]

At the time of the referendum, martial law was in place in 35 provinces, intimidating those who wished to campaign against the draft.^[45]

At least they legitamised the changes through a public referendum. "Incredible how everyone carries on about the current government tries to change the constitution democratically when the Military junta did what they did", not so incredible when you consider that its current news and the Junta is past history.

[angmo]

Incredible how everyone carries on about the current government tries to change the constitution democratically when the Military junta did what they did. It was against the law to even criticise the draft.

See wikipedia

At least they legitamised the changes through a public referendum. "Incredible how everyone carries on about the current government tries to change the constitution democratically when the Military junta did what they did", not so incredible when you consider that its current news and the Junta is past history.

You obviously only read the bits you like. The junta passed a law against criticising it. They also passed a law against promoting either supporting yes or no and then went out and did exactly that. So understand what you are reading before shooting your mouth off. You are just like the elite here. Have no clue!

They also said if it was not approved they would not allow democratic elections. Hows that for intimidation.

Edited March 22, 2013 by angmo

[rubl]

"The vote on the Constitution was seen here more as a referendum on the military junta - and on the continuing popularity of Thaksin - than on the provisions of the charter. Both the turnout and the margin by which the new charter was approved were lower than the junta and its appointed civilian government had said they hoped for."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/world/asia/20iht-thai.1.7181941.html?_r=0

So now finally we start to really look at the 2007 charter and find it needs amendment or at least some fine tuning. Of course, lots of lawyers agreed that the 2007 version already had some nice clarifications of weak spots in the 1997 version.

[Thai at Heart]

Incredible how everyone carries on about the current government tries to change the constitution democratically when the Military junta did what they did. It was against the law to even criticise the draft.

See wikipedia

Restrictions against campaigning to reject the draft

The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.^[2]

The restrictions against opposition to the draft were criticized by human rights bodies. “Even if amended to allow for ‘factual’ campaigning on the referendum, it is clear that the main purpose of the law is to intimidate and silence persons who don’t share the official view,” the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said. “Meanwhile the administration is pumping vast amounts of money into Yes propaganda that is set to increase quickly.”^[51]

The ban against campaigning against the constitution was enforced. In July, 20 soldiers and 10 policemen raided the house of a politician and seized anti-charter t-shirts, banners, documents, and recorded speeches.^[52] Police also raided the Duang Prateep Foundation of former Senator Prateep Ungsongtham Hata and confiscated 4,000 posters which carried the message “It’s not illegal to vote against the draft constitution.” No charges were filed. The police claimed they were acting on orders from the military. “They could not cite any law to back up their actions,” said Sombat Boon-ngam-anong. Prateep filed a complaint with the police, claiming that they had committed an “unlawful” act, citing her human rights under the abrogated 1997 constitution.

The junta also claimed to the public that general democratic elections would only occur if the draft were approved. Defense Minister Boonrawd Somtas told reporters that an election “can take place only if the new constitution passes the referendum,” implying that a a "No" would result in indefinite military rule.^[51]

Taxi-drivers were banned from putting anti-draft bumper stickers on their vehicles.^[45]

Interior minister Aree Wong-Arya has warned those campaigning against the draft by distributing leaflets to voters that they will be severely punished if there is proof against them.^[53]

On 11 August in Kamphaeng Phet province, military officers raided a shop printing leaflets that attacked the draft. Eight boxes of leaflets and the printing press were seized for investigation. The raid was conducted under a government Emergency Decree.^[54]

At the time of the referendum, martial law was in place in 35 provinces, intimidating those who wished to campaign against the draft.^[45]

At least they legitamised the changes through a public referendum. "Incredible how everyone carries on about the current government tries to change the constitution democratically when the Military junta did what they did", not so incredible when you consider that its current news and the Junta is past history.

What PTP is doing isn't right, but what happened for the debate and vote on the last constitution wasn't right either.

[rubl]

For those interesting in the constitution and it contents rather than who pushed for what:

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

[waza]

Incredible how everyone carries on about the current government tries to change the constitution democratically when the Military junta did what they did. It was against the law to even criticise the draft.

See wikipedia

At least they legitamised the changes through a public referendum. "Incredible how everyone carries on about the current government tries to change the constitution democratically when the Military junta did what they did", not so incredible when you consider that its current news and the Junta is past history.

You obviously only read the bits you like. The junta passed a law against criticising it. They also passed a law against promoting either supporting yes or no and then went out and did exactly that. So understand what you are reading before shooting your mouth off. You are just like the elite here. Have no clue!

They also said if it was not approved they would not allow democratic elections. Hows that for intimidation.

Thanks for that contructive criticism, I am not sure what it has to do with me though, my post was 60% a direct quote from you. If you want an argument about what happened in 2007, then your on your own, if you want to be abusive and intimidate then I think you on the wrong forum but if you want an intellegent informed debate on current topics then try being civil.

Edited March 22, 2013 by waza

[MunterHunter]

What PTP is doing isn't right, but what happened for the debate and vote on the last constitution wasn't right either.

Well why didn't you tell us this earlier - we could have all rested well knowing that indeed, two wrongs do make a right after all!

[kimamey]

Incredible how everyone carries on about the current government tries to change the constitution democratically when the Military junta did what they did. It was against the law to even criticise the draft.

See wikipedia

Restrictions against campaigning to reject the draft

The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.^[2]

The restrictions against opposition to the draft were criticized by human rights bodies. “Even if amended to allow for ‘factual’ campaigning on the referendum, it is clear that the main purpose of the law is to intimidate and silence persons who don’t share the official view,” the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said. “Meanwhile the administration is pumping vast amounts of money into Yes propaganda that is set to increase quickly.”^[51]

The ban against campaigning against the constitution was enforced. In July, 20 soldiers and 10 policemen raided the house of a politician and seized anti-charter t-shirts, banners, documents, and recorded speeches.^[52] Police also raided the Duang Prateep Foundation of former Senator Prateep Ungsongtham Hata and confiscated 4,000 posters which carried the message “It’s not illegal to vote against the draft constitution.” No charges were filed. The police claimed they were acting on orders from the military. “They could not cite any law to back up their actions,” said Sombat Boon-ngam-anong. Prateep filed a complaint with the police, claiming that they had committed an “unlawful” act, citing her human rights under the abrogated 1997 constitution.

The junta also claimed to the public that general democratic elections would only occur if the draft were approved. Defense Minister Boonrawd Somtas told reporters that an election “can take place only if the new constitution passes the referendum,” implying that a a "No" would result in indefinite military rule.^[51]

Taxi-drivers were banned from putting anti-draft bumper stickers on their vehicles.^[45]

Interior minister Aree Wong-Arya has warned those campaigning against the draft by distributing leaflets to voters that they will be severely punished if there is proof against them.^[53]

On 11 August in Kamphaeng Phet province, military officers raided a shop printing leaflets that attacked the draft. Eight boxes of leaflets and the printing press were seized for investigation. The raid was conducted under a government Emergency Decree.^[54]

At the time of the referendum, martial law was in place in 35 provinces, intimidating those who wished to campaign against the draft.^[45]

I'm not sure what your point is. If we accept that the way the military did things was wrong why should that stop people complaining about the present government.

Should Germans not criticise the current German government because they weren't allowed to complain about the Nazis.

[billd766]

Incredible how everyone carries on about the current government tries to change the constitution democratically when the Military junta did what they did. It was against the law to even criticise the draft.

See wikipedia

Restrictions against campaigning to reject the draft

The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.^[2]

The restrictions against opposition to the draft were criticized by human rights bodies. “Even if amended to allow for ‘factual’ campaigning on the referendum, it is clear that the main purpose of the law is to intimidate and silence persons who don’t share the official view,” the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said. “Meanwhile the administration is pumping vast amounts of money into Yes propaganda that is set to increase quickly.”^[51]

The ban against campaigning against the constitution was enforced. In July, 20 soldiers and 10 policemen raided the house of a politician and seized anti-charter t-shirts, banners, documents, and recorded speeches.^[52] Police also raided the Duang Prateep Foundation of former Senator Prateep Ungsongtham Hata and confiscated 4,000 posters which carried the message “It’s not illegal to vote against the draft constitution.” No charges were filed. The police claimed they were acting on orders from the military. “They could not cite any law to back up their actions,” said Sombat Boon-ngam-anong. Prateep filed a complaint with the police, claiming that they had committed an “unlawful” act, citing her human rights under the abrogated 1997 constitution.

The junta also claimed to the public that general democratic elections would only occur if the draft were approved. Defense Minister Boonrawd Somtas told reporters that an election “can take place only if the new constitution passes the referendum,” implying that a a "No" would result in indefinite military rule.^[51]

Taxi-drivers were banned from putting anti-draft bumper stickers on their vehicles.^[45]

Interior minister Aree Wong-Arya has warned those campaigning against the draft by distributing leaflets to voters that they will be severely punished if there is proof against them.^[53]

On 11 August in Kamphaeng Phet province, military officers raided a shop printing leaflets that attacked the draft. Eight boxes of leaflets and the printing press were seized for investigation. The raid was conducted under a government Emergency Decree.^[54]

At the time of the referendum, martial law was in place in 35 provinces, intimidating those who wished to campaign against the draft.^[45]

Wha makes you think that people will be allowed to campaign against the PTP government?

[khunken]

Incredible how everyone carries on about the current government tries to change the constitution democratically when the Military junta did what they did. It was against the law to even criticise the draft.

See wikipedia

At least they legitamised the changes through a public referendum. "Incredible how everyone carries on about the current government tries to change the constitution democratically when the Military junta did what they did", not so incredible when you consider that its current news and the Junta is past history.

You obviously only read the bits you like. The junta passed a law against criticising it. They also passed a law against promoting either supporting yes or no and then went out and did exactly that. So understand what you are reading before shooting your mouth off. You are just like the elite here. Have no clue!

They also said if it was not approved they would not allow democratic elections. Hows that for intimidation.

You need to get your fact right.

What they said was that if the 2007 constitution was rejected they would promulgate a previous constitution, not mentioning which one. They did NOT rule out elections.

They obtained a 'yes' vote by preventing canvassing for or against the referendum. This had two effects: it put a stop to intimidation & also vote buying.

Now if only intimidation & vote buying could be curtailed in general elections here, the country could actually be a real democracy.

[backtonormal]

Thailand is and will be 2-3 world country as long as the army is allowed to do what they do. Only fools believe that Thaksin is the most corrupt man in Thailand.

[billd766]

Thailand is and will be 2-3 world country as long as the army is allowed to do what they do. Only fools believe that Thaksin is the most corrupt man in Thailand.

Thailand is the only country in the world that I am aware of that has a convicted fugitive running it from another country.

If Thaksin is so sure of his popularity why DOESN'T he come back to Thailand and face the jail time for offence he was legally convicted of.

While he is here perhaps he would be happy to defend himself on ALL the other outstanding charges waiting for him.

After all he owns PTP, the government, the police and he is trying to own the military and the senate too.

[muttley]

At least they legitamised the changes through a public referendum. "Incredible how everyone carries on about the current government tries to change the constitution democratically when the Military junta did what they did", not so incredible when you consider that its current news and the Junta is past history.

I do not recall this uproar on 11th February 2011, when Abhisit pushed through ammendments to Article 190 and Articles 93 - 98, yes thats right, without a referendum.

Articles 93 - 98 boosted the number of party list MPs to 125 and reduced the number of constituency MP's to 275 - that included the removal of 12 seats from the northern provinces where the dems had lost.

Article 190 concerns the treaty making process under Thai law. Edited March 23, 2013 by muttley

[muttley]

The consitution is the keystone of any society and in a democracy it provides the foundation for the basic rights of the individual and society as a whole. It is a blue print for the political process and places limitations on the power of the politicians. Its not something that is messed with in the dark with only a few allowed to decide its changes and amendment. Changes should be agreed by consensus by the parliment, then measured against the consttutional laws by Judges and finally those changes should be voted on by the electrate, it may be a slow system but its democratic.

Well it doesn't always work like that - see post 16

[A_Traveller]

Here we go again.

The amendment under which the 2011 election was staged was to raise to 500 the number of seats in the house, from the then 480 with a smaller number 375 coming from constituency representation and a larger number 125 of party-list MPs. The amendment also replaced the then multi-seat MP constituencies with smaller single-seat ones.

The change to Article 190 was to deal with the poor phrasing which led to the position where the government needed to request approval from parliament for almost any agreement with a foreign nation. This is what tripped up the then foreign minister Noppadol leading to his resignation. There was to be new legislation to stratify agreements.

Edited March 23, 2013 by A_Traveller

[muttley]

Here we go again.

The amendment under which the 2011 election was staged was to raise to 500 the number of seats in the house, from the then 480 with a smaller number 375 coming from constituency representation and a larger number 125 of party-list MPs. The amendment also replaced the then multi-seat MP constituencies with smaller single-seat ones.

The change to Article 190 was to deal with the poor phrasing which led to the position where the government needed to request approval from parliament for almost any agreement with a foreign nation. This is what tripped up the then foreign minister Noppadol leading to his resignation. There was to be new legislation to stratify agreements.

I'll assume you're right, will check later but do you not have any comment on the fact that abhisit changed the constitution without a referendum?

[A_Traveller]

The changes were made as allowed under the constitutional provisions, they also were viewed, even by opponents, as being "technical" in nature. Why do I have a feeling you know this? That is to say an increase in provision of seats and distribution thereof as well as tackling the confusion within Article 190 which was viewed as a problem by all parties given that it made government impractical in terms of foreign agreements after rulings by the Constitutional Court as I alluded to before.

The view was expressed to me by someone who should know about these matters here that these Articles really should not be "Constitutional" per se but form part of, in my terms, The Representation of the Peoples Act and Foreign Policy Ministerial Guidelines respectively.

In other words the parliament took the view that these were sensible and relevant amendments to be made for the better [irrespective of who would hold office] governance of the Kingdom.