Thailand: Regime is not 'Democratically Elected'

[geriatrickid]

All that doesn't change the fact that it is nearly the same as the 1997 constitution.

The junta did make some changes, but it wasn't written from scratch. Most of it is exactly the same as the 1997 constitution.

Sent from my phone ...

Key provisions of the constitution were changed. In particular, the authority of the courts to intervene was broadened. Senior judges were given the right to sit on the committees who selected senior officials of agencies such as the Electoral Commission. It is unusual in a democracy. When one considers that almost of these senior judges were appointed by the military junta or have connections to the military and the Democrat party, it becomes obvious what the military junta was doing when it rewrote the relevant sections. The military ensured that it would be able to reach out and disrupt future governments in the event that it disapproved of those governments. The new constitution is the gift that keeps on giving.

Keep in mind that the military arranged it so that its constitution would be rubber stamped. Where else would an unknown car dealer from the boonies who had been the junta leader's classmate receive the highest number of votes to sit on the drafting committee? Usually, when one writes a constitution, one involves legal scholars. I fail to see how the head of BMW Thailand was elected to the group with the second highest "vote" tally. Where else, but in Thailand do car dealers write a nation's constitution. Did you forget that the junta passed a law that basically outlawed political parties from offering an opinion on the constitution? It was a criminal act for a political party to voice its opinion. When there are constitutional discussions for amendments in functioning democracies, political parties will offer white papers or opinions. In Thailand, the military junta, said no.

The manner in which the constitution was written was not transparent nor written by actual constitutional law scholars and stakeholders, and the circumstances under which the "referendum" was held limited discussion of the constitution, the constitution is a flawed product. Where else can a military dictatorship have a constitution rewritten and then arrange a "referendum" to rubber stamp the document? This is a constitution written by the former military junta for the benefit of the military and its allies.

[kikoman]

I think this article is intended for the ones blindly listening to the govt propaganda. It does not take much to conclude the obvious fact that this govt serves Thaksin.

They said they didn't, but pushed through an Amnesty Bill.

They said that the rice policy is suppose to help the farmers, but actually stole from them. If it is helping the farmers, why is thailand ranking dropped in the world and thai rice is no longer desirable. And why 1.4 million farmers have not been paid. Especially not forth coming with information, it only raises more red flag about how much corruption is really going on. The program is already over budgeted. And the reason they got additional budget approval was based on being able to sell the rice and guaranteed by the phantom G-G deal. And we know know niether that is true.

Then you have the Tablet program, which is another policy that steals from kids. The idea that China can not produce 800,000 tablets is almost laughable and quite insulting for China. We haven't heard the last of this policy.

Your article indicates that you are not one to blindly follow PDRC propaganda, maybe you are not as clueless as the other yellow posters.

#-1- I being a PTP supporter also believe the Amnesty bill was to allow Thaskin to come back to Thailand.

What other evidence did you consider in your statement:"to conclude the obvious fact that this govt. serves Thaskin?

#-2 What did you consider in your statement "the rice policy was supposed to help the farmers, but actually stole from them" elaborate please!

I believe I can address your question, why Thailand dropped in ranking of rice exporting nations.

Thailand was number 1 rice exporting nation in the world for 34 years, this was done off the back of the farmers that for those years where very poorly compensated for their rice, the children of rice farmers are turning their backs on the family farms and going into other employment fields. As a result Thailand lost its #1 ranking and will never regain it again, due to the low pay and hard work, the rice scheme was seeking to improve pay for rice farmers. But with the farmer's children going into other fields has forever doomed Thailands #1 rice exporting ranking.

Cheers

[heybruce]

Thailand: Regime is not 'Democratically Elected'

Yep,... the majority was viciously bought in the name of THAKSIN-DEMO-CRACY

Any more questions????

Evidence?

[Mosha]

At last, a journalist with a grasp of The Truth.

Populist policies is not vote buying. Its part of a democracy. And it is not corruption. Corruption is when you implement you populist policies for the people that you eat dinner with.

And exactly how many Isaan rice farmers got rich if any money at all from the rice pledging scheme, when most of them have plots under 10 rai and only grow enough rice to feed their families. The farmers with 100 rai plus were the ones who benefited, and not only do they already have money a lot of them would have connections with Thaksin.

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

Some rice farmers have done well out of it. Just not the Thais who expected to. Indians Burmese and Cambodians are chuffed to bits.

[Dogmatix]

And another NY Times article says the protests are undemocratic.

Am I missing something ?

Maybe Thaksin owns shares in the NY Times?

No but he seems to own Thomas Fuller there.

[Dogmatix]

"So why is the West defending what is clearly a dysfunctional democracy, clearly abusing the mechanisms of real representative governance, to perpetuate a very undemocratic regime?"

That's easy, the alternative is to support a man with a history of corruption leading a lawless mob who is attempting to topple a democratically elected government. I also question the assumption that the current constitution, written by a military junta, allows adequate mechanisms for real representative governance, or the implication that Suthep or the Democrats are interested in a more democratic regime.

BTW, presstv.ir is an Iranian "news" network. The country isn't noted for free, unbiased news. Iran also isn't keen on true democracy.

The current constitution wasn't written by the military junta. It is 90% the same as the 1997 constitution, word for word.

Really? Who wrote the constitution if not the military installed government following the 2006 coup?

Regarding the 90% nonsense, do you really believe that or are you just spreading disinformation? For an informed summary of the changes, check: http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html.

If that's too much reading for you, consider the intent of the most undemocratic changes, summarized in the article "Not a vote for the generals" in the August 23, 2007 edition of "The Economist":

"The plan, it is assumed, was that after TRT's demise Thailand would return to the weak and short-lived coalition governments that had preceded its rise to power in 2001. Several changes in the new constitution—such as the merging of single-seat constituencies into larger ones in which the second- and third-placed candidates would also win seats—seem designed to give lesser parties more of a chance and thus increase the likelihood of unstable multi-party coalitions. If so, the royalist-military elite who staged the coup would be able to return to exerting influence behind the scenes, as they did in pre-Thaksin times."

or, from "The long march to the barracks" in the same issue:

"The charter is designed to prevent the re-emergence of an elected strongman like Mr Thaksin. To this end, it contains some unobjectionable measures, such as reducing the number of parliamentarians needed to call a vote of no confidence in the prime minister and strengthening the powers of the national human-rights commission. Public criticism forced the army to drop some egregiously undemocratic clauses, such as the provision for a “national crisis council”, including army officers, to take charge in any future political conflict. However, some dubious bits remain: almost half of the Senate will be appointed by a panel of judges and bureaucrats; and the coupmakers themselves are granted a blanket amnesty."

and:

"Built-in weakness

In May a constitutional tribunal created by the junta found the TRT guilty of electoral fraud and dissolved it. But the charter-drafters wanted to make it harder for any other dominant majority party to emerge in future. For that reason, the new constitution tweaks the voting system in favour of smaller parties. This is ironic: the whole point of Thailand's last democratic constitution, passed in 1997, was to free the country from the cycle of weak and unstable coalitions and frequent coups."

Perhaps the new constitution uses 90% of the same words, but clearly it is a different document, and an intentionally flawed one.

In case you want to bring up the vote approving the constitution, I will point out the the 2007 constitution was approved in a vote in which the choice was approving the constitution or continuing to live under military rule.

BTW, most people consider "The Economist" to be much more credible than an Iranian television station.

Most of the things that Thaksin complains about, such as the checks and balances of the independent agencies and the Constitutional Court that he wants to abolish to allow unbridled corruptions, were cut and paste from the 1997 Constitution he claims to love. In what way is the 90% of the 2007 Cnstitution that is identical to the 1997 edition intentionally flawed?

[BlueNoseCodger]

All that doesn't change the fact that it is nearly the same as the 1997 constitution.

The junta did make some changes, but it wasn't written from scratch. Most of it is exactly the same as the 1997 constitution.

Sent from my phone ...

Key provisions of the constitution were changed. In particular, the authority of the courts to intervene was broadened. Senior judges were given the right to sit on the committees who selected senior officials of agencies such as the Electoral Commission. It is unusual in a democracy. When one considers that almost of these senior judges were appointed by the military junta or have connections to the military and the Democrat party, it becomes obvious what the military junta was doing when it rewrote the relevant sections. The military ensured that it would be able to reach out and disrupt future governments in the event that it disapproved of those governments. The new constitution is the gift that keeps on giving.

Keep in mind that the military arranged it so that its constitution would be rubber stamped. Where else would an unknown car dealer from the boonies who had been the junta leader's classmate receive the highest number of votes to sit on the drafting committee? Usually, when one writes a constitution, one involves legal scholars. I fail to see how the head of BMW Thailand was elected to the group with the second highest "vote" tally. Where else, but in Thailand do car dealers write a nation's constitution. Did you forget that the junta passed a law that basically outlawed political parties from offering an opinion on the constitution? It was a criminal act for a political party to voice its opinion. When there are constitutional discussions for amendments in functioning democracies, political parties will offer white papers or opinions. In Thailand, the military junta, said no.

The manner in which the constitution was written was not transparent nor written by actual constitutional law scholars and stakeholders, and the circumstances under which the "referendum" was held limited discussion of the constitution, the constitution is a flawed product. Where else can a military dictatorship have a constitution rewritten and then arrange a "referendum" to rubber stamp the document? This is a constitution written by the former military junta for the benefit of the military and its allies.

I think it's undeniable, the 2007 constitution does give the military a back door key. But military are just people and most of the worst of them have retired now anyway. How many people actually need replaced with neutral candidates to restore democracy in Thailand? 10? It's a really small number of officials that are acting 'odd'.

Even then, as Suthep got more extreme, so their own behaviour has gotten more moderate, as they distance themselves from him.

Sad to say, that in turn has made Suthep even more extreme, trying to talk up a civil war and desperate for a military coup.

[heybruce]

"So why is the West defending what is clearly a dysfunctional democracy, clearly abusing the mechanisms of real representative governance, to perpetuate a very undemocratic regime?"

That's easy, the alternative is to support a man with a history of corruption leading a lawless mob who is attempting to topple a democratically elected government. I also question the assumption that the current constitution, written by a military junta, allows adequate mechanisms for real representative governance, or the implication that Suthep or the Democrats are interested in a more democratic regime.

BTW, presstv.ir is an Iranian "news" network. The country isn't noted for free, unbiased news. Iran also isn't keen on true democracy.

The current constitution wasn't written by the military junta. It is 90% the same as the 1997 constitution, word for word.

Really? Who wrote the constitution if not the military installed government following the 2006 coup?

Regarding the 90% nonsense, do you really believe that or are you just spreading disinformation? For an informed summary of the changes, check: http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html.

If that's too much reading for you, consider the intent of the most undemocratic changes, summarized in the article "Not a vote for the generals" in the August 23, 2007 edition of "The Economist":

"The plan, it is assumed, was that after TRT's demise Thailand would return to the weak and short-lived coalition governments that had preceded its rise to power in 2001. Several changes in the new constitution—such as the merging of single-seat constituencies into larger ones in which the second- and third-placed candidates would also win seats—seem designed to give lesser parties more of a chance and thus increase the likelihood of unstable multi-party coalitions. If so, the royalist-military elite who staged the coup would be able to return to exerting influence behind the scenes, as they did in pre-Thaksin times."

or, from "The long march to the barracks" in the same issue:

"The charter is designed to prevent the re-emergence of an elected strongman like Mr Thaksin. To this end, it contains some unobjectionable measures, such as reducing the number of parliamentarians needed to call a vote of no confidence in the prime minister and strengthening the powers of the national human-rights commission. Public criticism forced the army to drop some egregiously undemocratic clauses, such as the provision for a “national crisis council”, including army officers, to take charge in any future political conflict. However, some dubious bits remain: almost half of the Senate will be appointed by a panel of judges and bureaucrats; and the coupmakers themselves are granted a blanket amnesty."

and:

"Built-in weakness

In May a constitutional tribunal created by the junta found the TRT guilty of electoral fraud and dissolved it. But the charter-drafters wanted to make it harder for any other dominant majority party to emerge in future. For that reason, the new constitution tweaks the voting system in favour of smaller parties. This is ironic: the whole point of Thailand's last democratic constitution, passed in 1997, was to free the country from the cycle of weak and unstable coalitions and frequent coups."

Perhaps the new constitution uses 90% of the same words, but clearly it is a different document, and an intentionally flawed one.

In case you want to bring up the vote approving the constitution, I will point out the the 2007 constitution was approved in a vote in which the choice was approving the constitution or continuing to live under military rule.

BTW, most people consider "The Economist" to be much more credible than an Iranian television station.

Most of the things that Thaksin complains about, such as the checks and balances of the independent agencies and the Constitutional Court that he wants to abolish to allow unbridled corruptions, were cut and paste from the 1997 Constitution he claims to love. In what way is the 90% of the 2007 Cnstitution that is identical to the 1997 edition intentionally flawed?

Did you read before you posted? Here, again, are the key points from above:

"Several changes in the new constitution—such as the merging of single-seat constituencies into larger ones in which the second- and third-placed candidates would also win seats—seem designed to give lesser parties more of a chance and thus increase the likelihood of unstable multi-party coalitions. If so, the royalist-military elite who staged the coup would be able to return to exerting influence behind the scenes, as they did in pre-Thaksin times."

"...the charter-drafters wanted to make it harder for any other dominant majority party to emerge in future. For that reason, the new constitution tweaks the voting system in favour of smaller parties. This is ironic: the whole point of Thailand's last democratic constitution, passed in 1997, was to free the country from the cycle of weak and unstable coalitions and frequent coups."

In short, the constitution was intentionally written to lead to weak, ineffective government. Attempts to change it lead to criminal charges. Over 300 senators and PM's are charged with the "crime" of voting to make the Senate fully elected. In what other democracy would that be a crime?

[icommunity]

His writings, and solution - if any, have been from a perspective that violence and lawlessness are OK to gain power and that these can bring about a peaceful, progressive society, not democratic principles of which election is a part of it and the rules of law.

Send from my Mobile

Edited February 23, 2014 by icommunity