Amendment on Thai Senate unconstitutional - Democrats

[webfact]

CONSTITUTION REVIEW
Amendment on Senate unconstitutional - Democrats
KHANITTHA THEPPHAJORN,
ANUPHAN CHANTANA
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- THE OPPOSITION will ask the Parliament again if it should really be debating the controversial change to senate elections, as it could be deemed a violation of the charter, opposition chief whip Jurin Laksanawisit said yesterday. The second reading of the bill is scheduled to continue today.

Jurin warned Parliament President Somsak Kiatsuranont and supporters of the amendment to reconsider their stance on passage of the bill, adding that a statement from the Law Reform Commission of Thailand clearly said that getting all senators elected went against the 2007 Constitution. The commission is led by former attorney-general Kanit na Nakorn.

The opposition chief whip said Somsak should take responsibility if he decides to push forward the bill, since Kanit's panel had already submitted its statement. He went on to say that the opposition would have no choice but to seek a Constitutional Court ruling if the amendment bill passes a third reading.

"Senators who have a conflict of interest would face the charge of committing constitutional offences,'' Jurin said.

The House-Senate joint meeting on the charter change, which is seen by critics as a move by the ruling Pheu Thai Party to gain absolute control in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, is set to continue from last Thursday.

Jurin said the Democrats would also ask the House meeting on Thursday to look into falling prices of agricultural products, especially rubber and palm oil. The MPs will also file a motion asking the House to draw up measures to help alleviate the impact on the public from rising living costs.

Chief government whip Amnuay Khlangpha said he expected the charter amendment deliberation to be completed by tomorrow, though it might last into the early hours of the next morning. On Thursday, the House is scheduled to consider motions proposed by MPs, including the problem of falling rubber prices.

He went on to say that the government's Bt2-trillion loan bill was not on the agenda yet as they were waiting for deliberation on the charter amendment to be completed first.


-- The Nation 2013-08-27

[kirk0233]

This is where the democrats need to rethink their position. Why appose electing all senators and changing the lese majeste laws? It would seem in many instances their name of democrats does not represent their views.

[Pimay1]

adding that a statement from the Law Reform Commission of Thailand clearly said that getting all senators elected went against the 2007 Constitution

As if PTP cares. They have their mandate clearly spelled out to them by the dear leader.

[Nickymaster]

This is where the democrats need to rethink their position. Why appose electing all senators and changing the lese majeste laws? It would seem in many instances their name of democrats does not represent their views.

How about this? Since PT has a majority vote in the house they should change the laws in such a way that they will be allowed to elect judges.

That would be very democratic right?

[kirk0233]

This is where the democrats need to rethink their position. Why appose electing all senators and changing the lese majeste laws? It would seem in many instances their name of democrats does not represent their views.

How about this? Since PT has a majority vote in the house they should change the laws in such a way that they will be allowed to elect judges.

That would be very democratic right?

It would be as democratic as anything else in Thailand. The imported concept of democracy as the west presents it seems to be is ill-suited for Thailand and their bumbling with and resistance to it represents the alien nature of the concept to the Thai. The disregard for the concept can be seen in the attempts to subvert democratic procedures by party leaders on a near weekly basis. Thais should modify their form of governance as needed to suit their Thai nature which seems to favor less equalitarian and informed forms of governance. What ultimate form this hybridize government would take I cannot predict. If western style democracy is indeed the gold standard for justice then perhaps they will eventually accept its unmodified form.

[Thai at Heart]

This is where the democrats need to rethink their position. Why appose electing all senators and changing the lese majeste laws? It would seem in many instances their name of democrats does not represent their views.

How about this? Since PT has a majority vote in the house they should change the laws in such a way that they will be allowed to elect judges.

That would be very democratic right?

It would be as democratic as anything else in Thailand. The imported concept of democracy as the west presents it seems to be is ill-suited for Thailand and their bumbling with and resistance to it represents the alien nature of the concept to the Thai. The disregard for the concept can be seen in the attempts to subvert democratic procedures by party leaders on a near weekly basis. Thais should modify their form of governance as needed to suit their Thai nature which seems to favor less equalitarian and informed forms of governance. What ultimate form this hybridize government would take I cannot predict. If western style democracy is indeed the gold standard for justice then perhaps they will eventually accept its unmodified form.

Thailand likes its democracy with caveats. By the time the caveats are added it's so far from democracy it is basically unrecognisable.

[Noistar]

Thailand likes its democracy with caveats. By the time the caveats are added it's so far from democracy it is basically unrecognisable.

One could almost say a Dictatorship in Democracy's clothes. A democratic mandate to be a dictatorship. Its easy to slide into dictatorship, but how do you get back to democracy?

[Moruya]

The PTP wants to ride a coach and horses through anything that prevents them from achieving absolute power. Constitution, democracy, legal system.

Absolute power corrupts for sure and vice versa.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Thai at Heart]

Thailand likes its democracy with caveats. By the time the caveats are added it's so far from democracy it is basically unrecognisable.

One could almost say a Dictatorship in Democracy's clothes. A democratic mandate to be a dictatorship. Its easy to slide into dictatorship, but how do you get back to democracy?

Well, when you have the army in the role that they have, a very hawkish privy council, inability to separate MP's from their family interests and investments, a legal system that selectively prosecutes people, what hope do you have to set up a functioning system.

The absolute lynch pin is an a political judiciary. This is the fundamental problem that things are dealt with selectively, not just under this bunch, but has gone on like this forever. With no rule and consistency of law, what hope would anyone have of creating anything remotely stable?

[Noistar]

Thailand likes its democracy with caveats. By the time the caveats are added it's so far from democracy it is basically unrecognisable.

One could almost say a Dictatorship in Democracy's clothes. A democratic mandate to be a dictatorship. Its easy to slide into dictatorship, but how do you get back to democracy?

Well, when you have the army in the role that they have, a very hawkish privy council, inability to separate MP's from their family interests and investments, a legal system that selectively prosecutes people, what hope do you have to set up a functioning system.

The absolute lynch pin is an a political judiciary. This is the fundamental problem that things are dealt with selectively, not just under this bunch, but has gone on like this forever. With no rule and consistency of law, what hope would anyone have of creating anything remotely stable?

I think you're right when you say there needs to be an apolitical restraint mechanism to ensure at least a chance of democracy.

Hence, of course, the attempts to ensure that a restraint system becomes a rubber-stamp department.

[pookiki]

Why is it undemocratic to amend a constitution? Why is it undemocratic for a political party that enjoys a majority to exercise its power? The gridlock that has been in place in the US Congress for the last 5-6 years is more undemocratic, in my view, than what is happening in Thailand. Who uses a filibuster to block legislation outside of the US? Since residing in Thailand, the thing that bothers me the most is the power of the military and the power of the judiciary to interject itself into the legislative process. How is it rational to abolish an entire political party based on the acts of one individual?

[Ricardo]

"Democracy is not our aim !"

"Thaksin Thinks, Pheu Thai Acts"

[Thait Spot]

Why is it undemocratic to amend a constitution? Why is it undemocratic for a political party that enjoys a majority to exercise its power? The gridlock that has been in place in the US Congress for the last 5-6 years is more undemocratic, in my view, than what is happening in Thailand. Who uses a filibuster to block legislation outside of the US? Since residing in Thailand, the thing that bothers me the most is the power of the military and the power of the judiciary to interject itself into the legislative process. How is it rational to abolish an entire political party based on the acts of one individual?

Article 48 of the Weimar constitution

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Noistar]

Why is it undemocratic to amend a constitution? Why is it undemocratic for a political party that enjoys a majority to exercise its power? The gridlock that has been in place in the US Congress for the last 5-6 years is more undemocratic, in my view, than what is happening in Thailand. Who uses a filibuster to block legislation outside of the US? Since residing in Thailand, the thing that bothers me the most is the power of the military and the power of the judiciary to interject itself into the legislative process. How is it rational to abolish an entire political party based on the acts of one individual?

Why is it democratic for a political party to move the goalposts to enable even greater changes to be made, unopposed?

A government which appears to be abusing parliamentary democracy.

A party which perpetuates the Thai culture of discretionary rule of law.

Until a government can be seen to be trustworthy, I don't see how your naive support of the rant "we were democratically elected so we can do whatever we want and stuff the country and people as long as the party benefits", can be justified.

Do you trust the intentions of the government? Or, presumably, your version of parliamentary democracy blinds you to the consequences, as its all done in the name of democratic elections.

[pookiki]

Why is it undemocratic to amend a constitution? Why is it undemocratic for a political party that enjoys a majority to exercise its power? The gridlock that has been in place in the US Congress for the last 5-6 years is more undemocratic, in my view, than what is happening in Thailand. Who uses a filibuster to block legislation outside of the US? Since residing in Thailand, the thing that bothers me the most is the power of the military and the power of the judiciary to interject itself into the legislative process. How is it rational to abolish an entire political party based on the acts of one individual?

Why is it democratic for a political party to move the goalposts to enable even greater changes to be made, unopposed?

A government which appears to be abusing parliamentary democracy.

A party which perpetuates the Thai culture of discretionary rule of law.

Until a government can be seen to be trustworthy, I don't see how your naive support of the rant "we were democratically elected so we can do whatever we want and stuff the country and people as long as the party benefits", can be justified.

Do you trust the intentions of the government? Or, presumably, your version of parliamentary democracy blinds you to the consequences, as its all done in the name of democratic elections.

I don't trust the intentions of any government. With the recent revelations about surveillance of US citizens by the NSA, the establishment of 'secret' courts under the 'patriot' act, a gulag on Guantanamo, continuing acts to silence the press on disclosing abuses of government corruption, lawlessness, abuse of power, torture and so on. And these issues are not limited to problems in the US. But I still don't understand how trying to reclaim/restore a 'constitution' that existed before a military coup is undemocratic.

[Noistar]

Why is it undemocratic to amend a constitution? Why is it undemocratic for a political party that enjoys a majority to exercise its power? The gridlock that has been in place in the US Congress for the last 5-6 years is more undemocratic, in my view, than what is happening in Thailand. Who uses a filibuster to block legislation outside of the US? Since residing in Thailand, the thing that bothers me the most is the power of the military and the power of the judiciary to interject itself into the legislative process. How is it rational to abolish an entire political party based on the acts of one individual?

Why is it democratic for a political party to move the goalposts to enable even greater changes to be made, unopposed?

A government which appears to be abusing parliamentary democracy.

A party which perpetuates the Thai culture of discretionary rule of law.

Until a government can be seen to be trustworthy, I don't see how your naive support of the rant "we were democratically elected so we can do whatever we want and stuff the country and people as long as the party benefits", can be justified.

Do you trust the intentions of the government? Or, presumably, your version of parliamentary democracy blinds you to the consequences, as its all done in the name of democratic elections.

I don't trust the intentions of any government. With the recent revelations about surveillance of US citizens by the NSA, the establishment of 'secret' courts under the 'patriot' act, a gulag on Guantanamo, continuing acts to silence the press on disclosing abuses of government corruption, lawlessness, abuse of power, torture and so on. And these issues are not limited to problems in the US. But I still don't understand how trying to reclaim/restore a 'constitution' that existed before a military coup is undemocratic.

Is it necessary though?

[pookiki]

Why is it undemocratic to amend a constitution? Why is it undemocratic for a political party that enjoys a majority to exercise its power? The gridlock that has been in place in the US Congress for the last 5-6 years is more undemocratic, in my view, than what is happening in Thailand. Who uses a filibuster to block legislation outside of the US? Since residing in Thailand, the thing that bothers me the most is the power of the military and the power of the judiciary to interject itself into the legislative process. How is it rational to abolish an entire political party based on the acts of one individual?

Why is it democratic for a political party to move the goalposts to enable even greater changes to be made, unopposed?

A government which appears to be abusing parliamentary democracy.

A party which perpetuates the Thai culture of discretionary rule of law.

Until a government can be seen to be trustworthy, I don't see how your naive support of the rant "we were democratically elected so we can do whatever we want and stuff the country and people as long as the party benefits", can be justified.

Do you trust the intentions of the government? Or, presumably, your version of parliamentary democracy blinds you to the consequences, as its all done in the name of democratic elections.

I don't trust the intentions of any government. With the recent revelations about surveillance of US citizens by the NSA, the establishment of 'secret' courts under the 'patriot' act, a gulag on Guantanamo, continuing acts to silence the press on disclosing abuses of government corruption, lawlessness, abuse of power, torture and so on. And these issues are not limited to problems in the US. But I still don't understand how trying to reclaim/restore a 'constitution' that existed before a military coup is undemocratic.

Is it necessary though?

Submit any proposed amendment to the constitution to the people via a referendum. Let the people decide what is 'necessary'.

[Noistar]

Why is it undemocratic to amend a constitution? Why is it undemocratic for a political party that enjoys a majority to exercise its power? The gridlock that has been in place in the US Congress for the last 5-6 years is more undemocratic, in my view, than what is happening in Thailand. Who uses a filibuster to block legislation outside of the US? Since residing in Thailand, the thing that bothers me the most is the power of the military and the power of the judiciary to interject itself into the legislative process. How is it rational to abolish an entire political party based on the acts of one individual?

Why is it democratic for a political party to move the goalposts to enable even greater changes to be made, unopposed?

A government which appears to be abusing parliamentary democracy.

A party which perpetuates the Thai culture of discretionary rule of law.

Until a government can be seen to be trustworthy, I don't see how your naive support of the rant "we were democratically elected so we can do whatever we want and stuff the country and people as long as the party benefits", can be justified.

Do you trust the intentions of the government? Or, presumably, your version of parliamentary democracy blinds you to the consequences, as its all done in the name of democratic elections.

I don't trust the intentions of any government. With the recent revelations about surveillance of US citizens by the NSA, the establishment of 'secret' courts under the 'patriot' act, a gulag on Guantanamo, continuing acts to silence the press on disclosing abuses of government corruption, lawlessness, abuse of power, torture and so on. And these issues are not limited to problems in the US. But I still don't understand how trying to reclaim/restore a 'constitution' that existed before a military coup is undemocratic.

Is it necessary though?

Submit any proposed amendment to the constitution to the people via a referendum. Let the people decide what is 'necessary'.

Okay, let's put it another way, should the government be devoting time to changing something which doesn't appear to need changing?

Life goes on here with the current Constitution.

What motive does the government have in wanting it changed?

Seems there's an awful lot that government needs to do to make life better for the country and its people NOW.

Tinkering with something which benefits the party and causes division should not be near the top of the "how do we best use our electoral majority for the Thai people" list.

[Thait Spot]

Why is it undemocratic to amend a constitution? Why is it undemocratic for a political party that enjoys a majority to exercise its power? The gridlock that has been in place in the US Congress for the last 5-6 years is more undemocratic, in my view, than what is happening in Thailand. Who uses a filibuster to block legislation outside of the US? Since residing in Thailand, the thing that bothers me the most is the power of the military and the power of the judiciary to interject itself into the legislative process. How is it rational to abolish an entire political party based on the acts of one individual?

Why is it democratic for a political party to move the goalposts to enable even greater changes to be made, unopposed?

A government which appears to be abusing parliamentary democracy.

A party which perpetuates the Thai culture of discretionary rule of law.

Until a government can be seen to be trustworthy, I don't see how your naive support of the rant "we were democratically elected so we can do whatever we want and stuff the country and people as long as the party benefits", can be justified.

Do you trust the intentions of the government? Or, presumably, your version of parliamentary democracy blinds you to the consequences, as its all done in the name of democratic elections.

I don't trust the intentions of any government. With the recent revelations about surveillance of US citizens by the NSA, the establishment of 'secret' courts under the 'patriot' act, a gulag on Guantanamo, continuing acts to silence the press on disclosing abuses of government corruption, lawlessness, abuse of power, torture and so on. And these issues are not limited to problems in the US. But I still don't understand how trying to reclaim/restore a 'constitution' that existed before a military coup is undemocratic.

Is it necessary though?

Submit any proposed amendment to the constitution to the people via a referendum. Let the people decide what is 'necessary'.

Okay, let's put it another way, should the government be devoting time to changing something which doesn't appear to need changing?

Life goes on here with the current Constitution.

What motive does the government have in wanting it changed?

Seems there's an awful lot that government needs to do to make life better for the country and its people NOW.

Tinkering with something which benefits the party and causes division should not be near the top of the "how do we best use our electoral majority for the Thai people" list.

Good, accurate summary

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[johnnie20110]

This is where the democrats need to rethink their position. Why appose electing all senators and changing the lese majeste laws?

Two completely separate issues, with one not being proposed for change by the PTP government, ergo the Democrats are not opposing any change to it.

[johnnie20110]

Why is it undemocratic to amend a constitution? Why is it undemocratic for a political party that enjoys a majority to exercise its power? The gridlock that has been in place in the US Congress for the last 5-6 years is more undemocratic, in my view, than what is happening in Thailand. Who uses a filibuster to block legislation outside of the US? Since residing in Thailand, the thing that bothers me the most is the power of the military and the power of the judiciary to interject itself into the legislative process. How is it rational to abolish an entire political party based on the acts of one individual?

It acts the same way the RICO Act in the USA works.

Just like the mob families are presumed to be conspiring together within their family, when one can be pinched, often times others within the family can also.

Such that when the PPP Executives were shown to be committing electoral fraud, it is presumed that others in the Executive Committee were aware of their illegal acts.

[johnnie20110]

Is it necessary though?

Submit any proposed amendment to the constitution to the people via a referendum. Let the people decide what is 'necessary'.

A reasonable suggestion that the PTP government initially said they would do, but has subsequently reneged on as they apparently already know what the people feel is necessary.

Edited August 29, 2013 by johnnie20110

[Pimay1]

I expect the dear leader put the stops on that suggestion. Can't take any chances of the Thai people over riding the PTP agenda.

[kirk0233]

This is where the democrats need to rethink their position. Why appose electing all senators and changing the lese majeste laws?

Two completely separate issues, with one not being proposed for change by the PTP government, ergo the Democrats are not opposing any change to it.

Yes they are separate issues - one of free elections and one of free speech - neither of which the democrats seem to support with respect to senators or to royalty. Why would a party call itself democratic and oppose these issues except for PR purposes?

[Noistar]

This is where the democrats need to rethink their position. Why appose electing all senators and changing the lese majeste laws?

Two completely separate issues, with one not being proposed for change by the PTP government, ergo the Democrats are not opposing any change to it.

Yes they are separate issues - one of free elections and one of free speech - neither of which the democrats seem to support with respect to senators or to royalty. Why would a party call itself democratic and oppose these issues except for PR purposes?

I don't think you'll find the Democrat Party are against free elections or free speech. Another party springs to mind when you raise that criticism regarding free speech.

The Democrats are concerned about the mechanism for achieving a viable Senate.

Obviously a childish - free elections will make everything democratic, fails to address the issue of 2 identical houses.

The children who make up PTP seem to be gutting the sweet shop as things stand, let alone with another 'democratic' we can do what we want because.

I imagine the Democrat Party have a more mature outlook and realise it's not quite as simple as it seems.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Noistar