Pheu Thai braces for the worst

[Chang_paarp]

Some one with more knowledge on this might correct me, but as I remember, the appointed part of the senate is appointed on a wonderful proportion system with x seats for academics, y seats for military z seats for retired judges and so on. It does seem to favour the "elite" but ends up with a balance of people with life experience and education, which is what is needed in a house of review. This is very different from the lower house.

[bigbamboo]

"If you fully elect the senate, you better dissolve it all together. As it would be full with the same party list politicians and relatives of them.

You could have a automatic appointing...Just as example:

Every former premier, former heads of the constitution court, former army boss, former head of the national bank. Former rectors of the top 3 universities.

Some for lifetime some for rotating. Maybe add some elected which need a minimum qualification like they were governor, Minister, University Prof, etc etc before."

Good idea h90... Appointed by people without a dog in the fight.

Interesting idea but PT wouldn't wear it. Too many intellectuals.

[JRSoul]

If you fully elect the senate, you better dissolve it all together. As it would be full with the same party list politicians and relatives of them.

You could have a automatic appointing...Just as example:

Every former premier, former heads of the constitution court, former army boss, former head of the national bank. Former rectors of the top 3 universities.

Some for lifetime some for rotating. Maybe add some elected which need a minimum qualification like they were governor, Minister, University Prof, etc etc before.

No. If you fully elect the senate it is better to do it in stages, half or even 1/3 being replaced at each election, and serving longer terms. This stops a party from making a swag of populist policies (sound familiar) and seizing control of both houses in the one election. If their policies are sustainable and actually benefit the country, they will have the opportunity to increase senate representation at the next election.

[jdinasia]

The court could then dissolve the ruling parties that supported the amendment, including Pheu Thai, and ban their executives from politics.

That means four political parties would be disbanded and 55 politicians banned for five years, including 19 executives of Pheu Thai, 11 of Chart Thai Pattana, 17 of Chart Pattana and eight of Phalang Chon. Among them, four are ministers - Pheu Thai leader Jaruphong, his deputies Kittiratt Na-Ranong and Plodprasop Suraswadi, plus Phalang Chon leader Sontaya Kunplome.

I can hardly wait for this band of morons to be out of office, but this will solve nothing. Banning executives and dissolving parties has to stop, it solves nothing and robs people of their democratic right of choice.

In this case --- it would not shut down Parliament. The reason YL is not the party leader is to keep her from being banned in just this situation. The party leaders would be gone but the MP's that are left then could join other parties. This is how Abhisit got into power after Thaksin's B-I-L was booted.

This also explains why they moved ahead with the censure motion against YL. She cannot dissolve parliament while she is facing censure.

[jdinasia]

How appointed senators are chosen is described here http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Thailand_(2007)/Chapter_6#Part_3_:_The_Senate

(if you prefer something other than Wiki the constitution is available online as well .....)

It is worth noting that appointed senators must have accomplished something with their lives, they cannot hold any other office, they must have left any other office more than 2 years before being appointed etc. The selection committee is representative of people that "should" be above politics and no appointed sentaor may be part of any political party.

[h90]

If you fully elect the senate, you better dissolve it all together. As it would be full with the same party list politicians and relatives of them.

You could have a automatic appointing...Just as example:

Every former premier, former heads of the constitution court, former army boss, former head of the national bank. Former rectors of the top 3 universities.

Some for lifetime some for rotating. Maybe add some elected which need a minimum qualification like they were governor, Minister, University Prof, etc etc before.

No. If you fully elect the senate it is better to do it in stages, half or even 1/3 being replaced at each election, and serving longer terms. This stops a party from making a swag of populist policies (sound familiar) and seizing control of both houses in the one election. If their policies are sustainable and actually benefit the country, they will have the opportunity to increase senate representation at the next election.

and the senate elections always in mid term of the other election.

[JRSoul]

If you fully elect the senate, you better dissolve it all together. As it would be full with the same party list politicians and relatives of them.

You could have a automatic appointing...Just as example:

Every former premier, former heads of the constitution court, former army boss, former head of the national bank. Former rectors of the top 3 universities.

Some for lifetime some for rotating. Maybe add some elected which need a minimum qualification like they were governor, Minister, University Prof, etc etc before.

No. If you fully elect the senate it is better to do it in stages, half or even 1/3 being replaced at each election, and serving longer terms. This stops a party from making a swag of populist policies (sound familiar) and seizing control of both houses in the one election. If their policies are sustainable and actually benefit the country, they will have the opportunity to increase senate representation at the next election.

and the senate elections always in mid term of the other election.

While that suggestion has a lot of merit, it is much more cost effective to hold Reps and Senate elections at the same time.

[indyuk]

What a dysfunctional mess !

THe government set on removing confusion from all forms of due process. Edited November 18, 2013 by indyuk

[indyuk]

An elected Senate is in the best interest of Thailand if candidates are selected regardless of their race, creed or colour.

Edited November 18, 2013 by indyuk

[JRSoul]

What a dysfunctional mess !

THe government set on removing confusion from all forms of due process.

........by simply ignoring it.

[jcb2001]

I can hear the red pigeons rehearsing already - judicial coup, judicial coup..........

You only had to read the other paper yesterday to hear that being said , and being said in the context that it would be the third Judicial Coup at that. If it is not a Judicial Coup what is it ? Nobody had a problem with the 1997 constitution which was the first time there was a fully elected Senate (of 200 Senators). Nobody of course, that is until the Military Junta come along and changed it to its present mix of appointed and elected Senators.

And your input is..............?

Or, a man named Thaksin came along.

[hammered]

An elected senate is more democratic, pure and simple. We shouldn't forget that at early stages in development many of our countries went through problems of corrupt representatives, bias or corrupt judges, military assaults on people etc. With time things work out. But they do not start perfectly. In time those acts become intolerable to the people across the country as a whole and not just to certain classes or segments. Thailand has yet to reach that balance but it has only really had democracy for a couple of decades. What do people expect?

[tezzainoz]

This ain't over by a long shot, why do I have this uneasy feeling swirling around???

Are you all forgetting what happens when you back a rat into a corner

and her has no where to go

Thats when they become most dangerous

[rubl]

elected by selection? you mean apart from the criteria listed in the constitution? Maybe have papa the MP selecting his wife or son who are obviously of the right material and mindset to be faithful Senators?

An elected Senate is in the best interest of Thailand if candidates are selected regardless of their race, creed or colour.

Edited November 18, 2013 by rubl

[rubl]

And of course apart from the amnesty for 2006 coup leaders the 2007 Constitution is mostly identical to the 1997 version with many clarifications legal experts like. The elected/selected senate and ban on family members was introduced to further checks and balances. That's why some seem to want the 1997 constitution again.

Mind you some changes proposed and to be pushed through by the Pheu Thai let government would also change the 1997 constitution.

I can hear the red pigeons rehearsing already - judicial coup, judicial coup..........

You only had to read the other paper yesterday to hear that being said , and being said in the context that it would be the third Judicial Coup at that. If it is not a Judicial Coup what is it ? Nobody had a problem with the 1997 constitution which was the first time there was a fully elected Senate (of 200 Senators). Nobody of course, that is until the Military Junta come along and changed it to its present mix of appointed and elected Senators.

And your input is..............?

Or, a man named Thaksin came along.

Edited November 18, 2013 by rubl

[jdinasia]

An elected senate is more democratic, pure and simple. We shouldn't forget that at early stages in development many of our countries went through problems of corrupt representatives, bias or corrupt judges, military assaults on people etc. With time things work out. But they do not start perfectly. In time those acts become intolerable to the people across the country as a whole and not just to certain classes or segments. Thailand has yet to reach that balance but it has only really had democracy for a couple of decades. What do people expect?

Which brings to mind the House of Lords ..... alas that is another discussion for another place and time.

I personally am in favor of an appointed senate at this point in time in Thailand's development.

[bigbamboo]

If you fully elect the senate, you better dissolve it all together. As it would be full with the same party list politicians and relatives of them.

You could have a automatic appointing...Just as example:

Every former premier, former heads of the constitution court, former army boss, former head of the national bank. Former rectors of the top 3 universities.

Some for lifetime some for rotating. Maybe add some elected which need a minimum qualification like they were governor, Minister, University Prof, etc etc before.

No. If you fully elect the senate it is better to do it in stages, half or even 1/3 being replaced at each election, and serving longer terms. This stops a party from making a swag of populist policies (sound familiar) and seizing control of both houses in the one election. If their policies are sustainable and actually benefit the country, they will have the opportunity to increase senate representation at the next election.

and the senate elections always in mid term of the other election.

While that suggestion has a lot of merit, it is much more cost effective to hold Reps and Senate elections at the same time.

That's what Mr T. says too!

[Rimmer]

A disrespectful post has been removed

[ballpoint]

What a dysfunctional mess !

THe government set on removing confusion from all forms of due process.

........by simply ignoring it.

No. One man one vote removes all confusion when that one man with the one vote is Thaksin. We all know what he wants, and he has shown in the past how he will achieve it. No confusion whatsoever. Just a bunch of killing, corruption, nepotism, back stabbing, treason...

[JRSoul]

I can hear the red pigeons rehearsing already - judicial coup, judicial coup..........

You only had to read the other paper yesterday to hear that being said , and being said in the context that it would be the third Judicial Coup at that. If it is not a Judicial Coup what is it ? Nobody had a problem with the 1997 constitution which was the first time there was a fully elected Senate (of 200 Senators). Nobody of course, that is until the Military Junta come along and changed it to its present mix of appointed and elected Senators.

And your input is..............?

My input is that illegal acts deserve repercussions. While you might not like party disbandment, and I think it a failure as it has been neatly side-stepped, if Thaksin and his cronies could learn to obey electoral and constitutional law there would be no need to apply it.

PPP were clearly guilty of bribery, failed to call an election, and were replaced quite legitimately. Unable or unwilling to explain to their supporters they were both guilty and stupid, they resorted to the accusation of a judicial coup - the basis for the uneducated and ignorant to be agitated into making an illegal attempt to overthrow the Democrat government.

If this government is disbanded for an attempt to flout electoral law, and I will let the experts decide that, i have no doubt that the same misrepresentation will be put to those who don't know better.

[smartconsulting]

Big time exaggeration!

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/682453-Big-time-exaggeration%21/page__view__findpost__p__7051060

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[rubl]

.Judicial coup, 1997 / 2007 constitution, etc., etc.

1997 Constitution, Section 63

No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act
shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party

2007 Constitution, Section 68.

No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes the dissolution order under paragraph three, the right to vote of the President and the executive board of directors of the dissolved political party at the time the act under paragraph one has been committed shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date the Constitutional Court makes such order.

I can hear the red pigeons rehearsing already - judicial coup, judicial coup..........

You only had to read the other paper yesterday to hear that being said , and being said in the context that it would be the third Judicial Coup at that. If it is not a Judicial Coup what is it ? Nobody had a problem with the 1997 constitution which was the first time there was a fully elected Senate (of 200 Senators). Nobody of course, that is until the Military Junta come along and changed it to its present mix of appointed and elected Senators.

And your input is..............?

My input is that illegal acts deserve repercussions. While you might not like party disbandment, and I think it a failure as it has been neatly side-stepped, if Thaksin and his cronies could learn to obey electoral and constitutional law there would be no need to apply it.

PPP were clearly guilty of bribery, failed to call an election, and were replaced quite legitimately. Unable or unwilling to explain to their supporters they were both guilty and stupid, they resorted to the accusation of a judicial coup - the basis for the uneducated and ignorant to be agitated into making an illegal attempt to overthrow the Democrat government.

If this government is disbanded for an attempt to flout electoral law, and I will let the experts decide that, i have no doubt that the same misrepresentation will be put to those who don't know better.

[Baerboxer]

I can hear the red pigeons rehearsing already - judicial coup, judicial coup..........

Not really any kind of intelligent or even interestingly provocative comment.One may as well say I hear can hear the yellow tits saying already - votebuying, votebuying.

Save your bar talk for the bar.

Glad to see you're expressing your valuable and intelligent analysis of a post for us, along with the usual "command" to the poster (as if anyone takes you seriously )

At least one still refers to one's self as one, rather than adopting the "we". Plenty of time for that though,

Well done JR - your comment was mildly amusing, unlike the pompous postings of some

[Baerboxer]

I can hear the red pigeons rehearsing already - judicial coup, judicial coup..........

Not really any kind of intelligent or even interestingly provocative comment.One may as well say I hear can hear the yellow tits saying already - votebuying, votebuying.

Save your bar talk for the bar.

Glad to see you're expressing your valuable and intelligent analysis of a post for us, along with the usual "command" to the poster (as if anyone takes you seriously )

At least one still refers to one's self as one, rather than adopting the "we". Plenty of time for that though,

Well done JR - your comment was mildly amusing, unlike the pompous postings of some

[Baerboxer]

What a dysfunctional mess !

THe government set on removing confusion from all forms of due process.

by implementing a dictatorship. Do as you're told, believe what you're told, don't ask questions - no room for confusion there

Democracy is not my goal .......... who was it who said that ?

[billd766]

.Judicial coup, 1997 / 2007 constitution, etc., etc.

1997 Constitution, Section 63

No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act

shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party

2007 Constitution, Section 68.

No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes the dissolution order under paragraph three, the right to vote of the President and the executive board of directors of the dissolved political party at the time the act under paragraph one has been committed shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date the Constitutional Court makes such order.

I can hear the red pigeons rehearsing already - judicial coup, judicial coup..........

You only had to read the other paper yesterday to hear that being said , and being said in the context that it would be the third Judicial Coup at that. If it is not a Judicial Coup what is it ? Nobody had a problem with the 1997 constitution which was the first time there was a fully elected Senate (of 200 Senators). Nobody of course, that is until the Military Junta come along and changed it to its present mix of appointed and elected Senators.

And your input is..............?

My input is that illegal acts deserve repercussions. While you might not like party disbandment, and I think it a failure as it has been neatly side-stepped, if Thaksin and his cronies could learn to obey electoral and constitutional law there would be no need to apply it.

PPP were clearly guilty of bribery, failed to call an election, and were replaced quite legitimately. Unable or unwilling to explain to their supporters they were both guilty and stupid, they resorted to the accusation of a judicial coup - the basis for the uneducated and ignorant to be agitated into making an illegal attempt to overthrow the Democrat government.

If this government is disbanded for an attempt to flout electoral law, and I will let the experts decide that, i have no doubt that the same misrepresentation will be put to those who don't know better.

What a surprise. The 2007 and the 1997 Constitution section 68 are identical, word for word.

Hang about, aren't the PTP, UDD, Red Shirts and their supporters here claiming that the 1997 Constiution was torn up and replaced by an iniquitous 2007 model which was nothing like the original.

You must stop bringing facts to the table as it confuses them and doesn't fit in with the truths according to Dr Thaksin.

Edited November 18, 2013 by billd766

[tingtongteesood]

Why is it always a stupid 5 year ban ? A leopard never changes its spots. They should ban the bent bastards for LIFE !!!

[mrtoad]

Any ruling that gets rid of that imbecile Plod for 5 years is good as far as I'm concerned