Thai Interior Minister says 'people’s council' impossible

[webfact]

Ruling party leader says 'people’s council' impossible
By English News

BANGKOK, Dec 4 - Interior Minister Charupong Ruangsuwan today flatly rejected a proposed 'people’s council' and called on the opposition to abide by majority rule in Parliament.

Strongly responding to protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban, he said the government and the ruling Pheu Thai Party saw no means to follow the proposal to implement Section 7 of the Constitution to set up a people’s council.

“The prime minister remains in power and she has done nothing wrong. The only political resolution is a House dissolution and re-election, which can be done by the government,” said the Pheu Thai leader.

He said it is unacceptable to irrationally create political unrest now that the no-confidence debate has ended, calling on protesters to abide by the rule of law.

“Society will survive peacefully under the rule of law. The government holds on to the majority rule. Not everybody thinks the same but we have to live under the system of majority rule. A decision must be respected and followed,” said Mr Charupong.

The interior minister said protesters should not be stubborn and turn to Parliament as a forum for debate.

“We can vote if our opinions are different. The minority should not claim the right for attention and do whatever it wants without respecting the right of the majority,” he said.

He proposed a process of dialogue with Mr Suthep and the opposition and called on them to abide by the majority instead of squabbling.

“The world will laugh at us. Elected representatives with differing opinions should be listened to. Different opinions end with voting and the minority must accept and respect the results,” he said. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2013-12-04

[bigbamboo]

Khun Charupong..... the world is already laughing at you.

[JRSoul]

Passing legislation to benefit her criminal brother is wrong, but PTP finds that difficult to understand.

[SamMunich]

I can see the future of Interior Minister Charupong quite clearly, it is... in Dubai!

Of course he denies anything, that threatens his position so close to the millions and billions of corruption. I would do the same in his position.

But that doesn't mean anybody give anything for his oppinion...!

[Nickymaster]

“The world will laugh at us,” he said.

I think he means that the world is laughing at Thailand because they have seen Yingluck talking to Aljazeera.

[Arkady]

Seems to have a selective attitude to the constitution. His party doesn't acknowledge the authority of the Constitutional Court which is enshrined in the constitution but is now claiming to uphold the constitution when it suits.

Not accepting the power of the Constitutional Court causes a whole host of problems including its authority to try Thaksin on asset concealment charges in 2001 of which he was acquitted. That case should therefore be retried in the Supreme Court.

[thailandpeter2]

Khun Charupong..... the world is already laughing at you.

i wanted to write that...but you were faster...

[Ricardo]

And is this the 'word' from PM-Yingluck, who still claims to be in-charge, or from Dubai, where the Big Boss sits and Thinks ?

Why is her Interior Minister trying to sabotage the temporary-truce currently in-place, shouldn't he (and FM-Surapong & others) have held these comments over, until after the 5th ?

[Sunderland]

Khun Charupong..... the world is already laughing at you.

i wanted to write that...but you were faster...

Me too!!

[15Peter20]

Seems to have a selective attitude to the constitution. His party doesn't acknowledge the authority of the Constitutional Court which is enshrined in the constitution but is now claiming to uphold the constitution when it suits.

Not accepting the power of the Constitutional Court causes a whole host of problems including its authority to try Thaksin on asset concealment charges in 2001 of which he was acquitted. That case should therefore be retried in the Supreme Court.

" His party doesn't acknowledge the authority of the Constitutional Court which is enshrined in the constitution..."

I don't think this is strictly true.

My understanding is that they do acknowledge the authority of the Constitutional Court, but that authority does not extend to ruling on issues as a result of being petitioned to do so in a way that is outside of the required protocol...as enshrined in the constitution. ie, there is a framework within which even the Constitution Court must operate, and the way in which it was induced to make that ruling against the PTP was outside of that framework.

Whilst there may be some legal basis for such a stance, I believe a clear verdict on it (Constitution Court acting outside of framework) has not yet been given by any appropriate authority. Come to think of it, what would the appropriate authority be in this case? Couldn't be the Constitutional Court as it is itself a part of the disagreement. Oh well - it's all ambiguous - and that's why no-one's climbing down

[Carrerakiss]

Not sure why he is being bashed so much. What did people expect him to say?

"The majority of the people who voted should allow this mob to overturn the government for which they voted"

Or,

"Let's follow the will of the minority if they kick up enough fuss"

And before anyone says I'm a red shirt supporter, it could just as easily be red shirts staging illegal protests and a yellow shirt making speeches about following the will of the majority. The colours actually don't matter as they are interchangeable.

But Suthep seems to be something else, he appears to want his own political system, so that sort of sets him apart from the other two. I can't see any end to the current merrygoround

[transam]

Khun Charupong..... the world is already laughing at you.

I think the world is laughing at the way LOS conducts itself. Nobody has a clue what they are doing...........

[fab4]

Seems to have a selective attitude to the constitution. His party doesn't acknowledge the authority of the Constitutional Court which is enshrined in the constitution but is now claiming to uphold the constitution when it suits.

Not accepting the power of the Constitutional Court causes a whole host of problems including its authority to try Thaksin on asset concealment charges in 2001 of which he was acquitted. That case should therefore be retried in the Supreme Court.

OK Which part of the PTP statement regarding the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the election of Senators is wrong in your eyes?

The statement was made in nine points as following:

1) The 312 MPs sponsored the charter amendment bill on the Senate's composition to make the charter democratic based on the principle that the ruling mandate belongs to the people. As a result, all parliamentarians must be elected in accordance with the principles of the 1997 charter, which was the people's constitution.

2) Article 291 of the Constitution clearly states that the power to amend the charter belongs to the Parliament. Article 291 prohibits only two changes, which are the change of the ruling system from the Constitutional Monarchy and the change of form of government. The amendment on the composition of the Senate had nothing to do with the two prohibited changes. Moreover, the Constitution Court used to rule that parliamentarians can amend the charter.

3) The Constitutional Court intentionally abused its authority in violation of the Constitution by deciding to review the petitions against the charter amendment bill. The action warranted impeachment or criminal process against the Constitutional Court judges.

4) The Constitutional Court cited the rule of law in making the ruling. But in doing so, the court interpreted and expanded its own power more than what stated in the Constitution. The rulings in the case of Article-291 amendment bill and in the Senate composition bill showed that the people's representatives, who have received the people's mandate to amend the charter to make it legitimate, democratic and fair, cannot amend the charter either by rewriting it entirely or changing only parts of it.

5) The citing of the rule of law was done without proper ground. The court did not cite how the international practice was done and the Constitutional Court judges themselves did not respect the principle. For example, three of the judges used to be on the panel that drafted the 2007 Constitution and one of the three used to face opposition against him taking part in the judicial review in the earlier case. The opposition prompted him to withdraw from the earlier case but now he would not withdraw from the review of the latest case. He used to explain his view clearly that retroactive penalties can be done if the penalties are not for criminal cases. Such stand led to the dissolution of thePheu Thai Party and five-year political ban of the Thai Rak Thai executives. And the executives were not informed of the charges against them and were not allowed to defend themselves. As a result, had the three or four judges withdrawn from the case, the ruling would have been otherwise.

6) It was extreme dangerous for democracy when the court claimed that the amendment bill violated several articles of the Constitution because the judges themselves abused their authority outside the Constitution's scope to reach such decisions.

7) The court clearly interfered in the power of the legislative branch by ruling that the deliberation process of the bill violated meeting regulations of the Parliament. If such interference is not challenged, from now on the court will be asked to consider more cases of alleged violations of meeting regulations and the House and Senate will not be able to perform their duty.

8) After the Parliament passed the bill in the third reading and the prime minister submitted the bill for the royal command, the next step will depend as to whether the King will approve the bill or wait until 90 days without sending the bill back to the Parliament. But the court violated the King's power by accepting the petitions against the bill for reviewing without basing its decision on any provision of the charter.

9) It would have been fine had the Constitution authorised the Constitutional Court to check the works of parliamentarians. But the Constitution does not authorise the court to do it. As a result, the Parliament has the power to perform its duty. The duty performing of parliamentarians was also endorsed by all charters before the 1997 charter. Whether the performance of parliamentarians is good or satisfactory in the eyes of the public or suitable or not, the people will decide in elections. This is the principle of the using of the ruling mandate. The court must not violate this principle of ruling mandate because doing so was tantamount to a coup that seized the ruling power from the people.

Edited December 4, 2013 by fab4

[rubl]

Seems to have a selective attitude to the constitution. His party doesn't acknowledge the authority of the Constitutional Court which is enshrined in the constitution but is now claiming to uphold the constitution when it suits.

Not accepting the power of the Constitutional Court causes a whole host of problems including its authority to try Thaksin on asset concealment charges in 2001 of which he was acquitted. That case should therefore be retried in the Supreme Court.

OK Which part of the PTP statement regarding the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the election of Senators is wrong in your eyes?

The statement was made in nine points as following:

1) The 312 MPs sponsored the charter amendment bill on the Senate's composition to make the charter democratic based on the principle that the ruling mandate belongs to the people. As a result, all parliamentarians must be elected in accordance with the principles of the 1997 charter, which was the people's constitution.

2) Article 291 of the Constitution clearly states that the power to amend the charter belongs to the Parliament. Article 291 prohibits only two changes, which are the change of the ruling system from the Constitutional Monarchy and the change of form of government. The amendment on the composition of the Senate had nothing to do with the two prohibited changes. Moreover, the Constitution Court used to rule that parliamentarians can amend the charter.

3) The Constitutional Court intentionally abused its authority in violation of the Constitution by deciding to review the petitions against the charter amendment bill. The action warranted impeachment or criminal process against the Constitutional Court judges.

4) The Constitutional Court cited the rule of law in making the ruling. But in doing so, the court interpreted and expanded its own power more than what stated in the Constitution. The rulings in the case of Article-291 amendment bill and in the Senate composition bill showed that the people's representatives, who have received the people's mandate to amend the charter to make it legitimate, democratic and fair, cannot amend the charter either by rewriting it entirely or changing only parts of it.

5) The citing of the rule of law was done without proper ground. The court did not cite how the international practice was done and the Constitutional Court judges themselves did not respect the principle. For example, three of the judges used to be on the panel that drafted the 2007 Constitution and one of the three used to face opposition against him taking part in the judicial review in the earlier case. The opposition prompted him to withdraw from the earlier case but now he would not withdraw from the review of the latest case. He used to explain his view clearly that retroactive penalties can be done if the penalties are not for criminal cases. Such stand led to the dissolution of thePheu Thai Party and five-year political ban of the Thai Rak Thai executives. And the executives were not informed of the charges against them and were not allowed to defend themselves. As a result, had the three or four judges withdrawn from the case, the ruling would have been otherwise.

6) It was extreme dangerous for democracy when the court claimed that the amendment bill violated several articles of the Constitution because the judges themselves abused their authority outside the Constitution's scope to reach such decisions.

7) The court clearly interfered in the power of the legislative branch by ruling that the deliberation process of the bill violated meeting regulations of the Parliament. If such interference is not challenged, from now on the court will be asked to consider more cases of alleged violations of meeting regulations and the House and Senate will not be able to perform their duty.

8) After the Parliament passed the bill in the third reading and the prime minister submitted the bill for the royal command, the next step will depend as to whether the King will approve the bill or wait until 90 days without sending the bill back to the Parliament. But the court violated the King's power by accepting the petitions against the bill for reviewing without basing its decision on any provision of the charter.

9) It would have been fine had the Constitution authorised the Constitutional Court to check the works of parliamentarians. But the Constitution does not authorise the court to do it. As a result, the Parliament has the power to perform its duty. The duty performing of parliamentarians was also endorsed by all charters before the 1997 charter. Whether the performance of parliamentarians is good or satisfactory in the eyes of the public or suitable or not, the people will decide in elections. This is the principle of the using of the ruling mandate. The court must not violate this principle of ruling mandate because doing so was tantamount to a coup that seized the ruling power from the people.

Most of it!

It's meaningless statements twisting the truth and suggesting a lot.

PS welcome back, missed you.

[rubl]

" Interior Minister Charupong Ruangsuwan today flatly rejected a proposed 'people’s council' and called on the opposition to abide by majority rule in Parliament."

So why did we have a topic today with Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs and head CAPO Surapong Tovichakchaipak saying

"The government is ready to talk with the protesters on their proposal for the setting up of a People’s Council to draw up a blueprint for national reform but protest leader Suthep Thuagsuban must surrender first to accept the insurrection charge."

[bigbamboo]

Khun Charupong..... the world is already laughing at you.

i wanted to write that...but you were faster...

Me too!!

Haha!....... I guess Saints fans, like their players, are just too quick for the Mackems!

Edited December 4, 2013 by bigbamboo

[fab4]

" Interior Minister Charupong Ruangsuwan today flatly rejected a proposed 'people’s council' and called on the opposition to abide by majority rule in Parliament."

So why did we have a topic today with Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs and head CAPO Surapong Tovichakchaipak saying

"The government is ready to talk with the protesters on their proposal for the setting up of a People’s Council to draw up a blueprint for national reform but protest leader Suthep Thuagsuban must surrender first to accept the insurrection charge."

Aren't you going to be disappointed when you find out that the Peoples Council turns out to be a Constitution Drafting Committee drawing up a new Constitution?

[fab4]

Seems to have a selective attitude to the constitution. His party doesn't acknowledge the authority of the Constitutional Court which is enshrined in the constitution but is now claiming to uphold the constitution when it suits.

Not accepting the power of the Constitutional Court causes a whole host of problems including its authority to try Thaksin on asset concealment charges in 2001 of which he was acquitted. That case should therefore be retried in the Supreme Court.

OK Which part of the PTP statement regarding the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the election of Senators is wrong in your eyes?

The statement was made in nine points as following:

1) The 312 MPs sponsored the charter amendment bill on the Senate's composition to make the charter democratic based on the principle that the ruling mandate belongs to the people. As a result, all parliamentarians must be elected in accordance with the principles of the 1997 charter, which was the people's constitution.

2) Article 291 of the Constitution clearly states that the power to amend the charter belongs to the Parliament. Article 291 prohibits only two changes, which are the change of the ruling system from the Constitutional Monarchy and the change of form of government. The amendment on the composition of the Senate had nothing to do with the two prohibited changes. Moreover, the Constitution Court used to rule that parliamentarians can amend the charter.

3) The Constitutional Court intentionally abused its authority in violation of the Constitution by deciding to review the petitions against the charter amendment bill. The action warranted impeachment or criminal process against the Constitutional Court judges.

4) The Constitutional Court cited the rule of law in making the ruling. But in doing so, the court interpreted and expanded its own power more than what stated in the Constitution. The rulings in the case of Article-291 amendment bill and in the Senate composition bill showed that the people's representatives, who have received the people's mandate to amend the charter to make it legitimate, democratic and fair, cannot amend the charter either by rewriting it entirely or changing only parts of it.

5) The citing of the rule of law was done without proper ground. The court did not cite how the international practice was done and the Constitutional Court judges themselves did not respect the principle. For example, three of the judges used to be on the panel that drafted the 2007 Constitution and one of the three used to face opposition against him taking part in the judicial review in the earlier case. The opposition prompted him to withdraw from the earlier case but now he would not withdraw from the review of the latest case. He used to explain his view clearly that retroactive penalties can be done if the penalties are not for criminal cases. Such stand led to the dissolution of thePheu Thai Party and five-year political ban of the Thai Rak Thai executives. And the executives were not informed of the charges against them and were not allowed to defend themselves. As a result, had the three or four judges withdrawn from the case, the ruling would have been otherwise.

6) It was extreme dangerous for democracy when the court claimed that the amendment bill violated several articles of the Constitution because the judges themselves abused their authority outside the Constitution's scope to reach such decisions.

7) The court clearly interfered in the power of the legislative branch by ruling that the deliberation process of the bill violated meeting regulations of the Parliament. If such interference is not challenged, from now on the court will be asked to consider more cases of alleged violations of meeting regulations and the House and Senate will not be able to perform their duty.

8) After the Parliament passed the bill in the third reading and the prime minister submitted the bill for the royal command, the next step will depend as to whether the King will approve the bill or wait until 90 days without sending the bill back to the Parliament. But the court violated the King's power by accepting the petitions against the bill for reviewing without basing its decision on any provision of the charter.

9) It would have been fine had the Constitution authorised the Constitutional Court to check the works of parliamentarians. But the Constitution does not authorise the court to do it. As a result, the Parliament has the power to perform its duty. The duty performing of parliamentarians was also endorsed by all charters before the 1997 charter. Whether the performance of parliamentarians is good or satisfactory in the eyes of the public or suitable or not, the people will decide in elections. This is the principle of the using of the ruling mandate. The court must not violate this principle of ruling mandate because doing so was tantamount to a coup that seized the ruling power from the people.

Most of it!

It's meaningless statements twisting the truth and suggesting a lot.

PS welcome back, missed you.

Please enlighten me with where "it's meaningless statements twisting the truth and suggesting a lot"? I probably won't be back for long- when it all kicks off again and the forum gets taken over again, you won't see me for dust.

[rubl]

" Interior Minister Charupong Ruangsuwan today flatly rejected a proposed 'people’s council' and called on the opposition to abide by majority rule in Parliament."

So why did we have a topic today with Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs and head CAPO Surapong Tovichakchaipak saying

"The government is ready to talk with the protesters on their proposal for the setting up of a People’s Council to draw up a blueprint for national reform but protest leader Suthep Thuagsuban must surrender first to accept the insurrection charge."

Aren't you going to be disappointed when you find out that the Peoples Council turns out to be a Constitution Drafting Committee drawing up a new Constitution?

Pray tell, why would I concern myself with a question on an hypothetical possibility dreamed up by you?

[rubl]

.

OK Which part of the PTP statement regarding the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the election of Senators is wrong in your eyes?

The statement was made in nine points as following:

1) The 312 MPs sponsored the charter amendment bill on the Senate's composition to make the charter democratic based on the principle that the ruling mandate belongs to the people. As a result, all parliamentarians must be elected in accordance with the principles of the 1997 charter, which was the people's constitution.

2) Article 291 of the Constitution clearly states that the power to amend the charter belongs to the Parliament. Article 291 prohibits only two changes, which are the change of the ruling system from the Constitutional Monarchy and the change of form of government. The amendment on the composition of the Senate had nothing to do with the two prohibited changes. Moreover, the Constitution Court used to rule that parliamentarians can amend the charter.

3) The Constitutional Court intentionally abused its authority in violation of the Constitution by deciding to review the petitions against the charter amendment bill. The action warranted impeachment or criminal process against the Constitutional Court judges.

4) The Constitutional Court cited the rule of law in making the ruling. But in doing so, the court interpreted and expanded its own power more than what stated in the Constitution. The rulings in the case of Article-291 amendment bill and in the Senate composition bill showed that the people's representatives, who have received the people's mandate to amend the charter to make it legitimate, democratic and fair, cannot amend the charter either by rewriting it entirely or changing only parts of it.

5) The citing of the rule of law was done without proper ground. The court did not cite how the international practice was done and the Constitutional Court judges themselves did not respect the principle. For example, three of the judges used to be on the panel that drafted the 2007 Constitution and one of the three used to face opposition against him taking part in the judicial review in the earlier case. The opposition prompted him to withdraw from the earlier case but now he would not withdraw from the review of the latest case. He used to explain his view clearly that retroactive penalties can be done if the penalties are not for criminal cases. Such stand led to the dissolution of thePheu Thai Party and five-year political ban of the Thai Rak Thai executives. And the executives were not informed of the charges against them and were not allowed to defend themselves. As a result, had the three or four judges withdrawn from the case, the ruling would have been otherwise.

6) It was extreme dangerous for democracy when the court claimed that the amendment bill violated several articles of the Constitution because the judges themselves abused their authority outside the Constitution's scope to reach such decisions.

7) The court clearly interfered in the power of the legislative branch by ruling that the deliberation process of the bill violated meeting regulations of the Parliament. If such interference is not challenged, from now on the court will be asked to consider more cases of alleged violations of meeting regulations and the House and Senate will not be able to perform their duty.

8) After the Parliament passed the bill in the third reading and the prime minister submitted the bill for the royal command, the next step will depend as to whether the King will approve the bill or wait until 90 days without sending the bill back to the Parliament. But the court violated the King's power by accepting the petitions against the bill for reviewing without basing its decision on any provision of the charter.

9) It would have been fine had the Constitution authorised the Constitutional Court to check the works of parliamentarians. But the Constitution does not authorise the court to do it. As a result, the Parliament has the power to perform its duty. The duty performing of parliamentarians was also endorsed by all charters before the 1997 charter. Whether the performance of parliamentarians is good or satisfactory in the eyes of the public or suitable or not, the people will decide in elections. This is the principle of the using of the ruling mandate. The court must not violate this principle of ruling mandate because doing so was tantamount to a coup that seized the ruling power from the people.

Most of it!

It's meaningless statements twisting the truth and suggesting a lot.

PS welcome back, missed you.

Please enlighten me with where "it's meaningless statements twisting the truth and suggesting a lot"? I probably won't be back for long- when it all kicks off again and the forum gets taken over again, you won't see me for dust.

Let's just do point 1 for the fun of it.

"1) The 312 MPs sponsored the charter amendment bill on the Senate's composition to make the charter democratic based on the principle that the ruling mandate belongs to the people. As a result, all parliamentarians must be elected in accordance with the principles of the 1997 charter, which was the people's constitution."

A statement which bases it's validity on a no longer valid constitution cannot be valid.

"2) Article 291 of the Constitution clearly states that the power to amend the charter belongs to the Parliament. Article 291 prohibits only two changes, which are the change of the ruling system from the Constitutional Monarchy and the change of form of government. The amendment on the composition of the Senate had nothing to do with the two prohibited changes. Moreover, the Constitution Court used to rule that parliamentarians can amend the charter."

The constitutional Court ruled on the procedure followed including the way modifications were inserted. The CC didn't rule on the contents of the modified article.

Etc., etc., etc.

[Carrerakiss]

" Interior Minister Charupong Ruangsuwan today flatly rejected a proposed 'peoples council' and called on the opposition to abide by majority rule in Parliament."

So why did we have a topic today with Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs and head CAPO Surapong Tovichakchaipak saying

"The government is ready to talk with the protesters on their proposal for the setting up of a Peoples Council to draw up a blueprint for national reform but protest leader Suthep Thuagsuban must surrender first to accept the insurrection charge."

Because the various parts of the government don't know what the other is doing.

Because it's part of a strategy to issue statements that can be referred to later as something they said. So they cover all possibilities

Because they want to cause confusion.

Because they don't think people will be smart enough to compare what various ministers say.

Because they say different things for different audiences.

All of the above

Take your pick

[pkspeaker]

This seems to be one of the main lies the anti-Yingluck PAD frauds are trying to sell; That Yingluck "didn't accept the authority of the constitution court" therefore she is corrupt and MUST resign and 'hand power over' to a 'people's council. PMs all over the world have publicly disagreed with court rulings, it doesn't mean they 'don't accept it's authority'. Yingluck has not done anything illegal and a court has not ruled that she must resign. The amnesty bill was unpopular but it was not illegal and she went ahead and killed it anyways. PADs stupid triks so that a minority seizes power and the country is ruled by an appointed autocrat will not happen. If it did happen the reds will be right back in central bangkok demanding a new election, and their protests draw much higher numbers than the PADs. The military knows the people's council idea is a dead end and they will not remove Yingluck in a coup.

Seems to have a selective attitude to the constitution. His party doesn't acknowledge the authority of the Constitutional Court which is enshrined in the constitution but is now claiming to uphold the constitution when it suits.

Not accepting the power of the Constitutional Court causes a whole host of problems including its authority to try Thaksin on asset concealment charges in 2001 of which he was acquitted. That case should therefore be retried in the Supreme Court.

[Benmart]

Khun Charupong..... the world is already laughing at you.

I think the world is laughing at the way LOS conducts itself. Nobody has a clue what they are doing...........

And just possibly neither do many posters, although there seems to be an abundance of critics and experts concerning Thai politics.

I wonder how many have held a political position, have degrees in Political Science or other related education and/or experience? I don't and wouldn't be so presumptuous as to think I have the answers or knowledge to critique their system with any degree of credibility.

But then again, forums are a great place for dialog, opinions, speculation, conjecture and self inflation. Please excuse me while I add a couple pounds of air into my bulbous ego.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Benmart

[Ulic]

Both sides corrupt, both sides spin masters, neither side has the moral high ground.

[kikoman]

Seems to have a selective attitude to the constitution. His party doesn't acknowledge the authority of the Constitutional Court which is enshrined in the constitution but is now claiming to uphold the constitution when it suits.

Not accepting the power of the Constitutional Court causes a whole host of problems including its authority to try Thaksin on asset concealment charges in 2001 of which he was acquitted. That case should therefore be retried in the Supreme Court.

OK Which part of the PTP statement regarding the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the election of Senators is wrong in your eyes?

The statement was made in nine points as following:

1) The 312 MPs sponsored the charter amendment bill on the Senate's composition to make the charter democratic based on the principle that the ruling mandate belongs to the people. As a result, all parliamentarians must be elected in accordance with the principles of the 1997 charter, which was the people's constitution.

2) Article 291 of the Constitution clearly states that the power to amend the charter belongs to the Parliament. Article 291 prohibits only two changes, which are the change of the ruling system from the Constitutional Monarchy and the change of form of government. The amendment on the composition of the Senate had nothing to do with the two prohibited changes. Moreover, the Constitution Court used to rule that parliamentarians can amend the charter.

3) The Constitutional Court intentionally abused its authority in violation of the Constitution by deciding to review the petitions against the charter amendment bill. The action warranted impeachment or criminal process against the Constitutional Court judges.

4) The Constitutional Court cited the rule of law in making the ruling. But in doing so, the court interpreted and expanded its own power more than what stated in the Constitution. The rulings in the case of Article-291 amendment bill and in the Senate composition bill showed that the people's representatives, who have received the people's mandate to amend the charter to make it legitimate, democratic and fair, cannot amend the charter either by rewriting it entirely or changing only parts of it.

5) The citing of the rule of law was done without proper ground. The court did not cite how the international practice was done and the Constitutional Court judges themselves did not respect the principle. For example, three of the judges used to be on the panel that drafted the 2007 Constitution and one of the three used to face opposition against him taking part in the judicial review in the earlier case. The opposition prompted him to withdraw from the earlier case but now he would not withdraw from the review of the latest case. He used to explain his view clearly that retroactive penalties can be done if the penalties are not for criminal cases. Such stand led to the dissolution of thePheu Thai Party and five-year political ban of the Thai Rak Thai executives. And the executives were not informed of the charges against them and were not allowed to defend themselves. As a result, had the three or four judges withdrawn from the case, the ruling would have been otherwise.

6) It was extreme dangerous for democracy when the court claimed that the amendment bill violated several articles of the Constitution because the judges themselves abused their authority outside the Constitution's scope to reach such decisions.

7) The court clearly interfered in the power of the legislative branch by ruling that the deliberation process of the bill violated meeting regulations of the Parliament. If such interference is not challenged, from now on the court will be asked to consider more cases of alleged violations of meeting regulations and the House and Senate will not be able to perform their duty.

8) After the Parliament passed the bill in the third reading and the prime minister submitted the bill for the royal command, the next step will depend as to whether the King will approve the bill or wait until 90 days without sending the bill back to the Parliament. But the court violated the King's power by accepting the petitions against the bill for reviewing without basing its decision on any provision of the charter.

9) It would have been fine had the Constitution authorised the Constitutional Court to check the works of parliamentarians. But the Constitution does not authorise the court to do it. As a result, the Parliament has the power to perform its duty. The duty performing of parliamentarians was also endorsed by all charters before the 1997 charter. Whether the performance of parliamentarians is good or satisfactory in the eyes of the public or suitable or not, the people will decide in elections. This is the principle of the using of the ruling mandate. The court must not violate this principle of ruling mandate because doing so was tantamount to a coup that seized the ruling power from the people.

Under PUBLIC LAW,

Constitutional Law:

The Constitution of Thailand is the supreme law of Thailand which prevails over other laws passed by parliament. The 2007 Constitution of Thailand is the most recent constitution. The Constitutional Court of Thailand has jurisdiction to make rulings over the constitutionality of parliamentary acts, royal decrees, draft legislation, appointment or removal of public officials and issues regarding political parties (see Rulings of the Constitutional Court of Thailand)

Cheers

[fab4]

Seems to have a selective attitude to the constitution. His party doesn't acknowledge the authority of the Constitutional Court which is enshrined in the constitution but is now claiming to uphold the constitution when it suits.

Not accepting the power of the Constitutional Court causes a whole host of problems including its authority to try Thaksin on asset concealment charges in 2001 of which he was acquitted. That case should therefore be retried in the Supreme Court.

OK Which part of the PTP statement regarding the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the election of Senators is wrong in your eyes?

The statement was made in nine points as following:

1) The 312 MPs sponsored the charter amendment bill on the Senate's composition to make the charter democratic based on the principle that the ruling mandate belongs to the people. As a result, all parliamentarians must be elected in accordance with the principles of the 1997 charter, which was the people's constitution.

2) Article 291 of the Constitution clearly states that the power to amend the charter belongs to the Parliament. Article 291 prohibits only two changes, which are the change of the ruling system from the Constitutional Monarchy and the change of form of government. The amendment on the composition of the Senate had nothing to do with the two prohibited changes. Moreover, the Constitution Court used to rule that parliamentarians can amend the charter.

3) The Constitutional Court intentionally abused its authority in violation of the Constitution by deciding to review the petitions against the charter amendment bill. The action warranted impeachment or criminal process against the Constitutional Court judges.

4) The Constitutional Court cited the rule of law in making the ruling. But in doing so, the court interpreted and expanded its own power more than what stated in the Constitution. The rulings in the case of Article-291 amendment bill and in the Senate composition bill showed that the people's representatives, who have received the people's mandate to amend the charter to make it legitimate, democratic and fair, cannot amend the charter either by rewriting it entirely or changing only parts of it.

5) The citing of the rule of law was done without proper ground. The court did not cite how the international practice was done and the Constitutional Court judges themselves did not respect the principle. For example, three of the judges used to be on the panel that drafted the 2007 Constitution and one of the three used to face opposition against him taking part in the judicial review in the earlier case. The opposition prompted him to withdraw from the earlier case but now he would not withdraw from the review of the latest case. He used to explain his view clearly that retroactive penalties can be done if the penalties are not for criminal cases. Such stand led to the dissolution of thePheu Thai Party and five-year political ban of the Thai Rak Thai executives. And the executives were not informed of the charges against them and were not allowed to defend themselves. As a result, had the three or four judges withdrawn from the case, the ruling would have been otherwise.

6) It was extreme dangerous for democracy when the court claimed that the amendment bill violated several articles of the Constitution because the judges themselves abused their authority outside the Constitution's scope to reach such decisions.

7) The court clearly interfered in the power of the legislative branch by ruling that the deliberation process of the bill violated meeting regulations of the Parliament. If such interference is not challenged, from now on the court will be asked to consider more cases of alleged violations of meeting regulations and the House and Senate will not be able to perform their duty.

8) After the Parliament passed the bill in the third reading and the prime minister submitted the bill for the royal command, the next step will depend as to whether the King will approve the bill or wait until 90 days without sending the bill back to the Parliament. But the court violated the King's power by accepting the petitions against the bill for reviewing without basing its decision on any provision of the charter.

9) It would have been fine had the Constitution authorised the Constitutional Court to check the works of parliamentarians. But the Constitution does not authorise the court to do it. As a result, the Parliament has the power to perform its duty. The duty performing of parliamentarians was also endorsed by all charters before the 1997 charter. Whether the performance of parliamentarians is good or satisfactory in the eyes of the public or suitable or not, the people will decide in elections. This is the principle of the using of the ruling mandate. The court must not violate this principle of ruling mandate because doing so was tantamount to a coup that seized the ruling power from the people.

Under PUBLIC LAW,

Constitutional Law:

The Constitution of Thailand is the supreme law of Thailand which prevails over other laws passed by parliament. The 2007 Constitution of Thailand is the most recent constitution. The Constitutional Court of Thailand has jurisdiction to make rulings over the constitutionality of parliamentary acts, royal decrees, draft legislation, appointment or removal of public officials and issues regarding political parties (see Rulings of the Constitutional Court of Thailand)

Cheers

So, none of you understand the points made then?

[Carrerakiss]

Seems to have a selective attitude to the constitution. His party doesn't acknowledge the authority of the Constitutional Court which is enshrined in the constitution but is now claiming to uphold the constitution when it suits.

Not accepting the power of the Constitutional Court causes a whole host of problems including its authority to try Thaksin on asset concealment charges in 2001 of which he was acquitted. That case should therefore be retried in the Supreme Court.

OK Which part of the PTP statement regarding the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the election of Senators is wrong in your eyes?

The statement was made in nine points as following:

1) The 312 MPs sponsored the charter amendment bill on the Senate's composition to make the charter democratic based on the principle that the ruling mandate belongs to the people. As a result, all parliamentarians must be elected in accordance with the principles of the 1997 charter, which was the people's constitution.

2) Article 291 of the Constitution clearly states that the power to amend the charter belongs to the Parliament. Article 291 prohibits only two changes, which are the change of the ruling system from the Constitutional Monarchy and the change of form of government. The amendment on the composition of the Senate had nothing to do with the two prohibited changes. Moreover, the Constitution Court used to rule that parliamentarians can amend the charter.

3) The Constitutional Court intentionally abused its authority in violation of the Constitution by deciding to review the petitions against the charter amendment bill. The action warranted impeachment or criminal process against the Constitutional Court judges.

4) The Constitutional Court cited the rule of law in making the ruling. But in doing so, the court interpreted and expanded its own power more than what stated in the Constitution. The rulings in the case of Article-291 amendment bill and in the Senate composition bill showed that the people's representatives, who have received the people's mandate to amend the charter to make it legitimate, democratic and fair, cannot amend the charter either by rewriting it entirely or changing only parts of it.

5) The citing of the rule of law was done without proper ground. The court did not cite how the international practice was done and the Constitutional Court judges themselves did not respect the principle. For example, three of the judges used to be on the panel that drafted the 2007 Constitution and one of the three used to face opposition against him taking part in the judicial review in the earlier case. The opposition prompted him to withdraw from the earlier case but now he would not withdraw from the review of the latest case. He used to explain his view clearly that retroactive penalties can be done if the penalties are not for criminal cases. Such stand led to the dissolution of thePheu Thai Party and five-year political ban of the Thai Rak Thai executives. And the executives were not informed of the charges against them and were not allowed to defend themselves. As a result, had the three or four judges withdrawn from the case, the ruling would have been otherwise.

6) It was extreme dangerous for democracy when the court claimed that the amendment bill violated several articles of the Constitution because the judges themselves abused their authority outside the Constitution's scope to reach such decisions.

7) The court clearly interfered in the power of the legislative branch by ruling that the deliberation process of the bill violated meeting regulations of the Parliament. If such interference is not challenged, from now on the court will be asked to consider more cases of alleged violations of meeting regulations and the House and Senate will not be able to perform their duty.

8) After the Parliament passed the bill in the third reading and the prime minister submitted the bill for the royal command, the next step will depend as to whether the King will approve the bill or wait until 90 days without sending the bill back to the Parliament. But the court violated the King's power by accepting the petitions against the bill for reviewing without basing its decision on any provision of the charter.

9) It would have been fine had the Constitution authorised the Constitutional Court to check the works of parliamentarians. But the Constitution does not authorise the court to do it. As a result, the Parliament has the power to perform its duty. The duty performing of parliamentarians was also endorsed by all charters before the 1997 charter. Whether the performance of parliamentarians is good or satisfactory in the eyes of the public or suitable or not, the people will decide in elections. This is the principle of the using of the ruling mandate. The court must not violate this principle of ruling mandate because doing so was tantamount to a coup that seized the ruling power from the people.

Under PUBLIC LAW,

Constitutional Law:

The Constitution of Thailand is the supreme law of Thailand which prevails over other laws passed by parliament. The 2007 Constitution of Thailand is the most recent constitution. The Constitutional Court of Thailand has jurisdiction to make rulings over the constitutionality of parliamentary acts, royal decrees, draft legislation, appointment or removal of public officials and issues regarding political parties (see Rulings of the Constitutional Court of Thailand)

Cheers

So, none of you understand the points made then?

I think the wording is so woolly, each side will interpret it how they want avid claim legitimacy for their actions. That's what they normally do anyway.

[h90]

Seems to have a selective attitude to the constitution. His party doesn't acknowledge the authority of the Constitutional Court which is enshrined in the constitution but is now claiming to uphold the constitution when it suits.

Not accepting the power of the Constitutional Court causes a whole host of problems including its authority to try Thaksin on asset concealment charges in 2001 of which he was acquitted. That case should therefore be retried in the Supreme Court.

And don't forget the never stopping ranting that this constitution is so bad because it comes from the military and it should be made new. Usually when it goes about election laws, punishment for vote buying, abuse of power, separation of power, independent state agencies.

Now they discover their love for the constitution...