Thai Constitution Court Accepts Petition Against Charter Rewrite

[webfact]

Constitution Court accepts petition against charter rewrite
By Digital Media



BANGKOK, April 12 – The Thai Constitution Court voted 5:3 on Thursday to take under consideration a petition by a civic group which sought an injunction to the parliamentary amendment of a crucial section in the charter.

Bavorn Yasindhorn led the group in submitting the petition to the court, saying a move by 312 national legislators to rewrite Section 68 of the Constitution was a breach of the people’s constitutional rights.

The 312 lawmakers proposed that Section 68 be amended to authorise the Office of the Attorney-General as the sole state agency to examine complaints against acts deemed detrimental to the constitutional monarchy.

Section 68 stipulates that members of the public can lodge a complaint directly to the Constitution Court against any moves deemed threaten the royal institution.

A similar petition, submitted by 40 senators, was accepted by the Constitution Court early this month.

The court told Mr Bavorn and his colleagues to make 312 copies of the complaint to be delivered to the lawmakers. The proponents of the amendment, led by Senator Nikom Wairatpanich, were instructed to clarify to the court within 15 days after receiving the documents.

Three bills to amend Section 68 and many other sections of the Constitution were passed in the first reading by a joint parliamentary session on April 4, pending the second and third readings. (MCOT online news)


-- TNA 2013-04-12

[Skywalker69]

So will Thaksin send his redshirts out on Bangkoks streets........again?

[angmo]

Why don't they just do what the yellow shirts did last time. Overthrow their own government using the military - re-write the constitution with all the changes they want. Pass the same law as last time saying you cannot criticise the new constitution and then have an election which they will again win.

I am sick and tired of the elitist supporters criticising the elected government when they try and do something legally as opposed to using military might.

You all talk democracy - but don't see the double standard.

Edited April 12, 2013 by angmo

[Baerboxer]

Why don't they just do what the yellow shirts did last time. Overthrow their own government using the military - re-write the constitution with all the changes they want. Pass the same law as last time saying you cannot criticise the new constitution and then have an election which they will again win.

I am sick and tired of the elitist supporters criticising the elected government when they try and do something legally as opposed to using military might.

Who cares if you're sick and tired or not?

The whole point is the current corrupt government ignore the laws and constitution to suit themselves. They are now trying to remove one of the key obstacles to doing this even more. I don't think that is "trying to do something legally".

If the Thaksin government wanted to really do this legally and transparently then they would have followed the advice for a referendum. But they won't becasue they're scared of losing. So better to use back door manipulation, bribes, threats and intimidation to try to get laws changed to favour themselves. Then they can pretend to act legally.

[rubl]

I'm sick and tired of hearing that the current constitution is no good, no good, no good at all without real justification why parts should be amended. Some articles are identical comparing 1997 and 2007 version. The 2007 version has lots of clarifications and only the 'amnesty for the coupists' part can be called a blot on it.

Democracy, people involvement, but not in the constitution because that's deemed too scary for politicians?

Still waiting for anyone giving me the proposed text of the three articles to be amended now (in Englisg preferrably) and the reasoning for the proposed changes. Once more, just because Thaksin said so I do not consider a valid reason.

[CWMcMurray]

I am no fan of Thaksin or this government ...

Bit seems strange that many feel that by somehow making all senators subject to being voted in rater than appointed by some unelected committee or by revising the clause to reduce the number of frivolous LM lawsuits being brought or removing the clause that allows the judiciary disband an entire political party if one of its members breaks the election law a bad thing

It seems to me that these amendments will help to promote stability and democracy???

Yes I know ... Thaksin is evil and tha anti-Christ and that Pau Thai is the worst political party ever.... But can we actually dell ate the amendments themselves rather than the people involved?

To me that would be a better discussion

So those against the amendments, why are you against the amendments ?

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

[rubl]

So, those for the amendment, please list the actual proposed changes and give justification for the changes.

[rubl]

I searched, I looked, I finally found the reason why the 2007 constitution is no good :-)

"This paper has presented some initial information about election systems in generaland the sequence of decision-making during Thailands 2007 constitution-draftingexercise. It has also pointed out that, had the drafters adopted MMP instead of theslightly revised MMM system of the 1997 constitution, the composition of parliamentafter the election of December 2007 would probably have been quite different withthe possible result of a coalition government led by the Democrat party"
http://www.academia.edu/2085351/Electoral_Rules_Concerning_the_House_of_Representatives_in_the_2007_Thai_Constitution

[whybother]

CWMcMurray, on 12 Apr 2013 - 16:50, said:

I am no fan of Thaksin or this government ...

Bit seems strange that many feel that by somehow making all senators subject to being voted in rater than appointed by some unelected committee or by revising the clause to reduce the number of frivolous LM lawsuits being brought or removing the clause that allows the judiciary disband an entire political party if one of its members breaks the election law a bad thing

It seems to me that these amendments will help to promote stability and democracy???

Yes I know ... Thaksin is evil and tha anti-Christ and that Pau Thai is the worst political party ever.... But can we actually dell ate the amendments themselves rather than the people involved?

To me that would be a better discussion

So those against the amendments, why are you against the amendments ?

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

There are no proposed changes to LM laws. For all their complaints and their "landslide" victory, it's a wonder the PTP won't do anything. Even Abhisit promised some reform on these laws.

Are they removing the "disbanding the party" clause? I thought they were just removing the "5 year ban" if you get caught cheating.

[khunken]

I am no fan of Thaksin or this government ...

Bit seems strange that many feel that by somehow making all senators subject to being voted in rater than appointed by some unelected committee or by revising the clause to reduce the number of frivolous LM lawsuits being brought or removing the clause that allows the judiciary disband an entire political party if one of its members breaks the election law a bad thing

It seems to me that these amendments will help to promote stability and democracy???

Yes I know ... Thaksin is evil and tha anti-Christ and that Pau Thai is the worst political party ever.... But can we actually dell ate the amendments themselves rather than the people involved?

To me that would be a better discussion

So those against the amendments, why are you against the amendments ?

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

I don't know what 'dell ate' means.

If you think they promote 'stability & democracy' (or even know what they are) then tell us how.

IMO there is very little wrong with the 2007 constitution - the first to be accepted by referendum. PTP were given the opportunity to hold a referendum on whether Thais felt there was any need for changes or not. PTP (Thaksin) decided that they probably couldn't win so they are now trying the back-door method.

Now, because that is not going smoothly, Mr 'democrat' Thaksin threatens the CC with more intimidation by his red-shirt militia.

For anyone who has lived here through Thaksin's 'reign', It is not difficult to see through his machinations to further his own ends which have no bearing on democracy.

[Skywalker69]

I am no fan of Thaksin or this government ...

Bit seems strange that many feel that by somehow making all senators subject to being voted in rater than appointed by some unelected committee or by revising the clause to reduce the number of frivolous LM lawsuits being brought or removing the clause that allows the judiciary disband an entire political party if one of its members breaks the election law a bad thing

It seems to me that these amendments will help to promote stability and democracy???

Yes I know ... Thaksin is evil and tha anti-Christ and that Pau Thai is the worst political party ever.... But can we actually dell ate the amendments themselves rather than the people involved?

To me that would be a better discussion

So those against the amendments, why are you against the amendments ?

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

Read this.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/4293-thaksin-democracy-is-not-my-goal/

[ZhouZhou]

I am no fan of Thaksin or this government ...

Bit seems strange that many feel that by somehow making all senators subject to being voted in rater than appointed by some unelected committee or by revising the clause to reduce the number of frivolous LM lawsuits being brought or removing the clause that allows the judiciary disband an entire political party if one of its members breaks the election law a bad thing

It seems to me that these amendments will help to promote stability and democracy???

Yes I know ... Thaksin is evil and tha anti-Christ and that Pau Thai is the worst political party ever.... But can we actually dell ate the amendments themselves rather than the people involved?

To me that would be a better discussion

So those against the amendments, why are you against the amendments ?

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

I don't know what 'dell ate' means.

If you think they promote 'stability & democracy' (or even know what they are) then tell us how.

IMO there is very little wrong with the 2007 constitution - the first to be accepted by referendum. PTP were given the opportunity to hold a referendum on whether Thais felt there was any need for changes or not. PTP (Thaksin) decided that they probably couldn't win so they are now trying the back-door method.

Now, because that is not going smoothly, Mr 'democrat' Thaksin threatens the CC with more intimidation by his red-shirt militia.

For anyone who has lived here through Thaksin's 'reign', It is not difficult to see through his machinations to further his own ends which have no bearing on democracy.

CWMcMurray is spot on but you seems not to understand what democracy means nor be able to accept the last election result.

And no one said a referendum is a must. nothing wrong with having the amendments approved by the parliament. Under Abhisit it was handled exactly the same way.

and Thaksin spoke not about some militia but the peoples force - meaning the electorate that gave his sister the mandate to govern.

like it or not but that is the people choice. voted in power in a democratic process.

[Thai at Heart]

I'm sick and tired of hearing that the current constitution is no good, no good, no good at all without real justification why parts should be amended. Some articles are identical comparing 1997 and 2007 version. The 2007 version has lots of clarifications and only the 'amnesty for the coupists' part can be called a blot on it.

Democracy, people involvement, but not in the constitution because that's deemed too scary for politicians?

Still waiting for anyone giving me the proposed text of the three articles to be amended now (in Englisg preferrably) and the reasoning for the proposed changes. Once more, just because Thaksin said so I do not consider a valid reason.

Indeed without facts it is all a bit moot isn't it.

That said, making it possible for anyone to approach such a high Court is fraught with possible frivolous cases.

That said the attorney general is a political appointment so he shouldn't be an arbiter either. So where to from here?

[waza]

CWMcMurray, on 12 Apr 2013 - 16:50, said:

I am no fan of Thaksin or this government ...

Bit seems strange that many feel that by somehow making all senators subject to being voted in rater than appointed by some unelected committee or by revising the clause to reduce the number of frivolous LM lawsuits being brought or removing the clause that allows the judiciary disband an entire political party if one of its members breaks the election law a bad thing

It seems to me that these amendments will help to promote stability and democracy???

Yes I know ... Thaksin is evil and tha anti-Christ and that Pau Thai is the worst political party ever.... But can we actually dell ate the amendments themselves rather than the people involved?

To me that would be a better discussion

So those against the amendments, why are you against the amendments ?

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

There are no proposed changes to LM laws. For all their complaints and their "landslide" victory, it's a wonder the PTP won't do anything. Even Abhisit promised some reform on these laws.

Are they removing the "disbanding the party" clause? I thought they were just removing the "5 year ban" if you get caught cheating.

and they want to remove the clause that is the very topic of this discussion................."to rewrite Section 68 of the Constitution was a breach of the people’s constitutional rights".

angmo, Writes,

"I am sick and tired of the elitist supporters criticising the elected government when they try and do something legally as opposed to using military might."

But that is nothing. What I am sick and tired of is a convicted criminal directing a democratically elected government to subvert the law for his sole gain. I applaud this group of Thai people who are using their constitutional right to follow the rule of law to fight to maintain that constitutional right. While I detest the threats of that criminal, Thaksin, to cause social unrest to oppose them.

[ZhouZhou]

So, those for the amendment, please list the actual proposed changes and give justification for the changes.

normal procedure.

you should ask what is so dangerous of the amendments.

answer: nothing is there to worry about. it is good for improvement.

It isn't the first time of an amendment. there were also amendments under PM Abhisit, approved in the parliament.

the court will find nothing wrong with it.

[khunken]

I am no fan of Thaksin or this government ...

Bit seems strange that many feel that by somehow making all senators subject to being voted in rater than appointed by some unelected committee or by revising the clause to reduce the number of frivolous LM lawsuits being brought or removing the clause that allows the judiciary disband an entire political party if one of its members breaks the election law a bad thing

It seems to me that these amendments will help to promote stability and democracy???

Yes I know ... Thaksin is evil and tha anti-Christ and that Pau Thai is the worst political party ever.... But can we actually dell ate the amendments themselves rather than the people involved?

To me that would be a better discussion

So those against the amendments, why are you against the amendments ?

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

I don't know what 'dell ate' means.

If you think they promote 'stability & democracy' (or even know what they are) then tell us how.

IMO there is very little wrong with the 2007 constitution - the first to be accepted by referendum. PTP were given the opportunity to hold a referendum on whether Thais felt there was any need for changes or not. PTP (Thaksin) decided that they probably couldn't win so they are now trying the back-door method.

Now, because that is not going smoothly, Mr 'democrat' Thaksin threatens the CC with more intimidation by his red-shirt militia.

For anyone who has lived here through Thaksin's 'reign', It is not difficult to see through his machinations to further his own ends which have no bearing on democracy.

CWMcMurray is spot on but you seems not to understand what democracy means nor be able to accept the last election result.

And no one said a referendum is a must. nothing wrong with having the amendments approved by the parliament. Under Abhisit it was handled exactly the same way.

and Thaksin spoke not about some militia but the peoples force - meaning the electorate that gave his sister the mandate to govern.

like it or not but that is the people choice. voted in power in a democratic process.

Your trolling gets more inaccurate with each post.

Anyone who has an ounce of nouce knows what Thaksin said - intimidate the CC just like his militia did before.

I do know that democracy means more than elections - something you refuse to accept (or understand).

What were the amendments made by Abhisit & did the PTP oppose them?

[whybother]

CWMcMurray, on 12 Apr 2013 - 16:50, said:

I am no fan of Thaksin or this government ...

Bit seems strange that many feel that by somehow making all senators subject to being voted in rater than appointed by some unelected committee or by revising the clause to reduce the number of frivolous LM lawsuits being brought or removing the clause that allows the judiciary disband an entire political party if one of its members breaks the election law a bad thing

It seems to me that these amendments will help to promote stability and democracy???

Yes I know ... Thaksin is evil and tha anti-Christ and that Pau Thai is the worst political party ever.... But can we actually dell ate the amendments themselves rather than the people involved?

To me that would be a better discussion

So those against the amendments, why are you against the amendments ?

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

There are no proposed changes to LM laws. For all their complaints and their "landslide" victory, it's a wonder the PTP won't do anything. Even Abhisit promised some reform on these laws.

Are they removing the "disbanding the party" clause? I thought they were just removing the "5 year ban" if you get caught cheating.

and they want to remove the clause that is the very topic of this discussion................."to rewrite Section 68 of the Constitution was a breach of the people’s constitutional rights".

angmo, Writes,

"I am sick and tired of the elitist supporters criticising the elected government when they try and do something legally as opposed to using military might."

But that is nothing. What I am sick and tired of is a convicted criminal directing a democratically elected government to subvert the law for his sole gain. I applaud this group of Thai people who are using their constitutional right to follow the rule of law to fight to maintain that constitutional right. While I detest the threats of that criminal, Thaksin, to cause social unrest to oppose them.

So they don't like the 1997 "People's Constitution" either?

[Thai at Heart]

Actually, a lese majeste complaint is posed to the police first isn't it? But isn't it the case that the police have to pass it on? Can't it be passed to local prosecuters first?

[MILT]

Why don't they just do what the yellow shirts did last time. Overthrow their own government using the military - re-write the constitution with all the changes they want. Pass the same law as last time saying you cannot criticise the new constitution and then have an election which they will again win.

I am sick and tired of the elitist supporters criticising the elected government when they try and do something legally as opposed to using military might.

You all talk democracy - but don't see the double standard.

There was nothing democratic in this administration's election and there is nothing democratic in appointing key supporters of the Thaskin clan. To say that Thailand even has a democracy is stretching the point I think. I agree with you that there are endless double standards happening. To use threats of unrest to accomplish their agenda and obstruct the law, to accuse the CC of not doing their job by allowing

the unobstructed path to personal exoneration. This also is un-democtratic when obviously their is mass opposition to allowing for no checks and balances, and that does fall under the CC.

[MILT]

I am no fan of Thaksin or this government ...

Bit seems strange that many feel that by somehow making all senators subject to being voted in rater than appointed by some unelected committee or by revising the clause to reduce the number of frivolous LM lawsuits being brought or removing the clause that allows the judiciary disband an entire political party if one of its members breaks the election law a bad thing

It seems to me that these amendments will help to promote stability and democracy???

Yes I know ... Thaksin is evil and tha anti-Christ and that Pau Thai is the worst political party ever.... But can we actually dell ate the amendments themselves rather than the people involved?

To me that would be a better discussion

So those against the amendments, why are you against the amendments ?

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

I don't know what 'dell ate' means.

If you think they promote 'stability & democracy' (or even know what they are) then tell us how.

IMO there is very little wrong with the 2007 constitution - the first to be accepted by referendum. PTP were given the opportunity to hold a referendum on whether Thais felt there was any need for changes or not. PTP (Thaksin) decided that they probably couldn't win so they are now trying the back-door method.

Now, because that is not going smoothly, Mr 'democrat' Thaksin threatens the CC with more intimidation by his red-shirt militia.

For anyone who has lived here through Thaksin's 'reign', It is not difficult to see through his machinations to further his own ends which have no bearing on democracy.

CWMcMurray is spot on but you seems not to understand what democracy means nor be able to accept the last election result.

And no one said a referendum is a must. nothing wrong with having the amendments approved by the parliament. Under Abhisit it was handled exactly the same way.

and Thaksin spoke not about some militia but the peoples force - meaning the electorate that gave his sister the mandate to govern.

like it or not but that is the people choice. voted in power in a democratic process.

I disagree! When votes are bought one can hardly say that it resulted in a truly democratic process of choice.

[MILT]

I haver lived here way before Thaskin swooped in.

Day and Night in comparison.

Things were not perfect but there was a legitimate desire to work the kinks out.

After Thaskin got in office (barely by the way.) Things seem to go great for Thailand.

IMF was payed off in record time. Road expansion, Airport, and then that wasn't enough oh! no he had to suspend parliament and become acting PM and shut down all of the checks and balances by appointing himself to those committees and somehow like he did to become pm he went and sold his company tax free and got spanked good for his little misdeeds. Now he wants his stuff back! Unfortunately that includes the country of Thailand

Edited April 12, 2013 by MILT

[Thai at Heart]

I haver lived here way before Thaskin swooped in.

Day and Night in comparison.

Things were not perfect but there was a legitimate desire to work the kinks out.

After Thaskin got in office (barely by the way.) Things seem to go great for Thailand.

IMF was payed off in record time. Road expansion, Airport, and then that wasn't enough oh! no he had to suspend parliament and become acting PM and shut down all of the checks and balances by appointing himself to those committees and somehow like he did to become pm he went and sold his company tax free and got spanked good for his little misdeeds. Now he wants his stuff back! Unfortunately that includes the country of Thailand

Yup, they picked a fight with a guy who just won't give up and learn his place.

[rubl]

So, those for the amendment, please list the actual proposed changes and give justification for the changes.

normal procedure.

you should ask what is so dangerous of the amendments.

answer: nothing is there to worry about. it is good for improvement.

It isn't the first time of an amendment. there were also amendments under PM Abhisit, approved in the parliament.

the court will find nothing wrong with it.

My dear double Zed, don't turn things around.

Those who propose charter section amendments have the duty to describe how they want to amend those sections and give clear reasoning as to why there is a need to amend and why amend as proposed.

As long as I do not have that information I can only be against.

Since you again bring up the amendments under k. Abhisit's tenure, may I ask again how the amendments were described, the reasoning, how controversial the amendments were and if tabled how a possible voting went? Thanks

[indyuk]

Why don't they just do what the yellow shirts did last time. Overthrow their own government using the military - re-write the constitution with all the changes they want. Pass the same law as last time saying you cannot criticise the new constitution and then have an election which they will again win.

I am sick and tired of the elitist supporters criticising the elected government when they try and do something legally as opposed to using military might.

You all talk democracy - but don't see the double standard.

There was nothing democratic in this administration's election and there is nothing democratic in appointing key supporters of the Thaskin clan. To say that Thailand even has a democracy is stretching the point I think. I agree with you that there are endless double standards happening. To use threats of unrest to accomplish their agenda and obstruct the law, to accuse the CC of not doing their job by allowing

the unobstructed path to personal exoneration. This also is un-democtratic when obviously their is mass opposition to allowing for no checks and balances, and that does fall under the CC.

Both sides of Thailand's political divide uses a variety of threats including, extortion, violence, intiimidation, manipulation or even murder to remove their oponent(s) and so enable their malfeasance in office. That is the whole point of these squabbles that cause the 'anchor chain' to drag Thailand to a place that it should not be. That is why the present constitution must be amended. Who knows what kind of Primeminster, Confessor, Dictator, General, Despot, Colonial Entity or Dynasty might usurp the power of the Thai people in the future. Thailand has it's 'Privvy Council' to represent the throne and needs a focussed objective constituion that is devoid of ambiguity to represent the people.The constitution must never undermine the right of the people to publish amenments to their constitution as Thailand moves forward in search of her destiny. QED! Article 68 must be amended in accordance with the Democratically asserted wishes of the people's Lawmakers in 'Office'. To force the hand of Lawmakers that have an overwhelmingly strong mandate is futile.

Edited April 13, 2013 by indyuk

[rubl]

Section 68 (2007) and section 63 (1997) only differ in s68 having the addition of five year ban for politicians.

So now tell me again, why does article 68 must be amended?

[dcutman]

Section 68 (2007) and section 63 (1997) only differ in s68 having the addition of five year ban for politicians.

So now tell me again, why does article 68 must be amended?

I lost count how many times your question has not been answered. Must be at least 30 by now.

I will keep checking in, but I did find out how long I can hold my breath.

[whybother]

Section 68 (2007) and section 63 (1997) only differ in s68 having the addition of five year ban for politicians.

So now tell me again, why does article 68 must be amended?

Because they don't like the 1997 "People's Constitution" version either.

[waza]

Section 68 (2007) and section 63 (1997) only differ in s68 having the addition of five year ban for politicians.

So now tell me again, why does article 68 must be amended?

Because they don't like the 1997 "People's Constitution" version either.

I though it was because Thaksin said it needed amending