Thai Democrats Seek To Block Charter Changes

[webfact]

CHARTER AMENDMENT
Democrats seek to block changes
The Nation

Petition urges dissolution of 6 parties, claims MPs aiming to overthrow constitutional monarchy system

BANGKOK: -- The Democrat Party joined the anti-charter amendment bandwagon yesterday by getting its legal experts to file a petition in the Constitutional Court seeking to block changes to Article 68.

In the petition filed by Wirat Kalayasiri, the Democrat Party asked the court to dissolve six political parties, accusing their MPs of trying to overthrow the country's constitutional monarchy system by trying to amend Article 68.

The six political parties are Pheu Thai, Chart Thai Pattana, Chart Pattana, Palang Chon, Mahachon and New Democracy parties.

The petition referred to an earlier Constitutional Court ruling that people could invoke Article 68 to protect the country's constitutional monarchy by submitting petitions to the court directly.

However, the planned amendments to Article 68 require people to submit petitions only through the Office of the Attorney-General.

Consequently, the petition says, the amendments supported by 312 MPs and senators should be regarded as an effort to undermine the constitutional monarchy and hence the parties these MPs come from should be dissolved.

The petition also called on the Constitutional Court to issue an injunction to suspend the ongoing amendment process until the court issues a ruling.

Yesterday, it was not only the opponents of the amendments who went to court, but also a group of supporters who filed a petition asking the court to reject all anti-amendment calls.

Retired police officer Pol Colonel Banchob Sudjai and members of his club set up to protect law and justice asked the court to reject all anti-amendment petitions submitted by Senator Somchai Sawaengkarn and others.

Court to consider petitions

The Constitutional Court is scheduled to meet this morning to consider the petition on whether the MPs and senators' attempt to change Articles 68 and 237 was constitutional or not.

It has been asked to see if the parliamentarians sponsoring the charter change violated the Constitution.

The four petitions include those filed by senators Somchai and Somjate Boonthanom as well as that filed by the yellow shirts on Monday.

Meanwhile, Banchob's petition said Article 68 was being amended under the provisions of Article 291. It added that the anti-amendment petitions had failed to establish how amending Article 68 would overthrow the constitutional monarchy.

Speaking to reporters later, Banchob said Somchai should have expressed his opinion or sought to change the amendment bill during the deliberation process instead of filing a petition with the Constitutional Court.

Chart Thai Pattana Party's de facto leader Banharn Silapa-Archa said his party should not be subject to dissolution as it was the MPs' individual decision to support the charter change.


-- The Nation 2013-05-29

[geriatrickid]

Bob Hope apparently had a good assessment of the Thai political scene.

[kimamey]

Bob Hope apparently had a good assessment of the Thai political scene.

A good clip by a great man and it certainly makes a point.

I understand the opposition to anything that attempts to whitewash Thaksin and allow him to avoid his prison sentence and the need to go through the attorney general to petition the Constitutional court as the AG seems to lack neutrality. However I don't agree with this constant use of the monarchy which is distasteful and misguided in my view. I can't see the Thai population standing by whilst the monarchy is destroyed. I know the level of support is difficult to gauge due to the archaic LM laws but it seems pretty strong to me.

This is slightly off topic but my brother in law from my first marriage was helping with the foundations for the new council buildings in Portsmouth UK which are opposite the Guildhall where Bob Hope was going to appear some time in the 80s. As he was using a backhoe he found an unexploded WW2 bomb. This caused the Bob Hope show to be cancelled. As far as I can remember it wasn't rescheduled.

[ramrod711]

Speaking to reporters later, Banchob said Somchai should have expressed his opinion or sought to change the amendment bill during the deliberation process instead of filing a petition with the Constitutional Court.

I hate to agree with anything a PTP member says, but dissolution of every political party that you disagree with is ridiculous. This move will come back to bite the Democrats in the butt. I believe that the best way to deal with the PTP is to let them rule, speak up when you disagree, but let them continue down the road to self destruction.

[bigbamboo]

Is this the Silly Party of Monty Python fame?

OK, we know those mentioned are self serving but so are they all. And surely to wipe out every party that disagrees with you is the stuff of the PTP not the Dems.

Edited May 29, 2013 by bigbamboo

[Tatsujin]

Yay, go Democrats!

[chainarong]

This change in it's self meets with some degree of skepticism , at present article 68 allows the people to petition the constitution court to protect the monarchy, what PTP want is that this process be changed, to go through the Attorney Generals department, the independence of the courts allows this to be an avenue for the people if concerned for the protection of the monarchy, they can use without fear or favour, going through the AGD will possibly find the document consigned to the dust bin of history, coupled with the usual victimisation ,intimidation , court action etc. I can only assume it was introduce because of someone who lives in Dubai.

[Thai at Heart]

Does anyone really think it is a good thing that anyone can submit a lese majeste accusation directly to court?

Someone shot me down on another thread that this change to 68 had nothing to do with lese majeste, and here we are. Is this the best logic that the Democrats can come up with?

[MunterHunter]

I think the 'Dissolve all parties' approach is a bit frivolous... and Thai politics should move away from this 'disband my enemy's party' concept

[whybother]

Does anyone really think it is a good thing that anyone can submit a lese majeste accusation directly to court?

Someone shot me down on another thread that this change to 68 had nothing to do with lese majeste, and here we are. Is this the best logic that the Democrats can come up with?

I think it is a separate issue to LM. LM is about defaming the monarchy. The Democrat's complaint is that the change to Article 68 is an attempt to overthrow the "constitutional monarchy system". I am not saying either are right. I am just saying they are different.

[amore]

This change in it's self meets with some degree of skepticism , at present article 68 allows the people to petition the constitution court to protect the monarchy, what PTP want is that this process be changed, to go through the Attorney Generals department, the independence of the courts allows this to be an avenue for the people if concerned for the protection of the monarchy, they can use without fear or favour, going through the AGD will possibly find the document consigned to the dust bin of history, coupled with the usual victimisation ,intimidation , court action etc. I can only assume it was introduce because of someone who lives in Dubai.

Unfortunately for your "reasoning" the original requirement for invoking Article 68 (aka Article 63 in the previous constitution) was to petition through the AG. Ironically enough an attempt by the PPP to invoke Article 68 for the dissolution of the Democrat Party was turned down by the Constitutional Court because it was not presented through the AG but direct to the CC.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/84027/why-has-the-thai-constitution-court-changed-its-interpretation-of-the-law/

It was only after the last attempt by the Democrats to invoke Article 68 in an attempt to get the PTP dissolved that the CC strangely enough changed their minds about how the article should be read (no suprise there) and ruled that any Tom , Dick or Somchai can go direct to the CC and claim political personnel/parties are threatening to overthrow the Head of State.

The AG was always seen as the "check and balance" for these ridiculous accusations - and as for those of you who think the AG position is political I think you'll find the present incumbent was put there by Abhisit.

And if they were that worried about "overthrowing the Head of State" they could read Article 291 and find that any amendments that are likely to do so are prohibited:

Section 291. An amendment of the Constitution may be made only under the rules and procedure as follows:

(1) a motion for amendment must be proposed either by the Council of Ministers or members of the House of Representatives of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members of the House of Representatives or members of both Houses of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members thereof or persons having the right to votes of not less than fifty thousand in number under the law on the public submission of a bill;

A motion for amendment which has the effect of changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of State shall be prohibited;

So far , so democrat party BS. Can't win an election? Have a Judicial Coup Intervention.

[Thai at Heart]

Does anyone really think it is a good thing that anyone can submit a lese majeste accusation directly to court?

Someone shot me down on another thread that this change to 68 had nothing to do with lese majeste, and here we are. Is this the best logic that the Democrats can come up with?

I think it is a separate issue to LM. LM is about defaming the monarchy. The Democrat's complaint is that the change to Article 68 is an attempt to overthrow the "constitutional monarchy system". I am not saying either are right. I am just saying they are different.

So what they are saying, is that anyone should be allowed to go to the Constitutional Court directly should they try to propose anything akin to a presidential type of government. Well, ok, in theory, it has been stated that the parliament can modify the constitution, but it is stated in the Constitution that anything that violates the condition of the King being the Head of State is strictly prohibited in the Constitution. Interesting tautology.

That would be essentially a parliamentary coup. Thailand, hub of creating new types of coups......

Question, does the Senate have to approve all legislation passed by the government, as in the way it is done in the UK. In which case, how could a law be passed that is clearly in violation of the Constitution. I know TIT, but how can laws be passed that violate the Constitution? Surely you don't need the CC to tell you that making a law that clearly violates the Constitution is Unconstitutional?

[chainarong]

Does anyone really think it is a good thing that anyone can submit a lese majeste accusation directly to court?

Someone shot me down on another thread that this change to 68 had nothing to do with lese majeste, and here we are. Is this the best logic that the Democrats can come up with?

I think it is a separate issue to LM. LM is about defaming the monarchy. The Democrat's complaint is that the change to Article 68 is an attempt to overthrow the "constitutional monarchy system". I am not saying either are right. I am just saying they are different.

This is all about the PTP vetting/ controlling , not a thing about L.M. that is a separate issue

[Thait Spot]

I think the 'Dissolve all parties' approach is a bit frivolous... and Thai politics should move away from this 'disband my enemy's party' concept

Personally I think the tactic is to bring a number of cases that will be found in favour of the government.

When the time comes to find the right case against the government, the courts can point to a history of having found in PTP's favour.

My theory for the day.....

[waza]

^{Judge them all}

Edited May 29, 2013 by waza

[amore]

This is all about the PTP vetting/ controlling , not a thing about L.M. that is a separate issue

Please tell us just how the PTP is vetting/controlling? Did you even read my reply (post #11) to your previous post? What do you not understand about the lack of substance of the the Democrat Party "complaint"?

I think you need to concentrate more on the increasing powers of the CC than any PTP "vetting or controlling"

They are making new laws by their interpretation of existing laws - that isn't their job.

[Baerboxer]

Does anyone really think it is a good thing that anyone can submit a lese majeste accusation directly to court?

Someone shot me down on another thread that this change to 68 had nothing to do with lese majeste, and here we are. Is this the best logic that the Democrats can come up with?

I think it is a separate issue to LM. LM is about defaming the monarchy. The Democrat's complaint is that the change to Article 68 is an attempt to overthrow the "constitutional monarchy system". I am not saying either are right. I am just saying they are different.

So what they are saying, is that anyone should be allowed to go to the Constitutional Court directly should they try to propose anything akin to a presidential type of government. Well, ok, in theory, it has been stated that the parliament can modify the constitution, but it is stated in the Constitution that anything that violates the condition of the King being the Head of State is strictly prohibited in the Constitution. Interesting tautology.

That would be essentially a parliamentary coup. Thailand, hub of creating new types of coups......

Question, does the Senate have to approve all legislation passed by the government, as in the way it is done in the UK. In which case, how could a law be passed that is clearly in violation of the Constitution. I know TIT, but how can laws be passed that violate the Constitution? Surely you don't need the CC to tell you that making a law that clearly violates the Constitution is Unconstitutional?

The UK and American systems work well - not perfect, but nothing is perfect.

The issue here is that PTP appear to be trying to weaken the entire checks and balances process - changing the senate make up, amending the constitution, placing relatives and cronies in key posititions, underfunding independent organizations and the judiciary. This strategy looks very similar to previous one from their master.

If they were really interested in change for the benefit of the people and democracy they could easily show it by holding referendums on constitutional changes. They won't do this because they know that the majority of people are beginning to realize just what they've elected, and might vote against. In this particular instance, why would the government want to restrict access to the CC through a vetting process carried out by the AG?

The sad thing is that there really isn't a credible opposition or alternative at the moment.

[indyuk]

I think the 'Dissolve all parties' approach is a bit frivolous... and Thai politics should move away from this 'disband my enemy's party' concept

These last 20 years it has been a continuous cause of concern in that senior Thai politicians of all persuasions have unhealthy feelings of malice toward any of their peers that have suceeded in improving democratic governance through their genuine endevour in pushing Thailand forward in a new direction through the competent management of the Nations resources

Many Democrat polititions seem to believe that the constitution exists to enable the views of a few lawmakers and the Military upon the Nation with a view to enablabling the malfeasance of the very few who seek to keep the option of a Military Coups open any time that thier political views are nullified by the projects or the administrative sucesses of the government of the day.

In order to break this pattern of periodic National humiliation it is vital that both government and oposition parties put thier inappropriate disruptive actions and mischievous lobbying behind them and work for the Thai people with integrity.

To this end we should prevail on Khun Abhisit to serve the country in good faith through encouraging his party members and his coalition to be a constructive and hard working opposition force urging the government to arrive at an afiable resolution to the plight of all parties damaged by the past military coup and the subsequent abuse of the 'Red revolution'..

Edited May 29, 2013 by indyuk

[Chrisswe]

Sure they have no other choice to survive !!

[khunken]

While it is hard to justify some of the petitions put before the CC - and the latest Democrat party one is OTT - it is hard to blame them.

PTP are using the DSI to try to 'persuade' Abhisit (& other Democrat party members) to agree to Thaksin's amnesty by various accusations, including frivolous ones.

The Dems are attempting to use the CC to get back at the PTP.

One says 'we won the election so we can do what we like' & the other says 'no, we are usually muffled in parliament so we'll use the courts to allow us to oppose'.

Neither is helping Thai democracy.

[Robby nz]

The Dems are using the only course of action open to them.

They have no show to outvote PT in the house so in an attempt to stop or at least delay a constitution change which looks to be to the detriment of the country and designed to intercept any complaint to the CC they use the law as their weapon.

At least they do things according to the law of the country something that can not be said for others.

[geriatrickid]

The Dems are using the only course of action open to them.

They have no show to outvote PT in the house so in an attempt to stop or at least delay a constitution change which looks to be to the detriment of the country and designed to intercept any complaint to the CC they use the law as their weapon.

At least they do things according to the law of the country something that can not be said for others.

Frivolous court proceedings brings the judicial system into disrepute and undermines the peoples' respect for an important institution. By all means bring legal proceedings, but do so only when there is a valid case. The Democrats risk taking on the Boy Who Called Wolf label. The should pick and choose their court battles based upon the merits of the case. This seems to be motivated by a need to keep some of the Dems disaffected members occupied so that they do not turn on the current leadership.

[Robby nz]

Frivolous court proceedings brings the judicial system into disrepute and undermines the peoples' respect for an important institution. By all means bring legal proceedings, but do so only when there is a valid case. The Democrats risk taking on the Boy Who Called Wolf label. The should pick and choose their court battles based upon the merits of the case. This seems to be motivated by a need to keep some of the Dems disaffected members occupied so that they do not turn on the current leadership.

If you really want to go into frivolous court proceedings how about having a go at all the silly charges the DSI are bringing against the previous MP and deputy, presumably in an attempt to get them to go along with bringing Thaksin back free.

As I wrote the Dems are using the law in a correct manner as the only defense they have against a govt who are showing themselves up for what they are by threatening and bullying anyone who would speak out against them.

[longway]

This change in it's self meets with some degree of skepticism , at present article 68 allows the people to petition the constitution court to protect the monarchy, what PTP want is that this process be changed, to go through the Attorney Generals department, the independence of the courts allows this to be an avenue for the people if concerned for the protection of the monarchy, they can use without fear or favour, going through the AGD will possibly find the document consigned to the dust bin of history, coupled with the usual victimisation ,intimidation , court action etc. I can only assume it was introduce because of someone who lives in Dubai.

Unfortunately for your "reasoning" the original requirement for invoking Article 68 (aka Article 63 in the previous constitution) was to petition through the AG. Ironically enough an attempt by the PPP to invoke Article 68 for the dissolution of the Democrat Party was turned down by the Constitutional Court because it was not presented through the AG but direct to the CC.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/84027/why-has-the-thai-constitution-court-changed-its-interpretation-of-the-law/

It was only after the last attempt by the Democrats to invoke Article 68 in an attempt to get the PTP dissolved that the CC strangely enough changed their minds about how the article should be read (no suprise there) and ruled that any Tom , Dick or Somchai can go direct to the CC and claim political personnel/parties are threatening to overthrow the Head of State.

The AG was always seen as the "check and balance" for these ridiculous accusations - and as for those of you who think the AG position is political I think you'll find the present incumbent was put there by Abhisit.

And if they were that worried about "overthrowing the Head of State" they could read Article 291 and find that any amendments that are likely to do so are prohibited:

Section 291. An amendment of the Constitution may be made only under the rules and procedure as follows:[/size]

(1) a motion for amendment must be proposed either by the Council of Ministers or members of the House of Representatives of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members of the House of Representatives or members of both Houses of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members thereof or persons having the right to votes of not less than fifty thousand in number under the law on the public submission of a bill;

A motion for amendment which has the effect of changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of State shall be prohibited;

So far , so democrat party BS. Can't win an election? Have a Judicial Coup Intervention.

Suthep appointed tharit the head of DSI.

[Noistar]

The Dems are using the only course of action open to them.

They have no show to outvote PT in the house so in an attempt to stop or at least delay a constitution change which looks to be to the detriment of the country and designed to intercept any complaint to the CC they use the law as their weapon.

At least they do things according to the law of the country something that can not be said for others.

For a minute I thought you were proposing that the present government respect the rule of law.

Or is that only applicable when you've changed all the laws in your favour?

The Democrats have limited options. If Abhisit did in fact appoint the present incumbent of the AG post, is it remotely possible that Khun T could appoint one of his lapdogs?

Red supporters ready for melt-down?