Charter court is to rule on PM's status: Suthep

[SICHONSTEVE]

Another issue due to drag on for ages....

Chalerm blurted out the other day that this administration could run out the full 180 days.....!

I can't follow it at all any more....!! Hope the Charter Court understands

I can help you. Simply ignore everything that Chalerm say's on the matter as it is always wishful thinking with no substance attached!!!

He may think that he is bigger than the courts but he is an insect under their heel!!

[PepperMe]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

Who voted for this constitution…The majority!!!

UMMM, I thought it was put together by the military after the last coup? so not much in the way of voting, but I could be mistaken?

Then Mark was given the PM gig on a platter all wrapped up in a nice little yellow we don't respect your vote, and Mark had plenty of time for reforms but choose not to, and now crying about needing reforms, <deleted>? and the courts will do and interpret as they see fit and as long as no one' looking, TIT

Wrong from beginning to end mate.

It was adjusted by the military, not totally rewritten.

The constitution had holes in it and wasn't doing its job, so adjustments were needed in order for it to be more compatible with 'thainess' instead of the western style of constitution which does not fit perfectly with the way things are done here.

The new version of the constitution was then put up for a referendum to the people for acceptance. The majority accepted it.

Now that Thailand is seeing political problems that have never been encountered before, there are still some grey areas. These also will need to be fixed.

A constitution is not something you can write out at a single time, it needs to be revised constantly until it is complete and covers every single eventuality. That means when grey areas arise, the holes are plugged. It is not unusual for a country to take literally hundreds of years before a constitution is just about airtight, and even then there will be certain (one off) sets of circumstances that are not totally covered.

The constitution is much the same as a nations laws.... Most of them are born out of frustration.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Also I would consider 'just over 2 years' of being in power as being like a heartbeat and not as you say 'plenty of time'.

Also most of the country were not screaming for reforms at that time, and they had enough on their plates what with fixing the mess that successive corrupt Thaksin governments had done to the country.

Now the country is screaming out for reforms right from north to south, and the number one agenda on the next government's plate will be by default 'reforms'.

You won't see another Thaksin controlled government ever again, because they will be immediately outlawed under new legislation from the reforms, that thing is certain.

Edited March 5, 2014 by PepperMe

[lostinsurin]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

Who voted for this constitutionThe majority!!!

UMMM, I thought it was put together by the military after the last coup? so not much in the way of voting, but I could be mistaken?

Then Mark was given the PM gig on a platter all wrapped up in a nice little yellow we don't respect your vote, and Mark had plenty of time for reforms but choose not to, and now crying about needing reforms, <deleted>? and the courts will do and interpret as they see fit and as long as no one' looking, TIT:whistling:

Wrong from beginning to end mate.

It was adjusted by the military, not totally rewritten.

The constitution had holes in it and wasn't doing its job, so adjustments were needed in order for it to be more compatible with 'thainess' instead of the western style of constitution which does not fit perfectly with the way things are done here.

The new version of the constitution was then put up for a referendum to the people for acceptance. The majority accepted it.

Now that Thailand is seeing political problems that have never been encountered before, there are still some grey areas. These also will need to be fixed.

A constitution is not something you can write out at a single time, it needs to be revised constantly until it is complete and covers every single eventuality. That means when grey areas arise, the holes are plugged. It is not unusual for a country to take literally hundreds of years before a constitution is just about airtight, and even then there will be certain (one off) sets of circumstances that are not totally covered.

The constitution is much the same as a nations laws.... Most of them are born out of frustration.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Also I would consider 'just over 2 years' of being in power as being like a heartbeat and not as you say 'plenty of time'.

Also most of the country were not screaming for reforms at that time, and they had enough on their plates what with fixing the mess that successive corrupt Thaksin governments had done to the country.

Now the country is screaming out for reforms right from north to south, and the number one agenda on the next government's plate will be by default 'reforms'.

You won't see another Thaksin controlled government ever again, because they will be immediately outlawed under new legislation from the reforms, that thing is certain.

"Now that Thailand is seeing political problems that have never been encountered before",

Are you sure about that? seems to be same old same old.

"You won't see another Thaksin controlled government ever again"

And you seem sure of that, I think you are dreaming,but feel free.

[manfrommanteo]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

Who voted for this constitution…The majority!!!

We call that 'constitution vote' a 'Hobson's choice'.

A Hobson's choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered. As a person may refuse to take that option, the choice is therefore between taking the option or not; "take it or leave it". The phrase is said to originate with Thomas Hobson (1544–1631), a livery stable owner in Cambridge, England. To rotate the use of his horses, he offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door or taking none at all.

Worse than a Hobson's choice, was the crime they created if you criticized the proposed constitution. So faults in the constitution couldn't even be discussed openly.

So it badly tilted the Senate in favor of the elite and their party the 'Democrats', and in turn the bodies of state populated by the Senate too became distorted and corrupt in favor of the elite and the 'Democrats'.

You mention the elite...is Thaksin and his family, with their uber-wealth, not considered to be one of the elite? It would seem that they are, no?

[binjalin]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

Who voted for this constitution…The majority!!!

Thais had no choice (Hobson's Choice as described post #30) if they wanted the Junta to leave and so the vote did not exactly meet the 'fair and reasonable' test:

The junta passed a law making it illegal to publicly criticize the draft. The junta also ran a successful promotion campaign leading up to the referendum, and threatened to not step down if the constitution is not accepted.

Wiki

Edited March 5, 2014 by binjalin

[Dogmatix]

I am beginning to understand that there may be some misunderstandings behind US Ambassador Kenney's bias toward the present prime ministerial incumbent, an alumnus of the prestigious Kentucky State College after taking a look at the translation of the 2007 Thai Constitution that purports to be provided online by the Political Section and the Public Diplomacy Section of the US Embassy. http://english.constitutionalcourt.or.th/dmdocuments/Constitution2007byIFES.pdf

Scrutinising Article 93 which Chalerm has recently cited as providing for elections to be held for 180 days to make up the quorum of 95% that is necessary for the House of Representative to convoke and elect a PM I found para 6 in the translation, as below.

Article 93 (para 6) In any of cases the total number of members of the House elected does not reach 480, but is less than 95 percent of that number, the existing members shall constitute the House of Representatives. Meanwhile elections must be held to fill all the vacant seats within 180 days. The newly elected members shall have a term of office equal to the remainder of the term of the House. Note: the total number of MPs in the House of Representatives is now 500 following an amendment to increase the number of party list MPs.

Now that certainly seemed to support Chalerm's view until I doubled check the translation with the original and found that one very important word is missing from the translation. It should in fact read, "...does not reach 480, but is NOT less than 95 percent of that number," .

Thus it is very clear that the Constitution does not provide for elections to carry on to make up the 95% for 180 days. The Constitution only provides for the case where the House convenes within 30 days after the elections and then make up elections are allowed after that to fill the balance of 5% but now we have a balance of more than 5% which is not covered.

Anyway Kenney's pronouncements have recently been restricted to commenting on the rumours that she will be transferred from Bangkok early. Her boss, John Kerry, is now too busy justifying support for a regime that toppled a democratically elected president in Ukraine to care much about former friends in Thailand who tick way too many of the boxes Kerry suggested as being reasons for democratically elected third world leaders to get the boot - refuse to reform; engage in massive corruption; abusive tyranny of the majority etc, etc.

So the US cavalry is not going to come to the rescue of the Kentucky Sate alumnus after all. What a shame. Poor didums.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Dogmatix

[Dogmatix]

If PTP and Yingluck are thrown-out, what would be the repercussions? Surely the happy and non-happy Rice Farmer/Red Shirts will dispute this, as even the un-happy Rice Farmers have some chance of the rice pay-out? No?

Some farmer groups are calling for the resignation of the govt in order to let an interim govt take over. An interim govt would not be limited by caretaker status and thus would be able to allocate a new budget to pay the farmers immediately.

Clearly there is nothing in the Constitution that supports a government clinging on after failed elections, nor any mechanism that allows them to complete the elections, even more so in the case of the 28 constituencies without candidates. On the other hand there is no clear way out of the crisis provided for in the Constitution. Article 7 is extremely vague and there is also no way to appoint a PM who is not a sitting MP.

If it decides to resolve the crisis, Constitutional Court will be forced to interpret the Constitution creatively and perhaps temporary suspension of certain articles. This will certainly lead to impeachment calls against the judges by whichever side loses out. Alternatively the court may decide it is all too hard and dangerous and just fudge things that leave the situation as it is indefinitely.

[Scamper]

Indeed, this is all true. The caretaker status of the Yingluck administration ended today - as per the constitution - and indeed Article 7 now takes effect. This is now a past administration. It effectively came to an end when parliament was dissolved on December 9. They failed to achieve a quorum, and the thirty days has passed. Yingluck and Pheu Thai have tried to map out a twilight zone region that is apparently free of the constitutions restrictions.The narrative that they have consistently put out - generally through Chalerm, who apparently is well-versed in all things constitutional - that they can just plan polling dates at whimsy, outside of the constitution's very clear restrictions - from a myriad of articles. They are now attempting to implement part three of a four part " election as you go " strategy, which not only remains unscheduled, but is completely unconstitutional. The opinion of these two former members of the Supreme Court have it right on each and every point.

[pmugghc]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

Who voted for this constitution…The majority!!!

We call that 'constitution vote' a 'Hobson's choice'.

A Hobson's choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered. As a person may refuse to take that option, the choice is therefore between taking the option or not; "take it or leave it". The phrase is said to originate with Thomas Hobson (1544–1631), a livery stable owner in Cambridge, England. To rotate the use of his horses, he offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door or taking none at all.

Worse than a Hobson's choice, was the crime they created if you criticized the proposed constitution. So faults in the constitution couldn't even be discussed openly.

So it badly tilted the Senate in favor of the elite and their party the 'Democrats', and in turn the bodies of state populated by the Senate too became distorted and corrupt in favor of the elite and the 'Democrats'.

Hobson's choice seems eerily similar to what we've heard about voting in many places in Isan. Especially the red shirt villages.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[BestBitterPhuket]

Charter court is to rule on PMs

Peoples Democratic Reform Committee Secretary-General Suthep Thaugsuban said Tuesday night that he had received letters from a former Supreme Court chief justice and a former Supreme Court chief judge who both suggested that Ms Yinglucks role as the caretaker prime minister had ended after the passage of the 30-day period since the February 2 election.

s]

So the former Supreme Court Justice and another Supreme Court judge are contacting Suthep. At least they are showing their colours...

[SICHONSTEVE]

Charter court is to rule on PMs

Peoples Democratic Reform Committee Secretary-General Suthep Thaugsuban said Tuesday night that he had received letters from a former Supreme Court chief justice and a former Supreme Court chief judge who both suggested that Ms Yinglucks role as the caretaker prime minister had ended after the passage of the 30-day period since the February 2 election.

s]

So the former Supreme Court Justice and another Supreme Court judge are contacting Suthep. At least they are showing their colours...

They probably replied to his enquiry - ever thought about that possibility??

Clearly not!!

[ManofReason]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

Who voted for this constitution…The majority!!!

UMMM, I thought it was put together by the military after the last coup? so not much in the way of voting, but I could be mistaken?

Then Mark was given the PM gig on a platter all wrapped up in a nice little yellow we don't respect your vote, and Mark had plenty of time for reforms but choose not to, and now crying about needing reforms, <deleted>? and the courts will do and interpret as they see fit and as long as no one' looking, TIT

Wrong from beginning to end mate.

It was adjusted by the military, not totally rewritten.

The constitution had holes in it and wasn't doing its job, so adjustments were needed in order for it to be more compatible with 'thainess' instead of the western style of constitution which does not fit perfectly with the way things are done here.

The new version of the constitution was then put up for a referendum to the people for acceptance. The majority accepted it.

Now that Thailand is seeing political problems that have never been encountered before, there are still some grey areas. These also will need to be fixed.

A constitution is not something you can write out at a single time, it needs to be revised constantly until it is complete and covers every single eventuality. That means when grey areas arise, the holes are plugged. It is not unusual for a country to take literally hundreds of years before a constitution is just about airtight, and even then there will be certain (one off) sets of circumstances that are not totally covered.

The constitution is much the same as a nations laws.... Most of them are born out of frustration.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Also I would consider 'just over 2 years' of being in power as being like a heartbeat and not as you say 'plenty of time'.

Also most of the country were not screaming for reforms at that time, and they had enough on their plates what with fixing the mess that successive corrupt Thaksin governments had done to the country.

Now the country is screaming out for reforms right from north to south, and the number one agenda on the next government's plate will be by default 'reforms'.

You won't see another Thaksin controlled government ever again, because they will be immediately outlawed under new legislation from the reforms, that thing is certain.

So the constitution was adjusted by the military because it "had holes in it" and "wasn't doing its job". Could it be that the only "flaw" in the widely applauded 1997 constitution that the military and the elites didn't like is that it actually did work and for the first time in the nations history the people could actually choose their own government and that government would actually have the power to enact policies that benefitted the country and its citizens?

The referendum was hardly a true reflection of the will of the people. For starters if the referendum had actually returned a no vote the military let it be known that they would then consider themselves free to choose whichever of the previous constitutions that they wanted to. Free and open discussion about the proposed constitution were restricted and a coup government funded pro yes propaganda campaign was enacted. Even with all these shenanigans the yes vote only just got over the line. Hardly a campaign to be proud of.

Yes constitutions are living and breathing documents that may require amendments as a nation matures. I don't think you'll find too many (sane) people who would agree that the way for a constitutional amendment to occur is for the military to toss out an elected government and then steamroll through whatever changes they want.

If a majority of the country was screaming for reforms - why did the Democrats not contest the election. Surely with all of the popular support you seem to think they had, they would win the election in a cake walk and would then be in a better position to be able to implement any and all reforms they thought were necessary to "fix" the country. Truth is the only screaming came from a tiny minority who were upset because they think that they have a god given right to rule the country - elections be damned.

If Thailand is to have a constitution that respects the principle of 1 man 1 vote it is more than likely that the only government that this place will see for the foreseeable future will be pro-red. The only way you and your ilk will ever see the back of Thaksin and co. is if a repressive dictatorial regime is installed and democracy is banished from the land.

You are indeed wrong - from beginning to end.

Edited March 5, 2014 by ManofReason

[kimamey]

According to this mornings newspaper That I am not allowed to quote, The EC states that the government has a time limit to repay the 20 billion baht loan through its rice sales, that date was May 31, and the EC believes the care taker government will still be in power till then!

Cheers

Probably right but it won't necessarily be the current one. Some will have to deal with it though. If a completely new set of ministers are brought in perhaps with a fairly neutral set up then it's possible they will be given more leeway.

[sawadee1947]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

"Who wrote this crappy constitution?"

Most of it was written by "the people" in 1997.

Sent from my phone ...

Yes and it was touched up by the army.

Suthep is seeking to get a clear and precise constitution to answer these questions and put a stop to corruption. As much as can be stopped. This can not be done by a government who is corrupt in the first place.

After such a constitution is in place call for elections. It would be interesting to see who chooses not to run with out the easy access to the government treasury. On the other hand it would make it easier for people to run as vote buying would cease. A big fine to those accepting it and jail to those offering it.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Maybe I missed something....But as far as I know SUTHEP never explained what he would do if he would be in charge! He did not propose a new constitition, he did not gave an alternative to the existing government. No brain....no plan... That's the main problem. Thai don't have any choice. One is as good as the other ...or bad.

[SICHONSTEVE]

Yes, it was tilted in favour of one group - the responsible group that ensures that unjust and corruption enhancing bills and laws are not passed into law. A simpler way to put it would be to describe it as a Thaksin oriented parties checks and balances system!!!!

Why do you think that he wanted to alter it so badly to suit his personal agenda? It couldn't be to do with the 2 trillion baht corruption fund or his 'get me back into Thailand' at any cost amnesty bill, could it by any chance???

Thank god Suthep came on the scene to rescue the Thai people!!!

[SICHONSTEVE]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

"Who wrote this crappy constitution?"

Most of it was written by "the people" in 1997.

Sent from my phone ...

Yes and it was touched up by the army.

Suthep is seeking to get a clear and precise constitution to answer these questions and put a stop to corruption. As much as can be stopped. This can not be done by a government who is corrupt in the first place.

After such a constitution is in place call for elections. It would be interesting to see who chooses not to run with out the easy access to the government treasury. On the other hand it would make it easier for people to run as vote buying would cease. A big fine to those accepting it and jail to those offering it.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Maybe I missed something....But as far as I know SUTHEP never explained what he would do if he would be in charge! He did not propose a new constitition, he did not gave an alternative to the existing government. No brain....no plan... That's the main problem. Thai don't have any choice. One is as good as the other ...or bad.

Suthep wouldn't be in charge - as far as I understand his mission would be complete and he can retire contentedly once the Shinawatra's are gone and leave it to a neutral body/council to sort out the constitution so that it is fair to everybody and serves purpose in bringing Thailand back from the brink (from the damage that has been done by this abject governments incompetence)!!

Edited March 5, 2014 by SICHONSTEVE

[ThailandNoob]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

"Who wrote this crappy constitution?"

Most of it was written by "the people" in 1997.

Sent from my phone ...

Yes and it was touched up by the army.

Suthep is seeking to get a clear and precise constitution to answer these questions and put a stop to corruption. As much as can be stopped. This can not be done by a government who is corrupt in the first place.

After such a constitution is in place call for elections. It would be interesting to see who chooses not to run with out the easy access to the government treasury. On the other hand it would make it easier for people to run as vote buying would cease. A big fine to those accepting it and jail to those offering it.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Maybe I missed something....But as far as I know SUTHEP never explained what he would do if he would be in charge! He did not propose a new constitition, he did not gave an alternative to the existing government. No brain....no plan... That's the main problem. Thai don't have any choice. One is as good as the other ...or bad.

Suthep wouldn't be in charge - as far as I understand his mission would be completed and he can retire contentedly once the Shinawatra's are gone and leave it to a neutral body/council to sort out the constitution so that it is fair to everybody and serves purpose!!

Like all the times Suthep was apparently going to retire from politics if his "last push" failed?

And I wonder just who would end up on this "neutral" body?

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[SICHONSTEVE]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

"Who wrote this crappy constitution?"

Most of it was written by "the people" in 1997.

Sent from my phone ...

Yes and it was touched up by the army.

Suthep is seeking to get a clear and precise constitution to answer these questions and put a stop to corruption. As much as can be stopped. This can not be done by a government who is corrupt in the first place.

After such a constitution is in place call for elections. It would be interesting to see who chooses not to run with out the easy access to the government treasury. On the other hand it would make it easier for people to run as vote buying would cease. A big fine to those accepting it and jail to those offering it.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Maybe I missed something....But as far as I know SUTHEP never explained what he would do if he would be in charge! He did not propose a new constitition, he did not gave an alternative to the existing government. No brain....no plan... That's the main problem. Thai don't have any choice. One is as good as the other ...or bad.

Suthep wouldn't be in charge - as far as I understand his mission would be completed and he can retire contentedly once the Shinawatra's are gone and leave it to a neutral body/council to sort out the constitution so that it is fair to everybody and serves purpose!!

Like all the times Suthep was apparently going to retire from politics if his "last push" failed?

And I wonder just who would end up on this "neutral" body?

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The sooner Yingluck steps down the sooner we will know!!

[MrSlatersParrot]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

Who voted for this constitutionThe majority!!!

Thais had no choice (Hobson's Choice as described post #30) if they wanted the Junta to leave and so the vote did not exactly meet the 'fair and reasonable' test:

The junta passed a law making it illegal to publicly criticize the draft. The junta also ran a successful promotion campaign leading up to the referendum, and threatened to not step down if the constitution is not accepted.

Wiki

But they lied because as was revealed in wikileaks the US had already forced them to guarantee that fresh elections would be held within a year which duly happened.

Were Suthep to succeed presumably after much bloodshed the US would again insist on free and fair elections.

This is the part that most of those on These TV boards don't get.

[ManofReason]

Yes, it was tilted in favour of one group - the responsible group that ensures that unjust and corruption enhancing bills and laws are not passed into law. A simpler way to put it would be to describe it as a Thaksin oriented parties checks and balances system!!!!

Why do you think that he wanted to alter it so badly to suit his personal agenda? It couldn't be to do with the 2 trillion baht corruption fund or his 'get me back into Thailand' at any cost amnesty bill, could it by any chance???

Thank god Suthep came on the scene to rescue the Thai people!!!

The responsible group - that can't win an election.

A simpler way to put it would be to describe it as an anti democratic denial of the peoples right to choose their own government.

You don't have to search to hard to find several quotes from old mate Abhisit in support of the exact amendments mentioned here - Thailand should have a fully elected senate - anything else is a denial of democracy.

Thank god Suthep came on the scene to hasten the endgame by leading the last futile effort of the Yellow crims to overthrow the rule of law. The PDRC embarrassment will most likely be the final nail in this decade long right wing insurrection. The Thai people will very shortly be free to decide their own destiny with a government of their choice implementing to policies they so desperately want.

[SICHONSTEVE]

_{What a load of cobblers that is!!!}

_{The only thing that has changed pipkins is your avatar - why do you think that people cottoned on to who you really are (were).}

_{Could it be the drivel factors matching each other perfectly???}

[ManofReason]

_{What a load of cobblers that is!!!}

_{The only thing that has changed pipkins is your avatar - why do you think that people cottoned on to who you really are (were).}

_{Could it be the drivel factors matching each other perfectly???}

Point me in the right direction and I would be more than happy to use Pipkins avatar.

[northernjohn]

If PTP and Yingluck are thrown-out, what would be the repercussions? Surely the happy and non-happy Rice Farmer/Red Shirts will dispute this, as even the un-happy Rice Farmers have some chance of the rice pay-out? No?

Well the part about the rice farmers would be real interesting.

Some of them chose to protest the non payment of the money while others just rodwe there tractor to Bangkok turned around and rode it home.

I don't think it matters who is in power and that includes an unelected non partisan group seeking to reform the constitution in a positive way for the benefit of the Thai citizens and then having an election. They would still owe the farmers the money.

[Thai at Heart]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

Indeed we are about to be treated to the most elegant bit of self serving Thai legalese ever created.

[Thai at Heart]

UMMM, I thought it was put together by the military after the last coup? so not much in the way of voting, but I could be mistaken?

Who voted for this constitution…The majority!!!

Then Mark was given the PM gig on a platter all wrapped up in a nice little yellow we don't respect your vote, and Mark had plenty of time for reforms but choose not to, and now crying about needing reforms, <deleted>? and the courts will do and interpret as they see fit and as long as no one' looking, TIT

Wrong from beginning to end mate.

It was adjusted by the military, not totally rewritten.

The constitution had holes in it and wasn't doing its job, so adjustments were needed in order for it to be more compatible with 'thainess' instead of the western style of constitution which does not fit perfectly with the way things are done here.

The new version of the constitution was then put up for a referendum to the people for acceptance. The majority accepted it.

Now that Thailand is seeing political problems that have never been encountered before, there are still some grey areas. These also will need to be fixed.

A constitution is not something you can write out at a single time, it needs to be revised constantly until it is complete and covers every single eventuality. That means when grey areas arise, the holes are plugged. It is not unusual for a country to take literally hundreds of years before a constitution is just about airtight, and even then there will be certain (one off) sets of circumstances that are not totally covered.

The constitution is much the same as a nations laws.... Most of them are born out of frustration.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Also I would consider 'just over 2 years' of being in power as being like a heartbeat and not as you say 'plenty of time'.

Also most of the country were not screaming for reforms at that time, and they had enough on their plates what with fixing the mess that successive corrupt Thaksin governments had done to the country.

Now the country is screaming out for reforms right from north to south, and the number one agenda on the next government's plate will be by default 'reforms'.

You won't see another Thaksin controlled government ever again, because they will be immediately outlawed under new legislation from the reforms, that thing is certain.

So the constitution was adjusted by the military because it "had holes in it" and "wasn't doing its job". Could it be that the only "flaw" in the widely applauded 1997 constitution that the military and the elites didn't like is that it actually did work and for the first time in the nations history the people could actually choose their own government and that government would actually have the power to enact policies that benefitted the country and its citizens?

The referendum was hardly a true reflection of the will of the people. For starters if the referendum had actually returned a no vote the military let it be known that they would then consider themselves free to choose whichever of the previous constitutions that they wanted to. Free and open discussion about the proposed constitution were restricted and a coup government funded pro yes propaganda campaign was enacted. Even with all these shenanigans the yes vote only just got over the line. Hardly a campaign to be proud of.

Yes constitutions are living and breathing documents that may require amendments as a nation matures. I don't think you'll find too many (sane) people who would agree that the way for a constitutional amendment to occur is for the military to toss out an elected government and then steamroll through whatever changes they want.

If a majority of the country was screaming for reforms - why did the Democrats not contest the election. Surely with all of the popular support you seem to think they had, they would win the election in a cake walk and would then be in a better position to be able to implement any and all reforms they thought were necessary to "fix" the country. Truth is the only screaming came from a tiny minority who were upset because they think that they have a god given right to rule the country - elections be damned.

If Thailand is to have a constitution that respects the principle of 1 man 1 vote it is more than likely that the only government that this place will see for the foreseeable future will be pro-red. The only way you and your ilk will ever see the back of Thaksin and co. is if a repressive dictatorial regime is installed and democracy is banished from the land.

You are indeed wrong - from beginning to end.

So in summary;

You disrespect the voice of the 59.3% majority that voted for the constitution because it does not suit your agenda.

You respect the voice of a 43% minority because they voted for the PTP which does suit your agenda.

And that is why when the PTP lose at the ballot box they will refuse to relinquish power because like your excuses for the majority voting for the constitution, excuses will be made for the majority voting against the PTP.

So far it has been 100% blame, denial, scapegoating and a lack of acceptance on everything that goes against the PTP agenda including the World bank, Moody's, UNHCR, Human Rights Watch, the Environmentalists, the corn farmer, rubber farmers, rice farmers, medical association, rural teachers, academics, Supa, global economists, IMF, private banks, GSB, the EC, AoT, the courts, military, bangkok middle class, business owner, state enterprise staff, Buddhist monks, civil servants, labor unions, Green Politics group, Thai Constitution Protection Association, The Thai press, NIDA poll and Bangkok Poll.

ELECTIONS WILL NOT BE ANY DIFFERENT.

Wasn't it widely touted, that part of the deal was to accept the 2007 constitution because it contained the coup makers get out of jail free card, but that the understanding was that it was to be freely amended once a govrenment was in power.

Of course, it was believed that after all the gerry mandering and organisation, that the Democrats would do their part of the bargain and actually WIN an election and modify the consitution to a format that suited the now happily retired coup makers and constitution makers? Of course, once that fly got ito the ointment that STILL the democrats couldn't win an election even with all the removal of so many TRT honchos from the scene, that we are now here today.

The democrats still can't win, the PTP want to modify the constitution as THEY see fit, and the original framers of the constitution shout. NO FAIR!

We didn't sign up for this. THis is not how the game is meant to be played, so no electkions for you, and no rights to modify anything for you either.

[Thai at Heart]

The will of the majority wanted this constitution. You are simply making political noise because you do not accept the will of the majority in this case. You do accept it when it suits your agenda.

That's fine. And the law states the various ways in which the constitution can be changed and modified.

If you really want to claim that the vote that occured for the 2007 constitution was free and fair and beyond reproach, well, you are deluding yourself. Yes people voted for it, they didn't have much choice in the matter, neither was there a free debate about it, nor was there any public opposition to it allowed. There was a state of emergency in half the country, and public gatherings or campaigning against it were illegal for gods sake. Omitting these details is extremely disingenuous.

The publically reported consensus was that to vote for it, was better than not voting at all. It happened, and to deny it is a nonsense.

North Korea is having a vote this week. Kim Jong Un is the only option permitted. So, yes, votes get corrupted, Yingluck isn;t the only one to try a rig them.

If only Abhisit had been able to do his job, as requested, none of this would ever have happened.

[Bangmod]

How soon is soon or is this just more high voltage rhetoric!!

The decision will be made before the end of this week.

The end of this week, that's what they told the farmers already for months, but still most haven't received their funds.

[metisdead]

Inflammatory bickering posts and replies have been removed.

[djjamie]

The will of the majority wanted this constitution. You are simply making political noise because you do not accept the will of the majority in this case. You do accept it when it suits your agenda.

That's fine. And the law states the various ways in which the constitution can be changed and modified.

If you really want to claim that the vote that occured for the 2007 constitution was free and fair and beyond reproach, well, you are deluding yourself. Yes people voted for it, they didn't have much choice in the matter, neither was there a free debate about it, nor was there any public opposition to it allowed. There was a state of emergency in half the country, and public gatherings or campaigning against it were illegal for gods sake. Omitting these details is extremely disingenuous.

The publically reported consensus was that to vote for it, was better than not voting at all. It happened, and to deny it is a nonsense.

North Korea is having a vote this week. Kim Jong Un is the only option permitted. So, yes, votes get corrupted, Yingluck isn;t the only one to try a rig them.

If only Abhisit had been able to do his job, as requested, none of this would ever have happened.

All words and no facts.

There was a state of emergency in half the country. So with that argument the 2014 polls are invalid. Or does that not suit your agenda?

[Thai at Heart]

The will of the majority wanted this constitution. You are simply making political noise because you do not accept the will of the majority in this case. You do accept it when it suits your agenda.

That's fine. And the law states the various ways in which the constitution can be changed and modified.

If you really want to claim that the vote that occured for the 2007 constitution was free and fair and beyond reproach, well, you are deluding yourself. Yes people voted for it, they didn't have much choice in the matter, neither was there a free debate about it, nor was there any public opposition to it allowed. There was a state of emergency in half the country, and public gatherings or campaigning against it were illegal for gods sake. Omitting these details is extremely disingenuous.

The publically reported consensus was that to vote for it, was better than not voting at all. It happened, and to deny it is a nonsense.

North Korea is having a vote this week. Kim Jong Un is the only option permitted. So, yes, votes get corrupted, Yingluck isn;t the only one to try a rig them.

If only Abhisit had been able to do his job, as requested, none of this would ever have happened.

All words and no facts.

There was a state of emergency in half the country. So with that argument the 2014 polls are invalid. Or does that not suit your agenda?

In the 2007 election on the constitution, you are correct, it was not a SOE, it was actually more serious than that. It was in fact martial law.

And I quote, from the Bangkok post through Wikipedia.

I am not sure what anyone has claimed for the 2014 laws. No one has prevented anyone campaigning have they? Some group apparently stopped people from attending to vote. So yes, does it constitute a complete vote. No

In an editorial, the Bangkok Post noted,

Martial law is in place across half the country. That is the harsh reality of today, and it is not an environment that would be conducive to a free and fair referendum. 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.^[58]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Constitution_of_Thailand#Criticisms_of_the_referendum

I know that Wikipedia isn't maybe the best one, but there are plenty more.