Thai charter-amendment bill heads to Palace for approval

[webfact]

CHARTER AMENDMENT
Bill heads to Palace for approval
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The charter-amendment bill will be sent for royal approval now that the prime minister has activated the endorsement process following vetting by relevant agencies.

Suranand Vejjajiva, secretary general to the prime minister, said the Council of State believed that the bill was being legislated in accordance with the Constitution.

"The bill enactment conforms with the Constitution's Article 291," he reiterated, citing the council's view that the charter amendment was in compliance with the prescribed procedures.

He said that though the opposition has tried to derail the bill's enactment, it had no legal justification to do so.

The opposition has cited Articles 68 and 154 in a move to litigate against the bill, but he said these two provisions had no bearing on Article 291, which was key to the amendment process. He said in 2011, the Constitutional Court had ruled that Article 154 focused on the legislative process for an Act of Parliament and could not be applied to charter change.

Parliament voted for the final passage of the bill on Saturday, and on the very same day, the House Secretariat forwarded the draft to the government to seek royal approval.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, meanwhile, said she could not be held accountable over the issue even if the judicial review turns out to be unfavourable. "I am the designated office holder to submit and countersign the bill."

The legislature is responsible for resolving any issues related to the bill, which is not under the purview of the executive branch, she said.

Pheu Thai MP Samart Kaewmechai said the ruling party might activate a criminal investigation against the Constitutional Court, as it could have violated the Penal Code's Article 157 on abuse of power when it launched a judicial review on the bill. Pheu Thai's legal team was collecting evidence to charge the court, the Democrat Party and opposition senators for abusing their power and launching unjustified litigation, he added.

Separately, Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva reiterated his call for the government to delay the bill until the judicial review is completed.

Senator Veeravit Kongsak said the government should file a motion to consult the court on how it should proceed with the royal approval.


-- The Nation 2013-10-02

[klubex99]

Pheu Thai MP Samart Kaewmechai said the ruling party might activate a criminal investigation against the Constitutional Court, as it could have violated the Penal Code's Article 157 on abuse of power when it launched a judicial review on the bill. Pheu Thai's legal team was collecting evidence to charge the court, the Democrat Party and opposition senators for abusing their power and launching unjustified litigation, he added.

[jcb2001]

What happened to having a public referendum to constitutional charter changes? Am I missing something?

A bill this important needs the utmost scrutiny before it is made law of the land. Getting the people's approval in a referendum would have gone a long way in either supporting or rejecting the most important bill the country of Thailand faces. I thought this was part of the process. I guess I'm wrong.

[rametindallas]

Maybe His Majesty will let is set, like the petition submitted to him to grant a Royal Pardon to the criminal Thaksin (who says he's innocent).

"Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, meanwhile, said she could not be held accountable over the issue even if the judicial review turns out to be unfavourable. "I am the designated office holder to submit and countersign the bill.""

If she countersigns (it is a voluntary act), she assumes full responsibility and accountability for what is in it. She has advisors and if they advise her wrongly, it is her fault. Technically, no one could force advisors or decisions on this PM, but we know she is the puppet of her brother the Real PM

"Pheu Thai MP Samart Kaewmechai said the ruling party might activate a criminal investigation against the Constitutional Court, as it could have violated the Penal Code's Article 157 on abuse of power when it launched a judicial review on the bill. Pheu Thai's legal team was collecting evidence to charge the court, the Democrat Party and opposition senators for abusing their power and launching unjustified litigation, he added."

Will the case against the Constitutional Court, the Democrat Party, and opposition Senators be heard by the Constitutional Court. Oh, the irony.

If their scheme to change the Thai Constitution piecemeal works this time, what's to stop them from changing it to eventually keep them in perpetual power?

[bigbamboo]

Maybe His Majesty will let is set, like the petition submitted to him to grant a Royal Pardon to the criminal Thaksin (who says he's innocent).

"Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, meanwhile, said she could not be held accountable over the issue even if the judicial review turns out to be unfavourable. "I am the designated office holder to submit and countersign the bill.""

If she countersigns (it is a voluntary act), she assumes full responsibility and accountability for what is in it. She has advisors and if they advise her wrongly, it is her fault. Technically, no one could force advisors or decisions on this PM, but we know she is the puppet of her brother the Real PM

"Pheu Thai MP Samart Kaewmechai said the ruling party might activate a criminal investigation against the Constitutional Court, as it could have violated the Penal Code's Article 157 on abuse of power when it launched a judicial review on the bill. Pheu Thai's legal team was collecting evidence to charge the court, the Democrat Party and opposition senators for abusing their power and launching unjustified litigation, he added."

Will the case against the Constitutional Court, the Democrat Party, and opposition Senators be heard by the Constitutional Court. Oh, the irony.

If their scheme to change the Thai Constitution piecemeal works this time, what's to stop them from changing it to eventually keep them in perpetual power?

You can see her point about accountability. She IS only following orders.

[Tatsujin]

I'm waiting for the snap elections that will be held immediately after the bill is found to be unconstitutional (or whatever they call it).

[tingtongteesood]

And Thailand takes another steep in the wrong direction. Let's hope the man with the power will stand in the way of the criminals efforts to gain full power....

[siampolee]

"Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, meanwhile, said she could not be held accountable over the issue even if the judicial review turns out to be unfavourable. "I am the designated office holder to submit and countersign the bill.""

Seems to me that the comment above is based on the Nuremberg defense after world war 2 and the resultant trials concerning the leaders and assorted war criminals who were facing charges.

Looks like Yingluck is paving the way to obtain a ''get out of jail free card'' ready for when the status quo changes and she and her ilk are in the dock, however the dock will not reach Dubai so the puppet master escapes whilst his puppet will pay the price just as the Red Shirt pawns paid and some are still paying the price for their folly.

[hammered]

She has to submit it because of a previous ruling by the constitutional court. If she did not submit it within 20 days, she could be charged fro not carrying out her duty and the whole thing would fall. That she has forwarded it before the court meet is an interesting gambit. Will they say their previous ruling was wrong? Will they make an "and" means "or" ruling or will they back down on the forwarding it issue? It is an interesting one. And even if the court reverse their previous ruling, the PM will have forwarded as the law stood on the day she sent it. Will there then be a retroactive interpretation or not?

[realenglish1]

I know parliamentary procedure and government in General but I totally do not follow this so how can a Thai be expected to follow something so complicated

[Baerboxer]

What happened to having a public referendum to constitutional charter changes? Am I missing something?

A bill this important needs the utmost scrutiny before it is made law of the land. Getting the people's approval in a referendum would have gone a long way in either supporting or rejecting the most important bill the country of Thailand faces. I thought this was part of the process. I guess I'm wrong.

PTP won't risk a referendum. Their loss of popularity through mounting criticism and the rising strong feelings against their leader's return makes them even more nervous.

They aren't interested in democracy, the rule of law or what's best for the nation - only the own agenda. They hope they've found a weasley way around the constitution law so it appears what they are doing is legal. All the usual smoke and mirrors, little white lies and ignoring the laws they don't like.

Sadly, it will get worse when they push this through and the big boss returns and takes full,unchecked power. Zimbabwe, Cambodia and North Korea will look like moderates when this bunch get all their own way.

[Baerboxer]

Maybe His Majesty will let is set, like the petition submitted to him to grant a Royal Pardon to the criminal Thaksin (who says he's innocent).

"Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, meanwhile, said she could not be held accountable over the issue even if the judicial review turns out to be unfavourable. "I am the designated office holder to submit and countersign the bill.""

If she countersigns (it is a voluntary act), she assumes full responsibility and accountability for what is in it. She has advisors and if they advise her wrongly, it is her fault. Technically, no one could force advisors or decisions on this PM, but we know she is the puppet of her brother the Real PM

"Pheu Thai MP Samart Kaewmechai said the ruling party might activate a criminal investigation against the Constitutional Court, as it could have violated the Penal Code's Article 157 on abuse of power when it launched a judicial review on the bill. Pheu Thai's legal team was collecting evidence to charge the court, the Democrat Party and opposition senators for abusing their power and launching unjustified litigation, he added."

Will the case against the Constitutional Court, the Democrat Party, and opposition Senators be heard by the Constitutional Court. Oh, the irony.

If their scheme to change the Thai Constitution piecemeal works this time, what's to stop them from changing it to eventually keep them in perpetual power?

Of course that's on the agenda as dear leader has already expounded his thoughts on the attractiveness of a one party (one family?) state. His comments on the lack of importance of democracy are also on record.

This is a long term game for the Shins - make no mistake of the real danger.

[JAG]

I know parliamentary procedure and government in General but I totally do not follow this so how can a Thai be expected to follow something so complicated

Well, I suppose that within this country of some 64 million there may be some, or even a significant number, whose intelligence and education level approaches or even goes beyond yours. They may be able to understand something so complicated!

[khunken]

She has to submit it because of a previous ruling by the constitutional court. If she did not submit it within 20 days, she could be charged fro not carrying out her duty and the whole thing would fall. That she has forwarded it before the court meet is an interesting gambit. Will they say their previous ruling was wrong? Will they make an "and" means "or" ruling or will they back down on the forwarding it issue? It is an interesting one. And even if the court reverse their previous ruling, the PM will have forwarded as the law stood on the day she sent it. Will there then be a retroactive interpretation or not?

I don't know which CC ruling your are referring to but the one she has deliberately ignored is that changes to the constitution must be put to a referendum before becoming law.

For a party who constantly trumpets their mandate from the people, is is just hypocrisy to ignore voters when it suits them. I hope the CC points that out very forcefully.

[hammered]

She has to submit it because of a previous ruling by the constitutional court. If she did not submit it within 20 days, she could be charged fro not carrying out her duty and the whole thing would fall. That she has forwarded it before the court meet is an interesting gambit. Will they say their previous ruling was wrong? Will they make an "and" means "or" ruling or will they back down on the forwarding it issue? It is an interesting one. And even if the court reverse their previous ruling, the PM will have forwarded as the law stood on the day she sent it. Will there then be a retroactive interpretation or not?

I don't know which CC ruling your are referring to but the one she has deliberately ignored is that changes to the constitution must be put to a referendum before becoming law.

For a party who constantly trumpets their mandate from the people, is is just hypocrisy to ignore voters when it suits them. I hope the CC points that out very forcefully.

The court previously ruled that constitutional amendments were in a category that had to be forwarded within 20 days. No doubt that it why today they refused to issue an injunction. To have done so would have looked worse than the "and" means "or" decision. By the way, you should read the full constitutional court decision on when a referendum is needed. They stated there were two ways one of which required a referendum. There is a lot of selective and erroneous statement son this board but hey aint that the beauty of everyone having an opinion.

There is also the separation of power debate which considering Thailand has a parliamentary system and not a presidential one is closer to say British than American political theory and where the power of the legislature trumps that of the judiciary or government. It is a standard supremacy of the legislature over other estates argument if there is a clash that is accepted in many countries that use parliamentary systems. PTP are just stating this. Their opponents like to take US presidential system political theory to counter the argument which obviously is ridiculous in a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system. It is interesting watching the spin that flies out an dhow ridiculous some of it is. Still none of it is as vile as so called educated calling the people buffaloes because they do not vote the way the so called educated wanted.

[Maestro]

I don't know which CC ruling your are referring to but the one she has deliberately ignored is that changes to the constitution must be put to a referendum before becoming law.

For a party who constantly trumpets their mandate from the people, is is just hypocrisy to ignore voters when it suits them. I hope the CC points that out very forcefully.

To make for easy reading, the the text of the constitution is divided into 309 numbered section. When referring to something written in the constitution, it is helpful to quote the relevant section number.

The Constitution of Thailand

[Maestro]

She has to submit it because of a previous ruling by the constitutional court. If she did not submit it within 20 days, she could be charged fro not carrying out her duty and the whole thing would fall. That she has forwarded it before the court meet is an interesting gambit. Will they say their previous ruling was wrong? Will they make an "and" means "or" ruling or will they back down on the forwarding it issue? It is an interesting one. And even if the court reverse their previous ruling, the PM will have forwarded as the law stood on the day she sent it. Will there then be a retroactive interpretation or not?

The requirement to forward the draft Constitution Amendment to the King within 20 days from approval by the National Assembly devolves from sections 150 and 291 of the constitution.

[jbrain]

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, meanwhile, said she could not be held accountable over the issue even if the judicial review turns out to be unfavourable. "I am the designated office holder to submit and countersign the bill."

didn't know Yingluck was blonde .

[Neilly]

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, meanwhile, said she could not be held accountable over the issue even if the judicial review turns out to be unfavourable. "I am the designated office holder to submit and countersign the bill."

didn't know Yingluck was blonde .

I honestly don't believe she said this:

The legislature is responsible for resolving any issues related to the bill, which is not under the purview of the executive branch, she said.

Sounds like 'lawyer speak' to me

[Noistar]

What happened to having a public referendum to constitutional charter changes? Am I missing something?

A bill this important needs the utmost scrutiny before it is made law of the land. Getting the people's approval in a referendum would have gone a long way in either supporting or rejecting the most important bill the country of Thailand faces. I thought this was part of the process. I guess I'm wrong.

PTP won't risk a referendum. Their loss of popularity through mounting criticism and the rising strong feelings against their leader's return makes them even more nervous.

They aren't interested in democracy, the rule of law or what's best for the nation - only the own agenda. They hope they've found a weasley way around the constitution law so it appears what they are doing is legal. All the usual smoke and mirrors, little white lies and ignoring the laws they don't like.

Sadly, it will get worse when they push this through and the big boss returns and takes full,unchecked power. Zimbabwe, Cambodia and North Korea will look like moderates when this bunch get all their own way.

With respect I think you're wrong.

The bulk of the Thai electorate is totally apathetic re politics, especially the hordes of the North who have their hands held to make sure they tick the right box.

This majority of the electorate in this country will continually re-elect Thaksin, that's all the time elections are held. Won't be long before the wasteful expenditure on democratic elections can be found a 'better' home.