Pheu Thai to go ahead with charter amendment

[bigbamboo]

Pheu Thai to resurrect Article 291 of the charter

The draft which seeks to amend Article 291 of the Constitution has passed two readings of the House and is still pending for the third and final reading after the Constitution Court ruled that amending the article in question was not unconstitutional but suggested that public hearings must be held first to gauge the opinions of the public.

Since the charter court did not oppose amending Article 291, Mr Samart said the Pheu Thai party would continue with ramming the draft amendment through the third reading of the House to pave the way for the creation of an assembly to craft a new charter.

There's that word ramming again. So we can assume that there will be no public hearings as suggested by the Constitution Court (I'm guessing that it was a fairly strong suggestion).

Let's hope that enough PTP MPs finally come to the realisation that their individual heads do not have to be on the chopping block when the axe finally does come down.

At least their balls are safe....... in an envelope a long way away with their signed resignation letters!

Edited November 21, 2013 by bigbamboo

[hansgruber]

Petulance at its finest.

[Moruya]

Petulance at its finest.

The PTP don't seem to listen very well

If at first you don't succeed, don't take up hang-gliding

Or amending constitutions!

[GrantSmith]

Oh dear... They were spared the rod yesterday and think it's a clear mandate to go about business as usual...

Someone pass the Chang Export Ice Cream, this is going to be fun!

[gerry1011]

They always go back on their feet.
Suthep is gonna go crazy

[whybother]

And they wonder why the anti-govt protest continued after the Senate threw out their whitewash bill? With statements like this, it's clear they'll try and resurrect it at some point, no matter what the public thinks.

It really does look ridiculous when CNN and BBC report that Peua Thai are accepting the court's verdict whilst the Interior Minister and Labour Minister, two of the party's biggest names, say they "can't accept it" and the "low intellect puppet" (according to Chai-anan Samudavanija) Prime Minister only answers "ka" when asked about her next step.

This post and many others shows muddled thinking or simple ignorance about the principles involved in the role of the judiciary vis a vis parliament.The attached article by Michael Howard, scarcely a fire breathing radical, sets out the key issues.It of course relates to the UK where judges, unlike Thailand, are not tainted by political pressure.Several justices on the Constitututional Court for example were intimately involved in the drasfting of the constitution propagated by the military junta

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3618954/Judges-must-bow-to-the-will-of-Parliament.html.

Why does having been involved in drafting the constitution mean that they can't be involved in ruling on it?

[Baerboxer]

And they wonder why the anti-govt protest continued after the Senate threw out their whitewash bill? With statements like this, it's clear they'll try and resurrect it at some point, no matter what the public thinks.

It really does look ridiculous when CNN and BBC report that Peua Thai are accepting the court's verdict whilst the Interior Minister and Labour Minister, two of the party's biggest names, say they "can't accept it" and the "low intellect puppet" (according to Chai-anan Samudavanija) Prime Minister only answers "ka" when asked about her next step.

This post and many others shows muddled thinking or simple ignorance about the principles involved in the role of the judiciary vis a vis parliament.The attached article by Michael Howard, scarcely a fire breathing radical, sets out the key issues.It of course relates to the UK where judges, unlike Thailand, are not tainted by political pressure.Several justices on the Constitututional Court for example were intimately involved in the drasfting of the constitution propagated by the military junta

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3618954/Judges-must-bow-to-the-will-of-Parliament.html.

Presumably your post is indicative of clear thinking supported by knowledge, rather than the muddled thinking and ignorance of those who express a different view? In your opinion of course. Seems very similar to the comments PTP's leader always expresses. Only his view is right.

Thailand cannot be compared to the UK. The level of corruption, dynastic families owning political parties, ludicrous over use of organic defamation laws and constant threat and counter threat of suing, impeachment and charging, do not happen in the UK.

Do you think the valiant Tarit and the AG aren't politically controlled? Does the justice system here really offer justice to everyone with law enforced without bias and favour.

Very different political and constitutional landscapes.

Here we have a party in government controlled by a fugitive criminal, trying to sneak a bill through parliament to whitewash his convictions and outstanding criminal charges, trying to push through changes to the senate whilst ignoring parliamentary procedure and remove restrictions that would substantially remove the check and balances that were put in place to stop a dynastic dictatorship and cheating on voting times to push a bill through parliament to give them unchecked access to a vast loan that will indebt the country for 50 years or more. The government has acted illegally, openly refuses to respect or abide by the law, threatens opponents or anyone with a different view of serious legal actions (somewhat ironically given their regard for the law) and says telling lies is o.k. and ethical. Can you say which government in the UK has acted in a similar way?

[bigbamboo]

Fifteen love.

Baerboxer has pretty well aced it there..

Edited November 21, 2013 by bigbamboo

[johnlandy]

Abuse of power?

When the parliamentarians ignore the courts what hope to you have of the masses accepting the courts decisions.

The country is populated by a bunch of spoilt children

[rixalex]

A crisis was created where one didn't exist through the foolish umbrella amnesty, thereby yielding the high moral ground to the opposition.

Actually the crisis existed the moment that Yingluck was installed as PM by her brother, because from that day on, it was blindly obvious to all but those deeply deluded, or ignorant, or both, that the promise to bring so called reconciliation to Thailand, was nothing but a pathetic and transparent front for the true and main objective of the government, to whitewash their leader and enable him to return to Thailand without the bother of any legal impediments. And so it has proven...

[Baerboxer]

And they wonder why the anti-govt protest continued after the Senate threw out their whitewash bill? With statements like this, it's clear they'll try and resurrect it at some point, no matter what the public thinks.

It really does look ridiculous when CNN and BBC report that Peua Thai are accepting the court's verdict whilst the Interior Minister and Labour Minister, two of the party's biggest names, say they "can't accept it" and the "low intellect puppet" (according to Chai-anan Samudavanija) Prime Minister only answers "ka" when asked about her next step.

This post and many others shows muddled thinking or simple ignorance about the principles involved in the role of the judiciary vis a vis parliament.The attached article by Michael Howard, scarcely a fire breathing radical, sets out the key issues.It of course relates to the UK where judges, unlike Thailand, are not tainted by political pressure.Several justices on the Constitututional Court for example were intimately involved in the drasfting of the constitution propagated by the military junta

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3618954/Judges-must-bow-to-the-will-of-Parliament.html.

The UK has vote buying too? Which position does the UK hold on the corruption index vs Thailand. Sooooooo easy what you are doing.

Like many of the usual suspects you struggle to understand the point.Corruption exists in Thailand and has flourished under different forms of government including military dictatorships and democratic.The "leader" of the current street demonstrations against corruption is himself notoriously corrupt.By some international yardsticks Thailand is now less corrupt than under the last administration.However that is not relevant to the subject under discussion which is the relationship between the different branches of government.The article by Michael Howeard deals with fundamental principles and is thus directly relevant to Thailand.

Like so many pro Thaksin supporters, the fact other politicians past and present are corrupt is brought up to somehow justify the current and past corruptions of their favored politician.

Poor Thaksin, he's only doing what all the others do/did? Enriching his family by robbing the people. So, that makes it o.k then, its the norm here. Even though his little sister spouts on about no corruption in her (does anyone really still think she's in charge of anything) government.

Michael Howard - what makes him the expert? He's a lawyer and politician, failed wannabee PM. Entitled to his opinion but that's relevant to the U.K. and specific to a UK context. You can distill fundamental principles but applying them in different contexts will not be straightforward, nor will it necessarily be appropriate.

[Deez]

And they wonder why the anti-govt protest continued after the Senate threw out their whitewash bill? With statements like this, it's clear they'll try and resurrect it at some point, no matter what the public thinks.

It really does look ridiculous when CNN and BBC report that Peua Thai are accepting the court's verdict whilst the Interior Minister and Labour Minister, two of the party's biggest names, say they "can't accept it" and the "low intellect puppet" (according to Chai-anan Samudavanija) Prime Minister only answers "ka" when asked about her next step.

This post and many others shows muddled thinking or simple ignorance about the principles involved in the role of the judiciary vis a vis parliament.The attached article by Michael Howard, scarcely a fire breathing radical, sets out the key issues.It of course relates to the UK where judges, unlike Thailand, are not tainted by political pressure.Several justices on the Constitututional Court for example were intimately involved in the drasfting of the constitution propagated by the military junta

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3618954/Judges-must-bow-to-the-will-of-Parliament.html.

That would be the constitution the people voted for to replace the old one which had been used and abused by the previous government.

If the current government can improve on it (and I'm sure they could if they tried) then do what the junta did and let the people decide.

Better to bow to the people than the politicians.

Do you really think if they let the people decide and it wasn't to their liking that they would listen? Come on

[jayboy]

This post and many others shows muddled thinking or simple ignorance about the principles involved in the role of the judiciary vis a vis parliament.The attached article by Michael Howard, scarcely a fire breathing radical, sets out the key issues.It of course relates to the UK where judges, unlike Thailand, are not tainted by political pressure.Several justices on the Constitututional Court for example were intimately involved in the drasfting of the constitution propagated by the military junta

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3618954/Judges-must-bow-to-the-will-of-Parliament.html.

The UK has vote buying too? Which position does the UK hold on the corruption index vs Thailand. Sooooooo easy what you are doing.

Like many of the usual suspects you struggle to understand the point.Corruption exists in Thailand and has flourished under different forms of government including military dictatorships and democratic.The "leader" of the current street demonstrations against corruption is himself notoriously corrupt.By some international yardsticks Thailand is now less corrupt than under the last administration.However that is not relevant to the subject under discussion which is the relationship between the different branches of government.The article by Michael Howeard deals with fundamental principles and is thus directly relevant to Thailand.

Like so many pro Thaksin supporters, the fact other politicians past and present are corrupt is brought up to somehow justify the current and past corruptions of their favored politician.

Poor Thaksin, he's only doing what all the others do/did? Enriching his family by robbing the people. So, that makes it o.k then, its the norm here. Even though his little sister spouts on about no corruption in her (does anyone really still think she's in charge of anything) government.

Michael Howard - what makes him the expert? He's a lawyer and politician, failed wannabee PM. Entitled to his opinion but that's relevant to the U.K. and specific to a UK context. You can distill fundamental principles but applying them in different contexts will not be straightforward, nor will it necessarily be appropriate.

No it doesn't make it ok, far from it.I simply pointed out the stunning hypocrisy.And if you can't see the cosmic irony of someone like Suthep leading the charge against corruption there may be a slight SOHF on your part.

Yes there need to be comonsense adaptations to different circumstances but the underlying principles of democracy are universal.I don't really want to get into a debate on Michael Howard but his political understanding, legal expertise and sheer intelligence might be (I'm guessing) be a match for some of us.

[Baerboxer]

@Jayboy

"No it doesn't make it ok, far from it.I simply pointed out the stunning hypocrisy.And if you can't see the cosmic irony of someone like Suthep leading the charge against corruption there may be a slight SOHF on your part.

Yes there need to be comonsense adaptations to different circumstances but the underlying principles of democracy are universal.I don't really want to get into a debate on Michael Howard but his political understanding, legal expertise and sheer intelligence might be (I'm guessing) be a match for some of us."

And ironic that the current government can act illegally and corruptly whilst claiming to be championing the fight against corruption. If you want to be fair, state this is an issue with both sides. Not attack just the side you don't support.

Michael Howard was a reasonable politician for many years. He will therefore have an opinion. I don't think, AFAIK, his background expertise was in constitutional law. That's not decrying his comments, but suggesting he is not the definitive expert who you might look to for guiding principles.

[Crushdepth]

Earlier he had adamantly announced to reject the ruling of the Constitutional Court although the Opposition said such rejection was a blatant defiance of the Judicial power and could subject to a rebellion charge.

You'd think a high ranking member of the GOVERNMENT would understand basic GOVERNANCE...

What a muppet.

[siampolee]

A wide ranging interesting diversionary action and comments from jayboy in his attempt to portray Thaksin and his ilk as the unfairly accused and maligned innocents. We are in Thailand not the U.K.

Indeed the fury of the P.T.P. puppet government and its supporters is as impotent as a mosquito bite to an elephant.

The Thaksin clan along with their brown nosing acolytes are hell bent on one course of action, the installation as dictator of Thaksin followed by the rampant nepotism and looting of the nations coffers.

Any ends to achieve these means are and will be employed, these creatures are intent on stirring the pot of civil disorder to achieve their ends and ride rough shod over the judicial framework of Thailand and its peoples and trample it and them to death and to hell with the casualties as long as the megalomaniac Thaksin is returned as the dictator.

These creatures have been caught distorting and falsifying a parliamentary vote.

Can we really attach any credibility to these creatures and their aims ? Sadly the same view goes to their supporters as well

No we cannot and the sooner they are removed from power the better for Thailand and its peoples.

I recall a comment from a Chumpon voter in the press at the time of the last coup. that person stated . ''I would rather live under the military than a band of thieves

Indeed a sad comment and also a worrying one too as we may well find ourselves going down the coup road yet again, all due to one person and his desire for ultimate power.

the anti government groups and their demands are like the tree's in a forest fire.

The tree's branches may well burn away to nothing in the forest fire, however new growth springs from the tree's heart.

Edited November 21, 2013 by siampolee

[Emptyset]

"The ruling Pheu Thai party will resurrect another draft constitutional amendment still pending in the parliament to pave the way for the writing of a whole new Constitution, said Pheu Thai MP for Chiang Rai Samart Kaewmeechai on Thursday."

So there you have it,.. and you really thought this was over???? Are you kidding yourselves. This is Thailand the land of breaking rules and corruption until the entire nation is dry...

If they go this route, it means they are pretty much accepting the court's ruling, which is effectively that government can't amend constitution piece by piece, despite the fact that the court's previous ruling says they could do it like that. In any case, if what this MP says is correct, it seems the government has accepted that the only way they're going to be able to amend anything is to write a wholly new constitution then put it to a referendum. So there's nothing in the above that suggests that any rules are being broken. Although I still don't understand what rules they were breaking before (other than relatively minor procedural rules). lol.

Still, I think the best thing they can do is to accept the court's ruling and move on. And as I say, if what this MP is saying is true, then it looks like they are doing that. Draft a new constitution, put it to the vote, and then (hopefully) no one can argue with that or petition court for further rulings.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory and insulting post has been removed as well as the replies.

[Emptyset]

Now, compare this nitwit to the following statement from the opposition, see the clarity, and holistic approach;

Point of clarification...

Many incorrectly assume that the Democrat position

regarding the Senate selection system is to retain the roughly half appointed, half elected format. This is not the case. Most democrat MP's proposed for all Senators to be elected but that the election process should be different from that of the Lower House. For example, I suggested that the election be from a list of professionals representing all sectors. Meanwhile, Khun Abhisit proposed an election which groups together provinces as a single constituency.

Either way, the main purpose is to ensure that the Upper House is not an effective copy of the Lower House, as Phua Thai would have it, given that its role is to scrutinise MP's and the government that is voted-in by the MP's.

Yours sincerely,

Korn Chatikavanij

And Suthep apparently favours abolishing the Upper House altogether. It's normal to have disagreements like this and there may be a lot of merit to what Korn suggests. The issue, though, is whether the court should be continually getting involved.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Emptyset

[khunken]

And they wonder why the anti-govt protest continued after the Senate threw out their whitewash bill? With statements like this, it's clear they'll try and resurrect it at some point, no matter what the public thinks.

It really does look ridiculous when CNN and BBC report that Peua Thai are accepting the court's verdict whilst the Interior Minister and Labour Minister, two of the party's biggest names, say they "can't accept it" and the "low intellect puppet" (according to Chai-anan Samudavanija) Prime Minister only answers "ka" when asked about her next step.

This post and many others shows muddled thinking or simple ignorance about the principles involved in the role of the judiciary vis a vis parliament.The attached article by Michael Howard, scarcely a fire breathing radical, sets out the key issues.It of course relates to the UK where judges, unlike Thailand, are not tainted by political pressure.Several justices on the Constitututional Court for example were intimately involved in the drasfting of the constitution propagated by the military junta

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3618954/Judges-must-bow-to-the-will-of-Parliament.html.

Presumably your post is indicative of clear thinking supported by knowledge, rather than the muddled thinking and ignorance of those who express a different view? In your opinion of course. Seems very similar to the comments PTP's leader always expresses. Only his view is right.

Thailand cannot be compared to the UK. The level of corruption, dynastic families owning political parties, ludicrous over use of organic defamation laws and constant threat and counter threat of suing, impeachment and charging, do not happen in the UK.

Do you think the valiant Tarit and the AG aren't politically controlled? Does the justice system here really offer justice to everyone with law enforced without bias and favour.

Very different political and constitutional landscapes.

Here we have a party in government controlled by a fugitive criminal, trying to sneak a bill through parliament to whitewash his convictions and outstanding criminal charges, trying to push through changes to the senate whilst ignoring parliamentary procedure and remove restrictions that would substantially remove the check and balances that were put in place to stop a dynastic dictatorship and cheating on voting times to push a bill through parliament to give them unchecked access to a vast loan that will indebt the country for 50 years or more. The government has acted illegally, openly refuses to respect or abide by the law, threatens opponents or anyone with a different view of serious legal actions (somewhat ironically given their regard for the law) and says telling lies is o.k. and ethical. Can you say which government in the UK has acted in a similar way?

Clear thinking is always welcomed regardless of whether arguments are in support of my views or not.You however simply compound your error though I would have though the point was made clearly enough even for bears of little brain.The issue is not just a comparison of the the UK and Thailand, but much more the relationship between the different arms of government - a universal issue.The only reason I included the UK example was to point out some key principles.It could equally have been any other advanced country.But I see you prefer to rant endlessly, ignorantly (country indebted for 50 years etc) and unoriginally about Thaksin so best you carry on without me.I am sure there is an audience for you.

Reverting to the UK again I see Jayboy.

However to give you your due the Howard article does relate to the attempted changes to the constitution.

I totally disagree with Howard. He mentions the supremacy of parliament over all others. No mention of the people here. He accuses judges of 'making law' which is completely dishonest. They are reviewing laws which they consider bad - acting as a check on the government. Parliament in the UK rarely has a government with 40% of the overall vote, let alone 51%.

The key principle here is that people-power sometimes works and where it doesn't, the only check is the judiciary especially when the senate is controlled by the (head honcho of the) ruling party. They are not perfect but must be allowed to make a judgement on bad law as apparently happens in the UK.

[Pi Sek]

And they wonder why the anti-govt protest continued after the Senate threw out their whitewash bill? With statements like this, it's clear they'll try and resurrect it at some point, no matter what the public thinks.

It really does look ridiculous when CNN and BBC report that Peua Thai are accepting the court's verdict whilst the Interior Minister and Labour Minister, two of the party's biggest names, say they "can't accept it" and the "low intellect puppet" (according to Chai-anan Samudavanija) Prime Minister only answers "ka" when asked about her next step.

This post and many others shows muddled thinking or simple ignorance about the principles involved in the role of the judiciary vis a vis parliament.The attached article by Michael Howard, scarcely a fire breathing radical, sets out the key issues.It of course relates to the UK where judges, unlike Thailand, are not tainted by political pressure.Several justices on the Constitututional Court for example were intimately involved in the drasfting of the constitution propagated by the military junta

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3618954/Judges-must-bow-to-the-will-of-Parliament.html.

Presumably your post is indicative of clear thinking supported by knowledge, rather than the muddled thinking and ignorance of those who express a different view? In your opinion of course. Seems very similar to the comments PTP's leader always expresses. Only his view is right.

Thailand cannot be compared to the UK. The level of corruption, dynastic families owning political parties, ludicrous over use of organic defamation laws and constant threat and counter threat of suing, impeachment and charging, do not happen in the UK.

Do you think the valiant Tarit and the AG aren't politically controlled? Does the justice system here really offer justice to everyone with law enforced without bias and favour.

Very different political and constitutional landscapes.

Here we have a party in government controlled by a fugitive criminal, trying to sneak a bill through parliament to whitewash his convictions and outstanding criminal charges, trying to push through changes to the senate whilst ignoring parliamentary procedure and remove restrictions that would substantially remove the check and balances that were put in place to stop a dynastic dictatorship and cheating on voting times to push a bill through parliament to give them unchecked access to a vast loan that will indebt the country for 50 years or more. The government has acted illegally, openly refuses to respect or abide by the law, threatens opponents or anyone with a different view of serious legal actions (somewhat ironically given their regard for the law) and says telling lies is o.k. and ethical. Can you say which government in the UK has acted in a similar way?

Clear thinking is always welcomed regardless of whether arguments are in support of my views or not.You however simply compound your error though I would have though the point was made clearly enough even for bears of little brain.The issue is not just a comparison of the the UK and Thailand, but much more the relationship between the different arms of government - a universal issue.The only reason I included the UK example was to point out some key principles.It could equally have been any other advanced country.But I see you prefer to rant endlessly, ignorantly (country indebted for 50 years etc) and unoriginally about Thaksin so best you carry on without me.I am sure there is an audience for you.

So, after all this, is my thinking muddled or clear?

My point was that ministers are coming out as individuals saying they cannot accept the Constitution Court's ruling and will push to get some sort of "revision", whilst the government's position is that the ruling has been accepted... and that is why the protests against this government are continuing when a simple "OK, we were wrong, we give up, let's move on to running the country" would have gone a long way to winning hearts and minds. But that's not the #1 goal is it?

You chose to ignore this by putting up some kind of strawman argument about the UK courts not accepting political pressure (anyway, you acknowledge above that the Court ruled correctly that the constitution amendments were unconstitutional - so what has that got to do with political pressure?!). Besides, as I see quite a few others have observed, the UK may be a similar democratic government system to Thailand but it's not the same - there is a massive contrast between the Thai and UK legal systems, parliamentary mechanisms and political situations.

Honestly, jayboy, there are blind political firebrand cheerleaders on both sides, there are some on here that are "trolls", I'm sure there are some on here who are employed by the Robert Amsterdam/Sirichoke Sopha types of lobbyist networks to spread propaganda and there are those who try to educate people round to their way of thinking (sometimes rather arrogantly and facetiously). I would put both you and me in the latter.

I try to better myself by not labeling others' posts as muddled thinking (but, by saying that, I think I just have - sorry), maybe you should think about doing the same. Don't get me wrong, you're not an idiot and I respect what you have to say probably more than some other differing opinions to my own, I just think that the way you do it could be more reasonably communicated.

[GeorgeO]

Are there idiots pushing for a military coup to make themselves look like the victims in the world's eye or a civil war where the winner takes all?

This appears to be the only possible reason behind this stance, but I would prefer to see the judicial system handling it by impeaching any PTP member who takes the same stance as this idiot, charging them with contempt of court and banning them from public office; whilst they're at it, they should also consider dissolving the entire party given that this is the "party line"...!!

Edited November 21, 2013 by GeorgeO

[khunken]

Now, compare this nitwit to the following statement from the opposition, see the clarity, and holistic approach;

Point of clarification...

Many incorrectly assume that the Democrat position

regarding the Senate selection system is to retain the roughly half appointed, half elected format. This is not the case. Most democrat MP's proposed for all Senators to be elected but that the election process should be different from that of the Lower House. For example, I suggested that the election be from a list of professionals representing all sectors. Meanwhile, Khun Abhisit proposed an election which groups together provinces as a single constituency.

Either way, the main purpose is to ensure that the Upper House is not an effective copy of the Lower House, as Phua Thai would have it, given that its role is to scrutinise MP's and the government that is voted-in by the MP's.

Yours sincerely,

Korn Chatikavanij

And Suthep apparently favours abolishing the Upper House altogether. It's normal to have disagreements like this and there may be a lot of merit to what Korn suggests. The issue, though, is whether the court should be continually getting involved.

I don't think what Suthep favours has any relevance whatever as he is no longer a major opposition member (among other reasons). The court is the only real check with the senate basically in PTP's pocket, so - yes- they are needed.

[dominique355]

And they wonder why the anti-govt protest continued after the Senate threw out their whitewash bill? With statements like this, it's clear they'll try and resurrect it at some point, no matter what the public thinks.

It really does look ridiculous when CNN and BBC report that Peua Thai are accepting the court's verdict whilst the Interior Minister and Labour Minister, two of the party's biggest names, say they "can't accept it" and the "low intellect puppet" (according to Chai-anan Samudavanija) Prime Minister only answers "ka" when asked about her next step.

This post and many others shows muddled thinking or simple ignorance about the principles involved in the role of the judiciary vis a vis parliament.The attached article by Michael Howard, scarcely a fire breathing radical, sets out the key issues.It of course relates to the UK where judges, unlike Thailand, are not tainted by political pressure.Several justices on the Constitututional Court for example were intimately involved in the drasfting of the constitution propagated by the military junta

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3618954/Judges-must-bow-to-the-will-of-Parliament.html.

Don't forget one thing, though: the present consitiution of 2006, although drafted by a committee set up by the military, has been subjected to a popular vote. The people had the choice of accepting the new consitution or rejecting it, in which case the old 1997 consitution set up by Thaksin would have continued to rule.

The people voted for the new constitution.

So the consitution in its present form is more democratic, at least as far as the respect for the people's will is concerned. Pheua Thai never intended to submit their changes to a polular vote.

Is that more democratic?

Having seen how the PT is actually majorizing the House, in fact establishing a dictatorship through majority, and how they cheat to get their will, how they deny the opposition to be heard, is very basically, very fundamentally undemocratic. The Consitution Court stopped that.

By the way, the Constitution Court was first established by the Thaksin 1997 constitution, and it was Thaksin's plan to "buy" the CC judges to give his undemocratic plans an apearance of legality. Lesson learned from the Nazi and Hitler.

Problem is, today's CC judges are no longer paid by Thaksin and effecticely perfom their duty. Contrary to the time when they only saw "an honest mistake" in Thaksin's cheating and attempt to conceal his assets.

The louder PT and UDD are shouting "democracy", the more suspicious we should be.

Terms like "democratic", and "people's" and "republic" are mostly used by the most brutal of dictatorships. (German Democratic Republic, People's Democratic Republic of Korea, People's Republic of China, etc).

Are we moving towards a "People's Democratic Republic of Thailand" with Thaksin as our "Dear Leader" and the power remaining the the Shinawatra family, handed from one family member to the next? Right now the 3rd Shinawatra family member is running the country, further members all already groomed to take over.

The Red Shirts assuming the role of the "Brown Shirts" under Hitler, or the "Black Shirts" under Mussolini or the "Red Brigades" under Mao?

[Emptyset]

Now, compare this nitwit to the following statement from the opposition, see the clarity, and holistic approach;

Point of clarification...

Many incorrectly assume that the Democrat position

regarding the Senate selection system is to retain the roughly half appointed, half elected format. This is not the case. Most democrat MP's proposed for all Senators to be elected but that the election process should be different from that of the Lower House. For example, I suggested that the election be from a list of professionals representing all sectors. Meanwhile, Khun Abhisit proposed an election which groups together provinces as a single constituency.

Either way, the main purpose is to ensure that the Upper House is not an effective copy of the Lower House, as Phua Thai would have it, given that its role is to scrutinise MP's and the government that is voted-in by the MP's.

Yours sincerely,

Korn Chatikavanij

And Suthep apparently favours abolishing the Upper House altogether. It's normal to have disagreements like this and there may be a lot of merit to what Korn suggests. The issue, though, is whether the court should be continually getting involved.

I don't think what Suthep favours has any relevance whatever as he is no longer a major opposition member (among other reasons). The court is the only real check with the senate basically in PTP's pocket, so - yes- they are needed.

If the senate is already 'in PTP's pocket' then surely it doesn't matter if they're elected or not? Anyway, from reading this excerpt of the reading, it seems even if PTP do write an entirely new constitution which is put to a succesful referendum, the court may still not allow for elected senate: http://asiancorrespondent.com/116144/constitution-court-signals-difficulty-of-amending-the-constitution/

Reading the excerpt may introduce more clarity into this debate btw, as people can judge the court's reasoning for themselves. I know that a lot of people here will agree with the jist of what they say. But would they also consider it right for the court to involve themselves if a draft which includes provisions for a fully elected senate is put to a succesful referendum? Or would that just be too much of an intrusion on the rights of the electorate to decide what sort of constitution they want? There's a good argument that Jayboy makes which suggests the judiciary is already acting to curtail democracy, but if the court were to intervene even after a referedum, then this would seem to be unequivocally the case... this is all still very much hypothetical at this stage, of course.

[whybother]

Don't forget one thing, though: the present consitiution of 2006, although drafted by a committee set up by the military, has been subjected to a popular vote. The people had the choice of accepting the new consitution or rejecting it, in which case the old 1997 consitution set up by Thaksin would have continued to rule.

<snip>

1) 2007 Constitution.

2) Thaksin didn't "set up" the 1997 constitution.

[Artisi]

Absolute insanity! Why is the UDD behind this change? Do they think nepotism = democracy?

UDD + think + democracy = oxymoron

UDD + think + democracy = oxymoron money from the fugitive. Nothing more nothing less.

[thaicbr]

Don't forget one thing, though: the present consitiution of 2006, although drafted by a committee set up by the military, has been subjected to a popular vote. The people had the choice of accepting the new consitution or rejecting it, in which case the old 1997 consitution set up by Thaksin would have continued to rule.

 

 

 

1) 2007 Constitution.

 

2) Thaksin didn't "set up" the 1997 constitution.

Just knew how to abuse it

From my limited reading of the court they said nothing about stopping the government from changing the constitution BUT reaffirmed that they should do it legally and with the normal consideration for peoples point of view.

Having said that I'm still not sure WHY it's so important to change it at this time. Surely the sensible thing to do is step back and reorder their thoughts. If it's truly for the benefit of Thailand and the Thai people. Why rush it! (slam it in)

Sent from my phone with the app thingy.

[Emptyset]

Don't forget one thing, though: the present consitiution of 2006, although drafted by a committee set up by the military, has been subjected to a popular vote. The people had the choice of accepting the new consitution or rejecting it, in which case the old 1997 consitution set up by Thaksin would have continued to rule.

The people voted for the new constitution.

So the consitution in its present form is more democratic, at least as far as the respect for the people's will is concerned. Pheua Thai never intended to submit their changes to a polular vote.

Is that more democratic?

Having seen how the PT is actually majorizing the House, in fact establishing a dictatorship through majority, and how they cheat to get their will, how they deny the opposition to be heard, is very basically, very fundamentally undemocratic. The Consitution Court stopped that.

By the way, the Constitution Court was first established by the Thaksin 1997 constitution, and it was Thaksin's plan to "buy" the CC judges to give his undemocratic plans an apearance of legality. Lesson learned from the Nazi and Hitler.

Problem is, today's CC judges are no longer paid by Thaksin and effecticely perfom their duty. Contrary to the time when they only saw "an honest mistake" in Thaksin's cheating and attempt to conceal his assets.

The louder PT and UDD are shouting "democracy", the more suspicious we should be.

Terms like "democratic", and "people's" and "republic" are mostly used by the most brutal of dictatorships. (German Democratic Republic, People's Democratic Republic of Korea, People's Republic of China, etc).

Are we moving towards a "People's Democratic Republic of Thailand" with Thaksin as our "Dear Leader" and the power remaining the the Shinawatra family, handed from one family member to the next? Right now the 3rd Shinawatra family member is running the country, further members all already groomed to take over.

The Red Shirts assuming the role of the "Brown Shirts" under Hitler, or the "Black Shirts" under Mussolini or the "Red Brigades" under Mao?

First of all the 1997 constitution was nothing to do with Thaksin. I agree though that he subverted independent organizations set up as watchdog while he was in power, which undermined trust in the 'People's Constitution'. The 2007 constitution was put to a vote, but under highly circumscribed conditions that few people would describe as democratic. Not to mention the fact that the CNS said if people voted no, they'd simply modify a version of the 1997 constitution to their liking and use that instead. So I'm not really sure you can say it 'reflects the people's will'. The BKK Post, a relatively conservative newspaper these days, as I'm sure you know, even wrote at the time: 'Any referendum carried out under the current repressive climate and alleged forced voting cannot be used to chart the path of the future of a democracy'.

As Pi Sek and I were discussing before in a previous thread, there are valid questions about majoritarianism, and about how liberalism, authoritarianism and the will of the majority intersect. I agree with you there. But as Bangkok Pundit said recently (I paraphrase here, can't remember the exact words): 'we hear a lot about the tyranny of the majority, but what about the tyranny of the minority?' Obviously there should be limits to how far we allow elected politicians to go, but there should also be limits to how far other institutions should be able to go in curtailing power of parliament. Why can't the government amend the constitution? Abhisit said in 2007, 'accept first, amend later'. He amended the constitution without a referendum and I don't remember people screaming that that was a dictatorial move. Suthep thought the 2007 constitution was so bad that it's almost as though they wanted people to reject it. But the jist of your argument seems to almost suggest that the 2007 constitution is sacrosanct and elected politicians have no business trying to change it.

The rest of your post seems to decline into complete hysteria I'm afraid. As far as Thai governments go, this one has made some mistakes regards parliamentary procedure ('ramming' bills through when more debate should've been allowed), but I can't see that it's been particularly undemocratic by Thai standards, and there's certainly no evidence that Thaksin's been 'learning from Hitler' and that the red shirts are the equivalent of Mussolini's black shirts. Wild hyperbole.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Emptyset

[kingalfred]

And they wonder why the anti-govt protest continued after the Senate threw out their whitewash bill? With statements like this, it's clear they'll try and resurrect it at some point, no matter what the public thinks.

 

It really does look ridiculous when CNN and BBC report that Peua Thai are accepting the court's verdict whilst the Interior Minister and Labour Minister, two of the party's biggest names, say they "can't accept it" and the "low intellect puppet" (according to Chai-anan Samudavanija) Prime Minister only answers "ka" when asked about her next step.

 

This post and many others shows muddled thinking or simple ignorance about the principles involved in the role of the judiciary vis a vis parliament.The attached article by Michael Howard, scarcely a fire breathing radical, sets out the key issues.It of course relates to the UK where judges, unlike Thailand, are not tainted by political pressure.Several justices on the Constitututional Court for example were intimately involved in the drasfting of the constitution propagated by the military junta

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3618954/Judges-must-bow-to-the-will-of-Parliament.html.

whats point of referencing howards view on the uk judicial system? i mean thailand and uk. Apple and oranges

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app