Interior minister rejects Thai Charter Court's verdict

[webfact]

Interior minister rejects charter court's verdict
By English News



BANGKOK, Nov 20 – Interior Minister Charupong Ruangsuwan today expressed his strong opposition to the Constitution Court’s ruling to retain the original composition of the Senate which favours a combination of elected and appointed senators.

In an interview after the court’s verdict on the unsuccessful charter change amendment, the Pheu Thai Party leader said he wondered how an Upper House with all elected members could be worse than a Senate with partially-appointed members.

“The screening committee (for appointed senators) comprises only seven persons. How can it be more efficient than voters countrywide?” he asked.

“I can’t accept the court’s ruling, especially the minor issue of MPs inserting voting cards for others. It represented only a few votes. The bill was passed with a substantial margin.”

He said the court’s verdict will widen the growing rift among the people as one faction agreed with power of the people while the other faction supported the power of only a few persons.

Mr Charupong said he believed ideological conflicts will worsen as people who want to exercise their voting rights will find the verdict unacceptable.

Asked how the government will respond to the Constitution Court’s ruling, Mr Charupong said there was no discussion yet but the government will take responsibility for the majority or 63 million people, instead of the opinions of only a few persons.

The nine judges today voted six to three to rule as unconstitutional the Parliament’s passage of a bill requiring all members of the Senate to be elected, not partially appointed.

The court also ruled that the MPs who inserted ballots to vote on behalf of absent lawmakers violated Section 126, Clause 3 of the Constitution. (MCOT online news)


-- TNA 2013-11-20

[Thai at Heart]

I can’t accept the court’s ruling, especially the minor issue of MPs inserting voting cards for others. It represented only a few votes. The bill was passed with a substantial margin.”

Nice to see that the interior minister takes such a principled view on voting irregularities. If it was so damn insignificant, then why did they bother to do it? It is an abomination of democracy that MP's use proxies to vote for themselves, and it is an insult to the voting population, that ironically, they HAVE to vote legally, but this d**k claims that apparently MP's can use proxies.

Off to the tower for this bloke.

[webfact]

RT @tulsathit: Interior Minister Jarupong: A small bunch of judges can't tell the country what is right or wrong.

[Thai at Heart]

RT @tulsathit: Interior Minister Jarupong: A small bunch of judges can't tell the country what is right or wrong.

No but they can tell you what is CONSTITUTIONAL.

Where do they get these people? How spoilt were they as children? Next he's going to tell us he's going to take his football home.

[ramrod711]

Interior Minister Jarupong: A small bunch of judges can't tell the country what is right or wrong.

Of course he's right, that is Jatuporns job.

[bigbamboo]

The interior minister doesn't accept the ruling of the court unless he agrees with it.

In that case I think maybe it's time he looked for another job.

[robblok]

Wow a government that wont obide to the law me thinks its coup time again.

Minor issue..... crazu

They were lucky they were not disbanded and should not press their luck. The government ignoring this could signal for a coup.

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

[waza]

More sour grapes, he should resign in protest.

[Moruya]

He's in contempt of court

So is the contemptuous Jarupong

Both have no idea about rules in a democracy

"we only cheated a little bit" seems to be the swansong for PTP

[anon210]

Some posters here, obviously are not privy with their own parliaments' functioning. It is not uncommon for absentees to let their colleagues "turn the keys" to vote in their name in any parliament around the world. Nothing unusual there.

The other point being that obviously, letting a small committee appoint senators does not appear very democratic (compared to full elections).

Normally, Senators are composed of officials elected by second-degree electors (people themselves elected, for example the mayors in France).

I am sometimes appalled both at the ignorance of the Thais (who are generally against the "reds" without knowing exactly why), but also of some TV posters who obviously are not very familiar with the functioning of democracy.

Not saying the "reds" are particularly more democratic, but I tend to consider both "yellow" and "reds" as democratic dimwits, focused only on obtaining their particular goals. On the bottom of the matter, for me, a parliament must be allowed to reform institutions, and judges have no say in the sovereign power of a Parliament to change institutions. Ultimately, it pertains to the people to have their say in democratic elections.

In Thailand, it seems people are easily swayed or manipulated either way, without even knowing precisely the facts or some basics of constitutional law.

[Thai at Heart]

Some posters here, obviously are not privy with their own parliaments' functioning. It is not uncommon for absentees to let their colleagues "turn the keys" to vote in their name in any parliament around the world. Nothing unusual there.

The other point being that obviously, letting a small committee appoint senators does not appear very democratic (compared to full elections).

Normally, Senators are composed of officials elected by second-degree electors (people themselves elected, for example the mayors in France).

I am sometimes appalled both at the ignorance of the Thais (who are generally against the "reds" without knowing exactly why), but also of some TV posters who obviously are not very familiar with the functioning of democracy.

Not saying the "reds" are particularly more democratic, but I tend to consider both "yellow" and "reds" as democratic dimwits, focused only on obtaining their particular goals. On the bottom of the matter, for me, a parliament must be allowed to reform institutions, and judges have no say in the sovereign power of a Parliament to change institutions. Ultimately, it pertains to the people to have their say in democratic elections.

In Thailand, it seems people are easily swayed or manipulated either way, without even knowing precisely the facts or some basics of constitutional law.

I would be interested to know which parliament allows proxy voting and to what scale. In which case, why bother for any of them to pitch. I wonder if they approve of people diddling time clocks also?

Edited November 20, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[JRSoul]

Thaksin and his cronies seem incapable of obeying the political rules, and then squeal like stuck pigs when they are caught.

It is still a mystery why PTP was not disbanded after the last election, it was certainly considered and there were ample grounds - involvement of a banned politician and putting forward inappropriate persons as party list MPs. The only reason I can come up with was to avoid the political violence that would ensue.

But they persist in breaking the rules. Is political chaos the intent, to make it easier to make radical change in the country's political system?

[anon210]

Some posters here, obviously are not privy with their own parliaments' functioning. It is not uncommon for absentees to let their colleagues "turn the keys" to vote in their name in any parliament around the world. Nothing unusual there.

The other point being that obviously, letting a small committee appoint senators does not appear very democratic (compared to full elections).

Normally, Senators are composed of officials elected by second-degree electors (people themselves elected, for example the mayors in France).

I am sometimes appalled both at the ignorance of the Thais (who are generally against the "reds" without knowing exactly why), but also of some TV posters who obviously are not very familiar with the functioning of democracy.

Not saying the "reds" are particularly more democratic, but I tend to consider both "yellow" and "reds" as democratic dimwits, focused only on obtaining their particular goals. On the bottom of the matter, for me, a parliament must be allowed to reform institutions, and judges have no say in the sovereign power of a Parliament to change institutions. Ultimately, it pertains to the people to have their say in democratic elections.

In Thailand, it seems people are easily swayed or manipulated either way, without even knowing precisely the facts or some basics of constitutional law.

I would be interested to know which parliament allows proxy voting and to what scale. In which case, why bother for any of them to pitch. I wonder if they approve of people diddling time clocks also?

Not very far to go to find that:

151 Proxy voting

(1) A member may give authority for a proxy vote to be cast in the member’s name or for an abstention to be recorded.

(2) A proxy must state the name of the member who is giving the authority, the date it is given, and the period or business for which the authority is valid. It must be signed by the member giving it and indicate the member who is given authority to exercise it.

(3) A member who has given a proxy may revoke or amend that proxy at any time before its exercise.

(4) The leader or senior whip of each party, or a member acting as the leader or senior whip of the party in the House for the time being, may exercise a proxy vote for any member of the party, subject to any express direction from a member to the contrary.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/rules/standing-orders/chapter3/00HOHPBReferenceStOrdersChapter3HPutting1/putting-the-question

[GentlemanJim]

Some posters here, obviously are not privy with their own parliaments' functioning. It is not uncommon for absentees to let their colleagues "turn the keys" to vote in their name in any parliament around the world. Nothing unusual there.

The other point being that obviously, letting a small committee appoint senators does not appear very democratic (compared to full elections).

Normally, Senators are composed of officials elected by second-degree electors (people themselves elected, for example the mayors in France).

I am sometimes appalled both at the ignorance of the Thais (who are generally against the "reds" without knowing exactly why), but also of some TV posters who obviously are not very familiar with the functioning of democracy.

Not saying the "reds" are particularly more democratic, but I tend to consider both "yellow" and "reds" as democratic dimwits, focused only on obtaining their particular goals. On the bottom of the matter, for me, a parliament must be allowed to reform institutions, and judges have no say in the sovereign power of a Parliament to change institutions. Ultimately, it pertains to the people to have their say in democratic elections.

In Thailand, it seems people are easily swayed or manipulated either way, without even knowing precisely the facts or some basics of constitutional law.

Can you please tell me in which democracy an MP is allowed to vote for another MP in his/her absence, and in particular, where is it legal to do that?

Some posters here, obviously are not privy with their own parliaments' functioning. It is not uncommon for absentees to let their colleagues "turn the keys" to vote in their name in any parliament around the world. Nothing unusual there.

[anon210]

Some posters here, obviously are not privy with their own parliaments' functioning. It is not uncommon for absentees to let their colleagues "turn the keys" to vote in their name in any parliament around the world. Nothing unusual there.

The other point being that obviously, letting a small committee appoint senators does not appear very democratic (compared to full elections).

Normally, Senators are composed of officials elected by second-degree electors (people themselves elected, for example the mayors in France).

I am sometimes appalled both at the ignorance of the Thais (who are generally against the "reds" without knowing exactly why), but also of some TV posters who obviously are not very familiar with the functioning of democracy.

Not saying the "reds" are particularly more democratic, but I tend to consider both "yellow" and "reds" as democratic dimwits, focused only on obtaining their particular goals. On the bottom of the matter, for me, a parliament must be allowed to reform institutions, and judges have no say in the sovereign power of a Parliament to change institutions. Ultimately, it pertains to the people to have their say in democratic elections.

In Thailand, it seems people are easily swayed or manipulated either way, without even knowing precisely the facts or some basics of constitutional law.

Can you please tell me in which democracy an MP is allowed to vote for another MP in his/her absence, and in particular, where is it legal to do that?

Some posters here, obviously are not privy with their own parliaments' functioning. It is not uncommon for absentees to let their colleagues "turn the keys" to vote in their name in any parliament around the world. Nothing unusual there.

See my previous post (just above yours). For further reference, in France, MP's are allowed to exercise one proxy vote. Before 1993, they could use the electronic keys liberally.

[MikeOboe57]

Some posters here, obviously are not privy with their own parliaments' functioning. It is not uncommon for absentees to let their colleagues "turn the keys" to vote in their name in any parliament around the world. Nothing unusual there.

The other point being that obviously, letting a small committee appoint senators does not appear very democratic (compared to full elections).

Normally, Senators are composed of officials elected by second-degree electors (people themselves elected, for example the mayors in France).

I am sometimes appalled both at the ignorance of the Thais (who are generally against the "reds" without knowing exactly why), but also of some TV posters who obviously are not very familiar with the functioning of democracy.

Not saying the "reds" are particularly more democratic, but I tend to consider both "yellow" and "reds" as democratic dimwits, focused only on obtaining their particular goals. On the bottom of the matter, for me, a parliament must be allowed to reform institutions, and judges have no say in the sovereign power of a Parliament to change institutions. Ultimately, it pertains to the people to have their say in democratic elections.

In Thailand, it seems people are easily swayed or manipulated either way, without even knowing precisely the facts or some basics of constitutional law.

I would be interested to know which parliament allows proxy voting and to what scale. In which case, why bother for any of them to pitch. I wonder if they approve of people diddling time clocks also?

The European Parliament did - or still does - similar. MPs usually drop(ped) by every Friday on their way home, would quickly sign an attendance record and hurry to the airport. This qualifies(d) for the extra daily session allowance, although Parliament is not in session of Fridays. They got caught by journalists while they were scurrying through the corridors with their trolleys and briefcases as the record was in the public area of the building, so they then moved it to an off-limits location.

[EvilDrSomkid]

He's in contempt of court

So is the contemptuous Jarupong

Both have no idea about rules in a democracy

"we only cheated a little bit" seems to be the swansong for PTP

The whole PTP seems to be in contempt of court! This is just farcical again. All the proponents of the amendment refuse to understand the courts reasoning.

A brief summary:

The versions changed between readings. That is fraud.

Some voted on behalf others. That is fraud, too. Mai pen rai does not fly in government.

Now, what is not clear about this? Are they being deliberately obtuse?

The court had no problem with changing the law regarding senators. Its the way PTP did it.

They did have a problem with allowing family members of MPs being senators. Damn right.

That is called Conflict of Interest, which is the central problem with this whole ridiculous group of clowns who call themselves the government of Thailand.

You get it now, Charupong?

[Local Drunk]

“The screening committee (for appointed senators) comprises only seven persons. How can it be more efficient than voters countrywide?” he asked.

Easily answered... They know more about the way a government should function than voters countrywide.

[siampolee]

“The screening committee (for appointed senators) comprises only seven persons. How can it be more efficient than voters countrywide?” he asked.

Three reasons.

1. They have shown beyond a doubt that they actually have the interest of Thailand and its peoples at heart .

2. It would cost a darn sight more the 500 baht to influence these principled people who in truth cannot nor were they bought.

3. They operated on ''I vote for myself alone not others vote for me.''

Those three factors are way beyond the understanding of Interior Minister Charupong Ruangsuwan along with Thaksin his family and their brown nosing acolytes.

[Robby nz]

The court also said that under Section 216 of the charter, the court's ruling is legally binding on all parties concerned.

[animatic]

1. ) Makes no difference what happens in OTHER parliaments,

it is not legal under the Thailand constitution to allow MP's to proxy vote.

2. ) Yes, these muppets seem to be in contempt of court.

3. ) The change in text is; where a committee filed a text as the one to vote on,

between 'Readings' and THEN the text that was actually voted on was NOT the one submitted.

Bait and switch. It was not the one amended by committee, but another doctored one.

4. ) In any case it did not follow constitutional procedures.

5. ) the point of exempting the senate from being 100% elected,

or allowing the family members of MP's to become senators,

was very simply to take the political machines out of the equation

in at least one law making house of government.

The fact that one clan can take control of the entire parliament, except the senate,

and the government of the day, makes it quite clear the benefit of having

2 bodies of governance that this clan can NOT touch to get their way clear

for total control and the logical megalomaniacal dictatorships that goes with it.

Edited November 20, 2013 by animatic

[thaicbr]

Some posters here, obviously are not privy with their own parliaments' functioning. It is not uncommon for absentees to let their colleagues "turn the keys" to vote in their name in any parliament around the world. Nothing unusual there.

The other point being that obviously, letting a small committee appoint senators does not appear very democratic (compared to full elections).

Normally, Senators are composed of officials elected by second-degree electors (people themselves elected, for example the mayors in France).

I am sometimes appalled both at the ignorance of the Thais (who are generally against the "reds" without knowing exactly why), but also of some TV posters who obviously are not very familiar with the functioning of democracy.

Not saying the "reds" are particularly more democratic, but I tend to consider both "yellow" and "reds" as democratic dimwits, focused only on obtaining their particular goals. On the bottom of the matter, for me, a parliament must be allowed to reform institutions, and judges have no say in the sovereign power of a Parliament to change institutions. Ultimately, it pertains to the people to have their say in democratic elections.

In Thailand, it seems people are easily swayed or manipulated either way, without even knowing precisely the facts or some basics of constitutional law.

Can you please tell me in which democracy an MP is allowed to vote for another MP in his/her absence, and in particular, where is it legal to do that?

Some posters here, obviously are not privy with their own parliaments' functioning. It is not uncommon for absentees to let their colleagues "turn the keys" to vote in their name in any parliament around the world. Nothing unusual there.

See my previous post (just above yours). For further reference, in France, MP's are allowed to exercise one proxy vote. Before 1993, they could use the electronic keys liberally.

Both cases you have quoted do allow proxy voting but under a set of rules.. What are Thailands rules on proxy voting, allowed or not. If allowed what are the rules?

[MrSlatersParrot]

He's in contempt of court

So is the contemptuous Jarupong

Both have no idea about rules in a democracy

"we only cheated a little bit" seems to be the swansong for PTP

The whole PTP seems to be in contempt of court! This is just farcical again. All the proponents of the amendment refuse to understand the courts reasoning.

A brief summary:

The versions changed between readings. That is fraud.

Some voted on behalf others. That is fraud, too. Mai pen rai does not fly in government.

Now, what is not clear about this? Are they being deliberately obtuse?

The court had no problem with changing the law regarding senators. Its the way PTP did it.

They did have a problem with allowing family members of MPs being senators. dam_n right.

That is called Conflict of Interest, which is the central problem with this whole ridiculous group of clowns who call themselves the government of Thailand.

You get it now, Charupong?

Can you specifically tell us what changes were made between readings?

i'm not aware of what these changes were and in their judgement have they specifically referred to these inclusions, changes or whatever? For clarification.

I don't think so

[15Peter20]

Err....is this still all about Thaksin?

[kirk0233]

“The screening committee (for appointed senators) comprises only seven persons. How can it be more efficient than voters countrywide?” he asked.

Three reasons.

1. They have shown beyond a doubt that they actually have the interest of Thailand and its peoples at heart .

2. It would cost a darn sight more the 500 baht to influence these principled people who in truth cannot nor were they bought.

3. They operated on ''I vote for myself alone not others vote for me.''

Those three factors are way beyond the understanding of Interior Minister Charupong Ruangsuwan along with Thaksin his family and their brown nosing acolytes.

They have shown beyond a doubt that they actually have the interest of Thailand and its peoples at heart .

Really? The same old argument; we will protect you by not allowing you the democracy you are too stupid to participate in -Thai style democracy

[tim armstrong]

Sunday could be interesting - given all the rhetoric. I wonder who will make the next move ??

[tim armstrong]

Sunday could be interesting - given all the rhetoric. I wonder who will make the next move ??

[MrSlatersParrot]

1. ) Makes no difference what happens in OTHER parliaments,

it is not legal under the Thailand constitution to allow MP's to proxy vote.

2. ) Yes, these muppets seem to be in contempt of court.

3. ) The change in text is; where a committee filed a text as the one to vote on,

between 'Readings' and THEN the text that was actually voted on was NOT the one submitted.

Bait and switch. It was not the one amended by committee, but another doctored one.

4. ) In any case it did not follow constitutional procedures.

5. ) the point of exempting the senate from being 100% elected,

or allowing the family members of MP's to become senators,

was very simply to take the political machines out of the equation

in at least one law making house of government.

The fact that one clan can take control of the entire parliament, except the senate,

and the government of the day, makes it quite clear the benefit of having

2 bodies of governance that this clan can NOT touch to get their way clear

for total control and the logical megalomaniacal dictatorships that goes with it.

muppets notwithstanding who appointed the appointed senators?

How long is their tenure?

They've been in post since 2006.

I seem to recall that they all resigned en masse just before their appointments were due to expire and then reapplied for same jobs.

If that is the case then it makes a mockery of democracy.

Then we have the group of 40. No question of their allegiances. Didn't they hide out in a room last friday refusing to make up a quorum?

Muppets

[slapout]

There are enough laws on the books in Thailand that a goodly number of the politicans could be gone after for illigal acts and in some cases forfiture of assets. Just need to kick the enforced groups in the arse or press charges against them for aiding the commission of criminal acts.

This bunch and their actions make some of the orginazed criminal organizations look like choir boys.

[Thainy Tim]

See my previous post (just above yours). For further reference, in France, MP's are allowed to exercise one proxy vote. Before 1993, they could use the electronic keys liberally.

Both cases you have quoted do allow proxy voting but under a set of rules.. What are Thailands rules on proxy voting, allowed or not. If allowed what are the rules?

Why not look it up yourself?

You had no problem lookingup the voting regulations of other countries to compare with Thailand. So why not take the time to look up the regulations of the country you are debating about?

I will add though. The other countries you quoted have strict guidelines in place and all proxy voting is fully recorded, not a case of slipping several cards into the ballot box and walking away.