Two more ex-senators faulted by NACC for charter amendment

[Lite Beer]

Two more ex-senators faulted by NACC for charter amendment

BANGKOK: -- Two more former senators were faulted by the National Anti-Corruption Commission for misuse of their authority and gross violation of ethical conduct in connection with the attempt to amend the Constitution regarding the composition of the Senate.

The NACC’s latest faulting of ex-senators Mrs Paradee Chongsukthanamanee of Chiang Rai and Lt-Gen Pong-aek Apirakyothin of Phayao has brought the total number of ex-senators faulted for the failed attempt to rewrite the constitutional provision to 38, said Mr Sansern Polajiak, NACC spokesman.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/two-ex-senators-faulted-nacc-charter-amendment/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=two-ex-senators-faulted-nacc-charter-amendment

-- Thai PBS 2014-05-21

[srsv1238]

Why are there "appointed" and "elected" senators in Thailand? Who appoints these appointed senators? Why is it illegal in Thailand for elected officials to amend the constitution? Why are elected senators being cited by the NACC for voting on this matter. Why does this matter concern the NACC. Is corruption involved?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[robblok]

Why are there "appointed" and "elected" senators in Thailand? Who appoints these appointed senators? Why is it illegal in Thailand for elected officials to amend the constitution? Why are elected senators being cited by the NACC for voting on this matter. Why does this matter concern the NACC. Is corruption involved?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Next time follow the news, it was the way they did it that was wrong. They were told they could not do it this way but they still did. There are certain procedures to follow.

This is one of the tasks of the NACC, but unfortunately their budget was slashed by 50% because the PTP did not want them to have enough employees to do good corruption research.

Ad to that that the PTP included 25.000 corruption cases to the amnesty this paints a picture of a party that thrives on corruption and the breaking of the rules.

Now the people (not the paid reds) have risen slowly the cancer that is the PTP is cut out.

[issanaus]

Why are there "appointed" and "elected" senators in Thailand? Who appoints these appointed senators? Why is it illegal in Thailand for elected officials to amend the constitution? Why are elected senators being cited by the NACC for voting on this matter. Why does this matter concern the NACC. Is corruption involved?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Simple answer is it is not what they tried to do - it is the way they tried to do it.

[catterwell]

Why are there "appointed" and "elected" senators in Thailand? Who appoints these appointed senators? Why is it illegal in Thailand for elected officials to amend the constitution? Why are elected senators being cited by the NACC for voting on this matter. Why does this matter concern the NACC. Is corruption involved?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Next time follow the news, it was the way they did it that was wrong. They were told they could not do it this way but they still did. There are certain procedures to follow.

This is one of the tasks of the NACC, but unfortunately their budget was slashed by 50% because the PTP did not want them to have enough employees to do good corruption research.

Ad to that that the PTP included 25.000 corruption cases to the amnesty this paints a picture of a party that thrives on corruption and the breaking of the rules.

Now the people (not the paid reds) have risen slowly the cancer that is the PTP is cut out.

It doesn't affect your points, but the NACC had its budget cut by 40%, not 50%, in the last fiscal year.

[djjamie]

Why are there "appointed" and "elected" senators in Thailand? Who appoints these appointed senators? Why is it illegal in Thailand for elected officials to amend the constitution? Why are elected senators being cited by the NACC for voting on this matter. Why does this matter concern the NACC. Is corruption involved?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

These are the NACC's responsibilities here. So yes, it does fall under there jurisdiction.

The senate boasts a compliment of experienced professionals. Elections would effectively eliminate their valuable expertise from the political process. The appointed senators are economists, scientists, businessmen, judges, lawyers, professors, engineers, social workers, doctors, public servants and consumer advocates. Many would be unwilling to campaign and would have their seats filled by PT puppets funded with PTP money.

Appointed senators have served Canadians for 140 years and have done a fine job of it. An appointed Senate is also essential to Thailand's democracy. The people appointed to the Senate were not usually professional politicians. They had actually done something with their lives. They don't have constituencies to worry about or elections to win. They spend their time seriously reviewing legislation

An appointed senate reflects diversity of the Thai people. Women, visible minorities are too often poorly represented if senators are elected. PTP despise the voice of minority groups. The Deputy PM called minority groups garbage.

Improving Policy. An appoint ted senate could help ensure that policy is based on a wider variety of input based on compromise and consensus among diverse perspectives. PTP hate this fact. They want complete control.

Balancing Power. An appointed senate serves as a check on the concentration of power in the hands of the PM. PTP hate this. They want complete control.

Thank god for the appointed senators. Without them making sound judgments based on facts over beliefs, evidence over hearsay and morals over money would be lost to the dictatorial tendencies of the PTP.

Look at the newly voted Udon senator who smuggled her husband across the border to Laos to escape the law. The Chaing Mai senator Is affiliated with RCM51, a minority driven, violent terrorist group. These lawbreakers will be responsible for passing laws. When the majority of the population has no idea what a senator's job entails yet votes for them this is a very bad sign. Thank god the entities that appoint a senate do so knowing full well the gravity of what a PTP senate could do or at least a senate made up of criminals could do.

So many questions and sorry I have only answered 2. I hope that will suffice as there is a garlic chicken and roast dinner in my oven that won't eat itself!!

Edited May 21, 2014 by djjamie

[pookiki]

No, it is not the way they did it. A law isn't unconstitutional because of procedural error(s). If this was the ONLY issue, the court sends it back to Parliament to see if Parliament can cure the problems. The court found that the manner in which the law was passed was procedurally flawed and that the law itself was unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). So, in the logic of the courts and the NACC, anyone who voted for the constitutional amendment committed a crime. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). The language on prohibiting amendments to the constitution is so broad, I don't see how any provision can be amended. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). And, for me, it is the single most important issue that will prevent any meaningful reform. Based on the court's ruling, any Senator or MP acting in good faith on voting on legislation will nonetheless be guilty of corruption if the law is later ruled to be unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation).

[marcusd]

Fine upstanding citizens these two are. Look at the lovely uniforms, the braiding, the medals. they must surely have the nations Interests at heart. Maybe the NACC got it all wrong. How can a lovey looking uniformed person smiling do any wrong?

Off with their heads if they are guilty! Off with them then!

that would be the only way to usurp corruption here!

[BlueNoseCodger]

Why are there "appointed" and "elected" senators in Thailand? Who appoints these appointed senators? Why is it illegal in Thailand for elected officials to amend the constitution? Why are elected senators being cited by the NACC for voting on this matter. Why does this matter concern the NACC. Is corruption involved?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Next time follow the news, it was the way they did it that was wrong. They were told they could not do it this way but they still did. There are certain procedures to follow.

This is one of the tasks of the NACC, but unfortunately their budget was slashed by 50% because the PTP did not want them to have enough employees to do good corruption research.

Ad to that that the PTP included 25.000 corruption cases to the amnesty this paints a picture of a party that thrives on corruption and the breaking of the rules.

Now the people (not the paid reds) have risen slowly the cancer that is the PTP is cut out.

The rules being that the government tries to amend the constitution, the Democrats try to block with a legal challenge. The court rules that the government can amend the constitution section by section separately (which gives the unelected Senate the ability to vet each part separately).

Then the NACC rules it a conflict of interests, because the Senate is voting on the electability of the Senate. While ignoring that currently the NACC is on the committee that picks the appointed Senators, i.e. a clear conflict of interest.

So yeh we get it, misuse of corruption laws is a big way your corrupt lot grab power from the elected government.

Since when has a Senator voting on an amendment, as the court said it could, been corruption?

[Gunna]

Why are there "appointed" and "elected" senators in Thailand? Who appoints these appointed senators? Why is it illegal in Thailand for elected officials to amend the constitution? Why are elected senators being cited by the NACC for voting on this matter. Why does this matter concern the NACC. Is corruption involved?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Next time follow the news, it was the way they did it that was wrong. They were told they could not do it this way but they still did. There are certain procedures to follow.

This is one of the tasks of the NACC, but unfortunately their budget was slashed by 50% because the PTP did not want them to have enough employees to do good corruption research.

Ad to that that the PTP included 25.000 corruption cases to the amnesty this paints a picture of a party that thrives on corruption and the breaking of the rules.

Now the people (not the paid reds) have risen slowly the cancer that is the PTP is cut out.

It doesn't affect your points, but the NACC had its budget cut by 40%, not 50%, in the last fiscal year.

or on 12 March 2014

Sirilaksana Khoman, the NACC’s chairwoman for the prevention of economic sector corruption, said the agency’s budget has been cut by 60% from 1 billion baht in previous years.

Whether it was 40%, 50% or 60% it is a huge reduction when it should have been increased.

Further proof that PTP encourages corruption and had no intention of decreasing it because they were the biggest offenders - why else would you reduce it.

[Scamper]

Just as a reminder, the NACC is but a preliminary stage. All of this goes to the Senate where the process - review of evidence, witnesses, defense - continues. Surely they could find something better than file photos, especially ones that give the impression of an embalming procedure gone terribly wrong.

[catterwell]

Why are there "appointed" and "elected" senators in Thailand? Who appoints these appointed senators? Why is it illegal in Thailand for elected officials to amend the constitution? Why are elected senators being cited by the NACC for voting on this matter. Why does this matter concern the NACC. Is corruption involved?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Next time follow the news, it was the way they did it that was wrong. They were told they could not do it this way but they still did. There are certain procedures to follow.

This is one of the tasks of the NACC, but unfortunately their budget was slashed by 50% because the PTP did not want them to have enough employees to do good corruption research.

Ad to that that the PTP included 25.000 corruption cases to the amnesty this paints a picture of a party that thrives on corruption and the breaking of the rules.

Now the people (not the paid reds) have risen slowly the cancer that is the PTP is cut out.

It doesn't affect your points, but the NACC had its budget cut by 40%, not 50%, in the last fiscal year.

or on 12 March 2014

Sirilaksana Khoman, the NACC’s chairwoman for the prevention of economic sector corruption, said the agency’s budget has been cut by 60% from 1 billion baht in previous years.

Whether it was 40%, 50% or 60% it is a huge reduction when it should have been increased.

Further proof that PTP encourages corruption and had no intention of decreasing it because they were the biggest offenders - why else would you reduce it.

My mistake. You are correct. Dr Sirilaksana did say 60% cut in the FY ending 30 September 2013 on the previous fiscal year.

[Now or Never]

38 charged and 270 to go.

Keep up the good work NACC

[BillyBobThai]

[fab4]

Why are there "appointed" and "elected" senators in Thailand? Who appoints these appointed senators? Why is it illegal in Thailand for elected officials to amend the constitution? Why are elected senators being cited by the NACC for voting on this matter. Why does this matter concern the NACC. Is corruption involved?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

These are the NACC's responsibilities here. So yes, it does fall under there jurisdiction.

The senate boasts a compliment of experienced professionals. Elections would effectively eliminate their valuable expertise from the political process. The appointed senators are economists, scientists, businessmen, judges, lawyers, professors, engineers, social workers, doctors, public servants and consumer advocates. Many would be unwilling to campaign and would have their seats filled by PT puppets funded with PTP money.

Appointed senators have served Canadians for 140 years and have done a fine job of it. An appointed Senate is also essential to Thailand's democracy. The people appointed to the Senate were not usually professional politicians. They had actually done something with their lives. They don't have constituencies to worry about or elections to win. They spend their time seriously reviewing legislation

An appointed senate reflects diversity of the Thai people. Women, visible minorities are too often poorly represented if senators are elected. PTP despise the voice of minority groups. The Deputy PM called minority groups garbage.

Improving Policy. An appoint ted senate could help ensure that policy is based on a wider variety of input based on compromise and consensus among diverse perspectives. PTP hate this fact. They want complete control.

Balancing Power. An appointed senate serves as a check on the concentration of power in the hands of the PM. PTP hate this. They want complete control.

Thank god for the appointed senators. Without them making sound judgments based on facts over beliefs, evidence over hearsay and morals over money would be lost to the dictatorial tendencies of the PTP.

Look at the newly voted Udon senator who smuggled her husband across the border to Laos to escape the law. The Chaing Mai senator Is affiliated with RCM51, a minority driven, violent terrorist group. These lawbreakers will be responsible for passing laws. When the majority of the population has no idea what a senator's job entails yet votes for them this is a very bad sign. Thank god the entities that appoint a senate do so knowing full well the gravity of what a PTP senate could do or at least a senate made up of criminals could do.

So many questions and sorry I have only answered 2. I hope that will suffice as there is a garlic chicken and roast dinner in my oven that won't eat itself!!

Well you've had the saccharine version of how essential and experienced and independent, appointed senators are - here's the reality

Journal of Current

Southeast Asian Affairs

Chambers, Paul (2009),

Superfluous, Mischievous or Emancipating? Thailand’s Evolving Senate Today,

The 2008 Senate ascended to office as a compromise: half appointed and half elected. The democratic part of the body was but a token granted to pro-civil rights groups. The appointed portion was meant to maintain some degree of parliamentary stability and influence by entrenched bureaucratic actors.

Ultimately, it appears that the influence by the military over Thailand’s pre-2000 Senates has indirectly returned (though on a lesser scale) in the post-2008 Upper House. Where Thaksin once lorded over the chamber, in 2009 it was dominated by anti-Thaksin traditionalists.

You can download a pdf of Paul Chambers paper from the net. Recommended reading, if you seriously want the lowdown on the Thai Senate. And just to show some things haven't changed from 2009 we have this, straight from the horses mouth

Appointed senator Somchai Sawaengkarn said the voting patterns of appointed senators show that 60 of the 73 appointed senators are in the anti-government camp.

The remaining 13 are believed to be aligned with the government, Mr Somchai said.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/121241/the-reason-why-the-thai-establishment-likes-appointed-senators/

[paulmw]

Why are there "appointed" and "elected" senators in Thailand? Who appoints these appointed senators? Why is it illegal in Thailand for elected officials to amend the constitution? Why are elected senators being cited by the NACC for voting on this matter. Why does this matter concern the NACC. Is corruption involved?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

These are the NACC's responsibilities here. So yes, it does fall under there jurisdiction.

The senate boasts a compliment of experienced professionals. Elections would effectively eliminate their valuable expertise from the political process. The appointed senators are economists, scientists, businessmen, judges, lawyers, professors, engineers, social workers, doctors, public servants and consumer advocates. Many would be unwilling to campaign and would have their seats filled by PT puppets funded with PTP money.

Appointed senators have served Canadians for 140 years and have done a fine job of it. An appointed Senate is also essential to Thailand's democracy. The people appointed to the Senate were not usually professional politicians. They had actually done something with their lives. They don't have constituencies to worry about or elections to win. They spend their time seriously reviewing legislation

An appointed senate reflects diversity of the Thai people. Women, visible minorities are too often poorly represented if senators are elected. PTP despise the voice of minority groups. The Deputy PM called minority groups garbage.

Improving Policy. An appoint ted senate could help ensure that policy is based on a wider variety of input based on compromise and consensus among diverse perspectives. PTP hate this fact. They want complete control.

Balancing Power. An appointed senate serves as a check on the concentration of power in the hands of the PM. PTP hate this. They want complete control.

Thank god for the appointed senators. Without them making sound judgments based on facts over beliefs, evidence over hearsay and morals over money would be lost to the dictatorial tendencies of the PTP.

Look at the newly voted Udon senator who smuggled her husband across the border to Laos to escape the law. The Chaing Mai senator Is affiliated with RCM51, a minority driven, violent terrorist group. These lawbreakers will be responsible for passing laws. When the majority of the population has no idea what a senator's job entails yet votes for them this is a very bad sign. Thank god the entities that appoint a senate do so knowing full well the gravity of what a PTP senate could do or at least a senate made up of criminals could do.

So many questions and sorry I have only answered 2. I hope that will suffice as there is a garlic chicken and roast dinner in my oven that won't eat itself!!

Very well put.

[Thaiisnotrequired]

Nice uniforms, by the way. Super epaulettes qualifying brain rank, and nice copies of genuine medals rewarded for real honour in the n0n-uncled West (cints).

FETCHING makes me sick, as these loons have probably not got an O-level between them........ ooops, then again.... they sure look smart, and daddy has a hundred million Baht raped from nowhere traceable.

[robblok]

Why are there "appointed" and "elected" senators in Thailand? Who appoints these appointed senators? Why is it illegal in Thailand for elected officials to amend the constitution? Why are elected senators being cited by the NACC for voting on this matter. Why does this matter concern the NACC. Is corruption involved?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Next time follow the news, it was the way they did it that was wrong. They were told they could not do it this way but they still did. There are certain procedures to follow.

This is one of the tasks of the NACC, but unfortunately their budget was slashed by 50% because the PTP did not want them to have enough employees to do good corruption research.

Ad to that that the PTP included 25.000 corruption cases to the amnesty this paints a picture of a party that thrives on corruption and the breaking of the rules.

Now the people (not the paid reds) have risen slowly the cancer that is the PTP is cut out.

The rules being that the government tries to amend the constitution, the Democrats try to block with a legal challenge. The court rules that the government can amend the constitution section by section separately (which gives the unelected Senate the ability to vet each part separately).

Then the NACC rules it a conflict of interests, because the Senate is voting on the electability of the Senate. While ignoring that currently the NACC is on the committee that picks the appointed Senators, i.e. a clear conflict of interest.

So yeh we get it, misuse of corruption laws is a big way your corrupt lot grab power from the elected government.

Since when has a Senator voting on an amendment, as the court said it could, been corruption?

They were wrong, ruled by the courts, of course every red supporter knows better and has studied the law. Please next time show me those law degrees when you fault the courts.

[djjamie]

Well you've had the saccharine version of how essential and experienced and independent, appointed senators are - here's the reality

Journal of Current

Southeast Asian Affairs

Chambers, Paul (2009),

Superfluous, Mischievous or Emancipating? Thailand’s Evolving Senate Today,

The 2008 Senate ascended to office as a compromise: half appointed and half elected. The democratic part of the body was but a token granted to pro-civil rights groups. The appointed portion was meant to maintain some degree of parliamentary stability and influence by entrenched bureaucratic actors.

Ultimately, it appears that the influence by the military over Thailand’s pre-2000 Senates has indirectly returned (though on a lesser scale) in the post-2008 Upper House. Where Thaksin once lorded over the chamber, in 2009 it was dominated by anti-Thaksin traditionalists.

You can download a pdf of Paul Chambers paper from the net. Recommended reading, if you seriously want the lowdown on the Thai Senate. And just to show some things haven't changed from 2009 we have this, straight from the horses mouth

Appointed senator Somchai Sawaengkarn said the voting patterns of appointed senators show that 60 of the 73 appointed senators are in the anti-government camp.

The remaining 13 are believed to be aligned with the government, Mr Somchai said.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/121241/the-reason-why-the-thai-establishment-likes-appointed-senators/

WOW…You are unable to rebut a single sentence I said in the above and instead have used a few "google searches" to put the onus on me to rebut you.

Sorry I am not Tarit who imitates a lap dog.

Rebut my post and then we will talk about your valid and very well written searched "google points"

Can't can you?

Or if we play your game I can then google a few more sites and post them and we will go no where…..in-constructively.

So?

[rametindallas]

No, it is not the way they did it. A law isn't unconstitutional because of procedural error(s). If this was the ONLY issue, the court sends it back to Parliament to see if Parliament can cure the problems. The court found that the manner in which the law was passed was procedurally flawed and that the law itself was unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). So, in the logic of the courts and the NACC, anyone who voted for the constitutional amendment committed a crime. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). The language on prohibiting amendments to the constitution is so broad, I don't see how any provision can be amended. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). And, for me, it is the single most important issue that will prevent any meaningful reform. Based on the court's ruling, any Senator or MP acting in good faith on voting on legislation will nonetheless be guilty of corruption if the law is later ruled to be unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation).

flawed and that the law itself was unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

You can't change the constitution on a popular vote by the Parliament and/or the Senate or else it would be changing the constitution every week to give more and more power to the ruling party. Constitutions are changed by national referendum. It is illegal to vote for a law that would violate the constitution.

anyone who voted for the constitutional amendment committed a crime. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

Anyone (any Senator or MP) voting for an illegal law that illegally changes the constitution is guilty of breaking Thai law. Governments can't be so self-serving as to change the constitution to suit themselves. There are rules on how the constitution can be changed and the NACC has decided that the 38 (so far) defendants are worthy of prosecution. When they eventually get their day in court, they will have every opportunity to defend their actions though I doubt they will use the constitution in their defense.

I don't see how any provision can be amended. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

In a nation-wide referendum, the electorate can vote any and/or all changes to the constitution.

Based on the court's ruling, any Senator or MP acting in good faith on voting on legislation will nonetheless be guilty of corruption if the law is later ruled to be unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

There hasn't been any court ruling so your whole statement is untrue. If there was a court ruling, and what you say is true, they would all be convicted. When were they convicted?

(Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

I'm pretty sure that after your post, not too many people will want to ask you anything. Anyway, I hope I have provided you with rational explanations.

Edited May 21, 2014 by rametindallas

[srsv1238]

Fine upstanding citizens these two are. Look at the lovely uniforms, the braiding, the medals. they must surely have the nations Interests at heart. Maybe the NACC got it all wrong. How can a lovey looking uniformed person smiling do any wrong?

Off with their heads if they are guilty! Off with them then!

that would be the only way to usurp corruption here!

This is why people fear martial law and what happens if the opposition gets to appointed an unelected PM like what Suthep wants. Didn't he come out saying that he was okay with summary executions if elected officials?

Sent from my SM-N900T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[djjamie]

Well you've had the saccharine version of how essential and experienced and independent, appointed senators are - here's the reality

Journal of Current

Southeast Asian Affairs

Chambers, Paul (2009),

Superfluous, Mischievous or Emancipating? Thailand’s Evolving Senate Today,

The 2008 Senate ascended to office as a compromise: half appointed and half elected. The democratic part of the body was but a token granted to pro-civil rights groups. The appointed portion was meant to maintain some degree of parliamentary stability and influence by entrenched bureaucratic actors.

Ultimately, it appears that the influence by the military over Thailand’s pre-2000 Senates has indirectly returned (though on a lesser scale) in the post-2008 Upper House. Where Thaksin once lorded over the chamber, in 2009 it was dominated by anti-Thaksin traditionalists.

You can download a pdf of Paul Chambers paper from the net. Recommended reading, if you seriously want the lowdown on the Thai Senate. And just to show some things haven't changed from 2009 we have this, straight from the horses mouth

Appointed senator Somchai Sawaengkarn said the voting patterns of appointed senators show that 60 of the 73 appointed senators are in the anti-government camp.

The remaining 13 are believed to be aligned with the government, Mr Somchai said.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/121241/the-reason-why-the-thai-establishment-likes-appointed-senators/

WOW…You are unable to rebut a single sentence I said in the above and instead have used a few "google searches" to put the onus on me to rebut you.

Sorry I am not Tarit who imitates a lap dog.

Rebut my post and then we will talk about your valid and very well written searched "google points"

Can't can you?

Or if we play your game I can then google a few more sites and post them and we will go no where…..in-constructively.

So?

So? I want to debate you, but until you can attack my posts and not me we will get no where.

I hope we can discuss the criminals in the senate at a later stage….

I look forward to it...

[fasteddie]

Fine upstanding citizens these two are. Look at the lovely uniforms, the braiding, the medals. they must surely have the nations Interests at heart. Maybe the NACC got it all wrong. How can a lovey looking uniformed person smiling do any wrong?

Off with their heads if they are guilty! Off with them then!

that would be the only way to usurp corruption here!

"that would be the only way to usurp corruption here!"

A Freudian slip methinks!

[gadeloo]

No, it is not the way they did it. A law isn't unconstitutional because of procedural error(s). If this was the ONLY issue, the court sends it back to Parliament to see if Parliament can cure the problems. The court found that the manner in which the law was passed was procedurally flawed and that the law itself was unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). So, in the logic of the courts and the NACC, anyone who voted for the constitutional amendment committed a crime. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). The language on prohibiting amendments to the constitution is so broad, I don't see how any provision can be amended. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). And, for me, it is the single most important issue that will prevent any meaningful reform. Based on the court's ruling, any Senator or MP acting in good faith on voting on legislation will nonetheless be guilty of corruption if the law is later ruled to be unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation).

flawed and that the law itself was unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

You can't change the constitution on a popular vote by the Parliament and/or the Senate or else it would be changing the constitution every week to give more and more power to the ruling party. Constitutions are changed by national referendum. It is illegal to vote for a law that would violate the constitution.

anyone who voted for the constitutional amendment committed a crime. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

Anyone (any Senator or MP) voting for an illegal law that illegally changes the constitution is guilty of breaking Thai law. Governments can't be so self-serving as to change the constitution to suit themselves. There are rules on how the constitution can be changed and the NACC has decided that the 38 (so far) defendants are worthy of prosecution. When they eventually get their day in court, they will have every opportunity to defend their actions though I doubt they will use the constitution in their defense.

I don't see how any provision can be amended. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

In a nation-wide referendum, the electorate can vote any and/or all changes to the constitution.

Based on the court's ruling, any Senator or MP acting in good faith on voting on legislation will nonetheless be guilty of corruption if the law is later ruled to be unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

There hasn't been any court ruling so your whole statement is untrue. If there was a court ruling, and what you say is true, they would all be convicted. When were they convicted?

(Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

I'm pretty sure that after your post, not too many people will want to ask you anything. Anyway, I hope I have provided you with rational explanations.

Now that's what i call a good post. you did answer mr pookiki on every baseless assumption he made. kudo to you sir.

[airconsult]

No, it is not the way they did it. A law isn't unconstitutional because of procedural error(s). If this was the ONLY issue, the court sends it back to Parliament to see if Parliament can cure the problems. The court found that the manner in which the law was passed was procedurally flawed and that the law itself was unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). So, in the logic of the courts and the NACC, anyone who voted for the constitutional amendment committed a crime. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). The language on prohibiting amendments to the constitution is so broad, I don't see how any provision can be amended. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). And, for me, it is the single most important issue that will prevent any meaningful reform. Based on the court's ruling, any Senator or MP acting in good faith on voting on legislation will nonetheless be guilty of corruption if the law is later ruled to be unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation).

flawed and that the law itself was unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

You can't change the constitution on a popular vote by the Parliament and/or the Senate or else it would be changing the constitution every week to give more and more power to the ruling party. Constitutions are changed by national referendum. It is illegal to vote for a law that would violate the constitution.

anyone who voted for the constitutional amendment committed a crime. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

Anyone (any Senator or MP) voting for an illegal law that illegally changes the constitution is guilty of breaking Thai law. Governments can't be so self-serving as to change the constitution to suit themselves. There are rules on how the constitution can be changed and the NACC has decided that the 38 (so far) defendants are worthy of prosecution. When they eventually get their day in court, they will have every opportunity to defend their actions though I doubt they will use the constitution in their defense.

I don't see how any provision can be amended. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

In a nation-wide referendum, the electorate can vote any and/or all changes to the constitution.

Based on the court's ruling, any Senator or MP acting in good faith on voting on legislation will nonetheless be guilty of corruption if the law is later ruled to be unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

There hasn't been any court ruling so your whole statement is untrue. If there was a court ruling, and what you say is true, they would all be convicted. When were they convicted?

(Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

I'm pretty sure that after your post, not too many people will want to ask you anything. Anyway, I hope I have provided you with rational explanations.

Now that's what i call a good post. you did answer mr pookiki on every baseless assumption he made. kudo to you sir.

I think pookiki couldn't be bothered answering as you didn't read section 291. (link provided)

http://www.nhrc.or.th/2012/wb/img_contentpage_attachment/474_file_name_7532.pdf

ramentindallas says "You can't change the constitution on a popular vote by the Parliament and/or the Senate"

However the actual constitution says:

(1) a motion for amendment must be proposed either by the Council of Ministers or members of the House of Representatives of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members of the House of Representatives or members of both Houses of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members thereof or persons having the right to votes of not less than fifty thousand in number under the law on the public submission of a bill;

A motion for amendment which has the effect of changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of State shall be prohibited;

(EDIT - I'm leaving out 2-5 dealing with the 3 readings in parliament - unnecessary to the point)

(6) the voting in the third and final reading shall be by roll call and open voting, and its promulgation as the Constitution must be approved by votes of more than one-half of the total number of the existing members of both Houses;

So you see - actually you DO change the constitution based on a popular vote in parliament - the same procedure was followed by the democrat led government twice between 2009 and 2011.

I hope that ends that point.

[pookiki]

No, it is not the way they did it. A law isn't unconstitutional because of procedural error(s). If this was the ONLY issue, the court sends it back to Parliament to see if Parliament can cure the problems. The court found that the manner in which the law was passed was procedurally flawed and that the law itself was unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). So, in the logic of the courts and the NACC, anyone who voted for the constitutional amendment committed a crime. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). The language on prohibiting amendments to the constitution is so broad, I don't see how any provision can be amended. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). And, for me, it is the single most important issue that will prevent any meaningful reform. Based on the court's ruling, any Senator or MP acting in good faith on voting on legislation will nonetheless be guilty of corruption if the law is later ruled to be unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation).

flawed and that the law itself was unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

You can't change the constitution on a popular vote by the Parliament and/or the Senate or else it would be changing the constitution every week to give more and more power to the ruling party. Constitutions are changed by national referendum. It is illegal to vote for a law that would violate the constitution.

anyone who voted for the constitutional amendment committed a crime. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

Anyone (any Senator or MP) voting for an illegal law that illegally changes the constitution is guilty of breaking Thai law. Governments can't be so self-serving as to change the constitution to suit themselves. There are rules on how the constitution can be changed and the NACC has decided that the 38 (so far) defendants are worthy of prosecution. When they eventually get their day in court, they will have every opportunity to defend their actions though I doubt they will use the constitution in their defense.

I don't see how any provision can be amended. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

In a nation-wide referendum, the electorate can vote any and/or all changes to the constitution.

Based on the court's ruling, any Senator or MP acting in good faith on voting on legislation will nonetheless be guilty of corruption if the law is later ruled to be unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

There hasn't been any court ruling so your whole statement is untrue. If there was a court ruling, and what you say is true, they would all be convicted. When were they convicted?

(Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation)

I'm pretty sure that after your post, not too many people will want to ask you anything. Anyway, I hope I have provided you with rational explanations.

Now that's what i call a good post. you did answer mr pookiki on every baseless assumption he made. kudo to you sir.

Yes, he provided answers based on totally erroneous information. An earlier post provided explicit information on the constitutional provisions governing amendments. I suggest that you read the constitution and see the relevant sections governing this issue.

Edited May 22, 2014 by pookiki

[Piichai]

Fine upstanding citizens these two are. Look at the lovely uniforms, the braiding, the medals. they must surely have the nations Interests at heart. Maybe the NACC got it all wrong. How can a lovey looking uniformed person smiling do any wrong?

Off with their heads if they are guilty! Off with them then!

that would be the only way to usurp corruption here!

This is why people fear martial law and what happens if the opposition gets to appointed an unelected PM like what Suthep wants. Didn't he come out saying that he was okay with summary executions if elected officials?

If executions are the only way to keep those convicted of abusing the public's trust out of government permanently, maybe it's not such a bad idea after all.

[SOTIRIOS]

........rampant....rabid.........

[Traveling Sailor]

Why are there "appointed" and "elected" senators in Thailand? Who appoints these appointed senators? Why is it illegal in Thailand for elected officials to amend the constitution? Why are elected senators being cited by the NACC for voting on this matter. Why does this matter concern the NACC. Is corruption involved?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

TIT! When is political corruption NOT involved?

[Stan7444]

No, it is not the way they did it. A law isn't unconstitutional because of procedural error(s). If this was the ONLY issue, the court sends it back to Parliament to see if Parliament can cure the problems. The court found that the manner in which the law was passed was procedurally flawed and that the law itself was unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). So, in the logic of the courts and the NACC, anyone who voted for the constitutional amendment committed a crime. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). The language on prohibiting amendments to the constitution is so broad, I don't see how any provision can be amended. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation). And, for me, it is the single most important issue that will prevent any meaningful reform. Based on the court's ruling, any Senator or MP acting in good faith on voting on legislation will nonetheless be guilty of corruption if the law is later ruled to be unconstitutional. (Don't ask why, there isn't a rational explanation).

Personally, being from the US, I believe in the "people" electing both houses of the legislature or parliment so there are free choices. Don't know for sure, but the current Thai system appears to be based upon the UK or Candian system. As I understand, having Senators 50% appointed and 50% elected was something new in the 2007 Constitution and Senators previously were all elected. In my judgement, this was written into the most recent Constitution by the coup-makers, which represented the elite class in Thailand so they could maintain control over the lower house. Having academics, doctors, writers, and others in the Senate, without political experience, to me is a negative. The US system is not perfect, but it is balanced when compared to most countries, and the US has not done too badly for the past 250 years using this system. I like the ability to reach out to my Congress representative, for who I cast a vote to elect him/her, and make specific requests for their vote in Congress. Does it work all the time? Of course not, but makes me and many others feel "connected" with the people we have elected to represent us. If I don't like what they do in Congress, I have the right to vote against them the next election.

I cannot figure out how a Senator or MP who voted for a particular bill can be impeached or accused of corruption, malfeaseance or anything else for their voting rights. Only in Thailand and other banana republics. By the way, the bananas are pretty tasty here.

Also, Thailand needs to have a long-lasting Constitution and not change it with every wim of another government that comes into power. The present one least a lot to be determined and guessed at with vague meanings. Can the Senate replace the gov't or can it not with the MPs only replacing the gov't, just as one example.