Abhisit slams Pheu Thai for announcement it won't recognise court ruling

[khunken]

What!! You mean they should accept Thailand becoming a dictatorship, because thats what will happen if they achieve control of both the lower and upper houses!!

Why do you say that this is dubious and wrong case? It is not the PTP MP's using other peoples ID cards to vote for others in their absence that is in question, it is their determination to have the majority of the senator house representatives as Pheu Thai sympathisers/family members/friends of Thaksin etc: with no time limit on how long they can serve as senators. This is clearly a breach of the constitution as they are trying to eliminate having checks and balances on legislature and can pass anything they want without any opposition.

They have already made one gigantic cock-up with the amnesty bill and the underhand way in which they attempted to pass it into law and not recognising the authority of the constitutional court will be their undoing!!

Bring in the army!!

The irony is if you told someone who knew nothing about this situation that a government was accused of being dictatorial because they wanted to change the senate from half appointed to fully elected they'd surely think it absurd. Putting aside your opinions on PT for a moment; it is absurd isn't it? I don't think democracy should be limited in this way, I think it should be left to iron itself out. The one thing I'd agree with you on is that the clause which bars the family of MPs from running for the senate should be kept in place. That is a restriction of democracy, but an acceptable one at this juncture imo.

Anyway whatever you or I think about this amendment is irrelevant to whether it's a breach of the constitution. The court aren't ruling on the 'checks and balance' argument. They're ruling on Sec 68, which states: "no person shall....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". The constitution clearly states the constitution can be amended, so that isn't an issue. So, leaving aside the vexed question of whether parliament is a person, the only relevant question is whether an amendment which alters composition of the senate to fully elected constitutes an attempt to overthrow the democratic regime or threatens the monarchy. As I say, it just seems absurd to me that having a fully elected senate could be interpreted as overthrowing the democratic regime...

As for your call for the army to step in to save the country from dictatorship. Well, again, another absurdity. Burning the village to save the village. If it does happen, it won't be like 2006 again. Recall what happened in Egypt earlier this year when the army stepped in to save the country from the elected 'dictator' Morsi? This is a guy who did far worse than anything this government has done. Yet the army stepping in solved nothing, it just threw the country further back into its dictatorial past and resulted in the killing of thousands of people. Be careful what you wish for.

I agree with you about banning PTP - totally unnecessary & hardly justified in this case.

However you completely miss the point that changing the constitution requires a referendum, which the CC have ruled on some time back.

I also disagree that being against an elected senate is absurd. Far from it - the absurdity is making the senate nothing more than an extension of the parliament. The function of a senate is to provide a check on the parliament and many countries don't have direct elections to their senate. Korn recently provided a very good method for the composition of the senate.

University heads, school heads, judges and other selected independent leaders should be allowed to vote for volunteer candidates for the senate. That's exactly how the senate is appointed in my country - Ireland. (ok bit of bias there).

PTP (THaksin actually) don't want an independent senate - just a rubber stamp body which is a waste of money. Their attitude to the CC rather says the same - no checks & balances allowed.

[h90]

Be careful what you all wish for.

A coup now would lead to a horrendous blood bath that would not end quickly.

The reds still have the grenade launchers hidden away (one was used in the south recently against protest leaders homes) and a considerable arsenal of other weapons and their paymaster would be only to pleased to have them use them.

Don't base your thinking on the last coup, for one now, or in the future would be nothing like it.

Thaksin now has his reds organized and they would be out in force, in all probability looking for soft targets with the armed faction avoiding direct confrontation with the army.

Be aware these soft targets could include us farang.

You all saw what happened when the reds fought against the army last time, and that was only because they were no longer in Govt.

That was also only in BKK in the event of another coup it would be country wide.

I doubt it will be that bad.

If the army cuts the money flow, all the hired thugs aren't interested fighting with the army. And even with the money there aren't many who want to fight.

Real die hard supporters are often University left wing people---armchair soldiers who will go back discussing if the future should be Leninism, Trotskysm or Marxism, but no armed fighting. That leaves very few people. Sure enough problems but no huge blood bath. And with the first soft targets they would totally loose sympathy.

I see the bigger problem in Thaksin buying PR, portraying himself and his sister like Ghandi, mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela and the Army like Myanmar or North Korea.

With enough money you can buy article in newspapers, blogs, postings. And if there are some real incidents than it may lead to some boycotts. That could cause big troubles.

[Robby nz]

Financing of what? The vote on the amendment? They already tried that in 2007 election. The Asian Network for Free Elections said one of the few problems with that election was the amount of soldiers present at voting centers around the country. ANFREL described them as potentially intimidating IIRC.

PPP still won that election, as you know, despite that. Look, even Korn doesn't believe vote buying affects the result... "If a candidate today in Loei runs under the Democrat banner for him to try to win he would need to spend two or three times more than his PPP opponent in order to win and even then he still might lose.This is exactly what happened in the last election. “A number of former TRT MPs defected to Puea Paendin and they outpsent PPP three to one and they still lost”. This goes along way to confirming what Chris said, but money is no longer determinative of your success. What Thaksin did was to make that connection and make it directly relevant to his target group. We are less afraid to compete against vote-buying than the buying of MPs. I still believe at the end of the day that if you sold your vote it is still your decision in the ballot box. However, it would be very ineffective for the Democrats to buy a Northeastern MP. Simply at the end of the day we cannot go against the will of the people and no amount of money will help."

PT won the last election for 2 main reasons, leaving aside from money in the hand.

As an aside I don't really believe that money in the hand will be needed in future for all they have to do is approach the Po yai Baan with the threat of withholding the 100 million village fund if the area vote goes in the wrong direction

The first was their promises which we now see are not turning out to well, for a want of a better term.

These were promises that the Dems were not willing to try to trump.

The second was the great lie that Abhisit and Suthep were guilty of murdering the red rioters, a lie which we see repeated over and over again every day on these pages.

That lie is the main thing that turned the people of the northeast and north against the Dems and repeating it constantly keeps the hate alive.

And that hate is the main reason the Dems will not make significant inroads into red strongholds.

Even though a significant proportion of the people in red heartland can now see through PT and don't want to vote for them again they will not vote for a Dem candidate because of the hate.

And the Dems are the only real opposition that can stop PT from doing whatever they want as the parasite parties will always go where they get the best offer.

I have quote on my data base from Noppodon which unfortunately I cant quote or link to as it came from another publication.

The gist however is that Thaksin had a survey done in red heartland which showed that 68 PT MP"S in the area had only 15% or less support and were likely to lose their seats and that he ordered them to get out and increase their support pronto.

As he still thought PT would lose some seats he has arranged for another 2 parties to field candidates in those areas, after the election they would then join with PT.

You will note that it is not me that said this but Thaksins legal advisor.

If you or anyone else is real keen you could hunt around and find it for yourself.

[Emptyset]

I agree with you about banning PTP - totally unnecessary & hardly justified in this case.

However you completely miss the point that changing the constitution requires a referendum, which the CC have ruled on some time back.

I also disagree that being against an elected senate is absurd. Far from it - the absurdity is making the senate nothing more than an extension of the parliament. The function of a senate is to provide a check on the parliament and many countries don't have direct elections to their senate. Korn recently provided a very good method for the composition of the senate.

University heads, school heads, judges and other selected independent leaders should be allowed to vote for volunteer candidates for the senate. That's exactly how the senate is appointed in my country - Ireland. (ok bit of bias there).

PTP (THaksin actually) don't want an independent senate - just a rubber stamp body which is a waste of money. Their attitude to the CC rather says the same - no checks & balances allowed.

Don't forget the CC also ruled the constitution could be amended piece by piece which is what the government is doing. A referendum was only necessary if they wanted to completely rewrite it.

I don't think being against an elected senate is absurd. I just think accusing a government of being dictatorial and trying to overthrow democracy because they want to move to a fully elected senate is absurd. Or at least it would sound absurd to anyone not familiar with the specifics.

Whether the senate should actually be fully elected or not is another debate. Korn's suggestion certainly sounds better than the way senators are appointed now. Someone made a suggestion the other day that I also thought sounded OK. A proportion of seats (say 30%) would be given to people who've occupied positions of great responsibility in society, university rectors, judges, doctors and similar on a term by term basis (they'd be limited to one term only). To avoid political bias in selection, I'm sure there's a way you could come up with some totally random selection process. Maybe names could first be put forward by vote, as you say, but from then the selection process would be blind (so you end up with, say, 50, from an initial selection of 500).

I would say that would be acceptable if it also included a significant % of people that you might term 'grassroots', farmers representatives, union reps and the like. In that way it could actually be more progressive than a fully elected senate.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Emptyset

[jdinasia]

My read on this is simple. Thai law about respecting the courts is pretty severe. The only chance that PTP (and the senators that made that statement as well) is if the Constitution Court does indeed state that they have no ability to hear/judge this case. If they don't do that then the MP's and Senators that went along with that statement are in deep doo doo!

It could easily be argued that the people in question have already committed contempt of court. If that happened to be a felony then they would all be banned from politics for life.

[Robby nz]

h90

Robby nz, on 19 Nov 2013 - 19:24, said:

Be careful what you all wish for.

A coup now would lead to a horrendous blood bath that would not end quickly.

The reds still have the grenade launchers hidden away (one was used in the south recently against protest leaders homes) and a considerable arsenal of other weapons and their paymaster would be only to pleased to have them use them.

Don't base your thinking on the last coup, for one now, or in the future would be nothing like it.

Thaksin now has his reds organized and they would be out in force, in all probability looking for soft targets with the armed faction avoiding direct confrontation with the army.

Be aware these soft targets could include us farang.

You all saw what happened when the reds fought against the army last time, and that was only because they were no longer in Govt.

That was also only in BKK in the event of another coup it would be country wide.

h90

I doubt it will be that bad.

If the army cuts the money flow, all the hired thugs aren't interested fighting with the army. And even with the money there aren't many who want to fight.

Real die hard supporters are often University left wing people---armchair soldiers who will go back discussing if the future should be Leninism, Trotskysm or Marxism, but no armed fighting. That leaves very few people. Sure enough problems but no huge blood bath. And with the first soft targets they would totally loose sympathy.

I see the bigger problem in Thaksin buying PR, portraying himself and his sister like Ghandi, mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela and the Army like Myanmar or North Korea.

With enough money you can buy article in newspapers, blogs, postings. And if there are some real incidents than it may lead to some boycotts. That could cause big troubles.

You write will as if it is sure to happen.

The army didn't have much joy in cutting off the money flow last time, if I remember rightly there was only one lady caught with a lot of cash coming in from Cambodia.

Look at the red leaders who are around BKK now, are they left wing uni people ?

I agree with you about the PR bit.

I read an article by an overseas expert of some sort who said it wasn't promises or great people who won elections but the one who could afford the best PR.

Look around you and you will see all the signs with the smiling face of the PM and on many Thaksins picture also, and some with only Thaksin.

This is PT PR paid for by the tax payer.

[jdinasia]

Call it a coup or call it extra-constitutional measures .. but there could be an argument made for the formation of a Unity Government at this point in time. (In fact least 2 separate protest groups are asking for exactly that in an effort to reduce the corruption and get the cronyism out of politics.)

[Emptyset]

Even though a significant proportion of the people in red heartland can now see through PT and don't want to vote for them again they will not vote for a Dem candidate because of the hate.

And the Dems are the only real opposition that can stop PT from doing whatever they want as the parasite parties will always go where they get the best offer.

I have quote on my data base from Noppodon which unfortunately I cant quote or link to as it came from another publication.

The gist however is that Thaksin had a survey done in red heartland which showed that 68 PT MP"S in the area had only 15% or less support and were likely to lose their seats and that he ordered them to get out and increase their support pronto.

As he still thought PT would lose some seats he has arranged for another 2 parties to field candidates in those areas, after the election they would then join with PT.

You will note that it is not me that said this but Thaksins legal advisor.

If you or anyone else is real keen you could hunt around and find it for yourself.

Sorry, I snipped your post slightly for clarity because I just want to respond to this bit. Even without taking 2010 into account, the Democrats have never done that well in the N/NE because they're so closely associated with the South. I know there was an initial turn away from PT when they tried to push the amnesty through, but many of them might come back as the anger dies down and as we move further away from that. The threat the government now faces is actually now a distraction from that issue in some respects.

I'd be interesting if he were bankrolling 2 other parties though. Wouldn't that split the vote and risking letting another non-Thaksin funded party take advantage? Still after reading that, it did cross my mind for a second that this Common People's Party business might be something to do with that: http://prachatai.com/english/node/3742

I kind of hope it isn't. But even if it is, I hope they take seats from PT, because at least they're going forward with relatively concrete principles as a platform. The theory does sort of make sense, because the ones who're most angry at PT are the 'progressive' reds - and they're exactly the sort of people this party seems set up to attract, given the content of this interview. Their proposals are precisely the sort of things PT either can't, or won't, make a stand on. Still I don't think that proportion of the vote would make any significant difference in terms of election results, although the party might hope to pick up at least a couple of party list MPs.

[h90]

h90

Robby nz, on 19 Nov 2013 - 19:24, said:

Be careful what you all wish for.

A coup now would lead to a horrendous blood bath that would not end quickly.

The reds still have the grenade launchers hidden away (one was used in the south recently against protest leaders homes) and a considerable arsenal of other weapons and their paymaster would be only to pleased to have them use them.

Don't base your thinking on the last coup, for one now, or in the future would be nothing like it.

Thaksin now has his reds organized and they would be out in force, in all probability looking for soft targets with the armed faction avoiding direct confrontation with the army.

Be aware these soft targets could include us farang.

You all saw what happened when the reds fought against the army last time, and that was only because they were no longer in Govt.

That was also only in BKK in the event of another coup it would be country wide.

h90

I doubt it will be that bad.

If the army cuts the money flow, all the hired thugs aren't interested fighting with the army. And even with the money there aren't many who want to fight.

Real die hard supporters are often University left wing people---armchair soldiers who will go back discussing if the future should be Leninism, Trotskysm or Marxism, but no armed fighting. That leaves very few people. Sure enough problems but no huge blood bath. And with the first soft targets they would totally loose sympathy.

I see the bigger problem in Thaksin buying PR, portraying himself and his sister like Ghandi, mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela and the Army like Myanmar or North Korea.

With enough money you can buy article in newspapers, blogs, postings. And if there are some real incidents than it may lead to some boycotts. That could cause big troubles.

You write will as if it is sure to happen.

The army didn't have much joy in cutting off the money flow last time, if I remember rightly there was only one lady caught with a lot of cash coming in from Cambodia.

Look at the red leaders who are around BKK now, are they left wing uni people ?

I agree with you about the PR bit.

I read an article by an overseas expert of some sort who said it wasn't promises or great people who won elections but the one who could afford the best PR.

Look around you and you will see all the signs with the smiling face of the PM and on many Thaksins picture also, and some with only Thaksin.

This is PT PR paid for by the tax payer.

No I am not sure about anything...just imagined what would happen if....

The red leaders who are around BKK are to a good part (not all) mercenaries. If the army is smart surely they could buy some of them.

But on the other hand: Army and smart???

Some of the reds are currently confused with the amnesty law, that would also help the army.

Than it would only need a few goodies....some help for farmers with debts. Maybe some minimal amounts of electric for free (like Samak did).

A 2000 Baht for the poor (was it Abhisit?) and some PR that Thailand has the money because it saves the politicians.

Sure it wouldn't make the masses loves the army on the next day, but it would make it very difficult to get a lot people to demonstrate against them (specially if the army cut the money flow). While not easy and with risk, I think it is could be possible.

Central Bangkok and the South would anyway love it.

[tingtongteesood]

I am sure Abhisit was pretty certain that this would be the reaction of the gang of crooks and they fell for it hook line and sinker. Game and set to the Dems, let's hope the country will win the match soon and be freed of the cancer that is infecting it....

[Emptyset]

h90

h90

I doubt it will be that bad.

If the army cuts the money flow, all the hired thugs aren't interested fighting with the army. And even with the money there aren't many who want to fight.

Real die hard supporters are often University left wing people---armchair soldiers who will go back discussing if the future should be Leninism, Trotskysm or Marxism, but no armed fighting. That leaves very few people. Sure enough problems but no huge blood bath. And with the first soft targets they would totally loose sympathy.

I see the bigger problem in Thaksin buying PR, portraying himself and his sister like Ghandi, mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela and the Army like Myanmar or North Korea.

With enough money you can buy article in newspapers, blogs, postings. And if there are some real incidents than it may lead to some boycotts. That could cause big troubles.

You write will as if it is sure to happen.

The army didn't have much joy in cutting off the money flow last time, if I remember rightly there was only one lady caught with a lot of cash coming in from Cambodia.

Look at the red leaders who are around BKK now, are they left wing uni people ?

First thing they'd have to do to have even a chance of success is to intern or kill the main red leaders and hope the others are too disorganized to move autonomously. Obviously military could move to arrest key leaders in provinces too. I'm sure they already have intelligence on exactly who to get hold of. Then they'd have to hope the anger eventually simmers down and that people come accept the situation. But I doubt it'd happen like that...

[hellodolly]

What!! You mean they should accept Thailand becoming a dictatorship, because thats what will happen if they achieve control of both the lower and upper houses!!

Why do you say that this is dubious and wrong case? It is not the PTP MP's using other peoples ID cards to vote for others in their absence that is in question, it is their determination to have the majority of the senator house representatives as Pheu Thai sympathisers/family members/friends of Thaksin etc: with no time limit on how long they can serve as senators. This is clearly a breach of the constitution as they are trying to eliminate having checks and balances on legislature and can pass anything they want without any opposition.

They have already made one gigantic cock-up with the amnesty bill and the underhand way in which they attempted to pass it into law and not recognising the authority of the constitutional court will be their undoing!!

Bring in the army!!

The irony is if you told someone who knew nothing about this situation that a government was accused of being dictatorial because they wanted to change the senate from half appointed to fully elected they'd surely think it absurd. Putting aside your opinions on PT for a moment; it is absurd isn't it? I don't think democracy should be limited in this way, I think it should be left to iron itself out. The one thing I'd agree with you on is that the clause which bars the family of MPs from running for the senate should be kept in place. That is a restriction of democracy, but an acceptable one at this juncture imo.

Anyway whatever you or I think about this amendment is irrelevant to whether it's a breach of the constitution. The court aren't ruling on the 'checks and balance' argument. They're ruling on Sec 68, which states: "no person shall....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". The constitution clearly states the constitution can be amended, so that isn't an issue. So, leaving aside the vexed question of whether parliament is a person, the only relevant question is whether an amendment which alters composition of the senate to fully elected constitutes an attempt to overthrow the democratic regime or threatens the monarchy. As I say, it just seems absurd to me that having a fully elected senate could be interpreted as overthrowing the democratic regime...

As for your call for the army to step in to save the country from dictatorship. Well, again, another absurdity. Burning the village to save the village. If it does happen, it won't be like 2006 again. Recall what happened in Egypt earlier this year when the army stepped in to save the country from the elected 'dictator' Morsi? This is a guy who did far worse than anything this government has done. Yet the army stepping in solved nothing, it just threw the country further back into its dictatorial past and resulted in the killing of thousands of people. Be careful what you wish for.

Well you were doing good until you tried to compare the situation to Egypt. We don't have religious fanatics involved on either side here.

[Thainy Tim]

Pretty dumb. They should have at least waited until after the ruling. Also, what choice do they have? If they are banned, are they just going to turn up at parliament as normal and pretend the ruling never happened?

Which of course would work, but it would be a coup. Things like that happened in the past in other countries. The next step would be to put the judges in jail and form a peoples court and convict them for treason.

Of course the reds would call the banning a coup by the courts.

And it could trigger many things, coup is just one of it.

Well, all those things are possibilities. The problem here is that many feel that the court shouldn't have accepted this case. And I think the court realizes that, so whilst it might rule on the relatively minor issue of some MPs using others' cards to vote or whatever it is, I doubt they would've taken the extreme step of banning MPs in what looks like an extremely controversial and dubious case, unless of course, they were, subject to external pressure. That's why PT should've waited. Now it looks as though they're no longer going to accept the authority of the CC whatever happens, which I think is a premature move at this point. At this point it looks certain to lead to massive upheaval if the court makes the wrong decision, and the problem of ensuring a functioning democracy & rule of law will start to look intractable.

So you think that changing the senate appointment system so that the entire senate can be installed and controlled by the ruling government is constitutionally right?

It is now time to completely remove the cancer that is Thaksin, and the best way to remove a cancer is to also remove all the surrounding tissues in case of remaining traces. When I say 'remove' I mean 'remove permanently' by any means necessary. Even if it means bloodshed.

[hellodolly]

Even though a significant proportion of the people in red heartland can now see through PT and don't want to vote for them again they will not vote for a Dem candidate because of the hate.

And the Dems are the only real opposition that can stop PT from doing whatever they want as the parasite parties will always go where they get the best offer.

I have quote on my data base from Noppodon which unfortunately I cant quote or link to as it came from another publication.

The gist however is that Thaksin had a survey done in red heartland which showed that 68 PT MP"S in the area had only 15% or less support and were likely to lose their seats and that he ordered them to get out and increase their support pronto.

As he still thought PT would lose some seats he has arranged for another 2 parties to field candidates in those areas, after the election they would then join with PT.

You will note that it is not me that said this but Thaksins legal advisor.

If you or anyone else is real keen you could hunt around and find it for yourself.

Sorry, I snipped your post slightly for clarity because I just want to respond to this bit. Even without taking 2010 into account, the Democrats have never done that well in the N/NE because they're so closely associated with the South. I know there was an initial turn away from PT when they tried to push the amnesty through, but many of them might come back as the anger dies down and as we move further away from that. The threat the government now faces is actually now a distraction from that issue in some respects.

I'd be interesting if he were bankrolling 2 other parties though. Wouldn't that split the vote and risking letting another non-Thaksin funded party take advantage? Still after reading that, it did cross my mind for a second that this Common People's Party business might be something to do with that: http://prachatai.com/english/node/3742

I kind of hope it isn't. But even if it is, I hope they take seats from PT, because at least they're going forward with relatively concrete principles as a platform. The theory does sort of make sense, because the ones who're most angry at PT are the 'progressive' reds - and they're exactly the sort of people this party seems set up to attract, given the content of this interview. Their proposals are precisely the sort of things PT either can't, or won't, make a stand on. Still I don't think that proportion of the vote would make any significant difference in terms of election results, although the party might hope to pick up at least a couple of party list MPs.

Sorry to but in here bit if the people hate the Dem's why have the Dem's one 2 out of 3 elections in red strongholds? why is it that they now have to organize them and bring them down to their protest. The last one they were doing their own organizing and driving their own vehicles.

It just seems to me that the old red shirt party is no longer there. They had to be asked by the Government to lay aside their differences to join this protest. Do not judge them to be the same as 2010. Many of those people have seen that they fought for nothing. They thought they were going to be on top of the world and have found out they were lied to.

[khunken]

I agree with you about banning PTP - totally unnecessary & hardly justified in this case.

However you completely miss the point that changing the constitution requires a referendum, which the CC have ruled on some time back.

I also disagree that being against an elected senate is absurd. Far from it - the absurdity is making the senate nothing more than an extension of the parliament. The function of a senate is to provide a check on the parliament and many countries don't have direct elections to their senate. Korn recently provided a very good method for the composition of the senate.

University heads, school heads, judges and other selected independent leaders should be allowed to vote for volunteer candidates for the senate. That's exactly how the senate is appointed in my country - Ireland. (ok bit of bias there).

PTP (THaksin actually) don't want an independent senate - just a rubber stamp body which is a waste of money. Their attitude to the CC rather says the same - no checks & balances allowed.

Don't forget the CC also ruled the constitution could be amended piece by piece which is what the government is doing. A referendum was only necessary if they wanted to completely rewrite it.

I don't think being against an elected senate is absurd. I just think accusing a government of being dictatorial and trying to overthrow democracy because they want to move to a fully elected senate is absurd. Or at least it would sound absurd to anyone not familiar with the specifics.

Whether the senate should actually be fully elected or not is another debate. Korn's suggestion certainly sounds better than the way senators are appointed now. Someone made a suggestion the other day that I also thought sounded OK. A proportion of seats (say 30%) would be given to people who've occupied positions of great responsibility in society, university rectors, judges, doctors and similar on a term by term basis (they'd be limited to one term only). To avoid political bias in selection, I'm sure there's a way you could come up with some totally random selection process. Maybe names could first be put forward by vote, as you say, but from then the selection process would be blind (so you end up with, say, 50, from an initial selection of 500).

I would say that would be acceptable if it also included a significant % of people that you might term 'grassroots', farmers representatives, union reps and the like. In that way it could actually be more progressive than a fully elected senate.

Completely agree with your last two paragraphs.

The CC's ruling was that (a) if they wanted to re-write the constitution a referendum must be held first (to agree or not whether it should be amended) and another referendum after the rewrite is finalised; and ( it could be amended piecemeal but a referendum must be held when the amendments are complete.

PTP have ignored this by attempting to enact an amendment without a referendum. This, I hope, the CC will rule unconstitutional.

Yes, I know PTP supporters on this forum have blindly put their faith in an elected senate without apparently understanding the purpose of a senate. That is an absurd stance and a very shallow one. When one considers Thaksin's ambivalent (to put it kindly) attitude to democracy and his perpetual efforts to curb or dispense with any checks and balances - it is hardly absurd to accuse his party of being undemocratic.

I don't know how many times that I have heard red shirts, PTP members & acolytes here state that 'we/they are elected and therefore can do what they want'. Sounds closer to dictatorship than democracy to me.

Edit: the smiley was inserted by Thaivisa who seem to think a bracketed 'b' is a smiley.

Edited November 19, 2013 by khunken

[GentlemanJim]

What!! You mean they should accept Thailand becoming a dictatorship, because thats what will happen if they achieve control of both the lower and upper houses!!

Why do you say that this is dubious and wrong case? It is not the PTP MP's using other peoples ID cards to vote for others in their absence that is in question, it is their determination to have the majority of the senator house representatives as Pheu Thai sympathisers/family members/friends of Thaksin etc: with no time limit on how long they can serve as senators. This is clearly a breach of the constitution as they are trying to eliminate having checks and balances on legislature and can pass anything they want without any opposition.

They have already made one gigantic cock-up with the amnesty bill and the underhand way in which they attempted to pass it into law and not recognising the authority of the constitutional court will be their undoing!!

Bring in the army!!

The irony is if you told someone who knew nothing about this situation that a government was accused of being dictatorial because they wanted to change the senate from half appointed to fully elected they'd surely think it absurd. Putting aside your opinions on PT for a moment; it is absurd isn't it? I don't think democracy should be limited in this way, I think it should be left to iron itself out. The one thing I'd agree with you on is that the clause which bars the family of MPs from running for the senate should be kept in place. That is a restriction of democracy, but an acceptable one at this juncture imo.

Anyway whatever you or I think about this amendment is irrelevant to whether it's a breach of the constitution. The court aren't ruling on the 'checks and balance' argument. They're ruling on Sec 68, which states: "no person shall....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". The constitution clearly states the constitution can be amended, so that isn't an issue. So, leaving aside the vexed question of whether parliament is a person, the only relevant question is whether an amendment which alters composition of the senate to fully elected constitutes an attempt to overthrow the democratic regime or threatens the monarchy. As I say, it just seems absurd to me that having a fully elected senate could be interpreted as overthrowing the democratic regime...

As for your call for the army to step in to save the country from dictatorship. Well, again, another absurdity. Burning the village to save the village. If it does happen, it won't be like 2006 again. Recall what happened in Egypt earlier this year when the army stepped in to save the country from the elected 'dictator' Morsi? This is a guy who did far worse than anything this government has done. Yet the army stepping in solved nothing, it just threw the country further back into its dictatorial past and resulted in the killing of thousands of people. Be careful what you wish for.

I do not think it quite as absurd as you do. The bit you are missing is that this is not just about making all of the Senate seats available by election only, it also clearly states that spouses of, children of and family of current MP's are eligible for the Senate. Now with the precedence already set in the clear vote buying that occurred at the last election, what do you think is really going to happen at the election of the next Senate? Perhaps Natawut would be a junior Minister and his wife elected to the Senate, or son, or daughter etc etc etc. The Senate would vote whatever way they were told to do so by the lower house. Thaksin bought 310 seats last time in the lower house, he could buy 60 or 70 in the Senate and fill them with family members who have no choice but to do as they are told. it is a VERY dangerous situation.

[Emptyset]

I agree with you about banning PTP - totally unnecessary & hardly justified in this case.

However you completely miss the point that changing the constitution requires a referendum, which the CC have ruled on some time back.

I also disagree that being against an elected senate is absurd. Far from it - the absurdity is making the senate nothing more than an extension of the parliament. The function of a senate is to provide a check on the parliament and many countries don't have direct elections to their senate. Korn recently provided a very good method for the composition of the senate.

University heads, school heads, judges and other selected independent leaders should be allowed to vote for volunteer candidates for the senate. That's exactly how the senate is appointed in my country - Ireland. (ok bit of bias there).

PTP (THaksin actually) don't want an independent senate - just a rubber stamp body which is a waste of money. Their attitude to the CC rather says the same - no checks & balances allowed.

Don't forget the CC also ruled the constitution could be amended piece by piece which is what the government is doing. A referendum was only necessary if they wanted to completely rewrite it.

I don't think being against an elected senate is absurd. I just think accusing a government of being dictatorial and trying to overthrow democracy because they want to move to a fully elected senate is absurd. Or at least it would sound absurd to anyone not familiar with the specifics.

Whether the senate should actually be fully elected or not is another debate. Korn's suggestion certainly sounds better than the way senators are appointed now. Someone made a suggestion the other day that I also thought sounded OK. A proportion of seats (say 30%) would be given to people who've occupied positions of great responsibility in society, university rectors, judges, doctors and similar on a term by term basis (they'd be limited to one term only). To avoid political bias in selection, I'm sure there's a way you could come up with some totally random selection process. Maybe names could first be put forward by vote, as you say, but from then the selection process would be blind (so you end up with, say, 50, from an initial selection of 500).

I would say that would be acceptable if it also included a significant % of people that you might term 'grassroots', farmers representatives, union reps and the like. In that way it could actually be more progressive than a fully elected senate.

Completely agree with your last two paragraphs.

The CC's ruling was that (a) if they wanted to re-write the constitution a referendum must be held first (to agree or not whether it should be amended) and another referendum after the rewrite is finalised; and ( it could be amended piecemeal but a referendum must be held when the amendments are complete.

PTP have ignored this by attempting to enact an amendment without a referendum. This, I hope, the CC will rule unconstitutional.

This is the first time I've ever heard this. I've just gone back to check the ruling and can only confirm from what I've read that it's as I say: '3. Government can either (a) amend sec-by-sec through parliament (as allowed now by Sec 291), or ( hold a referendum first asking whether the whole charter should be amended (that is a y or n). Problem with ( is that constitution doesn't provide 4 a referendum. May have to amend Constit to allow for such a referendum. Then hold referendum in 3-4 months'.

It wouldn't really make sense to me if they'd said you can amend piece by piece but still need ref. or draft an entirely new constitution which requires just one ref. Why would they do it piece by piece then and have referendums on every section they wanted to change? Sounds far too complicated and huge waste of time & money. The other thing I've just noticed is that the recommendations were supposed to be just that, recommendations and as such not non-binding. In any case, I haven't even heard this raised with ref. to the coming court ruling, just whether amendment violates section 68.

Also noted this comment: “It’s not really sensible to make legal sense of these proceedings,” said Verapat Pariyawong, an independent Harvard-educated lawyer. “You have to look at this as a political phenomenon.” If it was true then, it's equally true of tomorrow, if not more so.

[Thainy Tim]

Well I agree with what yo said except one point. It was

It was not just the actions of one Person it was also the party approval and financing of it.

As far as I am concerned they should have a coup the Army take control and call for elections, Elections that they would closely monitor and punish any one trying to buy a vote in addition to not letting them run.

Harsh but until some thing is done about the vote buying we will continue to see the people with the money winning elections over much more poorer but far more qualified people.

Two elections run with that kind of a stiff monitoring will see a new and bright Thailand.

Going to happen I think not. Would it be for the betterment of Thailand. Yes no doubt about it

sorry but had to delete some things

I totally agree with almost all your post. Apart from the bit I bolded.

I don't think it is harsh, I think it is justified and will go as far as to say overdue by two and a half years (the last election).

I think 10 years in prison for the party leader and a party ban with all party members banned from politics for life.

That is probably still too lenient for me, but should do enough to deter. In Columbia it would be the firing squad for the whole party.

[khunken]

I agree with you about banning PTP - totally unnecessary & hardly justified in this case.

However you completely miss the point that changing the constitution requires a referendum, which the CC have ruled on some time back.

I also disagree that being against an elected senate is absurd. Far from it - the absurdity is making the senate nothing more than an extension of the parliament. The function of a senate is to provide a check on the parliament and many countries don't have direct elections to their senate. Korn recently provided a very good method for the composition of the senate.

University heads, school heads, judges and other selected independent leaders should be allowed to vote for volunteer candidates for the senate. That's exactly how the senate is appointed in my country - Ireland. (ok bit of bias there).

PTP (THaksin actually) don't want an independent senate - just a rubber stamp body which is a waste of money. Their attitude to the CC rather says the same - no checks & balances allowed.

Don't forget the CC also ruled the constitution could be amended piece by piece which is what the government is doing. A referendum was only necessary if they wanted to completely rewrite it.

I don't think being against an elected senate is absurd. I just think accusing a government of being dictatorial and trying to overthrow democracy because they want to move to a fully elected senate is absurd. Or at least it would sound absurd to anyone not familiar with the specifics.

Whether the senate should actually be fully elected or not is another debate. Korn's suggestion certainly sounds better than the way senators are appointed now. Someone made a suggestion the other day that I also thought sounded OK. A proportion of seats (say 30%) would be given to people who've occupied positions of great responsibility in society, university rectors, judges, doctors and similar on a term by term basis (they'd be limited to one term only). To avoid political bias in selection, I'm sure there's a way you could come up with some totally random selection process. Maybe names could first be put forward by vote, as you say, but from then the selection process would be blind (so you end up with, say, 50, from an initial selection of 500).

I would say that would be acceptable if it also included a significant % of people that you might term 'grassroots', farmers representatives, union reps and the like. In that way it could actually be more progressive than a fully elected senate.

Completely agree with your last two paragraphs.

The CC's ruling was that (a) if they wanted to re-write the constitution a referendum must be held first (to agree or not whether it should be amended) and another referendum after the rewrite is finalised; and ( it could be amended piecemeal but a referendum must be held when the amendments are complete.

PTP have ignored this by attempting to enact an amendment without a referendum. This, I hope, the CC will rule unconstitutional.

This is the first time I've ever heard this. I've just gone back to check the ruling and can only confirm from what I've read that it's as I say: '3. Government can either (a) amend sec-by-sec through parliament (as allowed now by Sec 291), or ( hold a referendum first asking whether the whole charter should be amended (that is a y or n). Problem with ( is that constitution doesn't provide 4 a referendum. May have to amend Constit to allow for such a referendum. Then hold referendum in 3-4 months'.

It wouldn't really make sense to me if they'd said you can amend piece by piece but still need ref. or draft an entirely new constitution which requires just one ref. Why would they do it piece by piece then and have referendums on every section they wanted to change? Sounds far too complicated and huge waste of time & money. The other thing I've just noticed is that the recommendations were supposed to be just that, recommendations and as such not non-binding. In any case, I haven't even heard this raised with ref. to the coming court ruling, just whether amendment violates section 68.

Also noted this comment: “It’s not really sensible to make legal sense of these proceedings,” said Verapat Pariyawong, an independent Harvard-educated lawyer. “You have to look at this as a political phenomenon.” If it was true then, it's equally true of tomorrow, if not more so.

You need to re-read what I wrote. In summary a complete re-write requires two referendums(da) - approval for a replacement referendum and approval for the final version and after the piecemeal amendments a referendum to accept/reject. Whether they were recommendations or something stronger is irrelevant. The existing constitution was accepted by referendum so any modification should be put to the people too. If PTP have more amendments they should not attempt to enact laws until they have finished all amendments & hold a referendum.

The problem is that PTP don't want to hold a referendum - that was clear from the start and it is to their discredit that they are afraid of losing. They have made things a lot worse by saying that they refuse to accept the CC's ruling. Danger beckons if they ignore a disliked ruling.

[fab4]

Completely agree with your last two paragraphs.

The CC's ruling was that (a) if they wanted to re-write the constitution a referendum must be held first (to agree or not whether it should be amended) and another referendum after the rewrite is finalised; and ( it could be amended piecemeal but a referendum must be held when the amendments are complete.

PTP have ignored this by attempting to enact an amendment without a referendum. This, I hope, the CC will rule unconstitutional.

This is the first time I've ever heard this. I've just gone back to check the ruling and can only confirm from what I've read that it's as I say: '3. Government can either (a) amend sec-by-sec through parliament (as allowed now by Sec 291), or ( hold a referendum first asking whether the whole charter should be amended (that is a y or n). Problem with ( is that constitution doesn't provide 4 a referendum. May have to amend Constit to allow for such a referendum. Then hold referendum in 3-4 months'.

It wouldn't really make sense to me if they'd said you can amend piece by piece but still need ref. or draft an entirely new constitution which requires just one ref. Why would they do it piece by piece then and have referendums on every section they wanted to change? Sounds far too complicated and huge waste of time & money. The other thing I've just noticed is that the recommendations were supposed to be just that, recommendations and as such not non-binding. In any case, I haven't even heard this raised with ref. to the coming court ruling, just whether amendment violates section 68.

Also noted this comment: “It’s not really sensible to make legal sense of these proceedings,” said Verapat Pariyawong, an independent Harvard-educated lawyer. “You have to look at this as a political phenomenon.” If it was true then, it's equally true of tomorrow, if not more so.

You need to re-read what I wrote. In summary a complete re-write requires two referendums(da) - approval for a replacement referendum and approval for the final version and after the piecemeal amendments a referendum to accept/reject. Whether they were recommendations or something stronger is irrelevant. The existing constitution was accepted by referendum so any modification should be put to the people too. If PTP have more amendments they should not attempt to enact laws until they have finished all amendments & hold a referendum.

The problem is that PTP don't want to hold a referendum - that was clear from the start and it is to their discredit that they are afraid of losing. They have made things a lot worse by saying that they refuse to accept the CC's ruling. Danger beckons if they ignore a disliked ruling.

2 things: Did the military Junta ask the electorate through a referendum whether they wanted their 1997 Constitution ripped up and replaced by a new Constitution. No, they didn't. So where is it written in the 2007 Constitution that a referendum should be held before a new Constitution can be written and then another referendum held to verify the new Constitution. It isn't - it is the the Constitution Courts take on what they regard is in the constitution. Which leads me to point 2.

The Constitution Court stated thatr should the PTP wish to amend individual articles in parliament they could do so. abhisit did so. There was no and is no requirement to have a referendum after articles have been amended in such a way.

[northernjohn]

h90

Robby nz, on 19 Nov 2013 - 19:24, said:

Be careful what you all wish for.

A coup now would lead to a horrendous blood bath that would not end quickly.

The reds still have the grenade launchers hidden away (one was used in the south recently against protest leaders homes) and a considerable arsenal of other weapons and their paymaster would be only to pleased to have them use them.

Don't base your thinking on the last coup, for one now, or in the future would be nothing like it.

Thaksin now has his reds organized and they would be out in force, in all probability looking for soft targets with the armed faction avoiding direct confrontation with the army.

Be aware these soft targets could include us farang.

You all saw what happened when the reds fought against the army last time, and that was only because they were no longer in Govt.

That was also only in BKK in the event of another coup it would be country wide.

h90

I doubt it will be that bad.

If the army cuts the money flow, all the hired thugs aren't interested fighting with the army. And even with the money there aren't many who want to fight.

Real die hard supporters are often University left wing people---armchair soldiers who will go back discussing if the future should be Leninism, Trotskysm or Marxism, but no armed fighting. That leaves very few people. Sure enough problems but no huge blood bath. And with the first soft targets they would totally loose sympathy.

I see the bigger problem in Thaksin buying PR, portraying himself and his sister like Ghandi, mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela and the Army like Myanmar or North Korea.

With enough money you can buy article in newspapers, blogs, postings. And if there are some real incidents than it may lead to some boycotts. That could cause big troubles.

You write will as if it is sure to happen.

The army didn't have much joy in cutting off the money flow last time, if I remember rightly there was only one lady caught with a lot of cash coming in from Cambodia.

Look at the red leaders who are around BKK now, are they left wing uni people ?

I agree with you about the PR bit.

I read an article by an overseas expert of some sort who said it wasn't promises or great people who won elections but the one who could afford the best PR.

Look around you and you will see all the signs with the smiling face of the PM and on many Thaksins picture also, and some with only Thaksin.

This is PT PR paid for by the tax payer.

No I am not sure about anything...just imagined what would happen if....

The red leaders who are around BKK are to a good part (not all) mercenaries. If the army is smart surely they could buy some of them.

But on the other hand: Army and smart???

Some of the reds are currently confused with the amnesty law, that would also help the army.

Than it would only need a few goodies....some help for farmers with debts. Maybe some minimal amounts of electric for free (like Samak did).

A 2000 Baht for the poor (was it Abhisit?) and some PR that Thailand has the money because it saves the politicians.

Sure it wouldn't make the masses loves the army on the next day, but it would make it very difficult to get a lot people to demonstrate against them (specially if the army cut the money flow). While not easy and with risk, I think it is could be possible.

Central Bangkok and the South would anyway love it.

I think a raise in the pensions to at least 1,000 baht. I believe it is now 500 baht at least that is what my mother in law gets. Also try to clean up the mess in the medical services. This is an aging population and thwere dosen't seem to be any thing changing for the good unless it is private enterprise.

[northernjohn]

Completely agree with your last two paragraphs.

The CC's ruling was that (a) if they wanted to re-write the constitution a referendum must be held first (to agree or not whether it should be amended) and another referendum after the rewrite is finalised; and ( it could be amended piecemeal but a referendum must be held when the amendments are complete.

PTP have ignored this by attempting to enact an amendment without a referendum. This, I hope, the CC will rule unconstitutional.

This is the first time I've ever heard this. I've just gone back to check the ruling and can only confirm from what I've read that it's as I say: '3. Government can either (a) amend sec-by-sec through parliament (as allowed now by Sec 291), or ( hold a referendum first asking whether the whole charter should be amended (that is a y or n). Problem with ( is that constitution doesn't provide 4 a referendum. May have to amend Constit to allow for such a referendum. Then hold referendum in 3-4 months'.

It wouldn't really make sense to me if they'd said you can amend piece by piece but still need ref. or draft an entirely new constitution which requires just one ref. Why would they do it piece by piece then and have referendums on every section they wanted to change? Sounds far too complicated and huge waste of time & money. The other thing I've just noticed is that the recommendations were supposed to be just that, recommendations and as such not non-binding. In any case, I haven't even heard this raised with ref. to the coming court ruling, just whether amendment violates section 68.

Also noted this comment: “It’s not really sensible to make legal sense of these proceedings,” said Verapat Pariyawong, an independent Harvard-educated lawyer. “You have to look at this as a political phenomenon.” If it was true then, it's equally true of tomorrow, if not more so.

You need to re-read what I wrote. In summary a complete re-write requires two referendums(da) - approval for a replacement referendum and approval for the final version and after the piecemeal amendments a referendum to accept/reject. Whether they were recommendations or something stronger is irrelevant. The existing constitution was accepted by referendum so any modification should be put to the people too. If PTP have more amendments they should not attempt to enact laws until they have finished all amendments & hold a referendum.

The problem is that PTP don't want to hold a referendum - that was clear from the start and it is to their discredit that they are afraid of losing. They have made things a lot worse by saying that they refuse to accept the CC's ruling. Danger beckons if they ignore a disliked ruling.

2 things: Did the military Junta ask the electorate through a referendum whether they wanted their 1997 Constitution ripped up and replaced by a new Constitution. No, they didn't. So where is it written in the 2007 Constitution that a referendum should be held before a new Constitution can be written and then another referendum held to verify the new Constitution. It isn't - it is the the Constitution Courts take on what they regard is in the constitution. Which leads me to point 2.

The Constitution Court stated thatr should the PTP wish to amend individual articles in parliament they could do so. abhisit did so. There was no and is no requirement to have a referendum after articles have been amended in such a way.

Before my time. What did Abhist amend?

[whybother]

Call it a coup or call it extra-constitutional measures .. but there could be an argument made for the formation of a Unity Government at this point in time. (In fact least 2 separate protest groups are asking for exactly that in an effort to reduce the corruption and get the cronyism out of politics.)

To have a "Unity Government", there would need to be some semblance of unity. At the moment, there is too much division over one issue -: Thaksin. One side want him back. The other doesn't. How do you get unity on that?

Both under the PPP and the PTP, there was relative peace when they weren't trying to get a whitewashed Thaksin back. As soon as both of them tried to get him back, there were protests.

The "compromise" seems to be "we will let you be in government if you don't try and whitewash Thaksin's crimes". Even though I think PTP is governing badly, I think that that "compromise" is the only way Thailand can move forward.

[whybother]

Before my time. What did Abhist amend?

One thing that the Democrats amended while they were in power was the number of MPs. It went from 480 MPs, with 400 constituency and 80 party list, to 500 MPs with 375 constituency and 125 party list.

[Thai at Heart]

Be careful what you all wish for.

A coup now would lead to a horrendous blood bath that would not end quickly.

The reds still have the grenade launchers hidden away (one was used in the south recently against protest leaders homes) and a considerable arsenal of other weapons and their paymaster would be only to pleased to have them use them.

Don't base your thinking on the last coup, for one now, or in the future would be nothing like it.

Thaksin now has his reds organized and they would be out in force, in all probability looking for soft targets with the armed faction avoiding direct confrontation with the army.

Be aware these soft targets could include us farang.

You all saw what happened when the reds fought against the army last time, and that was only because they were no longer in Govt.

That was also only in BKK in the event of another coup it would be country wide.

I doubt it will be that bad.

If the army cuts the money flow, all the hired thugs aren't interested fighting with the army. And even with the money there aren't many who want to fight.

Real die hard supporters are often University left wing people---armchair soldiers who will go back discussing if the future should be Leninism, Trotskysm or Marxism, but no armed fighting. That leaves very few people. Sure enough problems but no huge blood bath. And with the first soft targets they would totally loose sympathy.

I see the bigger problem in Thaksin buying PR, portraying himself and his sister like Ghandi, mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela and the Army like Myanmar or North Korea.

With enough money you can buy article in newspapers, blogs, postings. And if there are some real incidents than it may lead to some boycotts. That could cause big troubles.

You say that but in this situation the army would hand to quell any problems nationwide.

That includes isaan and chiangmai. They couldn't command the streets in Chiang mai or khon Kaen. No way.

[Thai at Heart]

Before my time. What did Abhist amend?

One thing that the Democrats amended while they were in power was the number of MPs. It went from 480 MPs, with 400 constituency and 80 party list, to 500 MPs with 375 constituency and 125 party list.

And he didn't need a referendum to do it.

[Basil B]

Was it not Taksin's putting himself above the law and refusal to acknowledge the Courts decisions the reason for the the last Military Coup?

Time to get them tin helmets out.

[h90]

Completely agree with your last two paragraphs.

The CC's ruling was that (a) if they wanted to re-write the constitution a referendum must be held first (to agree or not whether it should be amended) and another referendum after the rewrite is finalised; and ( it could be amended piecemeal but a referendum must be held when the amendments are complete.

PTP have ignored this by attempting to enact an amendment without a referendum. This, I hope, the CC will rule unconstitutional.

This is the first time I've ever heard this. I've just gone back to check the ruling and can only confirm from what I've read that it's as I say: '3. Government can either (a) amend sec-by-sec through parliament (as allowed now by Sec 291), or ( hold a referendum first asking whether the whole charter should be amended (that is a y or n). Problem with ( is that constitution doesn't provide 4 a referendum. May have to amend Constit to allow for such a referendum. Then hold referendum in 3-4 months'.

It wouldn't really make sense to me if they'd said you can amend piece by piece but still need ref. or draft an entirely new constitution which requires just one ref. Why would they do it piece by piece then and have referendums on every section they wanted to change? Sounds far too complicated and huge waste of time & money. The other thing I've just noticed is that the recommendations were supposed to be just that, recommendations and as such not non-binding. In any case, I haven't even heard this raised with ref. to the coming court ruling, just whether amendment violates section 68.

Also noted this comment: “It’s not really sensible to make legal sense of these proceedings,” said Verapat Pariyawong, an independent Harvard-educated lawyer. “You have to look at this as a political phenomenon.” If it was true then, it's equally true of tomorrow, if not more so.

You need to re-read what I wrote. In summary a complete re-write requires two referendums(da) - approval for a replacement referendum and approval for the final version and after the piecemeal amendments a referendum to accept/reject. Whether they were recommendations or something stronger is irrelevant. The existing constitution was accepted by referendum so any modification should be put to the people too. If PTP have more amendments they should not attempt to enact laws until they have finished all amendments & hold a referendum.

The problem is that PTP don't want to hold a referendum - that was clear from the start and it is to their discredit that they are afraid of losing. They have made things a lot worse by saying that they refuse to accept the CC's ruling. Danger beckons if they ignore a disliked ruling.

2 things: Did the military Junta ask the electorate through a referendum whether they wanted their 1997 Constitution ripped up and replaced by a new Constitution. No, they didn't. So where is it written in the 2007 Constitution that a referendum should be held before a new Constitution can be written and then another referendum held to verify the new Constitution. It isn't - it is the the Constitution Courts take on what they regard is in the constitution. Which leads me to point 2.

The Constitution Court stated thatr should the PTP wish to amend individual articles in parliament they could do so. abhisit did so. There was no and is no requirement to have a referendum after articles have been amended in such a way.

still the 1997 constitution was never subject to a referendum and it gave the politician a lot more rights than the previous one. The 2007 was verified by a referendum, even you would have liked to see two referendums.

So if the 2007 would have been rejected than we would have the 1997 again. Or should we have done a referendum if we should keep the 1991 constitution? (did it had a referendum)?

It seems only the 2007 was confirmed by the people.

[h90]

Be careful what you all wish for.

A coup now would lead to a horrendous blood bath that would not end quickly.

The reds still have the grenade launchers hidden away (one was used in the south recently against protest leaders homes) and a considerable arsenal of other weapons and their paymaster would be only to pleased to have them use them.

Don't base your thinking on the last coup, for one now, or in the future would be nothing like it.

Thaksin now has his reds organized and they would be out in force, in all probability looking for soft targets with the armed faction avoiding direct confrontation with the army.

Be aware these soft targets could include us farang.

You all saw what happened when the reds fought against the army last time, and that was only because they were no longer in Govt.

That was also only in BKK in the event of another coup it would be country wide.

I doubt it will be that bad.

If the army cuts the money flow, all the hired thugs aren't interested fighting with the army. And even with the money there aren't many who want to fight.

Real die hard supporters are often University left wing people---armchair soldiers who will go back discussing if the future should be Leninism, Trotskysm or Marxism, but no armed fighting. That leaves very few people. Sure enough problems but no huge blood bath. And with the first soft targets they would totally loose sympathy.

I see the bigger problem in Thaksin buying PR, portraying himself and his sister like Ghandi, mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela and the Army like Myanmar or North Korea.

With enough money you can buy article in newspapers, blogs, postings. And if there are some real incidents than it may lead to some boycotts. That could cause big troubles.

You say that but in this situation the army would hand to quell any problems nationwide.

That includes isaan and chiangmai. They couldn't command the streets in Chiang mai or khon Kaen. No way.

I might be wrong but I doubt there would be many problems. A few maybe. After the last coup were exactly zero protests. Now might be a few more but no civil war.

But I might be wrong. I saw a few people who like Thaksin, but no one want to fight for him.

[Emptyset]

This is the first time I've ever heard this. I've just gone back to check the ruling and can only confirm from what I've read that it's as I say: '3. Government can either (a) amend sec-by-sec through parliament (as allowed now by Sec 291), or ( hold a referendum first asking whether the whole charter should be amended (that is a y or n). Problem with ( is that constitution doesn't provide 4 a referendum. May have to amend Constit to allow for such a referendum. Then hold referendum in 3-4 months'.

It wouldn't really make sense to me if they'd said you can amend piece by piece but still need ref. or draft an entirely new constitution which requires just one ref. Why would they do it piece by piece then and have referendums on every section they wanted to change? Sounds far too complicated and huge waste of time & money. The other thing I've just noticed is that the recommendations were supposed to be just that, recommendations and as such not non-binding. In any case, I haven't even heard this raised with ref. to the coming court ruling, just whether amendment violates section 68.

Also noted this comment: “It’s not really sensible to make legal sense of these proceedings,” said Verapat Pariyawong, an independent Harvard-educated lawyer. “You have to look at this as a political phenomenon.” If it was true then, it's equally true of tomorrow, if not more so.

Completely agree with your last two paragraphs.

The CC's ruling was that (a) if they wanted to re-write the constitution a referendum must be held first (to agree or not whether it should be amended) and another referendum after the rewrite is finalised; and ( it could be amended piecemeal but a referendum must be held when the amendments are complete.

PTP have ignored this by attempting to enact an amendment without a referendum. This, I hope, the CC will rule unconstitutional.

You need to re-read what I wrote. In summary a complete re-write requires two referendums(da) - approval for a replacement referendum and approval for the final version and after the piecemeal amendments a referendum to accept/reject. Whether they were recommendations or something stronger is irrelevant. The existing constitution was accepted by referendum so any modification should be put to the people too. If PTP have more amendments they should not attempt to enact laws until they have finished all amendments & hold a referendum.

The problem is that PTP don't want to hold a referendum - that was clear from the start and it is to their discredit that they are afraid of losing. They have made things a lot worse by saying that they refuse to accept the CC's ruling. Danger beckons if they ignore a disliked ruling.

As Fab said, the court said that constitution could be amended piece by piece without referendum. This is what PT are doing. Are we now all in agreement that this is the case? Because you seem to have moved to your personal opinion in the above, which is that if PT wants to rewrite anything, it should be put to a referendum. But again, that's not what the court says. So it has no bearing on tomorrow's ruling.

Personally I tend to agree with you that PT should've just drafted a new constitution and gone for a referendum, and then no one could say it was forced on people or whatever. But as Fab also pointed out, Abhisit's govt made amendments and I don't remember there being such a huge fuss about that.

I know you don't think this Khunken, but I'll say this here for convenience's sake: it seems from reading other responses here that some people want PT politicians to be banned tomorrow regardless of whether they contravened the constitution. If that's the case, are these posters really as concerned about the rule of law as they make out? It seems they're happy for the court to make an obviously politicized position... I think Whybother has it right, even if you think PT is governing poorly, let them govern for now and hope they hoist themselves on their own petard.

The threat of Thaksin coming back did more to galvanize the opposition and cause disenchantment amongst red shirts than anything the opposition have done themselves. And if there's any play for him to gain amnesty in future, in 170 days, say, or through another mechanism, there's no reason the protesters can't come back out then in the same numbers and with the same determination as they've shown in the past couple of weeks.