NCPO to decide today on interim charter

[bigbamboo]

I think most of the Thai people will go for it and it will be supported by the majority of foreigners living here too. It's the foreign governments who don't seem to grasp the realities of life in Thailand.

[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?

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

You make me smile with your assumptions based on a whole lot of nothingness. How do you know whether I'm Thai or not?

[rickirs]

Any bets (figuratively speaking of couirse) that any of the following eight Articles in the 2007 Constitution will survive?Article 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional convention in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.

Article 28. A person can invoke human dignity or exercise his rights and liberties in so far as it is not in violation of rights and liberties of other persons or contrary to this Constitution or good morals

Article 36. A person shall enjoy the liberty of communication by lawful means. The censorship, detention or disclosure of communication between persons including any other act of disclosing a statement in the communication between persons shall not be made except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for security of the State or maintaining public order or good morals.

Article 45. A person shall enjoy the liberty to express his opinion, make speech, write, print, publicize, and make expression by other means.....The prevention of a newspaper or other mass media from printing news or expressing their opinions, wholly or partly, or interference in any manner whatsoever in deprivation of the liberty under this section shall not be made …..

Article 63. A person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms.

Article 65. A person shall enjoy the liberty to unite and form a political party for the purpose of making political will of the people and carrying out political activities in fulfillment of such will through the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State as provided in this Constitution.

Article 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

Article 69. A person shall have the right to resist peacefully an act committed for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by a means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

[rubl]

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.................

The 'interim constitution will be a wee bit short, but the version the CDC will produce may be much longer. It is only around August 2015 or so that the new Constitution may be ready for the NCR to approve,

As I'm not on either CDC or NCR I'm afraid it will be a while before I'm able to oblige you. Such is life, terribly sorry and all that, my boy.

[diehard60]

 

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

 

where did you read this? really interested to read it myself.

[whybother]

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

Do you expect them to turn the country over to a civilian government and head off to prison for 20 years? That's a bit like thinking Thaksin will spend his 2 years in jail.

[whybother]

Any bets (figuratively speaking of couirse) that any of the following eight Articles in the 2007 Constitution will survive?Article 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional convention in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.

Article 28. A person can invoke human dignity or exercise his rights and liberties in so far as it is not in violation of rights and liberties of other persons or contrary to this Constitution or good morals

Article 36. A person shall enjoy the liberty of communication by lawful means. The censorship, detention or disclosure of communication between persons including any other act of disclosing a statement in the communication between persons shall not be made except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for security of the State or maintaining public order or good morals.

Article 45. A person shall enjoy the liberty to express his opinion, make speech, write, print, publicize, and make expression by other means.....The prevention of a newspaper or other mass media from printing news or expressing their opinions, wholly or partly, or interference in any manner whatsoever in deprivation of the liberty under this section shall not be made …..

Article 63. A person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms.

Article 65. A person shall enjoy the liberty to unite and form a political party for the purpose of making political will of the people and carrying out political activities in fulfillment of such will through the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State as provided in this Constitution.

Article 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

Article 69. A person shall have the right to resist peacefully an act committed for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by a means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

They were in the 1997 and 2007 constitution. Why wouldn't they survive?

[Thanet]

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

Do you expect them to turn the country over to a civilian government and head off to prison for 20 years? That's a bit like thinking Thaksin will spend his 2 years in jail.

You are right - they would never do that. They of course will want to save their own skins.

The catch is that an amnesty for one side, while refusing one for the other will make reconciliation more difficult. Thai people are not fools, and the pretext of neutrality was used to overthrow the previous government, who were at the time trying to introduce an amnesty bill for the 'other' side.

True reconciliation will only be achieved if the slate is wiped clean in an open and honest way.

[Thanet]

Any bets (figuratively speaking of couirse) that any of the following eight Articles in the 2007 Constitution will survive?Article 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional convention in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.

Article 28. A person can invoke human dignity or exercise his rights and liberties in so far as it is not in violation of rights and liberties of other persons or contrary to this Constitution or good morals

Article 36. A person shall enjoy the liberty of communication by lawful means. The censorship, detention or disclosure of communication between persons including any other act of disclosing a statement in the communication between persons shall not be made except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for security of the State or maintaining public order or good morals.

Article 45. A person shall enjoy the liberty to express his opinion, make speech, write, print, publicize, and make expression by other means.....The prevention of a newspaper or other mass media from printing news or expressing their opinions, wholly or partly, or interference in any manner whatsoever in deprivation of the liberty under this section shall not be made …..

Article 63. A person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms.

Article 65. A person shall enjoy the liberty to unite and form a political party for the purpose of making political will of the people and carrying out political activities in fulfillment of such will through the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State as provided in this Constitution.

Article 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

Article 69. A person shall have the right to resist peacefully an act committed for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by a means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

They were in the 1997 and 2007 constitution. Why wouldn't they survive?

Because these cluses mandate handing the right of freedom of expression, as well as freedom of information, back to the people.

Unless I'm mistaken, @rickirs is doubting that the generals will ever allow these kinds of freedoms again. It's simply too hard for them to remain in total control in such a scenario.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Thanet

[rubl]

Any bets (figuratively speaking of couirse) that any of the following eight Articles in the 2007 Constitution will survive?Article 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional convention in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.

Article 28. A person can invoke human dignity or exercise his rights and liberties in so far as it is not in violation of rights and liberties of other persons or contrary to this Constitution or good morals

Article 36. A person shall enjoy the liberty of communication by lawful means. The censorship, detention or disclosure of communication between persons including any other act of disclosing a statement in the communication between persons shall not be made except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for security of the State or maintaining public order or good morals.

Article 45. A person shall enjoy the liberty to express his opinion, make speech, write, print, publicize, and make expression by other means.....The prevention of a newspaper or other mass media from printing news or expressing their opinions, wholly or partly, or interference in any manner whatsoever in deprivation of the liberty under this section shall not be made …..

Article 63. A person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms.

Article 65. A person shall enjoy the liberty to unite and form a political party for the purpose of making political will of the people and carrying out political activities in fulfillment of such will through the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State as provided in this Constitution.

Article 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

Article 69. A person shall have the right to resist peacefully an act committed for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by a means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

They were in the 1997 and 2007 constitution. Why wouldn't they survive?

Because these cluses mandate handing the right of freedom of expression, as well as freedom of information, back to the people.

Unless I'm mistaken, @rickirs is doubting that the generals will ever allow these kinds of freedoms again. It's simply too hard for them to remain in total control in such a scenario.

Totally agree! It's just in the mindset, that of rickers and you that is. Others have other ideas of what needs to be done and what may be necessary to make sure it can be done rather than having politicians start the bickering again without regard for the country and it's people. Even our dear publicus once wrote that the 2007 constitution was flawed and based on a flawed 1997 constitution.

Now that's from a different mindset, one which tries to move Thailand into the 21st century before it's finished.

Anyway having been a bit busy, did I miss the publishing of the 'interim' constitution?

[whybother]

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

Do you expect them to turn the country over to a civilian government and head off to prison for 20 years? That's a bit like thinking Thaksin will spend his 2 years in jail.

You are right - they would never do that. They of course will want to save their own skins.

The catch is that an amnesty for one side, while refusing one for the other will make reconciliation more difficult. Thai people are not fools, and the pretext of neutrality was used to overthrow the previous government, who were at the time trying to introduce an amnesty bill for the 'other' side.

True reconciliation will only be achieved if the slate is wiped clean in an open and honest way.

There are three sides to this: the "yellow shirts", the "red shirts" and the military junta.

The military junta WILL write in an amnesty for them for their actions relating to the coup, just as they did for the interim 2006 constitution. They aren't writing in any amnesty for either of the "shirts" sides, or for any actions not relating to the coup.

Anyone that relates the amnesty for the junta to the amnesty bill proposed by PTP is the fool.

[Thanet]

Any bets (figuratively speaking of couirse) that any of the following eight Articles in the 2007 Constitution will survive?Article 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional convention in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.

Article 28. A person can invoke human dignity or exercise his rights and liberties in so far as it is not in violation of rights and liberties of other persons or contrary to this Constitution or good morals

Article 36. A person shall enjoy the liberty of communication by lawful means. The censorship, detention or disclosure of communication between persons including any other act of disclosing a statement in the communication between persons shall not be made except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for security of the State or maintaining public order or good morals.

Article 45. A person shall enjoy the liberty to express his opinion, make speech, write, print, publicize, and make expression by other means.....The prevention of a newspaper or other mass media from printing news or expressing their opinions, wholly or partly, or interference in any manner whatsoever in deprivation of the liberty under this section shall not be made …..

Article 63. A person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms.

Article 65. A person shall enjoy the liberty to unite and form a political party for the purpose of making political will of the people and carrying out political activities in fulfillment of such will through the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State as provided in this Constitution.

Article 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

Article 69. A person shall have the right to resist peacefully an act committed for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by a means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

They were in the 1997 and 2007 constitution. Why wouldn't they survive?

Because these cluses mandate handing the right of freedom of expression, as well as freedom of information, back to the people.

Unless I'm mistaken, @rickirs is doubting that the generals will ever allow these kinds of freedoms again. It's simply too hard for them to remain in total control in such a scenario.

Totally agree! It's just in the mindset, that of rickers and you that is. Others have other ideas of what needs to be done and what may be necessary to make sure it can be done rather than having politicians start the bickering again without regard for the country and it's people. Even our dear publicus once wrote that the 2007 constitution was flawed and based on a flawed 1997 constitution.

Now that's from a different mindset, one which tries to move Thailand into the 21st century before it's finished.

Anyway having been a bit busy, did I miss the publishing of the 'interim' constitution?

Thanks for being clear on how you feel.

What separates us is the system of government that we believe in. In your case, you believe that an authoritarian dictatorship is the best system of government, one that allows no political debate, and one that denies its citizenry the rights of freedom of expression and information that we take for granted, and that Thais were learning to take for granted.

You are entitled to that hold that view, and since your birth you have been used to voicing your opinions publicly, being that you were likely born and raised in a democracy. Your forefathers, and those that supported them, fought for that right. From your profile, it looks like you are from Holland. You likely wouldn't even be around to post messages on TVF had others not fought for that right on your behalf, before you were born.

Be very grateful for that right, and look back on it with fondness once the novelty of repression wears off

Edited July 3, 2014 by Thanet

[Thanet]

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

Do you expect them to turn the country over to a civilian government and head off to prison for 20 years? That's a bit like thinking Thaksin will spend his 2 years in jail.

You are right - they would never do that. They of course will want to save their own skins.

The catch is that an amnesty for one side, while refusing one for the other will make reconciliation more difficult. Thai people are not fools, and the pretext of neutrality was used to overthrow the previous government, who were at the time trying to introduce an amnesty bill for the 'other' side.

True reconciliation will only be achieved if the slate is wiped clean in an open and honest way.

There are three sides to this: the "yellow shirts", the "red shirts" and the military junta.

The military junta WILL write in an amnesty for them for their actions relating to the coup, just as they did for the interim 2006 constitution. They aren't writing in any amnesty for either of the "shirts" sides, or for any actions not relating to the coup.

Anyone that relates the amnesty for the junta to the amnesty bill proposed by PTP is the fool.

If the junta remains perfectly neutral, then I'll agree that there are three sides.

Otherwise there are two.

[whybother]

There are three sides to this: the "yellow shirts", the "red shirts" and the military junta.

The military junta WILL write in an amnesty for them for their actions relating to the coup, just as they did for the interim 2006 constitution. They aren't writing in any amnesty for either of the "shirts" sides, or for any actions not relating to the coup.

Anyone that relates the amnesty for the junta to the amnesty bill proposed by PTP is the fool.

If the junta remains perfectly neutral, then I'll agree that there are three sides.

Otherwise there are two.

Even if you think there is a bias, the amnesty for the coup is in a different ball park to amnesty for corruption (ie PTP's amnesty bill).

[Thanet]

There are three sides to this: the "yellow shirts", the "red shirts" and the military junta.

The military junta WILL write in an amnesty for them for their actions relating to the coup, just as they did for the interim 2006 constitution. They aren't writing in any amnesty for either of the "shirts" sides, or for any actions not relating to the coup.

Anyone that relates the amnesty for the junta to the amnesty bill proposed by PTP is the fool.

If the junta remains perfectly neutral, then I'll agree that there are three sides.

Otherwise there are two.

Even if you think there is a bias, the amnesty for the coup is in a different ball park to amnesty for corruption (ie PTP's amnesty bill).

Why should that be so?

[whybother]

Even if you think there is a bias, the amnesty for the coup is in a different ball park to amnesty for corruption (ie PTP's amnesty bill).

Why should that be so?

Because it's reality. Regardless of whether the coup was needed or not, or if you agree with it or not, the coup junta are not going to head off to jail once they hand back over to a civilian government.

They won't be giving themselves amnesty for corruption. They won't be giving the yellow shirts amnesty for their political protests over the last 10 years, or any corruption cases against anyone on that side of the spectrum. They won't be giving amnesty to 25,000 corruption cases.

If you can't see the difference between an amnesty for the coup and an amnesty for 25,000 corruption cases, then I can't help you.

Yes, they are both wrong, but the reality is that the coup junta will give themselves amnesty.

[maxme]

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.

Sticks and stones...

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Thanet]

Even if you think there is a bias, the amnesty for the coup is in a different ball park to amnesty for corruption (ie PTP's amnesty bill).

Why should that be so?

Because it's reality. Regardless of whether the coup was needed or not, or if you agree with it or not, the coup junta are not going to head off to jail once they hand back over to a civilian government.

They won't be giving themselves amnesty for corruption. They won't be giving the yellow shirts amnesty for their political protests over the last 10 years, or any corruption cases against anyone on that side of the spectrum. They won't be giving amnesty to 25,000 corruption cases.

If you can't see the difference between an amnesty for the coup and an amnesty for 25,000 corruption cases, then I can't help you.

Yes, they are both wrong, but the reality is that the coup junta will give themselves amnesty.

Whether or not they'll give themselves amnesty for corruption remains to be seen. Previous military governments in Thailand don't have a very good track record in that area, but let's see.

I like your (rather cheeky) attempt to distort the seriousness of a coup by equating it with past corruption allegations in the ration of 1:25,000, thereby appearing to diminish the seriousness of a coup by 25,000 fold, based on a (false) premise that 1 coup = 1 corruption case on a scale of seriousness. I'd counter by saying that a coup is a far more serious matter than a single allegation or case of corruption, and can never be justified in a democracy, where the electorate have the power to defenestrate any government they grow tired of.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your points, but any injustice and impartiality will make the dream of reconciliation just that - a dream. Unless reconciliation through repression is what the junta has in mind, that is.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Thanet

[whybother]

Even if you think there is a bias, the amnesty for the coup is in a different ball park to amnesty for corruption (ie PTP's amnesty bill).

Why should that be so?

Because it's reality. Regardless of whether the coup was needed or not, or if you agree with it or not, the coup junta are not going to head off to jail once they hand back over to a civilian government.

They won't be giving themselves amnesty for corruption. They won't be giving the yellow shirts amnesty for their political protests over the last 10 years, or any corruption cases against anyone on that side of the spectrum. They won't be giving amnesty to 25,000 corruption cases.

If you can't see the difference between an amnesty for the coup and an amnesty for 25,000 corruption cases, then I can't help you.

Yes, they are both wrong, but the reality is that the coup junta will give themselves amnesty.

Whether or not they'll give themselves amnesty for corruption remains to be seen. Previous military governments in Thailand don't have a very good track record in that area, but let's see.

I like your (rather cheeky) attempt to distort the seriousness of a coup by equating it with past corruption allegations in the ration of 1:25,000, thereby appearing to diminish the seriousness of a coup by 25,000 fold, based on a (false) premise that 1 coup = 1 corruption case on a scale of seriousness. I'd counter by saying that a coup is a far more serious matter than a single allegation or case of corruption, and can never be justified in a democracy, where the electorate have the power to defenestrate any government they grow tired of.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your points, but any injustice and impartiality will make the dream of reconciliation just that - a dream. Unless reconciliation through repression is what the junta has in mind, that is.

Whether it's 1 corruption case or 25,000, it's in a different ball park to the coup. Not better or worse, just different, and therefore not comparable.

The idea of reconciliation is different to different people. For some, it's a reset back to 2005/6 with Thaksin back in power and for others it's getting rid of corrupt government policies. In reality, it's somewhere in between, where no one gets everything that they want. That's a pretty foreign concept for Thailand.

If the red shirts pin their reconciliation on the junta going to jail, then they'll be waiting a hell of a long time.

[Thanet]

Why should that be so?

Because it's reality. Regardless of whether the coup was needed or not, or if you agree with it or not, the coup junta are not going to head off to jail once they hand back over to a civilian government.

They won't be giving themselves amnesty for corruption. They won't be giving the yellow shirts amnesty for their political protests over the last 10 years, or any corruption cases against anyone on that side of the spectrum. They won't be giving amnesty to 25,000 corruption cases.

If you can't see the difference between an amnesty for the coup and an amnesty for 25,000 corruption cases, then I can't help you.

Yes, they are both wrong, but the reality is that the coup junta will give themselves amnesty.

Whether or not they'll give themselves amnesty for corruption remains to be seen. Previous military governments in Thailand don't have a very good track record in that area, but let's see.

I like your (rather cheeky) attempt to distort the seriousness of a coup by equating it with past corruption allegations in the ration of 1:25,000, thereby appearing to diminish the seriousness of a coup by 25,000 fold, based on a (false) premise that 1 coup = 1 corruption case on a scale of seriousness. I'd counter by saying that a coup is a far more serious matter than a single allegation or case of corruption, and can never be justified in a democracy, where the electorate have the power to defenestrate any government they grow tired of.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your points, but any injustice and impartiality will make the dream of reconciliation just that - a dream. Unless reconciliation through repression is what the junta has in mind, that is.

Whether it's 1 corruption case or 25,000, it's in a different ball park to the coup. Not better or worse, just different, and therefore not comparable.

The idea of reconciliation is different to different people. For some, it's a reset back to 2005/6 with Thaksin back in power and for others it's getting rid of corrupt government policies. In reality, it's somewhere in between, where no one gets everything that they want. That's a pretty foreign concept for Thailand.

If the red shirts pin their reconciliation on the junta going to jail, then they'll be waiting a hell of a long time.

>> The idea of reconciliation is different to different people.

If reconciliation means different things to different people, then you'd have to agree that it's an impossibility - when one side is content, thinking that hey have reconciled, the other side would not be in agreement, and would be discontented, right?

Here was me thinking that reconciliation was all about forgetting past differences and agreeing to live together in harmony. For that, you need an approach that treats both sides equally, otherwise there will never be any happiness.

[whybother]

>> The idea of reconciliation is different to different people.

If reconciliation means different things to different people, then you'd have to agree that it's an impossibility - when one side is content, thinking that hey have reconciled, the other side would not be in agreement, and would be discontented, right?

Here was me thinking that reconciliation was all about forgetting past differences and agreeing to live together in harmony. For that, you need an approach that treats both sides equally, otherwise there will never be any happiness.

You're never going to get everyone to agree. The idea is to get the vast majority to agree, whether they like all of it or not, and to be able to side line the extremists at the edges. That doesn't mean forgetting past differences, either. It's about getting over past differences, and dealing with those differences so that they don't become issues again.

The PTP's "reconciliation" efforts were a pretty good example of "when one side is content that they have reconciled". They tried the "forgetting past differences" (amnesty) so that everyone could go back to what they were doing before. All that was ever going to do was start the cycle over.

[Thanet]

>> The idea of reconciliation is different to different people.

If reconciliation means different things to different people, then you'd have to agree that it's an impossibility - when one side is content, thinking that hey have reconciled, the other side would not be in agreement, and would be discontented, right?

Here was me thinking that reconciliation was all about forgetting past differences and agreeing to live together in harmony. For that, you need an approach that treats both sides equally, otherwise there will never be any happiness.

You're never going to get everyone to agree. The idea is to get the vast majority to agree, whether they like all of it or not, and to be able to side line the extremists at the edges. That doesn't mean forgetting past differences, either. It's about getting over past differences, and dealing with those differences so that they don't become issues again.

The PTP's "reconciliation" efforts were a pretty good example of "when one side is content that they have reconciled". They tried the "forgetting past differences" (amnesty) so that everyone could go back to what they were doing before. All that was ever going to do was start the cycle over.

Glad to see that you have democratic principles after all - "getting the majority to agree" and all that. Leading them by example, to harmoniously respect the voice of the majority, I presume, is what you are referring to.

A minority forcing the majority to be be nice to each other, and to respect majority rule, all under the barrel of a gun, is another principle entirely, and strikes me as something of a contradiction.

Harmony and contradiction are opposites.

[JAG]

Any bets (figuratively speaking of couirse) that any of the following eight Articles in the 2007 Constitution will survive?Article 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional convention in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.

Article 28. A person can invoke human dignity or exercise his rights and liberties in so far as it is not in violation of rights and liberties of other persons or contrary to this Constitution or good morals

Article 36. A person shall enjoy the liberty of communication by lawful means. The censorship, detention or disclosure of communication between persons including any other act of disclosing a statement in the communication between persons shall not be made except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for security of the State or maintaining public order or good morals.

Article 45. A person shall enjoy the liberty to express his opinion, make speech, write, print, publicize, and make expression by other means.....The prevention of a newspaper or other mass media from printing news or expressing their opinions, wholly or partly, or interference in any manner whatsoever in deprivation of the liberty under this section shall not be made …..

Article 63. A person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms.

Article 65. A person shall enjoy the liberty to unite and form a political party for the purpose of making political will of the people and carrying out political activities in fulfillment of such will through the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State as provided in this Constitution.

Article 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

Article 69. A person shall have the right to resist peacefully an act committed for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by a means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

They were in the 1997 and 2007 constitution. Why wouldn't they survive?

Because these cluses mandate handing the right of freedom of expression, as well as freedom of information, back to the people.

Unless I'm mistaken, @rickirs is doubting that the generals will ever allow these kinds of freedoms again. It's simply too hard for them to remain in total control in such a scenario.

I suspect so. But it is probably too late, trying to stuff cats back into bags and all that.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[rubl]

Totally agree! It's just in the mindset, that of rickers and you that is. Others have other ideas of what needs to be done and what may be necessary to make sure it can be done rather than having politicians start the bickering again without regard for the country and it's people. Even our dear publicus once wrote that the 2007 constitution was flawed and based on a flawed 1997 constitution.

Now that's from a different mindset, one which tries to move Thailand into the 21st century before it's finished.

Anyway having been a bit busy, did I miss the publishing of the 'interim' constitution?

Thanks for being clear on how you feel.

What separates us is the system of government that we believe in. In your case, you believe that an authoritarian dictatorship is the best system of government, one that allows no political debate, and one that denies its citizenry the rights of freedom of expression and information that we take for granted, and that Thais were learning to take for granted.

You are entitled to that hold that view, and since your birth you have been used to voicing your opinions publicly, being that you were likely born and raised in a democracy. Your forefathers, and those that supported them, fought for that right. From your profile, it looks like you are from Holland. You likely wouldn't even be around to post messages on TVF had others not fought for that right on your behalf, before you were born.

Be very grateful for that right, and look back on it with fondness once the novelty of repression wears off

"In your case, you believe" followed by what that might mean. Now if only what you state I believe I would believe (in what you state that is). I'm not aware I ever stated I believe in what you state I believe. Now that makes the rest of your story somewhat meaningless, wouldn't you say?

Anyway, I'm still wondering if the (English) text of the interim constitution is avalilable.

[longway]

>> The idea of reconciliation is different to different people.

If reconciliation means different things to different people, then you'd have to agree that it's an impossibility - when one side is content, thinking that hey have reconciled, the other side would not be in agreement, and would be discontented, right?

Here was me thinking that reconciliation was all about forgetting past differences and agreeing to live together in harmony. For that, you need an approach that treats both sides equally, otherwise there will never be any happiness.

You're never going to get everyone to agree. The idea is to get the vast majority to agree, whether they like all of it or not, and to be able to side line the extremists at the edges. That doesn't mean forgetting past differences, either. It's about getting over past differences, and dealing with those differences so that they don't become issues again.

The PTP's "reconciliation" efforts were a pretty good example of "when one side is content that they have reconciled". They tried the "forgetting past differences" (amnesty) so that everyone could go back to what they were doing before. All that was ever going to do was start the cycle over.

Glad to see that you have democratic principles after all - "getting the majority to agree" and all that. Leading them by example, to harmoniously respect the voice of the majority, I presume, is what you are referring to.

A minority forcing the majority to be be nice to each other, and to respect majority rule, all under the barrel of a gun, is another principle entirely, and strikes me as something of a contradiction.

Harmony and contradiction are opposites.

FYI only a tiny minority of the thai population require reconciliation, at the latest estimation only 15% of thais identify as red or yellow shirts, 9 and 6% respectively. IMO the majority of thais think both sides should stop being so butt hurt over a load of bs and move on.