Thai court: Bill to amend article 190 'unconstitutional'

[fab4]

It's hardly unexpected that the PTP acolytes will criticise the ruling - after all the PTP were 'elected' and can do what they like, is the mantra.

This ruling is 100% correct as international agreements & treaties should be very carefully scrutinised by the parliament (without debates being curtailed by the government speaker). Allowing the cabinet this power is anti-democratic, but of course that's what big T wants - total power.

The second point is the criticism about the CC not ruling according to the constitution is sometimes correct (not in this case however) but, compared to the downright underhand, stand-in voting, and illegality of far too many actions of the PTP, the CC is a paragon of virtue.

The third issue is with the amending of the constitution. It needs re-writing to contain a two-thirds majority of parliament, followed by the same proportion in a referendum - for any future amendments. It is just far too easy to amend what ought to be the basis of law, justice & politics.

The last issue is again with those who criticise the CC. Where are the proper checks & balances that developed democracies have developed over many years? An elected Senate? Stupid if elected in the same way as parliament. A referendum? Always avoided by the noisiest upholders of their version of democracy. A Constitutional Court? Yes - the final arbiter after a really independent (of the government) Senate is devised.

I presume you must have been apoplectic when abhisit first suggested the very same amendment back in 2010.

In the end it was only pressure from the PAD and internal problems with his coalition that forced him to back down.

Otherwise it could have been the dems that were threatened with dissolution for violating article 68 by amending Section 190................

......................Oh silly me, it doesn't work like that does it?

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has turned to Facebook to defend the government's controversial move to amend the 2007 charter, saying the process will lead to a peaceful general election.

Posting his thoughts online in response to public confusion over the charter rewrite, he defended the state's stance and called for people to help "tune Thailand into a balance".

"What I want the civil sector to learn is that it is impossible that we can satisfy all our desires," he wrote.

Those who disagree with the government have no need to pile pressure on it, he said. Reasonable requests are enough to get its attention.................

Section 190 requires parliament's approval for international agreements which can affect the country's economic, social affairs and territorial integrity. The cabinet has agreed with the amendment of Section 190, following a proposal that guidelines should be made to determine endorsement on a case-by-case basis.

A joint parliamentary panel is considering the issue amid reports that Mr Abhisit proposed on Nov 26 that more clauses should be added to Section 190.

http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2010/12/abhisit-takes-to-facebook-to-defend.html

[Baerboxer]

expected but a sad reflection on Thailand that an elected government cannot seek to alter or change things

It can alter and change things - providing it follows the correct rules and procedures and respects the constitution and law.

PTP doesn't follow the rules, breaches the procedures, ignores laws it doesn't like and refuses to accept the Constitution Court's decisions.

Being elected doesn't make your corruption legal, give you the right to do anything you want or mean you are your gang are above the law.

Do you see the difference?

[Baerboxer]

The judges have made a serious mistake if indeed the judgement does state:-

"tantamount to an attempt to overthrow the current political system"

Such an uncalled for 'judgement' as this when the referral to the court did not seek it suggests that the Judges are honoring a commitment to persons unknown.

A piece of legislation that would allow the PTP government to sell tracts of land to Cambodia for example or oil and gas rights in the Gulf of Thailand without a house vote?

You think that it should be passed?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I'm sure they would have done this with the same truthful transparency and open accountability that has become their trademark!

[dukebowling]

The judges have made a serious mistake if indeed the judgement does state:-

"tantamount to an attempt to overthrow the current political system"

Such an uncalled for 'judgement' as this when the referral to the court did not seek it suggests that the Judges are honoring a commitment to persons unknown.

QUOTE The court said the move violated articles 3, 68 and 125 of the charter and was tantamount to an attempt to overthrow the current political system UNQUOTE.

The court has handed down its decision. Therefore, not up to us thereafter to challenge or question their decision, particularly on complex constitutional law, because theyre respectfully more well-informed on the subject than thou.

There is nothing complex about the constitutional law. A third grade can interpret this simple constitution. The problem arises when the Constitutional Court continues to rule outside of the constitution and blatantly disregards the laws of the country. I'm not criticizing a ruling, just saying they have no jurisdiction when it comes to constitutional amendments (clearly stated in the constitution). Their jurisdiction is in regards to bills.

In this particular case, how can a government function without the ability to make foreign treaties? The old government has torn up MOU and neglected potential good mines of oil agreements with Cambodia. Shooting themselves in the foot with me vs them attitudes does not contribute to the much needed progress of Thailand in its foreign policy.