NCPO to decide today on interim charter

[webfact]

JUNTA
NCPO to decide today on interim charter
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) will today consider giving the nod to the proposed interim charter, which is expected to take effect this month, a source said yesterday.

If the NCPO does not seek any alterations to the draft, the proposed charter will be submitted for royal endorsement.

NCPO chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha had earlier revealed on his weekly television programme "Returning Happiness to the People" on Friday that legal specialists were reviewing the interim charter. The junta will quickly seek royal approval for the charter draft so the country's highest law becomes effective before the end of July.

Wissanu Krea-Ngam, the NCPO's legal advisory chief, said the interim charter would not have more than 50 articles. His team had drafted 45 articles and some extra provisions have also been proposed. If the NCPO thinks the extra provisions are unnecessary, it can remove them.

His team has also proposed two options for the NCPO to choose from regarding the size of the National Legislative Assembly and the Reform Council. One of the options is an assembly with 200 members and a council with 250 members.

He said he was ready to clarify any doubts or issues the NCPO may have regarding the proposed charter. The council will directly explain to the public details of the interim charter.

Parliament secretary-general Charae Panpruang said that although the NCPO had not yet approached him about the setting up of the National Legislative Assembly and the Reform Council, Parliament was ready to provide personnel, premises and offices for both bodies.

Source; http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/NCPO-to-decide-today-on-interim-charter-30237556.html

-- The Nation 2014-07-02

[chainarong]

Returning happiness to the people will take a lot more than fifty articles, happiness comes in different packages, not everyone will get a happy surprise.

[smutcakes]

I notice they have written in an amnesty for themselves.....

[rubl]

I notice they have written in an amnesty for themselves.....

They already informed you of all people ?

[Eric Loh]

This will be tricky for the constitutional court as they have set a precedent in the previous government attempt to re-write the constitution and ruled that a referendum was needed. Or the junta has different set of rules like in last coup charter quashing dissent in their version of the referendum.

[smutcakes]

I notice they have written in an amnesty for themselves.....

They already informed you of all people ?

No, its written in the other paper outlining the key highlights of the interim charter.

There is a simple graphic which makes for easy understanding if you have difficulty reading script.

[rubl]

I notice they have written in an amnesty for themselves.....

They already informed you of all people ?

No, its written in the other paper outlining the key highlights of the interim charter.

There is a simple graphic which makes for easy understanding if you have difficulty reading script.

Thanks Eric, I found it.

The 'amnesty' bit is a bit of a surprise, but only a little bit. When the reforms work out well and most Thai have their lives and freedoms improved by law AND effectively, there will still be some vindictive few who lost their grip (on people).

Mind you, even Gen. Sonthi the 2006 coup leader wasn't too sure about the article in the 2007 constitution. After his party joined the Pheu Thai led coalition government he as MP voted for the blanket amnesty bill just to make double sure

[rubl]

I notice they have written in an amnesty for themselves.....

They already informed you of all people ?

No, its written in the other paper outlining the key highlights of the interim charter.

There is a simple graphic which makes for easy understanding if you have difficulty reading script.

Also a 'thank you to you'.

Found it in the BangkokPost. Mind you, the graphic has no graphics on amnesty, only easy to read script.

[smutcakes]

I notice they have written in an amnesty for themselves.....

They already informed you of all people ?

No, its written in the other paper outlining the key highlights of the interim charter.

There is a simple graphic which makes for easy understanding if you have difficulty reading script.

Thanks Eric, I found it.

The 'amnesty' bit is a bit of a surprise, but only a little bit. When the reforms work out well and most Thai have their lives and freedoms improved by law AND effectively, there will still be some vindictive few who lost their grip (on people).

Mind you, even Gen. Sonthi the 2006 coup leader wasn't too sure about the article in the 2007 constitution. After his party joined the Pheu Thai led coalition government he as MP voted for the blanket amnesty bill just to make double sure

Rubl,

I don't think it is a surprise at all, i just find the whole thing a little bit hypocritical. There are obviously differences between TS amnesty and the proposed one in the interim const, but in both cases, the laws of the land have been broken, yet in one case it is okay for an amnesty (there is no choice anyway), and the other it is not.

It seems all very subjective and on a whim so to speak regarding what is okay in one case, and what is okay in another case.

[rickirs]

This will be tricky for the constitutional court as they have set a precedent in the previous government attempt to re-write the constitution and ruled that a referendum was needed. Or the junta has different set of rules like in last coup charter quashing dissent in their version of the referendum.

The Nation, June 23, 2014 -- "The drafting of the interim constitution has been almost done and the junta has ordered an amendment to free the next charter from public referendum requirement, Isara News Agency reported.

The agency quoted a source from the National Council for Peace and Order as saying that the Wissanu Krea-Ngam, a legal advisor of the NCPO, has submitted a draft of the interim charter for the junta to consider.

The draft interim charter would require the new constitution to be drafted by a constitution drafting assembly to be approved by a national referendum but the junta told Wissanu to delete the clause, the Isara News agency said."

No tricks required. The Constitutional Court will dictated to abide by the new constitution in whatever form it takes. Given that the new constitution will have no more than 50 articles compared to the 2007 Constitution having 309 Articles, and expecting that the 25 Articles under Chapter 2 of the 2007 Constitution related solely to the King will be retained in whole, I'd expect the remaining 25 articles will give the Constitutional Court plenty of opportunity for work.

[Eric Loh]

This will be tricky for the constitutional court as they have set a precedent in the previous government attempt to re-write the constitution and ruled that a referendum was needed. Or the junta has different set of rules like in last coup charter quashing dissent in their version of the referendum.

The Nation, June 23, 2014 -- "The drafting of the interim constitution has been almost done and the junta has ordered an amendment to free the next charter from public referendum requirement, Isara News Agency reported.

The agency quoted a source from the National Council for Peace and Order as saying that the Wissanu Krea-Ngam, a legal advisor of the NCPO, has submitted a draft of the interim charter for the junta to consider.

The draft interim charter would require the new constitution to be drafted by a constitution drafting assembly to be approved by a national referendum but the junta told Wissanu to delete the clause, the Isara News agency said."

No tricks required. The Constitutional Court will dictated to abide by the new constitution in whatever form it takes. Given that the new constitution will have no more than 50 articles compared to the 2007 Constitution having 309 Articles, and expecting that the 25 Articles under Chapter 2 of the 2007 Constitution related solely to the King will be retained in whole, I'd expect the remaining 25 articles will give the Constitutional Court plenty of opportunity for work.

Rickirs, good post. Might as well have the 9 judges take a long vacation.

[tingtongteesood]

what does the army need amnesty for ? they have done nothing wrong.....

[Eric Loh]

what does the army need amnesty for ? they have done nothing wrong.....

Exactly. Why the army need to write themself an amnesty. Insecure, fear or a prelude to something sinister.

[fab4]

I notice they have written in an amnesty for themselves.....

They already informed you of all people ?

No, its written in the other paper outlining the key highlights of the interim charter.

There is a simple graphic which makes for easy understanding if you have difficulty reading script.

Also a 'thank you to you'.

Found it in the BangkokPost. Mind you, the graphic has no graphics on amnesty, only easy to read script.

I look forward to your assertion that the new constitution is very similar to the "old" constitution and that very little has been changed.................

[smutcakes]

what does the army need amnesty for ? they have done nothing wrong.....

For such a ardent supporter of rule of law, i find it surprising that you don't know that a Coup is actually illegal and against the law.

I don't however find it surprising that you dismiss some people law breaking but an ardent advocate of other people breaking the law being brought to justice. Just depends on who is breaking it whether you support it or not.

Obviously they are well aware of the law, given they have written an amnesty for the law breaking into the interim charter.

[tingtongteesood]

what does the army need amnesty for ? they have done nothing wrong.....

For such a ardent supporter of rule of law, i find it surprising that you don't know that a Coup is actually illegal and against the law.

I don't however find it surprising that you dismiss some people law breaking but an ardent advocate of other people breaking the law being brought to justice. Just depends on who is breaking it whether you support it or not.

Obviously they are well aware of the law, given they have written an amnesty for the law breaking into the interim charter.

But this isn't a coup hahaha. And if it is 'breaking the law' as you say, how ironic is it that we have the best 'rule of law' the country has seen in years going on right now. I say again, the army did nothing wrong. Their actions were well beyond warranted and they did the right thing, anyone with half a brain can see and understand that and they are doing a great job so far for the most part. Keep it up boys and girls !

As for your personal attack against me, I think you know what you can do with it. Yes I am an ardent supporter of the rule of law REGARDLESS of who it is and have stated as much many times.

[smutcakes]

what does the army need amnesty for ? they have done nothing wrong.....

For such a ardent supporter of rule of law, i find it surprising that you don't know that a Coup is actually illegal and against the law.

I don't however find it surprising that you dismiss some people law breaking but an ardent advocate of other people breaking the law being brought to justice. Just depends on who is breaking it whether you support it or not.

Obviously they are well aware of the law, given they have written an amnesty for the law breaking into the interim charter.

But this isn't a coup hahaha. And if it is 'breaking the law' as you say, how ironic is it that we have the best 'rule of law' the country has seen in years going on right now. I say again, the army did nothing wrong. Their actions were well beyond warranted and they did the right thing, anyone with half a brain can see and understand that and they are doing a great job so far for the most part. Keep it up boys and girls !

As for your personal attack against me, I think you know what you can do with it. Yes I am an ardent supporter of the rule of law REGARDLESS of who it is and have stated as much many times.

Whether it was warranted or not is beside the point.

Is a coup legal? No

Is it an illegal action? Yes

So you don't support rule of law, you do on a case by case basis.

[tingtongteesood]

I don't care whether or not 'the coup' is legal as it has been the best course of action for the country. It was needed and now the country has greatly improved in just a month. I applaud the army for their actions as do a vast majority of others. If you don't like it you can go and sulk with the red shirt comrades, I choose to revel in a better country.

[smutcakes]

I don't care whether or not 'the coup' is legal as it has been the best course of action for the country. It was needed and now the country has greatly improved in just a month. I applaud the army for their actions as do a vast majority of others. If you don't like it you can go and sulk with the red shirt comrades, I choose to revel in a better country.

Your post is just a litany of assumptions and speculations which are your opinions.

The only thing that is a 'fact' is that you don't care about the rule of law.

[tingtongteesood]

I don't care whether or not 'the coup' is legal as it has been the best course of action for the country. It was needed and now the country has greatly improved in just a month. I applaud the army for their actions as do a vast majority of others. If you don't like it you can go and sulk with the red shirt comrades, I choose to revel in a better country.

Your post is just a litany of assumptions and speculations which are your opinions.

The only thing that is a 'fact' is that you don't care about the rule of law.

You are full of crap. I am not going to get drawn into a pointless waste of time argument with you, I have a life and better things to do. You think what you want, I dont give a crap. You seemingly prefer life with red shirts murdering people, you think that is legal ? You can keep it and stick it. We are much better off now.

[siampolee]

coup d'état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/; French: blow of state; plural: coups d'état audio (help·info)), also known as a coup, a putsch, or an overthrow, is the sudden and illegal seizure of a government,usually instigated by a small group of the existing state establishment to depose the established government and replace it with a new ruling body, civil or military. A coup d'état is considered successful when the usurpers establish their dominance. When the coup neither fails completely nor succeeds, a civil war is a likely consequence.

A coup d'état typically uses the extant government's power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak states that "[a] coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder." The armed forces, whether military or paramilitary, can be a defining factor of a coup d'état.

Politically, a coup d'état is a usually violent method of political engineering, which affects who rules in the government, without radical changes in the form of the government, the political system. Tactically, a coup d'état involves control, by an active minority of usurpers, who block the remaining (non-participant) defenders of the state's possible defence of the attacked government, by either capturing or expelling the politico-military leaders, and seizing physical control of the country's key government offices, communications media, and infrastructure. It is to be noted that in the latest years there has been a broad use of the phrase in mass media, which may contradict the legal definition of "coup d'état". In looser usage (as in intelligence coup, boardroom coup) the term simply refers to gaining a sudden advantage on a rival.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup

In truth a very difficult decision as to the legality or illegality of the recent military take over here in Thailand in view of the comments above

One could suggest that the proposed actions (political engineering) of the previous administration would or could have constituted a political or a personal coup by one family in view of the proposed controversial amnesty bills and charter changes too.

Edited July 2, 2014 by siampolee

[smutcakes]

coup d'état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/; French: blow of state; plural: coups d'état audio (help·info)), also known as a coup, a putsch, or an overthrow, is the sudden and illegal seizure of a government,usually instigated by a small group of the existing state establishment to depose the established government and replace it with a new ruling body, civil or military. A coup d'état is considered successful when the usurpers establish their dominance. When the coup neither fails completely nor succeeds, a civil war is a likely consequence.

A coup d'état typically uses the extant government's power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak states that "[a] coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder." The armed forces, whether military or paramilitary, can be a defining factor of a coup d'état.

Politically, a coup d'état is a usually violent method of political engineering, which affects who rules in the government, without radical changes in the form of the government, the political system. Tactically, a coup d'état involves control, by an active minority of usurpers, who block the remaining (non-participant) defenders of the state's possible defence of the attacked government, by either capturing or expelling the politico-military leaders, and seizing physical control of the country's key government offices, communications media, and infrastructure. It is to be noted that in the latest years there has been a broad use of the phrase in mass media, which may contradict the legal definition of "coup d'état". In looser usage (as in intelligence coup, boardroom coup) the term simply refers to gaining a sudden advantage on a rival.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup

In truth a very difficult decision as to the legality or illegality of the recent military take over here in Thailand in view of the comments above

One could suggest that the proposed actions (political engineering) of the previous administration would or could have constituted a political or a personal coup by one family in view of the proposed controversial amnesty bills and charter changes too.

Yet an amnesty for an illegal move by the Junta is okay? Its the principle and hypocrisy of the act which confuses me.

Actually the NCPO are seemingly doing a decent job so long may it continue,and hopefully the reforms they carry out are equitable and will ensure long term change in the running of the country. The fact they are pretty much doing things word for word along the PDRC requirements will not have gone unnoticed i would suppose.

However my statement above should be taken with caution, as with the current ban on to much political expression and the media being controlled to an extent- the reporting is obviously always slanted in favor, so what is portrayed, may not entirely be the prevailing view.

[Eric Loh]

coup d'état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/; French: blow of state; plural: coups d'état audio (help·info)), also known as a coup, a putsch, or an overthrow, is the sudden and illegal seizure of a government,usually instigated by a small group of the existing state establishment to depose the established government and replace it with a new ruling body, civil or military. A coup d'état is considered successful when the usurpers establish their dominance. When the coup neither fails completely nor succeeds, a civil war is a likely consequence.

A coup d'état typically uses the extant government's power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak states that "[a] coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder." The armed forces, whether military or paramilitary, can be a defining factor of a coup d'état.

Politically, a coup d'état is a usually violent method of political engineering, which affects who rules in the government, without radical changes in the form of the government, the political system. Tactically, a coup d'état involves control, by an active minority of usurpers, who block the remaining (non-participant) defenders of the state's possible defence of the attacked government, by either capturing or expelling the politico-military leaders, and seizing physical control of the country's key government offices, communications media, and infrastructure. It is to be noted that in the latest years there has been a broad use of the phrase in mass media, which may contradict the legal definition of "coup d'état". In looser usage (as in intelligence coup, boardroom coup) the term simply refers to gaining a sudden advantage on a rival.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup

In truth a very difficult decision as to the legality or illegality of the recent military take over here in Thailand in view of the comments above

One could suggest that the proposed actions (political engineering) of the previous administration would or could have constituted a political or a personal coup by one family in view of the proposed controversial amnesty bills and charter changes too.

Don't see any difficulty even if you refer to the qoute as it clearly said "an illegal seizure of a government". Even your poor attempt at quoting the controversial amnesty bill and charter changes which you rightly said were only proposals which were shot down by oppositions and the courts. In the case of a coup, all bills and charter changes will not have oppositions and the courts will step aside.

[lostsoul49]

Rubl,

I don't think it is a surprise at all, i just find the whole thing a little bit hypocritical. There are obviously differences between TS amnesty and the proposed one in the interim const, but in both cases, the laws of the land have been broken, yet in one case it is okay for an amnesty (there is no choice anyway), and the other it is not.

It seems all very subjective and on a whim so to speak regarding what is okay in one case, and what is okay in another case.

I think the important thing that you seem to be ignoring is the vast difference between the two amnesties.

One amnesty is to clear the Junta from prosecution for removing a very corrupt government for the good of the country and to stop the insane murders and possibility of a civil war... the other amnesty would have absolved political terrorists and cleared out more than 25,000 cases of corruption for the benefit of only one man, and was actually the spark that ignited the recent crisis in the first place.

Keep it real please.

Edited July 2, 2014 by lostsoul49

[Thanet]

Wasn't a proposed amnesty for the other side the whole reason why the anti-government lot took to the streets in the first place?

I'm not sure how this amnesty for themselves, while prosecuting cases against all opposition, will buttress the NCPO's stated cause of reconciliation.

The junta would earn itself a great deal of (much needed) credibility by remaining perfectly neutral in the eyes of both sides.

[Thanet]

Rubl,

I don't think it is a surprise at all, i just find the whole thing a little bit hypocritical. There are obviously differences between TS amnesty and the proposed one in the interim const, but in both cases, the laws of the land have been broken, yet in one case it is okay for an amnesty (there is no choice anyway), and the other it is not.

It seems all very subjective and on a whim so to speak regarding what is okay in one case, and what is okay in another case.

I think the important thing that you seem to be ignoring is the vast difference between the two amnesties.

One amnesty is to clear the Junta from prosecution for removing a very corrupt government for the good of the country and to stop the insane murders and possibility of a civil war... the other amnesty would have absolved political terrorists and cleared out more than 25,000 cases of corruption for the benefit of only one man, and was actually the spark that ignited the recent crisis in the first place.

Keep it real please.

You talk about reality. Now there's an interesting thought.

Given that the media is censored by just one side, how do you know all these accusations are true? For all we know, all this could be propaganda.

How do we know what's real, and what isn't?

Edited July 2, 2014 by Thanet

[JAG]

I notice they have written in an amnesty for themselves.....

Gosh no, I mean how extraordinary, I am surprised at that!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[rabas]

Rubl,

I don't think it is a surprise at all, i just find the whole thing a little bit hypocritical. There are obviously differences between TS amnesty and the proposed one in the interim const, but in both cases, the laws of the land have been broken, yet in one case it is okay for an amnesty (there is no choice anyway), and the other it is not.

It seems all very subjective and on a whim so to speak regarding what is okay in one case, and what is okay in another case.

I think the important thing that you seem to be ignoring is the vast difference between the two amnesties.

One amnesty is to clear the Junta from prosecution for removing a very corrupt government for the good of the country and to stop the insane murders and possibility of a civil war... the other amnesty would have absolved political terrorists and cleared out more than 25,000 cases of corruption for the benefit of only one man, and was actually the spark that ignited the recent crisis in the first place.

Keep it real please.

You talk about reality. Now there's an interesting thought.

Given that the media is censored by just one side, how do you know all these accusations are true? For all we know, all this could be propaganda.

How do we know what's real, and what isn't?

Ask the Thai, they live here, they've known all along.

[Artisi]

I don't care whether or not 'the coup' is legal as it has been the best course of action for the country. It was needed and now the country has greatly improved in just a month. I applaud the army for their actions as do a vast majority of others. If you don't like it you can go and sulk with the red shirt comrades, I choose to revel in a better country.

Your post is just a litany of assumptions and speculations which are your opinions.

The only thing that is a 'fact' is that you don't care about the rule of law.

Unlike the previous government who complied without fear or favour to uphold the rule of law.

[jchfriis]

What I don't understand about the Thai Constitutions is the fact that they have been so easy to amend. I come from a country where we've had the same constitution for 200 years. I believe one of the reasons for that is that it takes 2/3 majority to make changes and then there has to be a general election and one more time 2/3 majority before any change can take effect. A constitution should not be a peace of paper that can be thrown out with the morning trash.