Two more ex-senators faulted by NACC for charter amendment

[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).

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.

Stan, I agree with everything you say. The judiciary in Thailand is irrational. But stay tuned, another military written Constitution will be published soon!