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

[beammeup]

If they do not accept the ruling. They do not want to work within the rule of law. What credibility do they have. Fab4? or any of the other silent red shirt apologists?

[JRSoul]

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.

"1997 Constitution ripped up and replaced by a new Constitution."

A piece of Thaksin propaganda spoon fed to those too lazy/ignorant/stupid to actually read the 2 documents.

[FarangTalk]

 

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.

The reason the Dems are not popular in the North and North East is because of their bitter medicine policies against the rural poor in the late 90s. Long before Thaksin, red shirts or anything else. The yellow shirt actions, 2006 coup and subsequent machinations have only hardened their opinions, and justly so IMO.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[FarangTalk]

 

 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.

 

Really?

Abhisit was very vocal about his amulet collection and it is well known Thai politicians consult fortune tellers on a regular basis and often form policy based on their predictions.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[robblok]

I would have thought that even the Red cheerleaders here would be for checks and balances as this combats corruption.

It seems they want a system where their party can do and steal what they want.

A real good system would also keep other parties in future in check It is utterly stupid to remove checks and balances in a country that is as corrupted as Thailand.

As long as the Senate is independent from any party its in the best interest for the country.

I hope they disband the government. The reds will probably win again but with far less power so they will have to be less corrupt and more transparent that will benefit the country.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Emptyset]

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.

"1997 Constitution ripped up and replaced by a new Constitution."

A piece of Thaksin propaganda spoon fed to those too lazy/ignorant/stupid to actually read the 2 documents.

Fab is probably referring to the fact that the 1997 constitution was replaced by an interim constitution several days after the coup in 06.

[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.

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.

This time they would fight.

The army was ready to go last time when the reds burnt the city halls. It would have been carnage. It's one thing to fight a protest group, it's another to fight a whole city.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

The reason the Dems are not popular in the North and North East is because of their bitter medicine policies against the rural poor in the late 90s. Long before Thaksin, red shirts or anything else. The yellow shirt actions, 2006 coup and subsequent machinations have only hardened their opinions, and justly so IMO.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The dems left these areas to the local political pooyai. Very very naive plan that one.

[thaicbr]

 

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.

The reason the Dems are not popular in the North and North East is because of their bitter medicine policies against the rural poor in the late 90s. Long before Thaksin, red shirts or anything else. The yellow shirt actions, 2006 coup and subsequent machinations have only hardened their opinions, and justly so IMO.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Bitter medicine!!! Do you mean after the 1997 Asian financial collapse were the country was on the verge of bankruptcy and companies were going under left right and centre?

Also Thaksin was in the Democrat coalition from 1994-1995 as foreign minister. He was a member of Palang Dharma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palang_Dharma_Party

Makes for very interesting reading. And explains Chamlongs dislike of Thaksin.

Sent from my phone with the app thingy.

[noikrit]

Nothing surprising here ... After all their fearless CONVICTED criminal on the run leader calling the shots has set a fine excample with his total disregard for the law hasn't he .... and yes he WAS convicted and sentenced!! ... Band (MAN) On The Run !!..... Now wheres that Red Bull Guy????

[Thait Spot]

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.

The Junta didn't rip up the 1997 constitution - they amended some parts of it to protect democracy with some stronger checks and balances.

Do you think a Junta falls under the jurisdiction of the CC?

Do you think the CC wasn't involved in the amendments?

Do you think that if the PTP wasnted to rewrite the constitution then that should have been part of their manifesto?

The junta held a referenduim - and that set the bar a bit higher.

[fab4]

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.

Thank you. I was looking for something else so you saved me the bother of having to prove,yet again, I was telling the truth.

[thaicbr]

 

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.

 

 

Thank you. I was looking for something else so you saved me the bother of having to prove,yet again, I was telling the truth.

And that amendment was voted for in the required way by Parliament and the Senate.

The 2 trillion baht was sneaked in the back door..... again!

Sent from my phone with the app thingy.

[smedly]

this thread shows exactly what is wrong with PTP and the Red Shirt movement

They simply believe that democracy means if you win an election those elected can do anything they want because they have ultimate power over all including the law and the courts.

Understanding the basic principle of democracy is severely lacking and almost primitive or backward - or they are just in denial and ignore the basics

Perhaps a good round of televised education is what is needed so that all the people of this country get on the same page

My interpretation of current affairs is blatant abuse of power or blatant abuse of power they don't actually have - it's almost comical if it wasn't so serious

and this 2x trillion baht loan is bewildering and scary, they don't even have to report or justify what it's being used for, that to me just removes all accountability - something that is seriously lacking in Thailand

[billd766]

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.

Have you read both constiutions section by section and side by side?

The 1997 Constitution was NOT ripped up at all. Some sections were modified to strehgthen the checks and balances and others were inserted but in the main the 2007 is the same as the 1997 Constitution, but stronger.

What Thaksin wants and this PTP goverment has tried to do is to weaken ALL checks and balances, dismantle key agencies and go back to where he could do just as he liked using the 1997 Constitution as a lever. The PTP MPs will go along with this for two main reasons.

1 Their snouts will still be in the trough.

2 Thaksin OWNS the PTP, lock,stock and two smoking barrels and if ANY MP breaks Thaksins rules then the MP will be history.