Pheu Thai to go ahead with charter amendment

[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.

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.

I'll amend slightly the status of the current senate - it is mostly in PTP's pocket. If PTP get their way it will be totally in their pocket. It's not hard to see that they are now - accepting whatever parliament passes over to them. In other words no check on parliament.

As the CC have ruled before about a referendum I would say it is very unlikely that any referendum on the constitution would be unacceptable. PTP are just bullshitting about a complete rewrite as Thaksin vetoed that after the CC's initial ruling. They are afraid of a referendum as they don't like losing.

I haven't seen any opinion from your side that states what constitutes checks and balances of self-serving laws being passed by the majority in parliament. The only check of the abominable amnesty law was street protests and they haven't put an end to it.

[rixalex]

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.

The 2007 constitution was put to a vote, but under highly circumscribed conditions that few people would describe as democratic.

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,

In the case of the 2007 constitution referendum, you describe it as undemocratic, but in the case of the things that the present government has been doing, you describe them as not particularly undemocratic by Thai standards. Bit of a contradiction there in my opinion.

If you are going to describe the current goings-on as not particularly undemocratic, I would suggest that the vote for the 2007 constitution falls into the same category. There was for example, no question, at least that i am aware of, of people being paid to vote in a certain way, as one might expect with voting in Thailand, and although campaigning to vote no was admittedly heavily restricted, it didn't prevent Thaksin and his supporters getting their message out loud and clear that a vote no was a vote against the coup and a vote for him.

Also, with regards what is described now as being some sort of dark ominous threat from the CNS, of using an adapted version of the 1997 constitution, if the new one was voted against, my understanding was, and i may be wrong on this, that an adapted version of the 1997 constitution would be written and put to the people. Not simply forced upon them. Do you know otherwise?

Either way, whether it would have been put to the vote or not, i really don't think the thought of an amended version of the 1997 constitution would have in some way scared people into voting yes, as gets implied.

Had people voted against the constitution, Thaksin would have been waving his arms about declaring how people had voted against the coup, against the generals, and for him, but as they didn't, as they voted yes, the vote was and is dismissed as being undemocratic. As i say, by Thai standards, i'm not sure it really was. At least there was a vote.

Edited November 21, 2013 by rixalex

[animatic]

If these fools only dealt with the business of RUNNING the country properly,

they would never need to try and TAKE OVER the controls of the country by trickery.

But it seems they are only adept at deception and malfeasance in office.

Oh, and keeping a political machine in line through graft dissemination.

Edited November 21, 2013 by animatic

[Yunla]

PTP.

A private army of bribed and brainwashed and tragically undereducated poor people. Promised a better future, but reduced to footsoldiers in the insane schemes of a highly questionable international criminal.

An almost limitless source of overseas funding.

A Communist-Autocratic worldview borrowed heavily from China, but applied with erosionist and faux-democratic 21C mediaplay.

Total disrespect for sovereign modules of state, including constitution, judiciary, and ancient much beloved lineages.

A desire to see the poor and uneducated stay that way.

A genuine loathing of all aspects of True Democracy, especially debate, rationalism, and other non-plutocratic pathways to accord.

Funded by crime, and by non-acceptance of the national laws and the justice administered by these laws.

The only direction is down. None of the factors listed above can lead to anything except totalitarianism and social collapse.

PTP are going to do whatever they want, without the slightest concern for anybody in Thailand, and we knew that before they were elected.

Constitution Court is an instrument of social defense, and is essential to the healthy functioning of democracy. People have worked and died for centuries to construct and cement these social defense mechanisms, and to ignore, defame or destroy them is to wave goodbye to democracy and embrace dictatorial tyranny.

[DGIE]

Pheu Thai to resurrect Article 291 ...

How do you pronounce the first word? Is it like 'few'?

[ballpoint]

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?

As part of the article more or less says that those who make the laws are the best people to interpret what they actually mean, on at least one level it is suggesting the ones who were involved in drafting the constitution have more "right" to interpret what it really says.

[hellodolly]

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.

Interesting post

First you go to the UK for their way of handling things, Then you mentioned that three of the Judges had been involved with the new constitution. You are trying to make it sound as if it was completely rewritten when in fact there was little change from the 1997 constitution and the changes that were made seem to according to all the experts in the law business just more clearly state some thing that had been a little hazy.

Not being a lawyer of any kind I will take their word for it.

Was there a point in your post. I don't mean just a partial one.

[moradave]

It is the court's job only to interpret the law, not to make the law (parliament) or to enforce the law (executive branch) no matter how stupid, unfair or reprehensible the law might be. This decision was basically un-making a law passed by the parliament, according to the constitution, to allow the senate to be an all-elective body and therefore more democratic.

Edited November 21, 2013 by moradave

[thaicbr]

It is the court's job only to interpret the law, not to make the law (parliament) or to enforce the law (executive branch) no matter how stupid, unfair or reprehensible the law might be. This decision was basically un-making a law passed by the parliament, according to the constitution, to allow the senate to be an all-elective body and therefore more democratic.

It is also the Constitution Courts job to ensure that the government adhere to the Constitution and therefor the rules of doing Parliamentary business. Which Phua Thai and allies seem almost hellbent on breaking or bending.

Forcing votes. rearranging debating times. not adhering to schedules etc

[hellodolly]

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.

Well said. I personally feel it should be an all elected Senate but this is not the time to bring up things that are so controversial.

The PTP should except defeat that they are going to still have to call Dubai to find out what to do and start pursuing reconciliation.

A good way to start would be no more ordering their members how to vote. No more stopping the opposition from speaking. Get a Prime Minister who is willing to run the country with out long distance or skype calls. To do that they would need one who stayed in Thailand more. One who participated in the cabinet meetings. One that picked the Ministers for the cabinet. One that delegated authority to capable people. One that would fire a minister who makes and defends a public statement that is OK to lie if it makes people feel better. [translation not admit he is a screw up and unfit for the job]

So far all they have shown is a willingness to keep the country torn apart as long as they get what they want.

[Skywalker69]

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.

[smedly]

Time for a reshuffle lol

[Skywalker69]

Pheu Thai to resurrect Article 291 ...

How do you pronounce the first word? Is it like 'few'?

Can you please use bigger fonts? Thank you.

[whybother]

It is the court's job only to interpret the law, not to make the law (parliament) or to enforce the law (executive branch) no matter how stupid, unfair or reprehensible the law might be. This decision was basically un-making a law passed by the parliament, according to the constitution, to allow the senate to be an all-elective body and therefore more democratic.

If the government made a law that said the minimum wage for men is to be twice that of women, the constitution court would rule that they couldn't make (ie un-making) that law because its against the constitution, because equal rights are enshrined in the constitution.

That's what they did this time.

Besides that, the law isn't passed until signed off by the King. So they didn't un-make the law, they just said it couldn't be made.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[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.

@Jayboy

Interesting further comments coming out from PTP this morning, about ignoring the courts judgement. No mention about their parliamentary procedural breaches; or at best the odd dismissal as though it's not that important. Anyone who has a different view to theirs is silenced - cheating on the agreed voting times, refusing to allow opposition to speak, changing draft bills in between readings, threatening to sue, getting the DSI to trump up charges, restricting free speech, threatening the use of social media against them etc etc.

Would these against be some of the underlying principles of democracy you refer to?

PTP through countless speeches from Yingluck claim to be democratic and fighting against corruption. However, their actions appear to be very different from their words.

How do you rate their performance as a democratic government? One that should respect the underlying democratic principles you refer to. Do you believe PTP to be a government that respects and upholds the law and rules in a way to benefit the whole country.

Please try to refrain from your usual habit of insulting a poster whose opinion differs from yours when replying, as this may mean your response is removed. This is a serious question.

[timewilltell]

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.

Well muddled thinking - maybe you are confused?

The UK is not the same as the US or Thailand both examples of constitutional democracies. The constitution is the highest law in the land and parliament is beneath it. In the UK the system is quite different with the judiciary interpreters of the law. Often the judiciary will interpret the law in a way to curb the worst excess of parliaments over zealousness which acts as a check, though parliament can always revise subject to House of Lords approval. In Thailand the Constitutional Court serves that purpose a little more directly and in this case have done their job. Constitutions are written with longevity in mind - the US an example - and not for meddling by each set of people elected from time to time and for short terms. They really are not capable of the mindset necessary to write a constitution. The only reason PTP want an elected upper house is to seize the advantage they currently have with the electorate ( who are hardly able to put rational thought together ) and gain complete and unfettered control. That is not good for any country.

[jayboy]

Well muddled thinking - maybe you are confused?

The UK is not the same as the US or Thailand both examples of constitutional democracies. The constitution is the highest law in the land and parliament is beneath it. In the UK the system is quite different with the judiciary interpreters of the law. Often the judiciary will interpret the law in a way to curb the worst excess of parliaments over zealousness which acts as a check, though parliament can always revise subject to House of Lords approval. In Thailand the Constitutional Court serves that purpose a little more directly and in this case have done their job. Constitutions are written with longevity in mind - the US an example - and not for meddling by each set of people elected from time to time and for short terms. They really are not capable of the mindset necessary to write a constitution. The only reason PTP want an elected upper house is to seize the advantage they currently have with the electorate ( who are hardly able to put rational thought together ) and gain complete and unfettered control. That is not good for any country.

Hmm.I wonder where the criminal junta's initiative to scrap the 1997 constitution fits in with your interpretation.Perhaps it, its quisling government and compliant judges were "capable of the necessary mindset".I do however note your view of the Thai electorate - "hardly able to put rational thought together" - which more or less explains your reactionary position.

[whybother]

 

Well muddled thinking - maybe you are confused?

The UK is not the same as the US or Thailand both examples of constitutional democracies. The constitution is the highest law in the land and parliament is beneath it. In the UK the system is quite different with the judiciary interpreters of the law. Often the judiciary will interpret the law in a way to curb the worst excess of parliaments over zealousness which acts as a check, though parliament can always revise subject to House of Lords approval. In Thailand the Constitutional Court serves that purpose a little more directly and in this case have done their job. Constitutions are written with longevity in mind - the US an example - and not for meddling by each set of people elected from time to time and for short terms. They really are not capable of the mindset necessary to write a constitution. The only reason PTP want an elected upper house is to seize the advantage they currently have with the electorate ( who are hardly able to put rational thought together ) and gain complete and unfettered control. That is not good for any country.

 

 

Hmm.I wonder where the criminal junta's initiative to scrap the 1997 constitution fits in with your interpretation.Perhaps it, its quisling government and compliant judges were "capable of the necessary mindset".I do however note your view of the Thai electorate - "hardly able to put rational thought together" - which more or less explains your reactionary position.

Yes, they scrapped the 1997 constitution and then basically replaced it with an exact copy.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Issangeorge]

 

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.

 

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

It would seem to me that someone involved in writing the original constitution would be the perfect person to know what was intended and thus the perfect person to rule on whether something is constitutional or not.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ X using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app