Pheu Thai 'confident' It Can Defend Amendment

[webfact]

Pheu Thai 'confident' it can defend amendment
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The ruling Pheu Thai Party is confident that it will be able to defend its plan to amend Article 68 before the Constitutional Court, an MP said yesterday.

Pheu Thai's Chiang Rai MP Samart Kaewmeechai said the party's legal team had made preparations to defend itself against a complaint filed by Senator Somchai Sawaengkarn.

Samart said Pheu Thai representatives would explain that the amendment does not restrict people's rights, but would clarify the provision so no further interpretation by the Constitutional Court is required.

He added that the amendment would be in line with the 1997 charter. The MP then went on to say that Parliament President Somsak Kiartsuranont was correct in deciding that the three special panels be given 15 days to vet the three amendment drafts, adding that the opposition was free to contest his decision in the Constitutional Court.

However, Democrat MP Thepthai Senpong said Somsak had gone beyond his authority because the opposition had proposed that 60 days be spent on vetting the three drafts.

Thepthai said the meeting lacked quorum before MPs and senators could vote on the timeframe dispute, so Somsak had no right to conclude that the vetting would be done in just 15 days.

He and other Democrat MPs have decided to boycott the vetting panels, but will monitor the process as observers.

Thepthai said the Democrat legal team was considering legal action against Somsak for malfeasance and violation of the charter. He said the Democrat Party expected Pheu Thai to rush the three amendment drafts into Parliament for a second reading in June when an extra-parliamentary session will be held for the second reading of the budget bill.

Meanwhile, Senate Speaker Nikom Wairatpanij said it would be a waste of time if the opposition insisted on holding a new House-Senate meeting, adding that all processes had been completed correctly on Wednesday night.

At a Senate meeting yesterday, Senator Prasarn Maruekpitak said Nikom should have realised his position while chairing the meeting as he had signed in support of charter change.

Prasarn also mentioned Constitutional Court judge Jaran Pukditanakul, who opted out of considering the case related to charter amendment last year as he had revealed his stance earlier. Nikom, however, shrugged off the criticism.


-- The Nation 2013-04-06

[chainarong]

Most dictatorships start off in this direction , Thaksin is a past master, if it wasn't for the academic's pointing out to the press the shortcoming of amendments, the public would never have known, that's what they work on , that the public are not interested , then bang, one day you have a dictator , hence the reason for the Coup of 06, also appointing all your mates to command positions, makes the path easier to dictatorship.

[yoshiwara]

Most dictatorships start off in this direction , Thaksin is a past master, if it wasn't for the academic's pointing out to the press the shortcoming of amendments, the public would never have known, that's what they work on , that the public are not interested , then bang, one day you have a dictator , hence the reason for the Coup of 06, also appointing all your mates to command positions, makes the path easier to dictatorship.

If Thaksin was a past master he wouldn't be sitting in Dubai.

[chainarong]

Most dictatorships start off in this direction , Thaksin is a past master, if it wasn't for the academic's pointing out to the press the shortcoming of amendments, the public would never have known, that's what they work on , that the public are not interested , then bang, one day you have a dictator , hence the reason for the Coup of 06, also appointing all your mates to command positions, makes the path easier to dictatorship.

If Thaksin was a past master he wouldn't be sitting in Dubai.

The last two generals that he had not replaced , pulled off the coup, he is only in Dubai because he brought it on himself by jumping bail at HK and going to UK.after the Beijing olympics the Dems are as much to blame for the mess for trusting the prick in the first place and allowing the dear, go to the olympic's.

[Ricardo]

Most dictatorships start off in this direction , Thaksin is a past master, if it wasn't for the academic's pointing out to the press the shortcoming of amendments, the public would never have known, that's what they work on , that the public are not interested , then bang, one day you have a dictator , hence the reason for the Coup of 06, also appointing all your mates to command positions, makes the path easier to dictatorship.

If Thaksin was a past master he wouldn't be sitting in Dubai.

The last two generals that he had not replaced , pulled off the coup, he is only in Dubai because he brought it on himself by jumping bail at HK and going to UK.after the Beijing olympics the Dems are as much to blame for the mess for trusting the prick in the first place and allowing the dear, go to the olympic's.

"the Dems are as much to blame ... allowing the dear, go to the olympic's."

IIRC it was the court which granted the former-PM leave, to go and attend the Olympic Opening-Ceremony in Beijing (not Hong Kong), and from which he chose not to return ? And it was surely PM-Somchai and the PPP who were in-power in the summer of 2008 ?

So nothing at all to do with the Democratic-Party or the later Democratic-led coalition-government, then.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Ricardo

[siampolee]

Quote from ''The History of Thailand.''

Thaksin publicly expressed his disdain for old institutions, academicians, rule of law, and human rights, all of which he claimed were quite often

hindrances in working for the benefit of people. From December 2005 onward, the anti-Thaksin campaign became intense. In an ever present tussle between military and democracy, he was ousted in a coup on September 19, 2006, led

by General Sonthi Boonyaratglin (1946–).

So as we now can see we can all rest abed at night peacefully knowing that the intention of this current maladministration in amending the current constitution is actually focused on our protection from the rule of law,academics, human rights organisations etc etc. who in reality unlike Thaksin were working against our best interests ?

Thaksin rules O.K.

[JetsetBkk]

Can't we just have another coup and forget about all this stuff?

[NongKhaiKid]

Most dictatorships start off in this direction , Thaksin is a past master, if it wasn't for the academic's pointing out to the press the shortcoming of amendments, the public would never have known, that's what they work on , that the public are not interested , then bang, one day you have a dictator , hence the reason for the Coup of 06, also appointing all your mates to command positions, makes the path easier to dictatorship.

If Thaksin was a past master he wouldn't be sitting in Dubai.

The last two generals that he had not replaced , pulled off the coup, he is only in Dubai because he brought it on himself by jumping bail at HK and going to UK.after the Beijing olympics the Dems are as much to blame for the mess for trusting the prick in the first place and allowing the dear, go to the olympic's.

Look how long it took then to revoke his passport and there never was an Interpol Red Notice requested. They didn't want him back

[muttley]

And people go on about Yingluck!

He and other Democrat MPs have decided to boycott the vetting panels,

The "democrat" party - they're like kids, forever throwing their toys out of the pram. If they want to make a convincing argument about something you go to meetings and put that argument forward, not boycott the meeting and flounce off in a hissy fit. How do their electorate feel about their response? Guess we'll find out in the next election.

[rixalex]

And people go on about Yingluck!

He and other Democrat MPs have decided to boycott the vetting panels,

The "democrat" party - they're like kids, forever throwing their toys out of the pram. If they want to make a convincing argument about something you go to meetings and put that argument forward, not boycott the meeting and flounce off in a hissy fit. How do their electorate feel about their response? Guess we'll find out in the next election.

When you sign up to this forum in doing so you agree to the terms and conditions already laid out. You can't sign up and then say you don't agree to the terms and conditions. The Democrats situation with regards this meeting they decided to boycott, seems somewhat similar. If they agreed to participate in the meeting, they would be forced to accept the terms and conditions, and would not be given a platform or an opportunity to argue against the terms and conditions.

[Locationthailand]

More spin ... boring...

[Nickymaster]

And people go on about Yingluck!

He and other Democrat MPs have decided to boycott the vetting panels,

The "democrat" party - they're like kids, forever throwing their toys out of the pram. If they want to make a convincing argument about something you go to meetings and put that argument forward, not boycott the meeting and flounce off in a hissy fit. How do their electorate feel about their response? Guess we'll find out in the next election.

When you sign up to this forum in doing so you agree to the terms and conditions already laid out. You can't sign up and then say you don't agree to the terms and conditions. The Democrats situation with regards this meeting they decided to boycott, seems somewhat similar. If they agreed to participate in the meeting, they would be forced to accept the terms and conditions, and would not be given a platform or an opportunity to argue against the terms and conditions.

Yes, simple as that.

[Arkady]

Of course they have the majority to ram it through but at what cost?

[muttley]

And people go on about Yingluck!

He and other Democrat MPs have decided to boycott the vetting panels,

The "democrat" party - they're like kids, forever throwing their toys out of the pram. If they want to make a convincing argument about something you go to meetings and put that argument forward, not boycott the meeting and flounce off in a hissy fit. How do their electorate feel about their response? Guess we'll find out in the next election.

When you sign up to this forum in doing so you agree to the terms and conditions already laid out. You can't sign up and then say you don't agree to the terms and conditions. The Democrats situation with regards this meeting they decided to boycott, seems somewhat similar. If they agreed to participate in the meeting, they would be forced to accept the terms and conditions, and would not be given a platform or an opportunity to argue against the terms and conditions.

So you think that in the meeting the dem MP's wouldn't be allowed to speak against? - you truly are paranoid.

So if it comes to a third reading of a bill they don't like , and they don't want to "accept the terms and conditions" and decide that rather than vote they would boycott, (which going by your logic "seems somewhat familiar"), is it an acceptable way for a supposedly political party to act?

The bill they don't like the "terms of conditions of" sails through because of their lack of opposition and this is their idea of making politics better and aiding the country?

They may have got away with it once in 2006 but that's only because the military took advantage of the situation.

Here's an analogy for you, think of your "terms and conditions" as "toys" and the parliament as a "pram" and obviously the dem MP's as the "baby"

Edited April 6, 2013 by muttley

[rixalex]

And people go on about Yingluck!

He and other Democrat MPs have decided to boycott the vetting panels,

The "democrat" party - they're like kids, forever throwing their toys out of the pram. If they want to make a convincing argument about something you go to meetings and put that argument forward, not boycott the meeting and flounce off in a hissy fit. How do their electorate feel about their response? Guess we'll find out in the next election.

When you sign up to this forum in doing so you agree to the terms and conditions already laid out. You can't sign up and then say you don't agree to the terms and conditions. The Democrats situation with regards this meeting they decided to boycott, seems somewhat similar. If they agreed to participate in the meeting, they would be forced to accept the terms and conditions, and would not be given a platform or an opportunity to argue against the terms and conditions.

So you think that in the meeting the dem MP's wouldn't be allowed to speak against? - you truly are paranoid.

So if it comes to a third reading of a bill they don't like , and they don't want to "accept the terms and conditions" and decide that rather than vote they would boycott, (which going by your logic "seems somewhat familiar"), is it an acceptable way for a supposedly political party to act?

The bill they don't like the "terms of conditions of" sails through because of their lack of opposition and this is their idea of making politics better and aiding the country?

They may have got away with it once in 2006 but that's only because the military took advantage of the situation.

Here's an analogy for you, think of your "terms and conditions" as "toys" and the parliament as a "pram" and obviously the dem MP's as the "baby"

You are missing the point. This isn't about what they are voting on, this is about the terms and the conditions of the voting system itself.

[muttley]

You are missing the point. This isn't about what they are voting on, this is about the terms and the conditions of the voting system itself.

If the dems had the strength of their convictions they wouldn't just be considering, you know their MO, they'd be up before the CC quicker than a robbers dog.

Thepthai said the Democrat legal team was considering legal action against Somsak for malfeasance and violation of the charter.

Edited April 6, 2013 by muttley

[Baerboxer]

You are missing the point. This isn't about what they are voting on, this is about the terms and the conditions of the voting system itself.

If the dems had the strength of their convictions they wouldn't just be considering, you know their MO, they'd be up before the CC quicker than a robbers dog.

>Thepthai said the Democrat legal team was considering legal action against Somsak for malfeasance and violation of the charter.

Would this be the same CC that PTP and Dear Leader want to get rid of ?

It's an old political trick, especially of the extreme left or right, to rig the processes and procedures to neuter the effects of any oppostion. The next step, at a convenient point in the future, is to find an excuse to ban opposing political parties, and introduce the one party system. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Castro, Mugabe, etc etc. Amazing how easily electorates can be duped by those claiming to act in the interests of the people and democracy whilst really seeking to the exact opposite.

[muttley]

You are missing the point. This isn't about what they are voting on, this is about the terms and the conditions of the voting system itself.

If the dems had the strength of their convictions they wouldn't just be considering, you know their MO, they'd be up before the CC quicker than a robbers dog.

>Thepthai said the Democrat legal team was considering legal action against Somsak for malfeasance and violation of the charter.<

/span>

Would this be the same CC that PTP and Dear Leader want to get rid of ?

It's an old political trick, especially of the extreme left or right, to rig the processes and procedures to neuter the effects of any oppostion. The next step, at a convenient point in the future, is to find an excuse to ban opposing political parties, and introduce the one party system. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Castro, Mugabe, etc etc. Amazing how easily electorates can be duped by those claiming to act in the interests of the people and democracy whilst really seeking to the exact opposite.

Maybe this time it'll work - Excuse me, what does any of your post have to do with the thread?

[ZhouZhou]

You are missing the point. This isn't about what they are voting on, this is about the terms and the conditions of the voting system itself.

If the dems had the strength of their convictions they wouldn't just be considering, you know their MO, they'd be up before the CC quicker than a robbers dog.

>Thepthai said the Democrat legal team was considering legal action against Somsak for malfeasance and violation of the charter.<

/span>

Would this be the same CC that PTP and Dear Leader want to get rid of ?

It's an old political trick, especially of the extreme left or right, to rig the processes and procedures to neuter the effects of any oppostion. The next step, at a convenient point in the future, is to find an excuse to ban opposing political parties, and introduce the one party system. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Castro, Mugabe, etc etc. Amazing how easily electorates can be duped by those claiming to act in the interests of the people and democracy whilst really seeking to the exact opposite.

isn't one of the issue that the amendment wants to make it more difficult to ban political parties?

because banning the others is one of the ways how Abhisit could become PM. with winning elections like in democracy it isn't possible for them.

Amazing how easily people can be duped by those claiming to act in the interests of the people and democracy whilst really seeking to the exact opposite.

[ZhouZhou]

This new quote system is crap to edit

look for what looks like a light switch on the left side on the top of the editing menu.

there you can switch between a wysiwyg editor and something like html code editor. the latter isn't that complicated not to understand and easier to edit imho.

[rubl]

Pheu Thai's Chiang Rai MP Samart Kaewmeechai added that the amendment would be in line with the 1997 charter.

As some have told me that 1997 section 63 and 2007 section 68 are more-or-less identical, I fail to see why a renewed modification is required? Both have the 'party dissolution' clause, but 2007 has 5-year ban in addition. I can understand why party dissolution should be clarified as it's the very last you'd want to do, but punishing perpetrators by banning them for a few years does make sense.

Constitution 1997 section 63:
No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.
In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.
In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party.

Constitution 2007 section 68:
No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.
In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.
In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party.
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.

[metisdead]

A post has been removed as a poster had deleted quoted post headers as he had reached the maximum number of nested quotes allowed leading to misunderstanding of who posted what. When deleting quoted posts to meet the nested quotes criteria, be careful so as to delete individual posts while keeping the quote headers intact. When replying to certain parts of a post, learn how to use the Insert quotation feature, just copy the content you wish to respond to and paste the content in between the quote brackets.

[Locationthailand]

The changing of the constitution is simply about one man, a convicted criminal, getting back into Thailand. Why all this discussion? Who gives a toss, bottom line, the opposing parties as stupid as they are, are better than a coup (almost).

[muttley]

A post has been removed as a poster had deleted quoted post headers as he had reached the maximum number of nested quotes allowed leading to misunderstanding of who posted what. When deleting quoted posts to meet the nested quotes criteria, be careful so as to delete individual posts while keeping the quote headers intact. When replying to certain parts of a post, learn how to use the Insert quotation feature, just copy the content you wish to respond to and paste the content in between the quote brackets.

Easier said then done

[muttley]

This new quote system is crap to edit

look for what looks like a light switch on the left side on the top of the editing menu.

there you can switch between a wysiwyg editor and something like html code editor. the latter isn't that complicated not to understand and easier to edit imho.

Thank you but when I said edit I was really referring to the new quote boxes and how to delete them. You have to keep an eye on where the cursor is at any one time. The old easy option of selecting text and deleting seems to have been superceded by something far "sexier" and awkward to use.

Edited April 6, 2013 by muttley

[whybother]

This new quote system is crap to edit

look for what looks like a light switch on the left side on the top of the editing menu.

there you can switch between a wysiwyg editor and something like html code editor. the latter isn't that complicated not to understand and easier to edit imho.

Thank you but when I said edit I was really referring to the new quote boxes and how to delete them. You have to keep an eye on where the cursor is at any one time. The old easy option of selecting text and deleting seems to have been superceded by something far "sexier" and awkward to use.

The light switch in the top right of the Reply Post editing box allows you to see the old open/close quote boxes. Makes it much easier to delete inner quotes.

[muttley]

This new quote system is crap to edit

look for what looks like a light switch on the left side on the top of the editing menu.

there you can switch between a wysiwyg editor and something like html code editor. the latter isn't that complicated not to understand and easier to edit imho.

Thank you but when I said edit I was really referring to the new quote boxes and how to delete them. You have to keep an eye on where the cursor is at any one time. The old easy option of selecting text and deleting seems to have been superceded by something far "sexier" and awkward to use.

The light switch in the top right of the Reply Post editing box allows you to see the old open/close quote boxes. Makes it much easier to delete inner quotes.

By jiminee you're right. Thank you and Zhou Zhou for you're help. Has that switch always been there? Note to TVF - sometimes the Luddites knew what they were doing.

Edited April 7, 2013 by muttley