Thai Lawmakers Move To Change Constitution Amid Court Challenge

[webfact]

Three charter amendment bills clear first reading
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The three bills seeking to amend four provisions of the Constitution were approved in the first reading early Thursday.

The bill that seeks to require all senators to be elected was approved with 367 votes with 204 MPs and senators voting against it and 34 others abstaining.

The bill that seeks to amend Article 190 was passed with 274 votes while 209 MPs and senators voted against it and 22 others abstained.

The bill that seeks to amend Article 68 and 237 was approved with 274 votes with 206 MPs and senators abstaining and 25 others abstaining.

The three-day debate on the bills continued until 11:45 pm Wednesday night when Pathum Thani Senator Paibul Samsiripong proposed an end to the debate, prompting strong protests from the Democrat Party.

Democrat MPs tried to point out debate should continue for eight more hours as initially agreed upon by coalition and opposition whips. Strong protests prompted Parliament President Somsak Kiartsuranon to suspend the meeting and resumed it at 20 minutes after midnight.

After the majority of MPs and senators voted to end the debate, the vote was done in a roll call. Each of 428 MPs and senators, who were presented, was asked whether he or she accepted the principle of three bills in one call. The voting was done at 1:30 am Thursday.

The Parliament set up three panels of 45 MPs and senators to vet each of the bills in 30 days before they would be sent back to the Parliament for the second reading.

The panels will begin their first meeting Thursday.


-- The Nation 2013-04-04

[MunterHunter]

The beginning of the end... Democracy is dead and the dictatorship will be in full swing by the end of the year.

Lets hope the courts can clip their wings, otherwise its gunna get a *lot* hotter in Thailand this year.

[chainarong]

Indicative of the arrogance and a fine example of how to abuse the corridors of power, as we, that are from a democratic country know, the people decide if changes are required, in a referendum, politicians have no say in the vote , I think Australia has had six attempts to amend the constitution and five have failed, that Says something

[Lite Beer]

3 Charter amendment bills sail through Thai Parliament
By English News

BANGKOK, April 4 - Thailand's joint parliament session voted early Thursday morning to pass three government-sponsored bills to amend many sections of the country's Constitution.

All three bills were approved in the first reading after which a 45-member committee was set up to deliberate the second reading within 15 days. The bills must be resubmitted to Parliament for the third reading or final approval.

The first bill seeks to rewrite sections 111, 112, 115, 117, 118, 120 and 241, and abolish sections 113 and 114. The major principle was to call for an election of all senators instead of the present system of appointees. The bill was passed with 367 to 204 votes and 34 abstentions.

The second bill to amend Section 190 involves the state’s agreements with other countries and international organisations. It sailed through with 374 against 209 votes and 22 abstentions.

The highly-criticised third bill favours amendments of Sections 69 and part of Section 237.

The rewritten version of Section 68 entitles the Office of the Attorney-General to initially examine complaints deemed detrimental to the constitutional monarchy, while Section 237 relaxes the rules on a party’s dissolution or banning of party executives due to violations of the election law by party candidates.

The bill was approved with 374 to 206 votes and 25 abstentions.

The three bills were nodded after three days of heated debate amid a petition by a group of 40 Senators, seeking an injunction by the Constitution Court.

The court on Wednesday accepted the petition but did not give its ruling, pending further consideration and decision. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2013-04-04

[Nickymaster]

All for personal interest.

Creed (by ALL) will destroy this beautiful country.

[khunken]

All for personal interest.

Creed (by ALL) will destroy this beautiful country.

Yes, there is too much greed (which I take it you meant) but it's the total avarice by one very rich family that is set to destroy this country. Throw in a lust for power & you have a very dangerous mix.

However, it's not over yet because there are many Thais who recognise the danger &, if the stock market is any guide, predict a stormy political near term future.

[ZhouZhou]

The major principle was to call for an election of all senators instead of the present system of appointees. The bill was passed with 367 to 204 votes and 34 abstentions.

I guess that those who voted against this amendment are those who cannot win in election.

It clearly shows how much they are interested in democracy.

omg. elected senators. that will truly destroy this country and leads to a dictatorship as predicted by the experts. not.

[Thaddeus]

If the country does go bust, and there is nothing left to plunder, I wonder how many of these politicians will want to remain politicians?

[muttley]

All for personal interest.

Creed (by ALL) will destroy this beautiful country.

Yes, there is too much greed (which I take it you meant) but it's the total avarice by one very rich family that is set to destroy this country. Throw in a lust for power & you have a very dangerous mix.

However, it's not over yet because there are many Thais who recognise the danger &, if the stock market is any guide, predict a stormy political near term future.

So apparently you agree with nickymaster that the above mentioned amendments are the catalyst for the destruction of Thailand or at the very least are sought purely to satisfy the extreme greed of the Shinawatra family. Would you two like to share how these dastardly deeds will be helped by the passing of the amendments - no, really, I am extremely interested how this will happen. I've asked siampolee a similar question - he hasn't replied yet.

[rubl]

So, the first reading is done, voted for, passed. A commission will study all and various changes proposed and whatever starting tomorrow and will be reading in 30 days. Obviously the 45 poor MPs and senators will forgo their Songkhran holiday to study.

It's interesting to see that some see the passing with 55% of the MPs voting 'yes' as proper democratic functioning, whereas is lots of countries controversial issues as Constitution Changes tends to require either a full 2/3 majority or even direct say by the public. Well, the referendum issue was a bit too tricky it seems so now first a few sections and then the rest. Very democratic.

BTW I'm still not sure that the proposed changes are really beneficial, to the general public and the country that is. Rather than some saying why it's bad to change I'd like some good reasoning why it's good to change. Mind you a reason like "Thaksin skyped in and told us to push for this" I would be hesitant to accept as valid reasoning

[muttley]

So, the first reading is done, voted for, passed. A commission will study all and various changes proposed and whatever starting tomorrow and will be reading in 30 days. Obviously the 45 poor MPs and senators will forgo their Songkhran holiday to study.

It's interesting to see that some see the passing with 55% of the MPs voting 'yes' as proper democratic functioning, whereas is lots of countries controversial issues as Constitution Changes tends to require either a full 2/3 majority or even direct say by the public. Well, the referendum issue was a bit too tricky it seems so now first a few sections and then the rest. Very democratic.

BTW I'm still not sure that the proposed changes are really beneficial, to the general public and the country that is. Rather than some saying why it's bad to change I'd like some good reasoning why it's good to change. Mind you a reason like "Thaksin skyped in and told us to push for this" I would be hesitant to accept as valid reasoning

Of course it's democratic - The Constitutional Court made a ruling that amending individual articles in parliament was the way forward - it's not as if they are ripping up the old constitution and writing a new one without holding a referendum first, I mean who would do that sort of thing? That's tantamount to a coup and wouldn't be constitutional, because it would be contrary to Article 68 of the Constitution (that's article 63 in the old ripped up constitution) Not that a coup wouldn't be contrary to Article 68 (or actually 63) one would have thought but................

Edited April 4, 2013 by muttley

[rubl]

So, the first reading is done, voted for, passed. A commission will study all and various changes proposed and whatever starting tomorrow and will be reading in 30 days. Obviously the 45 poor MPs and senators will forgo their Songkhran holiday to study.

It's interesting to see that some see the passing with 55% of the MPs voting 'yes' as proper democratic functioning, whereas is lots of countries controversial issues as Constitution Changes tends to require either a full 2/3 majority or even direct say by the public. Well, the referendum issue was a bit too tricky it seems so now first a few sections and then the rest. Very democratic.

BTW I'm still not sure that the proposed changes are really beneficial, to the general public and the country that is. Rather than some saying why it's bad to change I'd like some good reasoning why it's good to change. Mind you a reason like "Thaksin skyped in and told us to push for this" I would be hesitant to accept as valid reasoning

Of course it's democratic - The Constitutional Court made a ruling that amending individual articles in parliament was the way forward - it's not as if they are ripping up the old constitution and writing a new one without holding a referendum first, I mean who would do that sort of thing? That's tantamount to a coup and wouldn't be constitutional, because it would be contrary to Article 68 of the Constitution (that's article 63 in the old ripped up constitution) Not that a coup wouldn't be contrary to Article 68 (or actually 63) one would have thought but................

If I write down what comes to mind I fear I will be sent to Coventry to contemplate the inadvisability of speaking ones mind and being too frank here.

So, ripping up the constitution section by section is no real problem. Lots of countries do it like that. The UK comes to mind as a country where they like ripping. Fortunately they have a vellum on which the Charter is written. Much more fun even though it needs power to rip it.

BTW some have it that the main difference between the 1997 and 2007 constitution is clarifications. The black spot is the amnesty to the coupists, but that's to be expected. The main Coup man is currently in parliament supporting the government to get a general amnesty (two times lucky is the motto?).

PS still no some good reasoning why it's good to change those sections

[Buchholz]

All three bills were approved in the first reading after which a 45-member committee was set up to deliberate the second reading within 15 days.

Possible delays as MP's scramble for.... bus tickets?

House meetings cancelled until April 18

House Speaker Somsak Kiartsuranon has issued an order to cancel three House meetings on April 10, 11 and 17 and the next meeting will be held on April 18, chief coalition whip Udomdej Rattanasathien said Sunday.

Somsak reasoned that several provincial MPs feared that they would not have bus tickets to return to Bangkok in time for the meetings and many would be busy with social functions with their constituents.

-- The Nation 2013-04-07

[Pimay1]

Bus tickets? What a crock. They all fly free on Thai Air with their own special check in counter.

[waza]

Remember these guys are part time politicians, they are there just for show. They have bought and paid for their positions so you cant interfere with their leisure time.

[muttley]

So, the first reading is done, voted for, passed. A commission will study all and various changes proposed and whatever starting tomorrow and will be reading in 30 days. Obviously the 45 poor MPs and senators will forgo their Songkhran holiday to study.

It's interesting to see that some see the passing with 55% of the MPs voting 'yes' as proper democratic functioning, whereas is lots of countries controversial issues as Constitution Changes tends to require either a full 2/3 majority or even direct say by the public. Well, the referendum issue was a bit too tricky it seems so now first a few sections and then the rest. Very democratic.

BTW I'm still not sure that the proposed changes are really beneficial, to the general public and the country that is. Rather than some saying why it's bad to change I'd like some good reasoning why it's good to change. Mind you a reason like "Thaksin skyped in and told us to push for this" I would be hesitant to accept as valid reasoning

Of course it's democratic - The Constitutional Court made a ruling that amending individual articles in parliament was the way forward - it's not as if they are ripping up the old constitution and writing a new one without holding a referendum first, I mean who would do that sort of thing? That's tantamount to a coup and wouldn't be constitutional, because it would be contrary to Article 68 of the Constitution (that's article 63 in the old ripped up constitution) Not that a coup wouldn't be contrary to Article 68 (or actually 63) one would have thought but................

If I write down what comes to mind I fear I will be sent to Coventry to contemplate the inadvisability of speaking ones mind and being too frank here.

So, ripping up the constitution section by section is no real problem. Lots of countries do it like that. The UK comes to mind as a country where they like ripping. Fortunately they have a vellum on which the Charter is written. Much more fun even though it needs power to rip it.

BTW some have it that the main difference between the 1997 and 2007 constitution is clarifications. The black spot is the amnesty to the coupists, but that's to be expected. The main Coup man is currently in parliament supporting the government to get a general amnesty (two times lucky is the motto?).

PS still no some good reasoning why it's good to change those sections

Did you not understand my thinly veiled reference to the coup rubl, oh I forgot you're an army apologist - they can do no wrong in your eyes. Even when they overthrow the democratic method of government ( spare me the lectures on the legitimacy of the government they overthrew - try and get past the "who" and the "why" and look at the "what" it was, that they overthrew ) and rip up the constitution it's there's nothing to see here, all perfectly OK.

They rewrote the constitution without a Yes or No from the Thai people ( again spare me the lectures about how "legitimate the referendum results were ) . It was written in such a way as to give far more power to the judiciary, in particular the CC, with the result that Senators were appointed by, and also in turn, confirmed judges. These judges wielded more power, in particular the ability to dissolve political parties, a powerful weapon which has been used politically.

The right to dissolve an entire party because of the actions of one (or more) persons is overkill and lends itself to abuse.

We've already seen what happens when article 68 is used in a frivolous way - the stalemate in parliament with no one able to debate bills just because the opposition didn't like what the government proposed to do. And now the government are doing what the CC ruled was the way forward wrt constitutional amendments, people like you are throwing their hands up in horror.

A Senator closely aligned to PAD is responsible for the latest invocation of Article 68 - saying that its not constitutional to amend Article 68! It's precisely because of idiots like him that Article 68 needs to be amended - The Attorney General should act as a filter otherwise every Tom Dick and Somchai will be knocking on the CC door waiving Article 68. It worked like that before and was the approved method until the dems/PAD stirred the pot.

The Party dissolution part of it I've already discussed.

Article 190 - No secrets there - the amendment is necessary to avoid embarassing incidents like last years NASA cockup. This came about purely because the cabinet were not willing to make a decision when they knew that the dems would try and get the PTP dissolved using Article 190 if they agreed to the NASA proposal. The dems would claim that it was a treaty between two nations and therefore needed parliamentary approval. It's not as if the dems don't have prior in party dissolution cases.

Now you tell me the good reasons for not amending the articles other than the dems losing a few avenues to get into power without winning an election?

[Thai at Heart]

Bus tickets? What a crock. They all fly free on Thai Air with their own special check in counter.

Apparently, their drivers aren't au fait with the location of the bus stations either.

[Pimay1]

Bus tickets? What a crock. They all fly free on Thai Air with their own special check in counter.

Apparently, their drivers aren't au fait with the location of the bus stations either.

Right. The few times I have been to a bus station I have never seen a Benz.

[rubl]

As for article 68 (2007) which only differs from article 63 (1997) in the addition of a penalty of five year ban.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes the dissolution order under paragraph three, the right to vote of the President and the executive board of directors of the dissolved political party at the time the act under paragraph one has been committed shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date the Constitutional Court makes such order.

That's probably why Pheu Thai's Chiang Rai MP Samart Kaewmeechai said "the amendment would be in line with the 1997 charter". No reference to "this is a coupist charter", or "party dissolution", no just back to our own, revered 1997 version.

[rubl]

The democrat party refers to the constitution to complain, the Pheu Thai party did so when they were in the opposition, or at least they referred to anything they thought might help to emphasize their point of view.

Now obviously we can't have the Democrats party refer to laws and such. Better to rewrite the laws and even the charter to make it impossible to refer to anything we, your benevolent and beloved Pheu Thai government does for you.

BTW still waiting for good reasoning why the three articles need modification and why as proposed. The text of the proposed change in full and in English would be helpful as well. Unlike some I like to know what I'm talking about

[SeaVisionBurma]

Post containing flame removed.

[Buchholz]

The democrat party refers to the constitution to complain, the Pheu Thai party did so when they were in the opposition, or at least they referred to anything they thought might help to emphasize their point of view.

Now obviously we can't have the Democrats party refer to laws and such. Better to rewrite the laws and even the charter to make it impossible to refer to anything we, your benevolent and beloved Pheu Thai government does for you.

BTW still waiting for good reasoning why the three articles need modification and why as proposed. The text of the proposed change in full and in English would be helpful as well. Unlike some I like to know what I'm talking about

.

When considering it took a year and a half to just get Pheu Thai Party to identify the specific articles they wanted to amend (although claiming the need to change the constitution during all that time), the exact wording of their proposed changes to the specific articles (in Thai OR English) is, similarly, probably a long way off.

.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Buchholz

[wackysleet]

Such a pity that certain posters who are Democrat supporters and who make a point of selecting any acts of corruption and wrong doing by the PTP and post absolutely nothing about the suspect dealings of certain southern area democrats and their families and others, who appear to have all the time in the world over the last three years to post thousands of comments removed content.

I think everyone really knows that by and large Thai politics is a self serving entity for MPs and any other scroat that can get his nose in the trough and that serving the public is of secondary importance.

This so called list of PTP figures having offshore accounts in various countries is in itself not illegal and yes, money accumalated illegally can and often is deposited there but what really concerns me is that there is no mention by THE poster of any democrats on the list only three prominent Thai supporters of PTP but then of course maybe all democrats are so squeeky clean their ar-e makes a noise when they walk.

Let's have discussion on all aspects of all party corruption and stop the party political propoganda which some are so biased on.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Boo
removed accusation of paid to post. soemone is allowed to hold an alternate opinion without being on payroll.

[muttley]

The democrat party refers to the constitution to complain, the Pheu Thai party did so when they were in the opposition, or at least they referred to anything they thought might help to emphasize their point of view.

Now obviously we can't have the Democrats party refer to laws and such. Better to rewrite the laws and even the charter to make it impossible to refer to anything we, your benevolent and beloved Pheu Thai government does for you.

BTW still waiting for good reasoning why the three articles need modification and why as proposed. The text of the proposed change in full and in English would be helpful as well. Unlike some I like to know what I'm talking about

"The democrat party refers to the constitution to complain, the Pheu Thai party did so when they were in the opposition, or at least they referred to anything they thought might help to emphasize their point of view"

Now if I had written that I would have been snowed under with "but, but" posts. The difference is that the democrats are complaining about the very act of amending the constitution. The way the PTP are using for amending the individual articles is as per a ruling the CC made - this ruling being the result of the dems frivolously invoking Article 68 in a previous complaint. What do they want, it's obvious, no amendments at all, the status quo gives them a chance to get back into power utilising the courts.

This being from a party whose leader acknowledged there were flaws in the Junta Constitution and vowed to change certain articles when he got to power.Six of them as it turned out, but he only got his way on two.

See any hypocrisy here, do we?

Edited April 8, 2013 by muttley

[FarangTalk]

Reading all the doom-mongers you'd think that Thailand was never under the control of one or more powerful families, and that this concept was somehow a new thing, to be feared.

[rubl]

So, reverting back to 1997 would help the constitution? Taking out the "5 year ban' but leaving "party dissolution" in c2007_art68 / c1997_art63?

Let's ask again. Anyone who can clearly, objectively describe why the constitution of 2007 is such a mess that 1997 would need to be preferred? As I wrote a few times before, just "well it's a coup version", "Thaksin wants it" is no acceptable justification. Also the full text of the modifications the government (or it's Pheu Thai members) wants would be of help to form a more solid opinion.

In the mean time, have a look at this again:
Deconstructing Thailand's (New) Eighteenth Constitution
http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

[muttley]

So, reverting back to 1997 would help the constitution? Taking out the "5 year ban' but leaving "party dissolution" in c2007_art68 / c1997_art63?

Let's ask again. Anyone who can clearly, objectively describe why the constitution of 2007 is such a mess that 1997 would need to be preferred? As I wrote a few times before, just "well it's a coup version", "Thaksin wants it" is no acceptable justification. Also the full text of the modifications the government (or it's Pheu Thai members) wants would be of help to form a more solid opinion.

In the mean time, have a look at this again:

Deconstructing Thailand's (New) Eighteenth Constitution

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

Well the whole constitution isn't being changed. I've given you reasons, a number of people agree with me (which is unusal on here) and you have yet to answer except keep on banging this drum about how the the constitution of 1997 is so similar to the 2007 one and the 2007 is therefore perfect and needs no change. If that was the case why did Abhisit want to make changes to it. He did make two changes but wanted to make 6 to appease his coalition - for the good of the nation, don't make me laugh.

Yes it's similar - but where it differs is vitally important

Although many people believe the 2007 Thai Constitution is in some ways better than the 1997 Constitution that it replaced, it lacks democratic legitimacy and weakens democracy for a number of reasons. First, it was drafted by a team appointed by the military junta that seized power in 2006. And in addition to provisions designed to advance the junta’s political agenda, it includes a blanket amnesty for the coup-makers. Second, it strengthens unelected institutions, and changes the Senate from a wholly-elected to a partially-appointed body, weakening accountability. Third, it was enacted through a referendum process fraught with fraud, in which voters’ only choice was to either approve the junta’s constitution or allow the junta to revise one of Thailand’s previous constitutions.http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2009/04/08/whither-democracy-in-thailand/

As I explained in my post

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/630687-thai-lawmakers-move-to-change-constitution-amid-court-challenge/#entry6280063

which I can only assume you haven't bothered reading.

[Nickymaster]

The 2007 constitution was approved trough a referendum isn't?

So if Thaksin so eagerly wants to change it again, why not have a referendum again?

Don't tell me Thaksin wants to save money so therefore the constitution should be changed without a referendum because holding one is very costly..

[rubl]

Clear, it's no good, it's no good, it's no good. It's out of principle only that it's no good.

The "Deconstructing Thailand's (New) Eighteenth Constitution" I posted might remain unread, but just a few months after the article quoted by our dear mutt Asia Foundation came with a report, 2009-08-26. Interesting reading, download from here http://asiafoundation.org/publications/pdf/603
Just some small titbits from the Executive Summary, read the document for all, no need to rely on my (personal) selection:
"Regarding the timing of elections, ... ... A strong minority (43%) favors waiting until the term of the current government expires."
"A majority (62%) favor retaining Article 237 of the 2007 Constitution (which allows the banning of politicians and dissolution of parties) in a revised Constitution, and only one in five (21%) think politicians convicted of crimes should be pardoned."
"Regardless of method of amendment, an overwhelming majority (84%) believes that a new or revised constitution should be ratified through a referendum."
"The Thai people are significantly more politically tolerant than the publics in other Asian countries; 79% would allow meetings of unpopular parties in their area, just 6% said that a friend joining an unpopular party would end the friendship."

[sbk]

Off topic post deleted, please do recall this thread is about the CONSTITUTION.

cheers