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

[djjamie]

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.

I am correct? I never said it was not a state of emergency..Words in my mouth now…..

Again, political noise to hide behind because THIS majority is not acceptable to you.

When the PTP lose an election expect the same.

[Thai at Heart]

I am correct? I never said it was not a state of emergency..Words in my mouth now…..

Again, political noise to hide behind because THIS majority is not acceptable to you.

When the PTP lose an election expect the same.

Well it goes further than that. It is about interpreting how the government is allowed or not allowed to modify the constitution. That one has been done to death.

So, is it the case now, that NO SITTING GOVERNMENT is ever allowed to modify the consitution. I never said the majority is not acceptable. The 2007 constitution is in situ.That's life. It should be open to modification, as should any. It can't be the case that the only group allowed to modify the constitution is the army, or referendum.

I dream of the day that someone other than the PTP win an election. Might be a very old man before it happens.

[djjamie]

I am correct? I never said it was not a state of emergency..Words in my mouth now…..

Again, political noise to hide behind because THIS majority is not acceptable to you.

When the PTP lose an election expect the same.

Well it goes further than that. It is about interpreting how the government is allowed or not allowed to modify the constitution. That one has been done to death.

So, is it the case now, that NO SITTING GOVERNMENT is ever allowed to modify the consitution. I never said the majority is not acceptable. The 2007 constitution is in situ.That's life. It should be open to modification, as should any. It can't be the case that the only group allowed to modify the constitution is the army, or referendum.

I dream of the day that someone other than the PTP win an election. Might be a very old man before it happens.

I have noticed 2 things,

You disregard the majority when it suits you.

You love to get the last word in.

[Thai at Heart]

I am correct? I never said it was not a state of emergency..Words in my mouth now…..

Again, political noise to hide behind because THIS majority is not acceptable to you.

When the PTP lose an election expect the same.

Well it goes further than that. It is about interpreting how the government is allowed or not allowed to modify the constitution. That one has been done to death.

So, is it the case now, that NO SITTING GOVERNMENT is ever allowed to modify the consitution. I never said the majority is not acceptable. The 2007 constitution is in situ.That's life. It should be open to modification, as should any. It can't be the case that the only group allowed to modify the constitution is the army, or referendum.

I dream of the day that someone other than the PTP win an election. Might be a very old man before it happens.

I have noticed 2 things,

You disregard the majority when it suits you.

You love to get the last word in.

Nothing more? Cmon old chap. Lets debate. It isn't hurting anyone. I don't care if I lose the debate. Things deserve to be said about what is going on here, even if it is for only our personal enjoyment of a good debate.

I am not disregarding a majority. I am stating that the election for the 2007 constitution was carried out under duress, and as such it is not in my eyes wrong to modify it. People were proposed a fait accompli. This right to modify a constitution should lie with the parliament within the framework of the constitution. There are many situations that make a vote representative or not, make it represent a majority or not. Having the Democrats refuse to attend a vote to declare it null and void doesn't necessarily make it invalid. People are free to vote "for no party".

The dems modified a bit of the constitution to rejig the boundaries and numbers of MP's . It should be feasible to modify a constitution. Problem is, what the anti-PTP bunch would like is a selective right to modify a constitution on certain issues and not others, and that unfortunately isn't how the game is played.It should be an all or nothing.

As for getting the last word in. I like a good debate. Its useful and can be informative. Please feel free to keep going. I enjoy debating the inate incongruity of Thai democracy and politics.

[northernjohn]

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?

Not really I have conducted an extensive research on the elite mentioned continually on this forum and to date after asking many times who are they give me names the only one that has been brought up is Thaksin Shinawatra. So no he is not one of them he is all of them.

This leaves me to believe that the elite often mentioned are just a figure of peoples imagination. If they don't understand it bring in some secret never to be known person. That will convince any red shirt.

The last thing they want to do is look at reality and say I think those guys have screwed up.

[JAG]

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.

Umm, what if the people vote for another Thaksin controlled government, a bit like they have at the last four elections?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Bkkbound]

Its running its natural course... no matter how many ways the Shins try and spin this, their reign is coming to an end.. PTP need to be planning for the post Taksin era and how they can address the needs of their core vote but also realise the national interest involves everybody... there is no reason to antagonize the middle classes or other groups. The country can be prosperous and could have a great future if the corrosive corrupt elements across the political spectrum but clearly concentrated in the Shin dynasty can be erased.

[Bkkbound]

Umm, what if the people vote for another Thaksin controlled government, a bit like they have at the last four elections?

Its the role of the courts and what ever extra judicial processes are required to ensure there is no Shin dynasty,, the whole extended family assets need not only whistles blown at them but a full frontal assault on all assets and allegations of fraud.Withdrawal of his passport and the international community may well take the view old square face needs to be put to one side quietly.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Bkkbound

[JRSoul]

Umm, what if the people vote for another Thaksin controlled government, a bit like they have at the last four elections?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

What do you call somebody who keeps repeating the same action and getting the same bad result?

And those that keep electing criminals don't understand why they are not respected.

[fab4]

JRSoul, on 06 Mar 2014 - 04:39, said:

JAG, on 05 Mar 2014 - 23:31, said:

Umm, what if the people vote for another Thaksin controlled government, a bit like they have at the last four elections?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

What do you call somebody who keeps repeating the same action and getting the same bad result?

And those that keep electing criminals don't understand why they are not respected.

So "they" are not voting for the "right" people, is that it? Skew the election process (we'll call it reforms, shall we, just like the 2007 constitution)), hey, try and get rid of it completely, just so that the "right" people run the country.

It didn't work before. It won't work again.

[aripengu]

What does the constitution say about disrupting an election and acting against a Royal Decree?

[oldsailor35]

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.

Suthep putting a stop to corruption........

[Ducking and]

Ye-e-e-s .... but what the heck is Suthep doing making public letters which were surely sent to him privately because he seems not to be acquainted with Thai Law and it's obviously in the public interest for some steps to be taken without delay? ... Does ANY politician in this country (except perhaps Abhisit, or others who were educated in England), or any person here, know anything about their laws?!

[Ducking and]

All this about unfair elections! Yep. Unfair. But isn't the only relevant thing the rigging of the general election by making promises that a careful analysis - of course you don't get that over here - would show you could not possibly keep without damaging the nation? Yes it was silly to vote for it, but I don't think rice farmers are stupid buffaloes because if you get a promise like that from a man worth billions, who has given you money before, who would not vote for it?! The country lacks sufficient education, academics with sufficient influence, and informed analysis like in a mature democracy. Until that changes, there are going to be difficulties like everywhere else in the world where 1 man (who has not been educated to think) gets 1 vote as though they have a developed society into which universal suffrage can fit.

The Brits gave democracy to be a curse upon the undeveloped nations, including here where it was British influence which led to the fundamental change in the 1930's. On balance ours was one of the best empires, but we certainly ....ed it up for them when we had to quit.

[SICHONSTEVE]

All this about unfair elections! Yep. Unfair. But isn't the only relevant thing the rigging of the general election by making promises that a careful analysis - of course you don't get that over here - would show you could not possibly keep without damaging the nation? Yes it was silly to vote for it, but I don't think rice farmers are stupid buffaloes because if you get a promise like that from a man worth billions, who has given you money before, who would not vote for it?! The country lacks sufficient education, academics with sufficient influence, and informed analysis like in a mature democracy. Until that changes, there are going to be difficulties like everywhere else in the world where 1 man (who has not been educated to think) gets 1 vote as though they have a developed society into which universal suffrage can fit.

The Brits gave democracy to be a curse upon the undeveloped nations, including here where it was British influence which led to the fundamental change in the 1930's. On balance ours was one of the best empires, but we certainly ....ed it up for them when we had to quit.

"Had to quit"!!!!

I think it was more of a case that they wanted us to quit actually!!!

On the question of education - Thaksin has them exactly where he wants them ie: uneducated and unable to think for themselves!!

[JAG]

Umm, what if the people vote for another Thaksin controlled government, a bit like they have at the last four elections?

Its the role of the courts and what ever extra judicial processes are required to ensure there is no Shin dynasty,, the whole extended family assets need not only whistles blown at them but a full frontal assault on all assets and allegations of fraud.Withdrawal of his passport and the international community may well take the view old square face needs to be put to one side quietly.

Umm, what if the people vote for another Thaksin controlled government, a bit like they have at the last four elections?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

What do you call somebody who keeps repeating the same action and getting the same bad result?

And those that keep electing criminals don't understand why they are not respected.

Thank you for your candour. It is clear that both of you believe that it is perfectly acceptable to ignore the views of the electorate if you disapprove of their choice. I think we all knew that, but it is good that you have come out and said it.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[The Deerhunter]

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?

You just don't understand do you! The Reds hate the Bangkok uber-rich Chinese-Thai elite but love and worship their own Chiangmai Chinese-Thai uber rich elite. That is straight-forward enough, isn't it. A class war between two probably equally rich (and royally connected) cliques. The only difference is that Thaksin has somehow convinced them he is a socialist. Isn't that priceless? And in the middle we have the moderates and reformists who are fed up with the theft and (probably rightly believe that the Dems are more reformeable than the TRT/UDD/PTP etc.