Doubts voiced over Abhisit proposals

[Lite Beer]

Doubts voiced
The Sunday Nation

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva announces his proposals to help resolve the political stalemate during a press conference at Sukosol Hotel yesterday.

BANGKOK: -- Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva's proposal yesterday was met with doubt as politicians and academics said some of his suggestions were unconstitutional.

Chart Thai Pattana Party key member Somsak Prisananantakul said it would be difficult to implement the proposals and that Abhisit should keep his feet on the ground as some of his suggestions went beyond what is allowed in the Constitution.

"When you want us politicians to step back, we agree to do so, but don't forget that the Constitution is non-negotiable. For instance, a PM must come from an election and has to be approved by the House. Today, when proposing something outside of the rules, how can Abhisit be sure that it will not be a waste or create problems, especially when people petition to the Constitutional Court?" Somsak said.

Anti-government People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) spokesman Akanat Promphan said some of Abhisit's proposals matched PDRC's push for national reforms before elections. However, this was the first time politicians had talked about finding resolutions and the PDRC had shown no sign of stopping its rallies.

PDRC co-leader Phra Buddha Issara said Abhisit had offered nothing new in his proposal and that the only way out would be returning the power to His Majesty.

Appointed Senator Kamnoon Sidhisa-marn said Abhisit's proposal might offer a solution, but he did not think the government would accept it, especially in relation to a non-elected PM. The charter does allow for such a PM, but in case of a deadlock, the Senate Speaker can consider some options.

Meanwhile, Noppadon Pattama, legal adviser of ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra, said yesterday that the Pheu Thai Party did not reject Abhisit's proposals, but that the party's strategic committee would need to look at them at its meeting on Tuesday.

However, caretaker Education Minister Chaturon Chaisang, caretaker Deputy PM Surapong Tovichakchaikul and ex-deputy House Speaker Samart Kaewmeechai attacked Abhisit's request for PM Yingluck Shinawatra to quit, saying it was unconstitutional and against the democratic principle.

Legal expert Verapat Pariyawong said Abhisit's proposal would go against the principle of the Constitution, which aimed for a stable government. Meanwhile, proposing that the government quit and the Senate Speaker pick a replacement, as well as have a referendum on the proposal conducted by agencies with no proper status violated the charter.

Proposing that the Election Commission or a court set a condition to dissolve political parties that fail to support national reform might also affect the administrative and legislative branches and go against the principles of the Constitution.

-- The Nation 2014-05-04

[Robby nz]

The greatest sticking point is that Thaksin will never relinquish power by allowing his caretaker cabinet and caretaker PM to step aside.

The good of the country and the people mean nothing to that man.

There will never be any meaningful reforms, particularly to electoral law, if it is left up to politicians, they have to many vested interests.

[michaelscottfan]

If not even The Nation can spin public reaction to this disaster then Mark is probably in more trouble than we originally thought. Bangpost Post and them have been playing up this brilliant "Compromise" for over a week now as a serious attempt to find common ground with PT and now that it turns out to be nothing they have egg on their face.

[See the bears]

The greatest sticking point is that Thaksin will never relinquish power by allowing his caretaker cabinet and caretaker PM to step aside.

The good of the country and the people mean nothing to that man.

There will never be any meaningful reforms, particularly to electoral law, if it is left up to politicians, they have to many vested interests.

So you agree that Suthep, a career politician with vested interests, should have nothing to do with it.

[MaxLee]

Very simple definition for the stupids: "We don't give a damn what you say, we do it our way, we do it Pheu Thai way, we're gonna win anyway and we will kill anyone who disagrees with us."

[Robby nz]

The greatest sticking point is that Thaksin will never relinquish power by allowing his caretaker cabinet and caretaker PM to step aside.

The good of the country and the people mean nothing to that man.

There will never be any meaningful reforms, particularly to electoral law, if it is left up to politicians, they have to many vested interests.

So you agree that Suthep, a career politician with vested interests, should have nothing to do with it.

Another rabid red reincarnation who has to get Sutheps name in as soon as possible.

ALL politicians, particularly those who kiss the ass of a convicted criminal on the run.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Robby nz

[Tatsujin]

As I've said many many times before . . . ban ALL the current MP's, Parties, their friends and families for life and start all over again. Start with a completely clean (relatively) slate.

[smutcakes]

As I've said many many times before . . . ban ALL the current MP's, Parties, their friends and families for life and start all over again. Start with a completely clean (relatively) slate.

Completely agree, but it could not and would not be done, regardless of whatever reforms were done. There is simply no desire to do it from those that have the power to do it.(mainly because they are all up to their necks in it as well)

[northernjohn]

It is a sad day when politicians seek out fictitious reasons why reforming the government for the good of the whole country is there primary goal.

[smutcakes]

It is a sad day when politicians seek out fictitious reasons why reforming the government for the good of the whole country is there primary goal.

You have lost me there. What an odd sentence.

[jpeg]

The greatest sticking point is that Thaksin will never relinquish power by allowing his caretaker cabinet and caretaker PM to step aside.

The good of the country and the people mean nothing to that man.

There will never be any meaningful reforms, particularly to electoral law, if it is left up to politicians, they have to many vested interests.

The greatest sticking point is that the opposition party had years to reform and did bugger all and NOW we have Abhisit calling for an self installed 'management team', despite the fine words.

All these years and still the Thais have learned not a jot about how democracy functions and are too dumb/self interested to ever will.

[geriatrickid]

The greatest sticking point is that Thaksin will never relinquish power by allowing his caretaker cabinet and caretaker PM to step aside.

The good of the country and the people mean nothing to that man.

There will never be any meaningful reforms, particularly to electoral law, if it is left up to politicians, they have to many vested interests.

Electoral law is set out in the constitution isn't it?

One cannot have electoral law changes without amending the Constitution, right?

The Democrats brought a complaint against the Senators who were discussing proposed changes to the Constitution, didn't they?

Please explain how you believe the electoral l laws can be changed without it causing more legal disputes and strife.

[smutcakes]

The greatest sticking point is that Thaksin will never relinquish power by allowing his caretaker cabinet and caretaker PM to step aside.

The good of the country and the people mean nothing to that man.

There will never be any meaningful reforms, particularly to electoral law, if it is left up to politicians, they have to many vested interests.

Electoral law is set out in the constitution isn't it?

One cannot have electoral law changes without amending the Constitution, right?

The Democrats brought a complaint against the Senators who were discussing proposed changes to the Constitution, didn't they?

Please explain how you believe the electoral l laws can be changed without it causing more legal disputes and strife.

Its okay, they can ignore the constitution this time. Its a take it or leave it law which can be the most sacred law in the land or ignored if it will be of benefit to them.

[jpeg]

As I've said many many times before . . . ban ALL the current MP's, Parties, their friends and families for life and start all over again. Start with a completely clean (relatively) slate.

Orrrr, simply hand it all over to those who run Disneyland (after all they're more or less there anyway) and then the Thais can enjoy what they like best. Losta money and fun

[geriatrickid]

As I've said many many times before . . . ban ALL the current MP's, Parties, their friends and families for life and start all over again. Start with a completely clean (relatively) slate.

That would be unconstitutional and an abrogation of basic civil rights. Who is to decide who is a "friend". You wish to ban families. Why should people who have no connection to the current crisis be denied their fundamental right as a Thai citizen to run for office? Your proposed cure is as bad if not worse than the illness.

[Tatsujin]

As I've said many many times before . . . ban ALL the current MP's, Parties, their friends and families for life and start all over again. Start with a completely clean (relatively) slate.

That would be unconstitutional and an abrogation of basic civil rights. Who is to decide who is a "friend". You wish to ban families. Why should people who have no connection to the current crisis be denied their fundamental right as a Thai citizen to run for office? Your proposed cure is as bad if not worse than the illness.

Chill GK ... it wasn't that serious a suggestion lol

[geriatrickid]

Very simple definition for the stupids: "We don't give a damn what you say, we do it our way, we do it Pheu Thai way, we're gonna win anyway and we will kill anyone who disagrees with us."

You are off on a tangent. As is stated in the article, several of the changes Abhisit is proposing are unconstitutional. In plain language, that means illegal. In order to make them legal, there would have to be an amended Constitution. In case you missed it, Suthep and a large segment of the Democrat party are opposed to any changes in the Constitution. This isn't about the PTP. Rather, it is about Abhisit making proposals which haven't got the slightest chance of being allowed under the current Constitution.

Edited May 4, 2014 by geriatrickid

[Thai at Heart]

Very simple definition for the stupids: "We don't give a damn what you say, we do it our way, we do it Pheu Thai way, we're gonna win anyway and we will kill anyone who disagrees with us."

You are off on a tangent. As is stated in the article, several of the changes Abhisit is proposing are unconstitutional. In plain language, that means illegal. In order to make them legal, there would have to be an amended Constitution. In case you missed it, Suthep and a large segment of the Democrat party are opposed to any changes in the Constitution. This isn't about the PTP. Rather, it is about Abhisit making proposals which haven't got the slightest chance of being allowed under the current Constitution.

Lucky no one gets to.vote on his unconstitutional idea or they would get banned from politics.

Meanwhile the 300 MPs who.voted for reform can be banned...but do it outside the system and its OK.

Tit at its finest

[Tatsujin]

The greatest sticking point is that Thaksin will never relinquish power by allowing his caretaker cabinet and caretaker PM to step aside.

The good of the country and the people mean nothing to that man.

There will never be any meaningful reforms, particularly to electoral law, if it is left up to politicians, they have to many vested interests.

Electoral law is set out in the constitution isn't it?

One cannot have electoral law changes without amending the Constitution, right?

The Democrats brought a complaint against the Senators who were discussing proposed changes to the Constitution, didn't they?

Please explain how you believe the electoral l laws can be changed without it causing more legal disputes and strife.

Let me remind you of one instance of just how "lawfully" PT have been trying to change things:

Thailand’s Constitutional Court has ruled that proposed constitutional amendments to allow a fully elected Senate are unlawful, but stopped short of punishing the ruling Pheu Thai Party and its coalition partners. The nine-judge court struck down the government’s plans to change the Senate, Thailand’s upper House, into a fully elected 200-member chamber – compared to the current 76 elected and 74 appointed members - among other new regularities.

In the verdict reading, which started two hours later than scheduled, the judges voted 5:4 the amendments to be in breach of Article 68 of the Constitution, stating that a fully elected senate would indeed “overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State”. Furthermore, the judges took offense at planned changes that would allow direct relatives of MPs to run for Senate, saying that a “spouse-husband” rule of both chambers would “allow a domination of power”. Another major reason for the rejection were technical irregularities in the parliamentary process of the drafts, from wrongly submitted documents to different bodies, to MPs caught voting for their absent colleagues with their voter ID cards. That decision was voted 6:3.

[Robby nz]

The greatest sticking point is that Thaksin will never relinquish power by allowing his caretaker cabinet and caretaker PM to step aside.

The good of the country and the people mean nothing to that man.

There will never be any meaningful reforms, particularly to electoral law, if it is left up to politicians, they have to many vested interests.

Electoral law is set out in the constitution isn't it?

One cannot have electoral law changes without amending the Constitution, right?

The Democrats brought a complaint against the Senators who were discussing proposed changes to the Constitution, didn't they?

Please explain how you believe the electoral l laws can be changed without it causing more legal disputes and strife.

As you are an expert on electoral law them perhaps you should talk to the EC who are proposing changes to the way candidates are registered and other changes to electoral law in an attempt to get a result to the proposed July 20th election without changing the constitution.

What has the complaint against changes to section 190 of the constitution, which was for the benefit of the Govt of the time, got to do with proposed reforms ?

Please explain how things can be left as they are without it causing more legal disputes and strife

[rreddin]

If not even The Nation can spin public reaction to this disaster then Mark is probably in more trouble than we originally thought. Bangpost Post and them have been playing up this brilliant "Compromise" for over a week now as a serious attempt to find common ground with PT and now that it turns out to be nothing they have egg on their face.

This was a self-inflicted disaster. How simple it would have been to have announced that the Democratic Party would contest all seats at the forth-coming election on a platform of reform and then to set out his proposals for all to see well before the election. That would have marginalized the PRDC and allowed support to move back to the Dems. This blunder by Khun Abhisit and his advisers means he cannot now be seen as a serious politician nor are the Democrats a serious political party.

[binjalin]

another stupid move by Abhisit - especially including PDRC but NOT the government side in the list

he sets himself LOW standards then fails to achieve them

[WoopyDoo]

"When you want us politicians to step back, we agree to do so, but don't forget that the Constitution is non-negotiable. For instance, a PM must come from an election and has to be approved by the House. Today, when proposing something outside of the rules, how can Abhisit be sure that it will not be a waste or create problems, especially when people petition to the Constitutional Court?" Somsak said.

So what happens when YL and the cabinet are also slung out by constitutional court rulings if that is indeed the case?????

Political vacuum on a permanent basis?

The constitution is being shown recently as far from perfect and some of the articles are going to HAVE to be put to one side so the country can move forwards.... The constitution is all but nulled and is actually working against the country's interests because it will hold the nation in pause mode because of its lack of articles to deal with 'extraordinary' circumstances such as we have now.

[Thai at Heart]

"When you want us politicians to step back, we agree to do so, but don't forget that the Constitution is non-negotiable. For instance, a PM must come from an election and has to be approved by the House. Today, when proposing something outside of the rules, how can Abhisit be sure that it will not be a waste or create problems, especially when people petition to the Constitutional Court?" Somsak said.

So what happens when YL and the cabinet are also slung out by constitutional court rulings if that is indeed the case?????

Political vacuum on a permanent basis?

The constitution is being shown recently as far from perfect and some of the articles are going to HAVE to be put to one side so the country can move forwards.... The constitution is all but nulled and is actually working against the country's interests because it will hold the nation in pause mode because of its lack of articles to deal with 'extraordinary' circumstances such as we have now.

But how to restart it?

I know....

An election

[Scamper]

" When you want us politicians to step back, we agree to do so, but don't forget that the Constitution is non-negotiable. For instance, a PM must come from an election and has to be approved by the House. " ( Chart Thai Pattana Party ).

That is true, but when a parliamentary quorum is not achieved there is a pathway through the Constitution through Articles 3 and 7. Nothing in Abhisit's proposal is unconstitutional, yet many things that Suthep suggests are unconstitutional. Abhisit has forged a middle path. What are the goodies in store for Pheu Thai in it ? A lot -

1. Abhisit steps down. Pheu Thai have wanted that for ages.

2. The Democratic party contests the election. Pheu Thai also has wanted that, because it will enable a quorum for a Pheu Thai administration.

3. Abhisit concedes that the next election would yield results that Pheu Thai would be happy with. In other words, a Pheu Thai administration, which most everyone concedes as the greater possibility.

4. Abhisit proposes no ban on Shinawatra family members having prime ministerial ambitions. Has Pheu Thai any conception as to how difficult it would be for Democrats to swallow that ?

5. By resigning now before a possible removal from the Constitutional Court, Yingluck retains her future PM ambitions.

6. By stepping down now before a possible removal from the Constitutional Court, Yingluck's cabinet also avoids being removed from office, that would bar them from politics for five years.

​7. By acknowledging that an interim administration in the next six months would not be able to pass any laws, as there is no quorum. This is is in stark contrast to Suthep's wild proposal, because Abhisit's is within the constitutional framework. No laws can be passed without a parliament.

What are the concessions ? Basically one. By stepping down. But Pheu Thai presently have no parliamentary quorum. They actually can't do anything. This isn't much of a concession - from any practical legislative standpoint. And by stepping down before a court ruling would potentially save them not only that embarrassment, but retain a future in politics.

But the concession that will scuttle the proposal - from Thaksin's point of view, of course - is that the next six months of reform ideas would likely include making it illegal for someone like Thaksin to exert the kind of political influence he has. Sadly, this is the point that will keep the process stuck. But what Pheu Thai don't realize is that this proposal helps them far more than they realize. They're simply too consumed by hate to realize it.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Scamper

[geriatrickid]

The flaw in your argument is that it would leave Thailand without an elected government for at least 6 months. Considering the gap between the various factions, it is likely that the time period would go beyond a year. Either Thailand is a democracy governed by elected MPs or it is not. Your proposal, no matter how well intentioned, would have a large country without an elected government.

The administration during that period would not be allowed to enact or modify laws. In an given House session there are important changes made to laws. These changes include tax laws, fiscal matters and various changes to rules and regulations. All appointments overseen by the House would be delayed because there would be no House to propose and vote on those appointments. If Thailand wishes to continue as a Democracy, it must have an elected government without further delay. From a practical matter, the longer Thailand is without a functioning government that can deal with strategic issues, the more likely the negative impact will be on foreign investment. The financial community may not be thrilled with the PTP, but it is not thrilled with the absence of a finance minister or a minister responsible for tax policy either. There are major infrastructure projects that have to be dealt with now or else there will be significant additional costs and under the Constitution only an elected House is allowed to deal with that.

[Morch]

As I've said many many times before . . . ban ALL the current MP's, Parties, their friends and families for life and start all over again. Start with a completely clean (relatively) slate.

They'll just hire new friends....

[Melyn]

The greatest sticking point is that Thaksin will never relinquish power by allowing his caretaker cabinet and caretaker PM to step aside.

The good of the country and the people mean nothing to that man.

There will never be any meaningful reforms, particularly to electoral law, if it is left up to politicians, they have to many vested interests.

The greatest sticking point is that the opposition party had years to reform and did bugger all and NOW we have Abhisit calling for an self installed 'management team', despite the fine words.

All these years and still the Thais have learned not a jot about how democracy functions and are too dumb/self interested to ever will.

Most of the massive cheating and corruption lies with the incumbent administration.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[fab4]

Most of the massive cheating and corruption lies with the incumbent administration.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

As has been proved again and again.............well, actually it hasn't , has it?

There's been lots of allegations, but no actual proof. I'm sure it goes on but "massive"? What does that mean exactly, can you quantify it? Or is it just one of those well "everyone knows" tangibles that are sprinkled around on this forum like confetti yet never backed up with actual facts?

It's like the NACC accusing Yingluck of being negligent in her role as Chair of the National Rice Policy Committee for not stopping corruption even though the NACC have failed in identifying any corruption themselves. Accusations are cheap.

[rubl]

Most of the massive cheating and corruption lies with the incumbent administration.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

As has been proved again and again.............well, actually it hasn't , has it?

There's been lots of allegations, but no actual proof. I'm sure it goes on but "massive"? What does that mean exactly, can you quantify it? Or is it just one of those well "everyone knows" tangibles that are sprinkled around on this forum like confetti yet never backed up with actual facts?

It's like the NACC accusing Yingluck of being negligent in her role as Chair of the National Rice Policy Committee for not stopping corruption even though the NACC have failed in identifying any corruption themselves. Accusations are cheap.

What the NACC realised was that no one in Ms. Yinglucks government and certainly not Ms. Yingluck herself either was/is able to explain why the BAAC had to spent 880 billion Baht with the government still franctically trying to borrow close to 90 billion more (40 billion 'earned' or borrowed, so 130 no longer),

Anyway, the Abhisit proposals are of course incomplete, contentious, angering both sides. Nothing new, but at least a framework to start further discussions. Seems a bit better than just "have elections and see about reforms later", wouldn't you say?

PS to answer the last, no doubt you wouldn't.

Edited May 4, 2014 by rubl