Pheu Thai: Abhisit's political reform roadmap is unconstitutional

[webfact]

Pheu Thai: Abhisit's political reform roadmap is unconstitutional

BANGKOK, 5 May 2014 (NNT) – Academics in political science and laws have expressed their disagreement with the Democrat Party’s Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva’s proposed political reform roadmap, saying that it may be unconstitutional, while the ruling Pheu Thai Party simply views that it is not the correct exit strategy to the nation’s political crisis.

Pheu Thai Party Spokesperson Prompong Nopparit reiterated that one prerequisite for becoming a Prime Minister is that the individual must be a Member of Parliament, while stressing the constitution does not endorse the idea of an ‘intermediate Prime Minister’.

He then concluded Mr. Abhisit’s proposal, which is similar to the one offered by the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), is likely unlawful, claiming that its implementation would not move the nation forward while calling it a ‘silent coup d’etat’. Nonetheless Mr. Prompong said the matter will be discussed in Pheu Thai Party’s meeting tomorrow.

Meanwhile, Mr. Weerapat Pariyawong, a law expert, echoed Mr. Prompong’s opinion on the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal, pointing out that Mr. Abhisit might intentionally make such a proposal to draw out disagreement from the opposition in order to make ways for independent public agencies to intervene.

Another academic in political science, Bundit Chanrojanakij also viewed Mr. Abhisit’s proposal in the same way, saying it was not agreeable to any constitutional principles. He indicated that the chance of success for the proposal was nearly zero as it lacked support from the majority of the people.

Dean of the Faculty of Political Science of Sukhothai Thammathirat University, Yutthaporn Issarachai stated that the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal would lead the country right into a political vacuum while creating an even wider rift among Thais.


-- NNT 2014-05-05

[Costas2008]

Looking forward to the elections on the 20th of July............

[TVGerry]

Enough with the 'constitution'. Both sides use it or discard it when it conveniences or inconveniences them. No one expects the PTP to accept this outright but they really should come to a compromise. They're one foot into the grave and soon the courts are going to throw them out. Then the red militias will come and burn building downs again. Compromise is the only way out of this.

[winstonc]

lacked support from the majority of the people.....have they been asked yet...either an idiot remark.or a man in the know..i would hazard a guess at former rather than latter..

[jaidam]

Anybody know if hiding your assets in your gardener and maid's name is "constitutional"? Is running a country while a criminal fugitive on the run abroad "constitutional"? I think not, but it's likely that PTP don't realize this, after all they are dead against double standards.

[chainarong]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

lacked support from the majority of the people.....have they been asked yet...either an idiot remark.or a man in the know..i would hazard a guess at former rather than latter..

The crux of the matter and sticking point , is the provision of no politician or party member involvement in the reform process , the reform proposals going to a peoples referendum, (heaven forbid if the people can have a say), and the PRDC (who started all this and are entitled to some say ) appointing the academic's or eminent persons group to reform the constitution. PTP will never agree to this so the ball is now back in their and the UDD , red shirts court , the idea now is to tell the world that the PTP/ red shirts , do not want reforms, Abhisit's proposal is not un constitutional.

[heybruce]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

lacked support from the majority of the people.....have they been asked yet...either an idiot remark.or a man in the know..i would hazard a guess at former rather than latter..

The crux of the matter and sticking point , is the provision of no politician or party member involvement in the reform process , the reform proposals going to a peoples referendum, (heaven forbid if the people can have a say), and the PRDC (who started all this and are entitled to some say ) appointing the academic's or eminent persons group to reform the constitution. PTP will never agree to this so the ball is now back in their and the UDD , red shirts court , the idea now is to tell the world that the PTP/ red shirts , do not want reforms, Abhisit's proposal is not un constitutional.

What if the referendum is rejected by the people? Will the interim government step aside for elections under the current constitution, or insist on staying in power while they fiddle with the reform process some more?

Also, why are referendums preferable to elections? I know people talk a lot about corruption, but has anyone produced credible evidence that the results of the 2011 national elections were illegitimate? I know the February elections were questionable, that is because of candidate and voter intimidation by Suthep's supporters, and some later redshirt intimidation after Suthep's people had established the precedent and demonstrated its effectiveness.

[MaxLee]

"Pheu Thai: Abhisit's political reform roadmap is unconstitutional"

Have you expected anything else, from a party and it's leader in Dubai, who have seized control over the entire ELECTION-COLLECTION-COMMISSION???

[Scamper]

The contradictions in the Pheu Thai/UDD narrative have never been so blatant. Today, Prompong formally received for Pheu Thai's consideration a proposal from a UDD faction that calls on them to defy the Constitutional Court's ruling, remove all nine judges of the Constitutional Court, and replace them with new ones. That's the proposal that Pheu Thai has formally accepted for consideration. But if Pheu Thai even followed up on that request - out would go every constitutional argument they ever had - for nothing is more unconstitutional than defying a ruling from the highest court in the land - a court that is actually empowered by the Constitution.

One has to wonder where some academics have been in recent years - if they think that an administration that has been directed by an non-elected man in Dubai is constitutional. Or that any of the serious charges that have amassed from this administration that are currently under court consideration - are acts of an administration that has adhered to the Constitution. In terms of Prompong following the Pheu Thai/UDD narrative that Abhisit's constitutional proposal and Suthep's wildly unconstitutional proposal is the same - the nonsense of that is not only established by the actual content of those differing proposals but by the PDRC's immediate and unequivocal rejection of Abhisit's plan. And yet it serves the Pheu Thai/UDD narrative to lump the two together. In terms of the general public, Abhisit's ideas for a reform process have never been put to a referendum. His proposal includes such a referendum, and the results of that referendum would be respected. How can an academic - or anyone, for that matter - imagine what that public opinion might be ?

The Constitutional Court will tomorrow wrap up their consideration of the case before them. They could even rule on it as early as tomorrow. It is imperative that the Yingluck administration - today - affirm that they will respect the ruling of the court - whatever it may be - without reservation or equivocation. Today's action by Prompong to formally accept for consideration this UDD faction's request - sends deeply troubling signals.

[Asiantravel]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

lacked support from the majority of the people.....have they been asked yet...either an idiot remark.or a man in the know..i would hazard a guess at former rather than latter..

The crux of the matter and sticking point , is the provision of no politician or party member involvement in the reform process , the reform proposals going to a peoples referendum, (heaven forbid if the people can have a say), and the PRDC (who started all this and are entitled to some say ) appointing the academic's or eminent persons group to reform the constitution. PTP will never agree to this so the ball is now back in their and the UDD , red shirts court , the idea now is to tell the world that the PTP/ red shirts , do not want reforms, Abhisit's proposal is not un constitutional.

What if the referendum is rejected by the people? Will the interim government step aside for elections under the current constitution, or insist on staying in power while they fiddle with the reform process some more?

Also, why are referendums preferable to elections? I know people talk a lot about corruption, but has anyone produced credible evidence that the results of the 2011 national elections were illegitimate? I know the February elections were questionable, that is because of candidate and voter intimidation by Suthep's supporters, and some later redshirt intimidation after Suthep's people had established the precedent and demonstrated its effectiveness.

" Also, why are referendums preferable to elections? "

Because, at the very least people should learn from history.

History as taught us that simply handing over power to an unelected group of people that for some inexplicable reason won't reveal the fine print of their proposals in advance will usually end in that country entering into a dangerous phase with unforeseen consequences

[h90]

All the time I hear from the government that this 2007 constitution is so bad and from the army.....Now finally Abhisit agrees to take it away and now PTP are the protectors of the constitution???

[dinooz]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

lacked support from the majority of the people.....have they been asked yet...either an idiot remark.or a man in the know..i would hazard a guess at former rather than latter..

The crux of the matter and sticking point , is the provision of no politician or party member involvement in the reform process , the reform proposals going to a peoples referendum, (heaven forbid if the people can have a say), and the PRDC (who started all this and are entitled to some say ) appointing the academic's or eminent persons group to reform the constitution. PTP will never agree to this so the ball is now back in their and the UDD , red shirts court , the idea now is to tell the world that the PTP/ red shirts , do not want reforms, Abhisit's proposal is not un constitutional.

What if the referendum is rejected by the people? Will the interim government step aside for elections under the current constitution, or insist on staying in power while they fiddle with the reform process some more?

Also, why are referendums preferable to elections? I know people talk a lot about corruption, but has anyone produced credible evidence that the results of the 2011 national elections were illegitimate? I know the February elections were questionable, that is because of candidate and voter intimidation by Suthep's supporters, and some later redshirt intimidation after Suthep's people had established the precedent and demonstrated its effectiveness.

I think the major difference RE: elections v referendum is a referendum is simply one person one vote,no constituencies,no tally for seats and coalitions,if the referendum was held where one could vote at any voting station without having to go back to the village and being instructed how to vote and no way of knowing which village voted what way just a percentage of yes/no will tell honestly what the majority of Thai citizens want regarding the future path of their country.It should have been done instead of the failed feb election we would now be out of this mess and moving forward.

[Robby nz]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

lacked support from the majority of the people.....have they been asked yet...either an idiot remark.or a man in the know..i would hazard a guess at former rather than latter..

The crux of the matter and sticking point , is the provision of no politician or party member involvement in the reform process , the reform proposals going to a peoples referendum, (heaven forbid if the people can have a say), and the PRDC (who started all this and are entitled to some say ) appointing the academic's or eminent persons group to reform the constitution. PTP will never agree to this so the ball is now back in their and the UDD , red shirts court , the idea now is to tell the world that the PTP/ red shirts , do not want reforms, Abhisit's proposal is not un constitutional.

What if the referendum is rejected by the people? Will the interim government step aside for elections under the current constitution, or insist on staying in power while they fiddle with the reform process some more?

Also, why are referendums preferable to elections? I know people talk a lot about corruption, but has anyone produced credible evidence that the results of the 2011 national elections were illegitimate? I know the February elections were questionable, that is because of candidate and voter intimidation by Suthep's supporters, and some later redshirt intimidation after Suthep's people had established the precedent and demonstrated its effectiveness.

A referendum and an election are entirely different things that do entirely different things.

A referendum in this instance would be on the acceptance or not of comprehensive reforms as proposed by a reform drafting panel of non politicians who would come from various fields of expertise.

For instance : Experienced educationalists would draft education reforms, legal experts would suggest reforms to the courts and justice system, farming representatives would propose agricultural reforms.

I would imagine the final referendum would be in several parts each one detailing different aspects of the proposed reforms, and giving people to the choice of rejecting or accepting each part, as in "Do you accept the proposed education reforms" Legal, electoral, ETC.

It would not just be "Do you or do you not want reforms".

After the referendum, regardless of outcome, there would be an election which is to choose representatives for parliament.

There would then be a legal requirement on the elected parliament to enact the reforms accepted by the majority in the referendum.

However the electoral reforms would probably have to be put in place before an election to make it as free and fair as possible.

For as we see now, under the present climate of threats and intimidation, no election can possibly be free and fair.

[heybruce]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

lacked support from the majority of the people.....have they been asked yet...either an idiot remark.or a man in the know..i would hazard a guess at former rather than latter..

The crux of the matter and sticking point , is the provision of no politician or party member involvement in the reform process , the reform proposals going to a peoples referendum, (heaven forbid if the people can have a say), and the PRDC (who started all this and are entitled to some say ) appointing the academic's or eminent persons group to reform the constitution. PTP will never agree to this so the ball is now back in their and the UDD , red shirts court , the idea now is to tell the world that the PTP/ red shirts , do not want reforms, Abhisit's proposal is not un constitutional.

What if the referendum is rejected by the people? Will the interim government step aside for elections under the current constitution, or insist on staying in power while they fiddle with the reform process some more?

Also, why are referendums preferable to elections? I know people talk a lot about corruption, but has anyone produced credible evidence that the results of the 2011 national elections were illegitimate? I know the February elections were questionable, that is because of candidate and voter intimidation by Suthep's supporters, and some later redshirt intimidation after Suthep's people had established the precedent and demonstrated its effectiveness.

A referendum and an election are entirely different things that do entirely different things.

A referendum in this instance would be on the acceptance or not of comprehensive reforms as proposed by a reform drafting panel of non politicians who would come from various fields of expertise.

For instance : Experienced educationalists would draft education reforms, legal experts would suggest reforms to the courts and justice system, farming representatives would propose agricultural reforms.

I would imagine the final referendum would be in several parts each one detailing different aspects of the proposed reforms, and giving people to the choice of rejecting or accepting each part, as in "Do you accept the proposed education reforms" Legal, electoral, ETC.

It would not just be "Do you or do you not want reforms".

After the referendum, regardless of outcome, there would be an election which is to choose representatives for parliament.

There would then be a legal requirement on the elected parliament to enact the reforms accepted by the majority in the referendum.

However the electoral reforms would probably have to be put in place before an election to make it as free and fair as possible.

For as we see now, under the present climate of threats and intimidation, no election can possibly be free and fair.

Good answer. Are Abhisit, Suthep, and the Democrats proposing a referndum(s) under these circumstances? Especially the part "After the referendum, regardless of outcome, there would be an election which is to choose representatives for parliament."?

I also question how election reform would work. Vote buying and voter intimidation are already illegal, but we keep reading claims of vote buying, and, as was demonstrated in February, intimidation still happens. How will election reform change this?

[siampolee]

The problems facing any suggestions for reform is the folly of Thailand, its politicians and its peoples who all labour under the delusion that they are a great people in a great nation, in fact in their view the greatest people and nation on this earth.

Everything is overdone, the obscenity of Thai society, the discrimination against Thais on a regional basis and the blatant discrimination against non Thais..

These attitudes like those of political self service,rampant and blatant corruption in all areas of Thai, police, military and civil administration systems along with business and political nepotism are not going to overcome within an 18 month period, in fact the opening of that door would not even amount to the turning of the door knob..

The Thai people have no logic, nothing is more alien to a Thai politician as well as Porntip and Somchai in the street as ''logic.'' Over the years there have been great parades of ideals which were truly amazing propaganda spectacles.

Sadly none have never worked nor ever would because Thai politicians along with the administration machinery are greedy grasping self serving vile groups.Their heroism and exhortations that we are the best are indeed a tragic comedy of errors which has brought us or rather Thailand to the political crossroad it now faces.

We have from Abhisit a list of suggestions which to some are biased and to others are unbiased, however it is time for Thailand and its peoples to move forward, if Thailand and its peoples ignore the lessons of the past they will have no future.

This set of ideas should not be laid to rest and forgotten, it is the basic foundation of a new beginning that all sides must come together to work on.

Suggestions are just that.,Ideas put forward to provoke debate that leads to change that will hopefully benefit both Thailand and its people in the future.

Why then are the P.T.P. so afraid of these suggestions?

Is it, or could it be that self interests may well be swept away and that the politicians along with the state bureaucracy would become the kingdoms and the peoples servants as opposed to the kingdom and the peoples being the politicians and the bureaucracy servants as it is now?

[moonao]

Meanwhile, Mr. Weerapat Pariyawong, a law expert, echoed Mr. Prompong’s opinion on the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal, pointing out that Mr. Abhisit might intentionally make such a proposal to draw out disagreement from the opposition in order to make ways for independent public agencies to intervene.

Another academic in political science, Bundit Chanrojanakij also viewed Mr. Abhisit’s proposal in the same way, saying it was not agreeable to any constitutional principles. He indicated that the chance of success for the proposal was nearly zero as it lacked support from the majority of the people.

Dean of the Faculty of Political Science of Sukhothai Thammathirat University, Yutthaporn Issarachai stated that the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal would lead the country right into a political vacuum while creating an even wider rift among Thais.

Pretty much every respected political analyst has come to the same conclusion, that Abhisits proposal is unconstitutional.

He seems to be losing his marbles. I wouldn't be surprised if we see him in a mental hospital next month, wearing a white gown, unable to speak,, crawled up in a corner, dribbling, and blowing a whistle all day long.

[ginjag]

Meanwhile, Mr. Weerapat Pariyawong, a law expert, echoed Mr. Prompong’s opinion on the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal, pointing out that Mr. Abhisit might intentionally make such a proposal to draw out disagreement from the opposition in order to make ways for independent public agencies to intervene.

Another academic in political science, Bundit Chanrojanakij also viewed Mr. Abhisit’s proposal in the same way, saying it was not agreeable to any constitutional principles. He indicated that the chance of success for the proposal was nearly zero as it lacked support from the majority of the people.

Dean of the Faculty of Political Science of Sukhothai Thammathirat University, Yutthaporn Issarachai stated that the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal would lead the country right into a political vacuum while creating an even wider rift among Thais.

Pretty much every respected political analyst has come to the same conclusion, that Abhisits proposal is unconstitutional.

He seems to be losing his marbles. I wouldn't be surprised if we see him in a mental hospital next month, wearing a white gown, unable to speak,, crawled up in a corner, dribbling, and blowing a whistle all day long.

How do you know so much about mental hospitals ???

It WILL be unconstitutional because it isn't a red proposal. Look let us see YOUR proposal----or better still YINGLUCKS, she hasn't the gorm to attend meetings---see the light mate.

[Ricardo]

The problem with an election, is that the person you vote for & who becomes an MP, is then free to sell you out.

This appears to be especially common here, "Vote for Me, and I promise i won't support PPP/DP" swiftly become "My party has joined the PPP/DP-led coalition".

Whereas with a national referendum, you vote for one (or several) propositions, and it is carried provided the majority of other voters agree with you !

Personally I believe all changes to a Constitution, changes to a voting-system or an Amnesty-Bill or the direct-election of provincial-governors, to give but a few examples, should be ratified or disallowed by the full electorate.

I'd welcome Abhisit and Yingluck announcing, amongst other things, that any and ALL constitutional-reforms would be put to a national-referendum, rather than agreed amongst the parties/leaders in Parliament, let alone rammed through at four-in-the-morning.

Unfortunately they all believe in national referendums, before forgetting any such commitment, when the time comes.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Ricardo

[pisico]

Meanwhile, Mr. Weerapat Pariyawong, a law expert, echoed Mr. Prompong’s opinion on the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal, pointing out that Mr. Abhisit might intentionally make such a proposal to draw out disagreement from the opposition in order to make ways for independent public agencies to intervene.

Another academic in political science, Bundit Chanrojanakij also viewed Mr. Abhisit’s proposal in the same way, saying it was not agreeable to any constitutional principles. He indicated that the chance of success for the proposal was nearly zero as it lacked support from the majority of the people.

Dean of the Faculty of Political Science of Sukhothai Thammathirat University, Yutthaporn Issarachai stated that the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal would lead the country right into a political vacuum while creating an even wider rift among Thais.

Pretty much every respected political analyst has come to the same conclusion, that Abhisits proposal is unconstitutional.

He seems to be losing his marbles. I wouldn't be surprised if we see him in a mental hospital next month, wearing a white gown, unable to speak,, crawled up in a corner, dribbling, and blowing a whistle all day long.

Abhisit, the darling of the army, back in 2010 was asked by the Red Shirts what he is asking now of YS: to resign, to step aside.

Did he? No, why should he? He had the support of the army.

His DPM Suthep was the one in charge of managing the protest and the crackdown by the army that netted nearly 100 dead (including 2 foreign journalists, nurse and civilians inside a wat among others) and hundreds of wounded. But if a member of the elite asks the same, then it's OK. Talk about duplicity!

Edited May 5, 2014 by pisico

[ginjag]

Meanwhile, Mr. Weerapat Pariyawong, a law expert, echoed Mr. Prompong’s opinion on the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal, pointing out that Mr. Abhisit might intentionally make such a proposal to draw out disagreement from the opposition in order to make ways for independent public agencies to intervene.

Another academic in political science, Bundit Chanrojanakij also viewed Mr. Abhisit’s proposal in the same way, saying it was not agreeable to any constitutional principles. He indicated that the chance of success for the proposal was nearly zero as it lacked support from the majority of the people.

Dean of the Faculty of Political Science of Sukhothai Thammathirat University, Yutthaporn Issarachai stated that the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal would lead the country right into a political vacuum while creating an even wider rift among Thais.

Pretty much every respected political analyst has come to the same conclusion, that Abhisits proposal is unconstitutional.

He seems to be losing his marbles. I wouldn't be surprised if we see him in a mental hospital next month, wearing a white gown, unable to speak,, crawled up in a corner, dribbling, and blowing a whistle all day long.

Abhisit, the darling of the army, back in 2010 was asked by the Red Shirts what he is asking now of YS: to resign, to step aside.

Did he? No, why should he? He had the support of the army.

His DPM Suthep was the one in charge of managing the protest and the crackdown by the army that netted nearly 100 dead (including 2 foreign journalists, nurse and civilians inside a wat among others) and hundreds of wounded. But if a member of the elite asks the same, then it's OK. Talk about duplicity!

Do a bit more homework, Go and live in a red shirt village if you love them so much, I moved out of one -thank heavens best thing I ever did--control freaks the lot of them. We have 7 to 10 of them # on TVF depending on the days and topics as most of them only answer topics that relate to government where as the other 2000 + mainly answer on all. # are over the top pro government supporters.

[Robby nz]

The crux of the matter and sticking point , is the provision of no politician or party member involvement in the reform process , the reform proposals going to a peoples referendum, (heaven forbid if the people can have a say), and the PRDC (who started all this and are entitled to some say ) appointing the academic's or eminent persons group to reform the constitution. PTP will never agree to this so the ball is now back in their and the UDD , red shirts court , the idea now is to tell the world that the PTP/ red shirts , do not want reforms, Abhisit's proposal is not un constitutional.

What if the referendum is rejected by the people? Will the interim government step aside for elections under the current constitution, or insist on staying in power while they fiddle with the reform process some more?

Also, why are referendums preferable to elections? I know people talk a lot about corruption, but has anyone produced credible evidence that the results of the 2011 national elections were illegitimate? I know the February elections were questionable, that is because of candidate and voter intimidation by Suthep's supporters, and some later redshirt intimidation after Suthep's people had established the precedent and demonstrated its effectiveness.

A referendum and an election are entirely different things that do entirely different things.

A referendum in this instance would be on the acceptance or not of comprehensive reforms as proposed by a reform drafting panel of non politicians who would come from various fields of expertise.

For instance : Experienced educationalists would draft education reforms, legal experts would suggest reforms to the courts and justice system, farming representatives would propose agricultural reforms.

I would imagine the final referendum would be in several parts each one detailing different aspects of the proposed reforms, and giving people to the choice of rejecting or accepting each part, as in "Do you accept the proposed education reforms" Legal, electoral, ETC.

It would not just be "Do you or do you not want reforms".

After the referendum, regardless of outcome, there would be an election which is to choose representatives for parliament.

There would then be a legal requirement on the elected parliament to enact the reforms accepted by the majority in the referendum.

However the electoral reforms would probably have to be put in place before an election to make it as free and fair as possible.

For as we see now, under the present climate of threats and intimidation, no election can possibly be free and fair.

Good answer. Are Abhisit, Suthep, and the Democrats proposing a referndum(s) under these circumstances? Especially the part "After the referendum, regardless of outcome, there would be an election which is to choose representatives for parliament."?

I also question how election reform would work. Vote buying and voter intimidation are already illegal, but we keep reading claims of vote buying, and, as was demonstrated in February, intimidation still happens. How will election reform change this?

What has been released so far are only outlines but I would assume there are more details that have not as yet been made public.

Answer to first question, Yes.

To second, I have seen no conditions put on the elections after referendum,

I am not one of the experts who would be tasked with putting these things together and can only try to apply logic and common sense.

I imagine that those who propose reforms would also specify how these reforms could be enacted, after all its not much good saying things should be done without saying how they could be done.

I wouldn't think that all reforms would need constitution or law changes, rather tightening up on procedures or reversing decisions.

For instance ; the budget of the NACC was slashed by PT as one of their measures to combat corruption, a recommendation could be that the budget be reinstated, increased or even doubled to assist with going after corrupt officials. That should not need a law change, only an attitude change.

Another could be regards education, at present Thailand spends far more per head on education then most countries for a very poor result.

Changing the way education is delivered to get the best from the budget should not need law of constitution change.

You have a think your self and try to come up with something positive rather than negativity.

[manstr23]

Meanwhile, Mr. Weerapat Pariyawong, a law expert, echoed Mr. Prompong’s opinion on the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal, pointing out that Mr. Abhisit might intentionally make such a proposal to draw out disagreement from the opposition in order to make ways for independent public agencies to intervene.

Another academic in political science, Bundit Chanrojanakij also viewed Mr. Abhisit’s proposal in the same way, saying it was not agreeable to any constitutional principles. He indicated that the chance of success for the proposal was nearly zero as it lacked support from the majority of the people.

Dean of the Faculty of Political Science of Sukhothai Thammathirat University, Yutthaporn Issarachai stated that the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal would lead the country right into a political vacuum while creating an even wider rift among Thais.

Pretty much every respected political analyst has come to the same conclusion, that Abhisits proposal is unconstitutional.

He seems to be losing his marbles. I wouldn't be surprised if we see him in a mental hospital next month, wearing a white gown, unable to speak,, crawled up in a corner, dribbling, and blowing a whistle all day long.

You will be in the room next to him if that is the case. But for sure when the paycheque from Bob Armstrong stops coming. Any logical thinking person can see what the PTP has done or rather not done in the past 3 years, except to fill their pockets.

[pisico]

Meanwhile, Mr. Weerapat Pariyawong, a law expert, echoed Mr. Prompong’s opinion on the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal, pointing out that Mr. Abhisit might intentionally make such a proposal to draw out disagreement from the opposition in order to make ways for independent public agencies to intervene.

Another academic in political science, Bundit Chanrojanakij also viewed Mr. Abhisit’s proposal in the same way, saying it was not agreeable to any constitutional principles. He indicated that the chance of success for the proposal was nearly zero as it lacked support from the majority of the people.

Dean of the Faculty of Political Science of Sukhothai Thammathirat University, Yutthaporn Issarachai stated that the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal would lead the country right into a political vacuum while creating an even wider rift among Thais.

Pretty much every respected political analyst has come to the same conclusion, that Abhisits proposal is unconstitutional.

He seems to be losing his marbles. I wouldn't be surprised if we see him in a mental hospital next month, wearing a white gown, unable to speak,, crawled up in a corner, dribbling, and blowing a whistle all day long.

Abhisit, the darling of the army, back in 2010 was asked by the Red Shirts what he is asking now of YS: to resign, to step aside.

Did he? No, why should he? He had the support of the army.

His DPM Suthep was the one in charge of managing the protest and the crackdown by the army that netted nearly 100 dead (including 2 foreign journalists, nurse and civilians inside a wat among others) and hundreds of wounded. But if a member of the elite asks the same, then it's OK. Talk about duplicity!

Do a bit more homework, Go and live in a red shirt village if you love them so much, I moved out of one -thank heavens best thing I ever did--control freaks the lot of them. We have 7 to 10 of them # on TVF depending on the days and topics as most of them only answer topics that relate to government where as the other 2000 + mainly answer on all. # are over the top pro government supporters.

Your comment is sophistry; a non sequitur.

The thread is about Abhisit asking YS to step down and whether it is constitutional or not.

What Abhisit asks now contrasts with what the Reds back in 2010 asked of him: to step down. Have you forgotten?

My memory does no fail me (it seems yours does) thus homework not necessary.

Again, to stay on topic, Suthep, was assigned by Abhhisit to crush the protest of the Reds. Prior to that the Reds were vociferous about Abhisit stepping down. He did not and the crackdown took place.

Why do you assume I love the Reds? Where in my comment says so? As to going to live in a Red village, why would I want to mimic your failed decisions?

[northernjohn]

Enough with the 'constitution'. Both sides use it or discard it when it conveniences or inconveniences them. No one expects the PTP to accept this outright but they really should come to a compromise. They're one foot into the grave and soon the courts are going to throw them out. Then the red militias will come and burn building downs again. Compromise is the only way out of this.

I for one am getting tired of what is constitutional and what is not constitutional.

It is about time to think of what is best for Thailand.

Dean of the Faculty of Political Science of Sukhothai Thammathirat University, Yutthaporn Issarachai stated that the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal would lead the country right into a political vacuum

I am all for that. lt would leave a lot of room for people with morals and commonsense to come in.

Can you imagine it a government that is not political it is for the good of all the country.

Never going to happen. But we are all entitled to are dreams.

[northernjohn]

Pretty much every respected political analyst has come to the same conclusion, that Abhisits proposal is unconstitutional.

He seems to be losing his marbles. I wouldn't be surprised if we see him in a mental hospital next month, wearing a white gown, unable to speak,, crawled up in a corner, dribbling, and blowing a whistle all day long.

Abhisit, the darling of the army, back in 2010 was asked by the Red Shirts what he is asking now of YS: to resign, to step aside.

Did he? No, why should he? He had the support of the army.

His DPM Suthep was the one in charge of managing the protest and the crackdown by the army that netted nearly 100 dead (including 2 foreign journalists, nurse and civilians inside a wat among others) and hundreds of wounded. But if a member of the elite asks the same, then it's OK. Talk about duplicity!

Do a bit more homework, Go and live in a red shirt village if you love them so much, I moved out of one -thank heavens best thing I ever did--control freaks the lot of them. We have 7 to 10 of them # on TVF depending on the days and topics as most of them only answer topics that relate to government where as the other 2000 + mainly answer on all. # are over the top pro government supporters.

Your comment is sophistry; a non sequitur.

The thread is about Abhisit asking YS to step down and whether it is constitutional or not.

What Abhisit asks now contrasts with what the Reds back in 2010 asked of him: to step down. Have you forgotten?

My memory does no fail me (it seems yours does) thus homework not necessary.

Again, to stay on topic, Suthep, was assigned by Abhhisit to crush the protest of the Reds. Prior to that the Reds were vociferous about Abhisit stepping down. He did not and the crackdown took place.

Why do you assume I love the Reds? Where in my comment says so? As to going to live in a Red village, why would I want to mimic your failed decisions?

Excuse me but if you want to be taken serious you might want to mention why Suthep was told to stop the armed coup. Just a suggestion. I know it is not in your book of "sayings from Thaksin" or the ever popular one "as Thaksin see's it". But it is still a good idea.

[heybruce]

The crux of the matter and sticking point , is the provision of no politician or party member involvement in the reform process , the reform proposals going to a peoples referendum, (heaven forbid if the people can have a say), and the PRDC (who started all this and are entitled to some say ) appointing the academic's or eminent persons group to reform the constitution. PTP will never agree to this so the ball is now back in their and the UDD , red shirts court , the idea now is to tell the world that the PTP/ red shirts , do not want reforms, Abhisit's proposal is not un constitutional.

What if the referendum is rejected by the people? Will the interim government step aside for elections under the current constitution, or insist on staying in power while they fiddle with the reform process some more?

Also, why are referendums preferable to elections? I know people talk a lot about corruption, but has anyone produced credible evidence that the results of the 2011 national elections were illegitimate? I know the February elections were questionable, that is because of candidate and voter intimidation by Suthep's supporters, and some later redshirt intimidation after Suthep's people had established the precedent and demonstrated its effectiveness.

A referendum and an election are entirely different things that do entirely different things.

A referendum in this instance would be on the acceptance or not of comprehensive reforms as proposed by a reform drafting panel of non politicians who would come from various fields of expertise.

For instance : Experienced educationalists would draft education reforms, legal experts would suggest reforms to the courts and justice system, farming representatives would propose agricultural reforms.

I would imagine the final referendum would be in several parts each one detailing different aspects of the proposed reforms, and giving people to the choice of rejecting or accepting each part, as in "Do you accept the proposed education reforms" Legal, electoral, ETC.

It would not just be "Do you or do you not want reforms".

After the referendum, regardless of outcome, there would be an election which is to choose representatives for parliament.

There would then be a legal requirement on the elected parliament to enact the reforms accepted by the majority in the referendum.

However the electoral reforms would probably have to be put in place before an election to make it as free and fair as possible.

For as we see now, under the present climate of threats and intimidation, no election can possibly be free and fair.

Good answer. Are Abhisit, Suthep, and the Democrats proposing a referndum(s) under these circumstances? Especially the part "After the referendum, regardless of outcome, there would be an election which is to choose representatives for parliament."?

I also question how election reform would work. Vote buying and voter intimidation are already illegal, but we keep reading claims of vote buying, and, as was demonstrated in February, intimidation still happens. How will election reform change this?

What has been released so far are only outlines but I would assume there are more details that have not as yet been made public.

Answer to first question, Yes.

To second, I have seen no conditions put on the elections after referendum,

I am not one of the experts who would be tasked with putting these things together and can only try to apply logic and common sense.

I imagine that those who propose reforms would also specify how these reforms could be enacted, after all its not much good saying things should be done without saying how they could be done.

I wouldn't think that all reforms would need constitution or law changes, rather tightening up on procedures or reversing decisions.

For instance ; the budget of the NACC was slashed by PT as one of their measures to combat corruption, a recommendation could be that the budget be reinstated, increased or even doubled to assist with going after corrupt officials. That should not need a law change, only an attitude change.

Another could be regards education, at present Thailand spends far more per head on education then most countries for a very poor result.

Changing the way education is delivered to get the best from the budget should not need law of constitution change.

You have a think your self and try to come up with something positive rather than negativity.

Ok, I am positive that government should not be handed over to unelected committees, especially if there is no "written in stone" deadline for elections and return to democratic government.

Edited May 5, 2014 by heybruce

[northernjohn]

Meanwhile, Mr. Weerapat Pariyawong, a law expert, echoed Mr. Prompong’s opinion on the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal, pointing out that Mr. Abhisit might intentionally make such a proposal to draw out disagreement from the opposition in order to make ways for independent public agencies to intervene.

Another academic in political science, Bundit Chanrojanakij also viewed Mr. Abhisit’s proposal in the same way, saying it was not agreeable to any constitutional principles. He indicated that the chance of success for the proposal was nearly zero as it lacked support from the majority of the people.

Dean of the Faculty of Political Science of Sukhothai Thammathirat University, Yutthaporn Issarachai stated that the Democrat Party Leader’s proposal would lead the country right into a political vacuum while creating an even wider rift among Thais.

Pretty much every respected political analyst has come to the same conclusion, that Abhisits proposal is unconstitutional.

He seems to be losing his marbles. I wouldn't be surprised if we see him in a mental hospital next month, wearing a white gown, unable to speak,, crawled up in a corner, dribbling, and blowing a whistle all day long.

Sounds to me like you are advertising for a room mate to match your abilities. You have no idea about what is happening here in Thailand in 2014 and what is worse I don't think you care. Your posts are all prechildish. Just seeking attention.

In case you missed it These legal experts are all from Thai universities. Not a one of them was listed in the top 400 universities Tells me pretty much about these so called experts.

[northernjohn]

The crux of the matter and sticking point , is the provision of no politician or party member involvement in the reform process , the reform proposals going to a peoples referendum, (heaven forbid if the people can have a say), and the PRDC (who started all this and are entitled to some say ) appointing the academic's or eminent persons group to reform the constitution. PTP will never agree to this so the ball is now back in their and the UDD , red shirts court , the idea now is to tell the world that the PTP/ red shirts , do not want reforms, Abhisit's proposal is not un constitutional.

What if the referendum is rejected by the people? Will the interim government step aside for elections under the current constitution, or insist on staying in power while they fiddle with the reform process some more?

Also, why are referendums preferable to elections? I know people talk a lot about corruption, but has anyone produced credible evidence that the results of the 2011 national elections were illegitimate? I know the February elections were questionable, that is because of candidate and voter intimidation by Suthep's supporters, and some later redshirt intimidation after Suthep's people had established the precedent and demonstrated its effectiveness.

A referendum and an election are entirely different things that do entirely different things.

A referendum in this instance would be on the acceptance or not of comprehensive reforms as proposed by a reform drafting panel of non politicians who would come from various fields of expertise.

For instance : Experienced educationalists would draft education reforms, legal experts would suggest reforms to the courts and justice system, farming representatives would propose agricultural reforms.

I would imagine the final referendum would be in several parts each one detailing different aspects of the proposed reforms, and giving people to the choice of rejecting or accepting each part, as in "Do you accept the proposed education reforms" Legal, electoral, ETC.

It would not just be "Do you or do you not want reforms".

After the referendum, regardless of outcome, there would be an election which is to choose representatives for parliament.

There would then be a legal requirement on the elected parliament to enact the reforms accepted by the majority in the referendum.

However the electoral reforms would probably have to be put in place before an election to make it as free and fair as possible.

For as we see now, under the present climate of threats and intimidation, no election can possibly be free and fair.

Good answer. Are Abhisit, Suthep, and the Democrats proposing a referndum(s) under these circumstances? Especially the part "After the referendum, regardless of outcome, there would be an election which is to choose representatives for parliament."?

I also question how election reform would work. Vote buying and voter intimidation are already illegal, but we keep reading claims of vote buying, and, as was demonstrated in February, intimidation still happens. How will election reform change this?

What has been released so far are only outlines but I would assume there are more details that have not as yet been made public.

Answer to first question, Yes.

To second, I have seen no conditions put on the elections after referendum,

I am not one of the experts who would be tasked with putting these things together and can only try to apply logic and common sense.

I imagine that those who propose reforms would also specify how these reforms could be enacted, after all its not much good saying things should be done without saying how they could be done.

I wouldn't think that all reforms would need constitution or law changes, rather tightening up on procedures or reversing decisions.

For instance ; the budget of the NACC was slashed by PT as one of their measures to combat corruption, a recommendation could be that the budget be reinstated, increased or even doubled to assist with going after corrupt officials. That should not need a law change, only an attitude change.

Another could be regards education, at present Thailand spends far more per head on education then most countries for a very poor result.

Changing the way education is delivered to get the best from the budget should not need law of constitution change.

You have a think your self and try to come up with something positive rather than negativity.

Good to have you two discuss this in a reasonable manor. Yes there should be a time limit. I believeSuthe has often mentioned a year and a half. as for

"I also question how election reform would work. Vote buying and voter intimidation are already illegal, but we keep reading claims of vote buying, and, as was demonstrated in February, intimidation still happens. How will election reform change this?"

​The penalties must be made much tighter to enforce the laws that are all ready there. For instance you take a 500 baht bribee and you are fined 2,500 5 times as much. The fellow offering the bribe be it done personally or through a midddle man given at least a two year jail sentence. All this must be carried out swiftly. After two elections the people will defiantly understand it.

there is no quick fix but the solutions can be put forward and hand in hand reform the police so that there will be instant arrest no parole.

​Harsh measures yes but in the long run Thailand will benefit.

[Roadman]

Don't see it as unconstitutional, but absolutely f...ing dumb with point 3. Always gave Abhisit a lot of credit for being one of the few that Thai politics could look to for honesty and intelligence but expecting a road map to gain traction with opposition by including handing interim power to Suthep is just outright stupidity. As much as the pathetic excuse that Thailand has for an PM or correctly caretaker PM is a clone of Thaksin, Abhisit's stupidity shows he is equally wet nursed by Suthep.

Can not see any movement forward just more of the endless merry go round of the past 13 years as Thailand sinks deeper into the crap hole its political scum bags are dragging it. Just don't insult the world's top democratic countries and their citizens by calling the lawless, corrupt, patronage garbage being dished up as democracy. For a country that had so much to win with ASEAN just around the corner Thailand is showing how to be an absolute loser.

[Thai at Heart]

Meanwhile, Mr. Weerapat Pariyawong, a law expert, echoed Mr. Prompongs opinion on the Democrat Party Leaders proposal, pointing out that Mr. Abhisit might intentionally make such a proposal to draw out disagreement from the opposition in order to make ways for independent public agencies to intervene.

Another academic in political science, Bundit Chanrojanakij also viewed Mr. Abhisits proposal in the same way, saying it was not agreeable to any constitutional principles. He indicated that the chance of success for the proposal was nearly zero as it lacked support from the majority of the people.

Dean of the Faculty of Political Science of Sukhothai Thammathirat University, Yutthaporn Issarachai stated that the Democrat Party Leaders proposal would lead the country right into a political vacuum while creating an even wider rift among Thais.

Pretty much every respected political analyst has come to the same conclusion, that Abhisits proposal is unconstitutional.

He seems to be losing his marbles. I wouldn't be surprised if we see him in a mental hospital next month, wearing a white gown, unable to speak,, crawled up in a corner, dribbling, and blowing a whistle all day long.

Sounds to me like you are advertising for a room mate to match your abilities. You have no idea about what is happening here in Thailand in 2014 and what is worse I don't think you care. Your posts are all prechildish. Just seeking attention.

In case you missed it These legal experts are all from Thai universities. Not a one of them was listed in the top 400 universities Tells me pretty much about these so called experts.

When it comes to appointing PMs and appointing the parliament, you don't need a PHD in political science to understand what can and cannot be done.

Abhisit proposal would violate the current constitution. I admire how freely you wish to rip it up. The consequences may be very serious.