Pheu Thai vows to defy Constitutional Court's ruling on election

[HonestQuietBob]

The constitution was accepted as the Army said it would not give up power if it was not - Hobson's Choice

Blatant lie. The post coup interim government said that if the constitution was voted against in the referendum, then another one would be written. They never said that power would not be relinquished. You have simply made that up.

And it's funny how the same people who pour scorn on the referendum for that constitution and argue that the people didn't have a proper say, are the same people who support the constitution that came before it, a constitution for which there was no referendum whatsoever.

What to you think, you can rewrite history and nobody will check?

Restrictions against campaigning to reject the draft The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.

The restrictions against opposition to the draft were criticized by human rights bodies. "Even if amended to allow for 'factual' campaigning on the referendum, it is clear that the main purpose of the law is to intimidate and silence persons who don’t share the official view," the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said. "Meanwhile the administration is pumping vast amounts of money into Yes propaganda that is set to increase quickly."

The ban against campaigning against the constitution was enforced. In July, 20 soldiers and 10 policemen raided the house of a politician and seized anti-charter t-shirts, banners, documents, and recorded speeches. Police also raided the Duang Prateep Foundation of former Senator Prateep Ungsongtham Hata and confiscated 4,000 posters which carried the message "It’s not illegal to vote against the draft constitution." No charges were filed. The police claimed they were acting on orders from the military. "They could not cite any law to back up their actions," said Sombat Boon-ngam-anong. Prateep filed a complaint with the police, claiming that they had committed an "unlawful" act, citing her human rights under the abrogated 1997 constitution.

The junta also claimed to the public that general democratic elections would only occur if the draft were approved. Defense Minister Boonrawd Somtas told reporters that an election "can take place only if the new constitution passes the referendum," implying that a "No" would result in indefinite military rule.

Taxi-drivers were banned from putting anti-draft bumper stickers on their vehicles.

Repeat,

They actually went so far as to ban bumper stickers

Edited March 21, 2014 by HonestQuietBob

[rixalex]

The constitution was accepted as the Army said it would not give up power if it was not - Hobson's Choice

Blatant lie. The post coup interim government said that if the constitution was voted against in the referendum, then another one would be written. They never said that power would not be relinquished. You have simply made that up.

And it's funny how the same people who pour scorn on the referendum for that constitution and argue that the people didn't have a proper say, are the same people who support the constitution that came before it, a constitution for which there was no referendum whatsoever.

What to you think, you can rewrite history and nobody will check? Restrictions against campaigning to reject the draft The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.

The restrictions against opposition to the draft were criticized by human rights bodies. "Even if amended to allow for 'factual' campaigning on the referendum, it is clear that the main purpose of the law is to intimidate and silence persons who dont share the official view," the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said. "Meanwhile the administration is pumping vast amounts of money into Yes propaganda that is set to increase quickly."

The ban against campaigning against the constitution was enforced. In July, 20 soldiers and 10 policemen raided the house of a politician and seized anti-charter t-shirts, banners, documents, and recorded speeches. Police also raided the Duang Prateep Foundation of former Senator Prateep Ungsongtham Hata and confiscated 4,000 posters which carried the message "Its not illegal to vote against the draft constitution." No charges were filed. The police claimed they were acting on orders from the military. "They could not cite any law to back up their actions," said Sombat Boon-ngam-anong. Prateep filed a complaint with the police, claiming that they had committed an "unlawful" act, citing her human rights under the abrogated 1997 constitution.

The junta also claimed to the public that general democratic elections would only occur if the draft were approved. Defense Minister Boonrawd Somtas told reporters that an election "can take place only if the new constitution passes the referendum," implying that a "No" would result in indefinite military rule.

Taxi-drivers were banned from putting anti-draft bumper stickers on their vehicles.

Repeat,

They actually went so far as to ban bumper stickers

Please explain how any of that contradicts what i said.

[HonestQuietBob]

The constitution was accepted as the Army said it would not give up power if it was not - Hobson's Choice

Blatant lie. The post coup interim government said that if the constitution was voted against in the referendum, then another one would be written. They never said that power would not be relinquished. You have simply made that up.

And it's funny how the same people who pour scorn on the referendum for that constitution and argue that the people didn't have a proper say, are the same people who support the constitution that came before it, a constitution for which there was no referendum whatsoever.

What to you think, you can rewrite history and nobody will check? Restrictions against campaigning to reject the draft The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.

The restrictions against opposition to the draft were criticized by human rights bodies. "Even if amended to allow for 'factual' campaigning on the referendum, it is clear that the main purpose of the law is to intimidate and silence persons who dont share the official view," the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said. "Meanwhile the administration is pumping vast amounts of money into Yes propaganda that is set to increase quickly."

The ban against campaigning against the constitution was enforced. In July, 20 soldiers and 10 policemen raided the house of a politician and seized anti-charter t-shirts, banners, documents, and recorded speeches. Police also raided the Duang Prateep Foundation of former Senator Prateep Ungsongtham Hata and confiscated 4,000 posters which carried the message "Its not illegal to vote against the draft constitution." No charges were filed. The police claimed they were acting on orders from the military. "They could not cite any law to back up their actions," said Sombat Boon-ngam-anong. Prateep filed a complaint with the police, claiming that they had committed an "unlawful" act, citing her human rights under the abrogated 1997 constitution.

The junta also claimed to the public that general democratic elections would only occur if the draft were approved. Defense Minister Boonrawd Somtas told reporters that an election "can take place only if the new constitution passes the referendum," implying that a "No" would result in indefinite military rule.

Taxi-drivers were banned from putting anti-draft bumper stickers on their vehicles.

Repeat,

They actually went so far as to ban bumper stickers

Please explain how any of that contradicts what i said.

How does it not?

You said,

"Blatant lie. The post coup interim government said that if the constitution was voted against in the referendum, then another one would be written. They never said that power would not be relinquished. You have simply made that up".

I said,

The junta also claimed to the public that general democratic elections would only occur if the draft were approved. Defense Minister Boonrawd Somtas told reporters that an election "can take place only if the new constitution passes the referendum," implying that a "No" would result in indefinite military rule.

Pretty clear I would have thought.

[fab4]

The constitution was accepted as the Army said it would not give up power if it was not - Hobson's Choice

Blatant lie. The post coup interim government said that if the constitution was voted against in the referendum, then another one would be written. They never said that power would not be relinquished. You have simply made that up.

And it's funny how the same people who pour scorn on the referendum for that constitution and argue that the people didn't have a proper say, are the same people who support the constitution that came before it, a constitution for which there was no referendum whatsoever.

What to you think, you can rewrite history and nobody will check?

Restrictions against campaigning to reject the draft The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.

The restrictions against opposition to the draft were criticized by human rights bodies. "Even if amended to allow for 'factual' campaigning on the referendum, it is clear that the main purpose of the law is to intimidate and silence persons who don’t share the official view," the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said. "Meanwhile the administration is pumping vast amounts of money into Yes propaganda that is set to increase quickly."

The ban against campaigning against the constitution was enforced. In July, 20 soldiers and 10 policemen raided the house of a politician and seized anti-charter t-shirts, banners, documents, and recorded speeches. Police also raided the Duang Prateep Foundation of former Senator Prateep Ungsongtham Hata and confiscated 4,000 posters which carried the message "It’s not illegal to vote against the draft constitution." No charges were filed. The police claimed they were acting on orders from the military. "They could not cite any law to back up their actions," said Sombat Boon-ngam-anong. Prateep filed a complaint with the police, claiming that they had committed an "unlawful" act, citing her human rights under the abrogated 1997 constitution.

The junta also claimed to the public that general democratic elections would only occur if the draft were approved. Defense Minister Boonrawd Somtas told reporters that an election "can take place only if the new constitution passes the referendum," implying that a "No" would result in indefinite military rule.

Taxi-drivers were banned from putting anti-draft bumper stickers on their vehicles.

Repeat,

They actually went so far as to ban bumper stickers

Indeed. Anti's cite the referendum for the Junta referendum as some sort of shining beacon in democratic practices. The CC even used it as an example for insisting that the PTP hold a referendum before wholesale amendments to the constitution were carried out, neatly ignoring the fact that the coup had trampled all over the 1997 constitution and only held a flawed referendum after the Junta appointed CDA had rewritten the constitution. Thats CC logic for you.

The 2007 constitution “came from a referendum,” Judge Nurak Mapraneet said in the ruling. “So the public should hold another referendum to decide whether they want a new draft. If the parliament wants to amend it, it can do by each article.”

The referendum requirement appears nowhere in Article 291 of the current charter, which grants parliament the right to change the constitution. Yingluck’s party had proposed changing that article to allow for a complete constitution rewrite that would need to be approved in a referendum after it was drafted.

The court’s insistence that a nationwide vote is required before rewriting the charter amounts to a threat against the government and parliament because the judiciary is asserting powers that aren’t granted in the constitution, according to Kanin Boonsuwan, a law lecturer at Chulalongkorn University who submitted testimony in favor of the amendment.

“If the government and parliament yield to this threat, it means this country is not democratic,” Kanin said. “Next time there is no need to have an election. Just let the court be the ruling party.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-15/thai-court-ruling-risks-constitution-showdown-southeast-asia

Prophetic words.

[rixalex]

Pretty clear I would have thought.

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. You are simply making it up.

Of course elections would not have been able to go ahead as scheduled had the constitution been rejected. A new version would have had to have been written. That would have taken some time. There was however never any suggestion, apart from the suggestions made by people like you, that there would not have been an election, or that the military would have ruled indefinitely.

P.S. Please note that when you cut and paste text from other sources, you must state what the source is. Please do so.

Edited March 21, 2014 by rixalex

[rubl]

Indeed. Anti's cite the referendum for the Junta referendum as some sort of shining beacon in democratic practices. The CC even used it as an example for insisting that the PTP hold a referendum before wholesale amendments to the constitution were carried out, neatly ignoring the fact that the coup had trampled all over the 1997 constitution and only held a flawed referendum after the Junta appointed CDA had rewritten the constitution. Thats CC logic for you.

The 2007 constitution “came from a referendum,” Judge Nurak Mapraneet said in the ruling. “So the public should hold another referendum to decide whether they want a new draft. If the parliament wants to amend it, it can do by each article.”

The referendum requirement appears nowhere in Article 291 of the current charter, which grants parliament the right to change the constitution. Yingluck’s party had proposed changing that article to allow for a complete constitution rewrite that would need to be approved in a referendum after it was drafted.

The court’s insistence that a nationwide vote is required before rewriting the charter amounts to a threat against the government and parliament because the judiciary is asserting powers that aren’t granted in the constitution, according to Kanin Boonsuwan, a law lecturer at Chulalongkorn University who submitted testimony in favor of the amendment.

“If the government and parliament yield to this threat, it means this country is not democratic,” Kanin said. “Next time there is no need to have an election. Just let the court be the ruling party.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-15/thai-court-ruling-risks-constitution-showdown-southeast-asia

Prophetic words.

Still at it I see.

For every academic who is against there is an academic who is for. That's a discussion we should try to avoid here. Also the 'rewritten' constitution was mostly copied with clarifications. The only real black blob was the amnesty for the coup leaders. The Gen. Sonthi even joined the Pheu Thai led government and voted for his own amnesty again when the Yingluck government tried to push through their blanket amnesty bill. I guess he just wanted to be double sure.

BTW did you already follow the link I provided, the one with a reasonable discussion on pro/contra the changes between 1997 and 2007 version of the constitution?

[fab4]

Indeed. Anti's cite the referendum for the Junta referendum as some sort of shining beacon in democratic practices. The CC even used it as an example for insisting that the PTP hold a referendum before wholesale amendments to the constitution were carried out, neatly ignoring the fact that the coup had trampled all over the 1997 constitution and only held a flawed referendum after the Junta appointed CDA had rewritten the constitution. Thats CC logic for you.

The 2007 constitution “came from a referendum,” Judge Nurak Mapraneet said in the ruling. “So the public should hold another referendum to decide whether they want a new draft. If the parliament wants to amend it, it can do by each article.”

The referendum requirement appears nowhere in Article 291 of the current charter, which grants parliament the right to change the constitution. Yingluck’s party had proposed changing that article to allow for a complete constitution rewrite that would need to be approved in a referendum after it was drafted.

The court’s insistence that a nationwide vote is required before rewriting the charter amounts to a threat against the government and parliament because the judiciary is asserting powers that aren’t granted in the constitution, according to Kanin Boonsuwan, a law lecturer at Chulalongkorn University who submitted testimony in favor of the amendment.

“If the government and parliament yield to this threat, it means this country is not democratic,” Kanin said. “Next time there is no need to have an election. Just let the court be the ruling party.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-15/thai-court-ruling-risks-constitution-showdown-southeast-asia

Prophetic words.

Still at it I see.

For every academic who is against there is an academic who is for. That's a discussion we should try to avoid here. Also the 'rewritten' constitution was mostly copied with clarifications. The only real black blob was the amnesty for the coup leaders. The Gen. Sonthi even joined the Pheu Thai led government and voted for his own amnesty again when the Yingluck government tried to push through their blanket amnesty bill. I guess he just wanted to be double sure.

BTW did you already follow the link I provided, the one with a reasonable discussion on pro/contra the changes between 1997 and 2007 version of the constitution?

No. I'm more concerned with the partiality of the CC decisions in recent times

Would you like to tell me why the CC's insistence that a referendum be held is constitutional in itself despite there being no requirement in the constitution for one i.e they made up their own version of the constitution?

Why the amendment to the election of senators was deemed unconstitutional?

Why it was deemed that the very act of amending the constitution wrt the election of senators was a breach of Article 68 i.e the government was overthrowing the democratic regime with the King as Head of State?

Why the CC, having deemed that the government had breached Article 68, basically committing treason, took no further action against the government for doing so?

Now to me, and other independant observers, those decisions , amongst others, show a CC with inconsistent logic at the very least, and one could question their independance - it's been done before when Thaksin was PM, the Junta constitution responded by giving them more power. This is the result. I was always told you had to earn respect.

[HonestQuietBob]

Pretty clear I would have thought.

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. You are simply making it up.

Of course elections would not have been able to go ahead as scheduled had the constitution been rejected. A new version would have had to have been written. That would have taken some time. There was however never any suggestion, apart from the suggestions made by people like you, that there would not have been an election, or that the military would have ruled indefinitely.

P.S. Please note that when you cut and paste text from other sources, you must state what the source is. Please do so.

If you don't wish to accept facts and remain in ignorance that your choice.

I don't know how to post links, but it wouldn't hurt you to do a little research yourself before spouting off.

Type in "THAILAND 2007 CONSTITUTION" to google and read a random variety of the articles and reports that get returned as results.

Weigh up the cases presented by each side of the issue and make an informed decision as to what you believe to be the truth.

Only after you've actually educated yourself and got something better than a superficial understanding of an issue should you wade into a debate, lest you end up looking foolish.

This is after all the information age. We all have access to unlimited research resources via the internet.

BS doesn't cut it anymore - trying lying or cheating and you're going to get caught.

BTW - I usually cut and paste from wiki as it is usually written in an easy to understand manner. But I always verify anything from wiki with multiple sources lest it is I that ends up looking the fool.

[rixalex]

Now to me, and other independant observers,

I was going to question whether you even knew how to spell the word "independent"... but then i noticed you actually don't.

[HonestQuietBob]

Now to me, and other independant observers,

I was going to question whether you even knew how to spell the word "independent"... but then i noticed you actually don't.

And your "i" should be capitalised but who really cares.

Comprehension is far more important than spelling, particularly when many posters aren't native English speakers.

As for the emoticon, I guess it's true about small things and small minds.

[rixalex]

If you don't wish to accept facts and remain in ignorance that your choice.

I don't know how to post links, but it wouldn't hurt you to do a little research yourself before spouting off.

Type in "THAILAND 2007 CONSTITUTION" to google and read a random variety of the articles and reports that get returned as results.

Weigh up the cases presented by each side of the issue and make an informed decision as to what you believe to be the truth.

Only after you've actually educated yourself and got something better than a superficial understanding of an issue should you wade into a debate, lest you end up looking foolish.

This is after all the information age. We all have access to unlimited research resources via the internet.

BS doesn't cut it anymore - trying lying or cheating and you're going to get caught.

BTW - I usually cut and paste from wiki as it is usually written in an easy to understand manner. But I always verify anything from wiki with multiple sources lest it is I that ends up looking the fool.

Some of us don't need to get our information from wikipedia. Some of us were actually living here when all these events took place, and remember them all very well.

The military at no stage ever said that they would hold on to power indefinitely, in the event of the constitution being rejected. Now wherever you are getting that information from, be it some red biased blog, be it from one of the red trolls on here, or be it from red-shirted in-laws, it is a lie. Stop parroting it.

P.S. If you don't know how to post links, simple, stop quoting unattributed text.

[rixalex]

Now to me, and other independant observers,

I was going to question whether you even knew how to spell the word "independent"... but then i noticed you actually don't.

And your "i" should be capitalised but who really cares.

Comprehension is far more important than spelling, particularly when many posters aren't native English speakers.

As for the emoticon, I guess it's true about small things and small minds.

The point clearly went over your head... not that it was actually even directed at you. But anyway, since you leapt in gallantly to defend, the point actually had nothing to do with spelling, but to do with ridiculous and blatantly untrue self-proclamations.

[fab4]

Now to me, and other independant observers,

I was going to question whether you even knew how to spell the word "independent"... but then i noticed you actually don't.

And your "i" should be capitalised but who really cares.

Comprehension is far more important than spelling, particularly when many posters aren't native English speakers.

As for the emoticon, I guess it's true about small things and small minds.

The point clearly went over your head... not that it was actually even directed at you. But anyway, since you leapt in gallantly to defend, the point actually had nothing to do with spelling, but to do with ridiculous and blatantly untrue self-proclamations.

I'm independant from the CC and I'm an observer - if that's blatantly untrue I really couldn't care a jot.

So if you've recovered from that hilarious episode, would you care to comment on the post, perhaps even explain the decisions I've highlighted?

I'll even amend it for you. The Forum rules allow me, not you, to alter my post. Try and remember that in future.

"To independant observers, those decisions , amongst others, show a CC with inconsistent logic at the very least, and one could question their independance - it's been done before when Thaksin was PM, the Junta constitution responded by giving them more power. This is the result. I was always told you had to earn respect."

[Old Man River]

replying to Ruble:

There's nothing obscure about "popular rule". It connotes rule by a majority, as elected through some form of representative democracy. Certainly there are some problems with such systems, as you mention, but that doesn't mean we should abandon the systems. Indeed the people would be very annoyed if these systems of one man one vote were abanodoned.

However, some Thais and falangs on this forum do want to abandon representative democracy. In its place, they want a "people's council" that will then work out what kind of "democracy" they shall grant to the people. But that would almost certainly be a less democrcratic system. They and other right-wingers have had such plans for a long time. Sondhi and his fellow yellow shirts wanted to do something of the sort in the period following Thaksin's overthrow: they even suggested that the lower house should be partly appointed! (Remember that the upper house is already part appointed - it was changed that way by the Generals in 2007). Clearly they want to partially disenfranchise the people from Isan because they are considered to be disloyal, stupid, uneducated, not proper Thais (Lao/Cambodian), dark skinned. This is in contrast to the white-skinned Thai-Chinese who now run Thailand. However, at some point these racist "high-class" Thai-Chinese are going to have to reconcile themselves to the fact that the Isan people are every bit their equal - indeed, I would argue, are their superiors in some respects.

Probably, as you say, the Yingluck government has made mistakes, and the rice scheme could be one of them (but I still have not seen any statistics on this). If so, the electorate should have the chance to elect a different government at an election. And they would indeed have had this chance were it not for the illegal activities of the insurrectionist Suthep and his fellow outlaws.

By the way, you seem to assume that the convictions against Thaksin were 'safe' legally speaking. Sorry, but I wouldn't accept that. A safe conviction depends on a reliable legal system based on neutral judges. Does Thailand have neutral judges? Hmm... or are they part of the ammart system that has kept this country amongst the most unequal in Asia for generations? [sorry I cannot say for reasons as below].

Compare with Malaysia, where a political leader has been unjustly convicted for sodomy on probably trumped-up evidence. Is the Thai system any better? [sorry, I am unable to spell this out further for reasons we all might know].

So funny. A lecture on representative democracy from someone contemptuous of courts and the rule of law.

I love the bit where he calls the white-skinned "high class" Chinese racist and then say's that the Isaan people are probably superior to them!!!

I myself, regard everyone else on this earth as my equal - I am no better than they and they are no better than I.

What he also fails to appreciate is that the people's council is only a temporary and neutral (as can be) body that will disperse once it has done it's job by calling for free and fair elections whilst stepping down. I also believe that no one in this council can then stand in these fresh elections.

If done correctly, the reforms will almost certainly return a Democrat government because that is where the most able, honest, responsible and qualified politicians lie. Abhisit actually had better policies for the Northern/North Eastern people than Yingluck when he was in power and Korn skilfully managed the economy (turning growth around by an admirable 10% in one year) - in fact he won a highly prestigious award for this in hes tenure.

The Democrats have had the wake up call and should realise that they will never be forgotten again and this 'elite thing' is a thing of history never to be repeated!!!

Elect the Democrats and Thailand will go far!!!

The PDRC is abandoning all pretense that the People's Council will be neutral. And I highly doubt that it is intended as a temporary measure. The army only handed back power after the coup because they were arrogant enough to believe the reds would lose the next election. The yellows will not repeat the same mistake.

When Hitler was granted power to pass legislation without parliamentary approval (he couldn't get a majority of the vote), it was officially only a temporary measure too.

The Democrats will never win a free and fair election anytime soon. How many people in the North and Northeast are going to vote for a party that gets into bed with a movement that denigrated them as "too stupid to vote"?

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The people's council will probably not be neutral in respect of the fact that a very high majority of the sensible, clever, articulate and honest people needed to carry out the reforms will come from the educated side with yellow leanings. This is how it has to be I'm afraid. They should include some that can represent those from poorer backgrounds however, to act as a counter balance. They MUST be listened to - don't forget it is in everyone's interest to appreciate their gripes and help them out of their plight and putting this aspect at the top of their agenda is both important and essential for it to work!!

Even the PTP party have expressed the need for reforms. They are not able or capable of taking on something as complex as this unfortunately and it must be left for others to undertaket.

Please don't accuse me of bringing 'the education question' into the fray as I am simply stating it as it is!!

Give them you're trust and let them have a go - I don't think that you'd be disappointed with the outcome and Thailand will be on track to repair the damage inflicted on the people by this government.

The PDRC are not like Hitler and they have values as well as being sincere in their objectives to sort this mess out

Once the courts have rendered their opinions in the various cases, my view is the next government will be a coalition comprising the democrats that are not in alliance with Aphisit and the PTP not in alliance with Thaksin or Yingluck. You would be surprised, but there are several who qualify. These will all be MP's that have previously been elected by their constituents.

A people's elected, democratic government, without a military coup. Not impossible in the least.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

If the Shins are gone then that's all I care about!!

If the reforms go through as planned then I wouldn't mind a PTP government with fresh faces. Although to be honest it is far likely to be headed by the Democrats as they are simply smarter people and know how to govern!!

There was a comment made by a representative of one of the Dem's that something like this could happen. Of course, still no disclosure on who could lead it, but something's are being discussed.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[HonestQuietBob]

If you don't wish to accept facts and remain in ignorance that your choice.

I don't know how to post links, but it wouldn't hurt you to do a little research yourself before spouting off.

Type in "THAILAND 2007 CONSTITUTION" to google and read a random variety of the articles and reports that get returned as results.

Weigh up the cases presented by each side of the issue and make an informed decision as to what you believe to be the truth.

Only after you've actually educated yourself and got something better than a superficial understanding of an issue should you wade into a debate, lest you end up looking foolish.

This is after all the information age. We all have access to unlimited research resources via the internet.

BS doesn't cut it anymore - trying lying or cheating and you're going to get caught.

BTW - I usually cut and paste from wiki as it is usually written in an easy to understand manner. But I always verify anything from wiki with multiple sources lest it is I that ends up looking the fool.

Some of us don't need to get our information from wikipedia. Some of us were actually living here when all these events took place, and remember them all very well.

The military at no stage ever said that they would hold on to power indefinitely, in the event of the constitution being rejected. Now wherever you are getting that information from, be it some red biased blog, be it from one of the red trolls on here, or be it from red-shirted in-laws, it is a lie. Stop parroting it.

P.S. If you don't know how to post links, simple, stop quoting unattributed text.

If you read and comprehended the post, you would see that I recommend using a variety of sources to help you educate yourself and form your opinions. Wiki is handy, but sometimes not entirely correct so you should verify before regurgitating their content.

It sounds as though you are steadfast in your belief that your versions of events are the truth and refuse to do any sort of investigating or research into any other possibilities. This attitude removes any chance that you may actually find further evidence to support your cause or more likely the possibility that you may stumble upon some facts that contradict your beliefs and thus have an opportunity to correct yourself before striding onto the stage.

P.S. Don't be lazy, do some research

[rixalex]

I'm independant from the CC and I'm an observer - if that's blatantly untrue I really couldn't care a jot.

So if you've recovered from that hilarious episode, would you care to comment on the post, perhaps even explain the decisions I've highlighted?

I'll even amend it for you. The Forum rules allow me, not you, to alter my post. Try and remember that in future.

"To independant observers, those decisions , amongst others, show a CC with inconsistent logic at the very least, and one could question their independance - it's been done before when Thaksin was PM, the Junta constitution responded by giving them more power. This is the result. I was always told you had to earn respect."

Firstly, i didn't alter you post, i quoted the part of your post to which i was responding. This behaviour, far from being against the rules, is encouraged, because it saves members having to wade through long sections of repeated post. The only exception is if the editing of someone's post is done in such a way as to misrepresent what they have said. I didn't misrepresent what you said. You claimed to be an independent observer, i quoted your claim, and responded to your claim.

Secondly, when you post a contribution that includes a number of different points, it is not up to you to dictate what part of your post other people respond to. If you didn't want a response to your "independent observer claim", you shouldn't have posted it, and if i had wanted to comment on anything else you had said, i already would have done so.

[rixalex]

If you read and comprehended the post, you would see that I recommend using a variety of sources to help you educate yourself and form your opinions. Wiki is handy, but sometimes not entirely correct so you should verify before regurgitating their content.

It sounds as though you are steadfast in your belief that your versions of events are the truth and refuse to do any sort of investigating or research into any other possibilities. This attitude removes any chance that you may actually find further evidence to support your cause or more likely the possibility that you may stumble upon some facts that contradict your beliefs and thus have an opportunity to correct yourself before striding onto the stage.

P.S. Don't be lazy, do some research

On the matter of your parroted claim of the military having said that they would hold on to power indefinitely should the constitution be rejected by the people, i don't have to do any research because i was here and i know that they never said that. It's not up to me to prove that they didn't say something. You are the one making the claim. You prove that that is what they said. You can't.

[Bkkbound]

This will feed nicely into the military's view that Pheu Thai are a threat to the Nation, Religion and King. Not something the reds should seriously provoke.

[djjamie]

Pretty clear I would have thought.

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. You are simply making it up.

Of course elections would not have been able to go ahead as scheduled had the constitution been rejected. A new version would have had to have been written. That would have taken some time. There was however never any suggestion, apart from the suggestions made by people like you, that there would not have been an election, or that the military would have ruled indefinitely.

P.S. Please note that when you cut and paste text from other sources, you must state what the source is. Please do so.

If you don't wish to accept facts and remain in ignorance that your choice.

I don't know how to post links, but it wouldn't hurt you to do a little research yourself before spouting off.

Type in "THAILAND 2007 CONSTITUTION" to google and read a random variety of the articles and reports that get returned as results.

Weigh up the cases presented by each side of the issue and make an informed decision as to what you believe to be the truth.

Only after you've actually educated yourself and got something better than a superficial understanding of an issue should you wade into a debate, lest you end up looking foolish.

This is after all the information age. We all have access to unlimited research resources via the internet.

BS doesn't cut it anymore - trying lying or cheating and you're going to get caught.

BTW - I usually cut and paste from wiki as it is usually written in an easy to understand manner. But I always verify anything from wiki with multiple sources lest it is I that ends up looking the fool.

I don't know how to post links,

BTW - I usually cut and paste from wiki

That's PTP logic right there!

[HonestQuietBob]

Pretty clear I would have thought.

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. You are simply making it up.

Of course elections would not have been able to go ahead as scheduled had the constitution been rejected. A new version would have had to have been written. That would have taken some time. There was however never any suggestion, apart from the suggestions made by people like you, that there would not have been an election, or that the military would have ruled indefinitely.

P.S. Please note that when you cut and paste text from other sources, you must state what the source is. Please do so.

If you don't wish to accept facts and remain in ignorance that your choice.

I don't know how to post links, but it wouldn't hurt you to do a little research yourself before spouting off.

Type in "THAILAND 2007 CONSTITUTION" to google and read a random variety of the articles and reports that get returned as results.

Weigh up the cases presented by each side of the issue and make an informed decision as to what you believe to be the truth.

Only after you've actually educated yourself and got something better than a superficial understanding of an issue should you wade into a debate, lest you end up looking foolish.

This is after all the information age. We all have access to unlimited research resources via the internet.

BS doesn't cut it anymore - trying lying or cheating and you're going to get caught.

BTW - I usually cut and paste from wiki as it is usually written in an easy to understand manner. But I always verify anything from wiki with multiple sources lest it is I that ends up looking the fool.

I don't know how to post links,

BTW - I usually cut and paste from wiki

That's PTP logic right there!

Let me guess, there's 15 principles of logic a PTP only know 1 of them.

[Langsuan Man]

Why the surprise. We all dealt with this crap when we were children, the kid who brought the ball felt that they could dictate the rules

[rubl]

Still at it I see.

For every academic who is against there is an academic who is for. That's a discussion we should try to avoid here. Also the 'rewritten' constitution was mostly copied with clarifications. The only real black blob was the amnesty for the coup leaders. The Gen. Sonthi even joined the Pheu Thai led government and voted for his own amnesty again when the Yingluck government tried to push through their blanket amnesty bill. I guess he just wanted to be double sure.

BTW did you already follow the link I provided, the one with a reasonable discussion on pro/contra the changes between 1997 and 2007 version of the constitution?

No. I'm more concerned with the partiality of the CC decisions in recent times

Would you like to tell me why the CC's insistence that a referendum be held is constitutional in itself despite there being no requirement in the constitution for one i.e they made up their own version of the constitution?

Why the amendment to the election of senators was deemed unconstitutional?

Why it was deemed that the very act of amending the constitution wrt the election of senators was a breach of Article 68 i.e the government was overthrowing the democratic regime with the King as Head of State?

Why the CC, having deemed that the government had breached Article 68, basically committing treason, took no further action against the government for doing so?

Now to me, and other independant observers, those decisions , amongst others, show a CC with inconsistent logic at the very least, and one could question their independance - it's been done before when Thaksin was PM, the Junta constitution responded by giving them more power. This is the result. I was always told you had to earn respect.

"earn respect' as in do what I want and I'll respect you?

As for your questions, didn't you read the lenghty explanations the CC always gives when they come to a ruling?

[pmugghc]

I see the yellow brigade are out decrying PT for disputing the legality of the Ombudsman's actions. It must be good to have an intricate knowledge of Thai law so that you can say without a reasonable doubt that the Ombudsman had a right to forward a petition on the poll to the Constitutional Court and that there was a conflict between the Royal Decree on the House dissolution, which stated February 2 as the only election date, and the charter.

Reality is, you just come out to cheer anything that can be construed as negative towards PT and you actually haven't got any idea about the legality of the issues involved.

If some one is guilty of breaking the law, and they are found guilty

what does it matter who reported them

The Law is the rules of the land

Do the Crime and do the time

PTP feel the Grand Master (Thaskin) has given them a mandate and right to rue Thailand

a democratic dictatorship

and there are many on this web site who agree

If at first you don't succeed, turn to threats and violence

there we be a lot of paper shredding n Govt departments soon

The PTP wants all these CC cases filtered by the Attorney General, i.e. their own guy. If I remember right this was part if their "reform" package together with the amnesty. Guess how many cases the CC would get that was against the PTP?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app