NRC's Paiboon urges more power to the people in politics

[wilcopops]

and some still didn't read up on the shenanigans around the 'blanket amnesty bill' to avoid learning from the past I guess?

Had there been an overwhelming support for the CDC it would offer the real possibility to make the new constitution awork of art even Western Democracies could admire. But no, better to sit on the side and complain.

I know you would like to change this topic into a detailed review of the amnesty bill and all you disliked about it, but the fact remains that it was attempted then dropped, and it in no way justified a military coup.

If you are truly interested in lessons from the past, then study the results of past military governments in Thailand.

The only constitution Thailand will produce under current circumstances is one that other military-dominated governments will admire. A true democratic constitution would reform the military and put it firmly under the control of an elected civilian government, which the NCPO and Prayuth will never allow. The parties that refuse to participate in this farce realize this, so they won't legitimize the NRC with their presence.

You continue distorting history by stating that the 'blanket amnesty bill' was 'dropped'. It wasn't. If you're really interested in history read about it.

The possible constitution the CDC may come up with could be anything and will most likely resemble the 2007 version which resembled the 1997 version. How much I don't know. My guesstimate of course which I think is just as valid as a guesstimate as yours.

The parties that refuse to cooperate only make Thailand lose an opportunity. An overwhelming support and flood of input would ensure an improvement if only because the CDC and NCPO would have no choice assuming they don't want to end up in complete isolation. IMHO.

Rube, he knows full well it was not dropped, and will argue the hind leg off a donkey. It was stopped for 180 days and then would return for whoever wanted to gain from it.

ALWAYS asking posters to study past military governments---for what ???

QED!!!

[heybruce]

Rubl returns singing the same old song: "There was an attempt at amnesty and even though it was dropped the attempt justifies the coup."

Maybe it's unfortunate that political parties don't want to work on a constitution that will please their new masters. Unfortunate maybe, but it's certainly not surprising after they've had their elected government toppled and since they are still being subjected to martial law, censorship, bans on political gatherings, bans on calls for elections, etc. I can understand why they'd be in an uncooperative mood.

and some still didn't read up on the shenanigans around the 'blanket amnesty bill' to avoid learning from the past I guess?

Had there been an overwhelming support for the CDC it would offer the real possibility to make the new constitution awork of art even Western Democracies could admire. But no, better to sit on the side and complain.

I know you would like to change this topic into a detailed review of the amnesty bill and all you disliked about it, but the fact remains that it was attempted then dropped, and it in no way justified a military coup.

If you are truly interested in lessons from the past, then study the results of past military governments in Thailand.

The only constitution Thailand will produce under current circumstances is one that other military-dominated governments will admire. A true democratic constitution would reform the military and put it firmly under the control of an elected civilian government, which the NCPO and Prayuth will never allow. The parties that refuse to participate in this farce realize this, so they won't legitimize the NRC with their presence.

You continue distorting history by stating that the 'blanket amnesty bill' was 'dropped'. It wasn't. If you're really interested in history read about it.

The possible constitution the CDC may come up with could be anything and will most likely resemble the 2007 version which resembled the 1997 version. How much I don't know. My guesstimate of course which I think is just as valid as a guesstimate as yours.

The parties that refuse to cooperate only make Thailand lose an opportunity. An overwhelming support and flood of input would ensure an improvement if only because the CDC and NCPO would have no choice assuming they don't want to end up in complete isolation. IMHO.

It was dropped as much as the constitution, the 2007 constitution written to the standards of the military government, would allow. How much more "dropped" would you have it?

[Denim]

NRC's Paiboon urges more power to the people in politics.

And a lot less to those not in politics ......... vis .......Joe Public

[heybruce]

Rubl returns singing the same old song: "There was an attempt at amnesty and even though it was dropped the attempt justifies the coup."

Maybe it's unfortunate that political parties don't want to work on a constitution that will please their new masters. Unfortunate maybe, but it's certainly not surprising after they've had their elected government toppled and since they are still being subjected to martial law, censorship, bans on political gatherings, bans on calls for elections, etc. I can understand why they'd be in an uncooperative mood.

and some still didn't read up on the shenanigans around the 'blanket amnesty bill' to avoid learning from the past I guess?

Had there been an overwhelming support for the CDC it would offer the real possibility to make the new constitution awork of art even Western Democracies could admire. But no, better to sit on the side and complain.

I know you would like to change this topic into a detailed review of the amnesty bill and all you disliked about it, but the fact remains that it was attempted then dropped, and it in no way justified a military coup.

If you are truly interested in lessons from the past, then study the results of past military governments in Thailand.

The only constitution Thailand will produce under current circumstances is one that other military-dominated governments will admire. A true democratic constitution would reform the military and put it firmly under the control of an elected civilian government, which the NCPO and Prayuth will never allow. The parties that refuse to participate in this farce realize this, so they won't legitimize the NRC with their presence.

You continue distorting history by stating that the 'blanket amnesty bill' was 'dropped'. It wasn't. If you're really interested in history read about it.

The possible constitution the CDC may come up with could be anything and will most likely resemble the 2007 version which resembled the 1997 version. How much I don't know. My guesstimate of course which I think is just as valid as a guesstimate as yours.

The parties that refuse to cooperate only make Thailand lose an opportunity. An overwhelming support and flood of input would ensure an improvement if only because the CDC and NCPO would have no choice assuming they don't want to end up in complete isolation. IMHO.

"The possible constitution the CDC may come up with could be anything and will most likely resemble the 2007 version which resembled the 1997 version. How much I don't know. My guesstimate of course which I think is just as valid as a guesstimate as yours."

You think this constitution will be like the 1997 constitution that the military replaced after the 2006 coup, or the 2007 constitution the military is in the process of replacing after this year's coup. In other words you are saying it will likely be a "history repeats itself" constitution. In either case my "guesstimate" will be quite accurate, the military will not be under the control of an elected civilian government, which means this will not be a proper democratic constitution. No amount of participation by other parties will change that; the junta doesn't want a proper democratic constitution and won't allow it.

Without any chance of the military being put under civilian control and kept in the barracks this whole thing is a farce, and the people who refuse to lend it credibility by participating are the ones showing integrity.

[heybruce]

Rubl returns singing the same old song: "There was an attempt at amnesty and even though it was dropped the attempt justifies the coup."

Maybe it's unfortunate that political parties don't want to work on a constitution that will please their new masters. Unfortunate maybe, but it's certainly not surprising after they've had their elected government toppled and since they are still being subjected to martial law, censorship, bans on political gatherings, bans on calls for elections, etc. I can understand why they'd be in an uncooperative mood.

and some still didn't read up on the shenanigans around the 'blanket amnesty bill' to avoid learning from the past I guess?

Had there been an overwhelming support for the CDC it would offer the real possibility to make the new constitution awork of art even Western Democracies could admire. But no, better to sit on the side and complain.

I know you would like to change this topic into a detailed review of the amnesty bill and all you disliked about it, but the fact remains that it was attempted then dropped, and it in no way justified a military coup.

If you are truly interested in lessons from the past, then study the results of past military governments in Thailand.

The only constitution Thailand will produce under current circumstances is one that other military-dominated governments will admire. A true democratic constitution would reform the military and put it firmly under the control of an elected civilian government, which the NCPO and Prayuth will never allow. The parties that refuse to participate in this farce realize this, so they won't legitimize the NRC with their presence.

You continue distorting history by stating that the 'blanket amnesty bill' was 'dropped'. It wasn't. If you're really interested in history read about it.

The possible constitution the CDC may come up with could be anything and will most likely resemble the 2007 version which resembled the 1997 version. How much I don't know. My guesstimate of course which I think is just as valid as a guesstimate as yours.

The parties that refuse to cooperate only make Thailand lose an opportunity. An overwhelming support and flood of input would ensure an improvement if only because the CDC and NCPO would have no choice assuming they don't want to end up in complete isolation. IMHO.

"An overwhelming support and flood of input would ensure an improvement if only because the CDC and NCPO would have no choice assuming they don't want to end up in complete isolation."

That bit of foolishness deserves its own special reply. I've known people who assumed that if they communicated with an overwhelming flood of words some kind of meaning would emerge. The old quantity over quality argument.

Actually a flood of input of all descriptions, much of it contradictory, would allow the junta to pick and choose which inputs they would allow. Of course inputs asking for transparency in all government operations, greater freedom speech and press, civilian control of the military, and many other things that real reform should cover, wouldn't be among the inputs the junta would allow into the constitution. The junta would rely on its chosen supporters to provide the inputs it wanted. I suspect this approach is what the junta had in mind, they would get the constitution they wanted and could claim it came from the people.

This brings me back to an earlier statement, the people with integrity are the ones who won't legitimize this farce by participating.

[rubl]

and some still didn't read up on the shenanigans around the 'blanket amnesty bill' to avoid learning from the past I guess?

Had there been an overwhelming support for the CDC it would offer the real possibility to make the new constitution awork of art even Western Democracies could admire. But no, better to sit on the side and complain.

I know you would like to change this topic into a detailed review of the amnesty bill and all you disliked about it, but the fact remains that it was attempted then dropped, and it in no way justified a military coup.

If you are truly interested in lessons from the past, then study the results of past military governments in Thailand.

The only constitution Thailand will produce under current circumstances is one that other military-dominated governments will admire. A true democratic constitution would reform the military and put it firmly under the control of an elected civilian government, which the NCPO and Prayuth will never allow. The parties that refuse to participate in this farce realize this, so they won't legitimize the NRC with their presence.

You continue distorting history by stating that the 'blanket amnesty bill' was 'dropped'. It wasn't. If you're really interested in history read about it.

The possible constitution the CDC may come up with could be anything and will most likely resemble the 2007 version which resembled the 1997 version. How much I don't know. My guesstimate of course which I think is just as valid as a guesstimate as yours.

The parties that refuse to cooperate only make Thailand lose an opportunity. An overwhelming support and flood of input would ensure an improvement if only because the CDC and NCPO would have no choice assuming they don't want to end up in complete isolation. IMHO.

It was dropped as much as the constitution, the 2007 constitution written to the standards of the military government, would allow. How much more "dropped" would you have it?

Oh spare me this BS, my dear Brucy. Next you'll tell me that Ms. Yingluck dropped the parliament as much as the 2007 constitution allowed her.

The only things dropped were six amnesty bills which hadn't progressed through parliament yet except for being proposed/ deposited. The 'blanket amnesty bill' was put on hold only.

As for your 'as far as ... standards of the military government would allow', please tell me where this is different between the 1997 and the 2007 constitution?

Anyway, you should be happy, here we had a member of the NRC say "more power to the people"

[rubl]

You continue distorting history by stating that the 'blanket amnesty bill' was 'dropped'. It wasn't. If you're really interested in history read about it.

The possible constitution the CDC may come up with could be anything and will most likely resemble the 2007 version which resembled the 1997 version. How much I don't know. My guesstimate of course which I think is just as valid as a guesstimate as yours.

The parties that refuse to cooperate only make Thailand lose an opportunity. An overwhelming support and flood of input would ensure an improvement if only because the CDC and NCPO would have no choice assuming they don't want to end up in complete isolation. IMHO.

"The possible constitution the CDC may come up with could be anything and will most likely resemble the 2007 version which resembled the 1997 version. How much I don't know. My guesstimate of course which I think is just as valid as a guesstimate as yours."

You think this constitution will be like the 1997 constitution that the military replaced after the 2006 coup, or the 2007 constitution the military is in the process of replacing after this year's coup. In other words you are saying it will likely be a "history repeats itself" constitution. In either case my "guesstimate" will be quite accurate, the military will not be under the control of an elected civilian government, which means this will not be a proper democratic constitution. No amount of participation by other parties will change that; the junta doesn't want a proper democratic constitution and won't allow it.

Without any chance of the military being put under civilian control and kept in the barracks this whole thing is a farce, and the people who refuse to lend it credibility by participating are the ones showing integrity.

Moral grandstanding doesn't help much, I'm more for a pragmatic approach. In the end those who stood on the side line should not complain that "this isn't what we wanted'.

[rubl]

You continue distorting history by stating that the 'blanket amnesty bill' was 'dropped'. It wasn't. If you're really interested in history read about it.

The possible constitution the CDC may come up with could be anything and will most likely resemble the 2007 version which resembled the 1997 version. How much I don't know. My guesstimate of course which I think is just as valid as a guesstimate as yours.

The parties that refuse to cooperate only make Thailand lose an opportunity. An overwhelming support and flood of input would ensure an improvement if only because the CDC and NCPO would have no choice assuming they don't want to end up in complete isolation. IMHO.

"An overwhelming support and flood of input would ensure an improvement if only because the CDC and NCPO would have no choice assuming they don't want to end up in complete isolation."

That bit of foolishness deserves its own special reply. I've known people who assumed that if they communicated with an overwhelming flood of words some kind of meaning would emerge. The old quantity over quality argument.

Actually a flood of input of all descriptions, much of it contradictory, would allow the junta to pick and choose which inputs they would allow. Of course inputs asking for transparency in all government operations, greater freedom speech and press, civilian control of the military, and many other things that real reform should cover, wouldn't be among the inputs the junta would allow into the constitution. The junta would rely on its chosen supporters to provide the inputs it wanted. I suspect this approach is what the junta had in mind, they would get the constitution they wanted and could claim it came from the people.

This brings me back to an earlier statement, the people with integrity are the ones who won't legitimize this farce by participating.

The bit of foolishness is just one of the possible approaches. Standing on the side line commenting is another.

Also I didn't say anything about a flood of words with some meaning. I mean meaningful input which may help to indicate concerns, current problems, etc., etc.

As for 'flood of input' allows easy cherry picking, well the alternative would be limited input. Do you think 'the people' should be allowed to help ?

As for what would or wouldn't be allowed, you guessing probably based on 'history teaches us'. Well with such attitude there is no progress possible. In a way you sound like a reactionair at times.

People with integrity would be those who are willing to put their personal disliked aside and help in getting their country finally on a path to democracy. IMHO.

[heybruce]

I know you would like to change this topic into a detailed review of the amnesty bill and all you disliked about it, but the fact remains that it was attempted then dropped, and it in no way justified a military coup.

If you are truly interested in lessons from the past, then study the results of past military governments in Thailand.

The only constitution Thailand will produce under current circumstances is one that other military-dominated governments will admire. A true democratic constitution would reform the military and put it firmly under the control of an elected civilian government, which the NCPO and Prayuth will never allow. The parties that refuse to participate in this farce realize this, so they won't legitimize the NRC with their presence.

You continue distorting history by stating that the 'blanket amnesty bill' was 'dropped'. It wasn't. If you're really interested in history read about it.

The possible constitution the CDC may come up with could be anything and will most likely resemble the 2007 version which resembled the 1997 version. How much I don't know. My guesstimate of course which I think is just as valid as a guesstimate as yours.

The parties that refuse to cooperate only make Thailand lose an opportunity. An overwhelming support and flood of input would ensure an improvement if only because the CDC and NCPO would have no choice assuming they don't want to end up in complete isolation. IMHO.

It was dropped as much as the constitution, the 2007 constitution written to the standards of the military government, would allow. How much more "dropped" would you have it?

Oh spare me this BS, my dear Brucy. Next you'll tell me that Ms. Yingluck dropped the parliament as much as the 2007 constitution allowed her.

The only things dropped were six amnesty bills which hadn't progressed through parliament yet except for being proposed/ deposited. The 'blanket amnesty bill' was put on hold only.

As for your 'as far as ... standards of the military government would allow', please tell me where this is different between the 1997 and the 2007 constitution?

Anyway, you should be happy, here we had a member of the NRC say "more power to the people"

As I wrote, the bill was dropped as much as the constitution would allow. How could the government have done anything more?

[heybruce]

You continue distorting history by stating that the 'blanket amnesty bill' was 'dropped'. It wasn't. If you're really interested in history read about it.

The possible constitution the CDC may come up with could be anything and will most likely resemble the 2007 version which resembled the 1997 version. How much I don't know. My guesstimate of course which I think is just as valid as a guesstimate as yours.

The parties that refuse to cooperate only make Thailand lose an opportunity. An overwhelming support and flood of input would ensure an improvement if only because the CDC and NCPO would have no choice assuming they don't want to end up in complete isolation. IMHO.

"The possible constitution the CDC may come up with could be anything and will most likely resemble the 2007 version which resembled the 1997 version. How much I don't know. My guesstimate of course which I think is just as valid as a guesstimate as yours."

You think this constitution will be like the 1997 constitution that the military replaced after the 2006 coup, or the 2007 constitution the military is in the process of replacing after this year's coup. In other words you are saying it will likely be a "history repeats itself" constitution. In either case my "guesstimate" will be quite accurate, the military will not be under the control of an elected civilian government, which means this will not be a proper democratic constitution. No amount of participation by other parties will change that; the junta doesn't want a proper democratic constitution and won't allow it.

Without any chance of the military being put under civilian control and kept in the barracks this whole thing is a farce, and the people who refuse to lend it credibility by participating are the ones showing integrity.

Moral grandstanding doesn't help much, I'm more for a pragmatic approach. In the end those who stood on the side line should not complain that "this isn't what we wanted'.

I assume you think an election in which you might disagree with the voters choice is not pragmatic, but a military junta is.

Yes, I suspect in Thailand expecting the military to serve the people and respect an elected government is moral grandstanding. However it's the way normal democracies work. Will you at least concede that the military should be under the control of an elected government?

The people who stay on the sidelines know they won't get what they want regardless of participation, so why give the process legitimacy by participating?

[heybruce]

You continue distorting history by stating that the 'blanket amnesty bill' was 'dropped'. It wasn't. If you're really interested in history read about it.

The possible constitution the CDC may come up with could be anything and will most likely resemble the 2007 version which resembled the 1997 version. How much I don't know. My guesstimate of course which I think is just as valid as a guesstimate as yours.

The parties that refuse to cooperate only make Thailand lose an opportunity. An overwhelming support and flood of input would ensure an improvement if only because the CDC and NCPO would have no choice assuming they don't want to end up in complete isolation. IMHO.

"An overwhelming support and flood of input would ensure an improvement if only because the CDC and NCPO would have no choice assuming they don't want to end up in complete isolation."

That bit of foolishness deserves its own special reply. I've known people who assumed that if they communicated with an overwhelming flood of words some kind of meaning would emerge. The old quantity over quality argument.

Actually a flood of input of all descriptions, much of it contradictory, would allow the junta to pick and choose which inputs they would allow. Of course inputs asking for transparency in all government operations, greater freedom speech and press, civilian control of the military, and many other things that real reform should cover, wouldn't be among the inputs the junta would allow into the constitution. The junta would rely on its chosen supporters to provide the inputs it wanted. I suspect this approach is what the junta had in mind, they would get the constitution they wanted and could claim it came from the people.

This brings me back to an earlier statement, the people with integrity are the ones who won't legitimize this farce by participating.

The bit of foolishness is just one of the possible approaches. Standing on the side line commenting is another.

Also I didn't say anything about a flood of words with some meaning. I mean meaningful input which may help to indicate concerns, current problems, etc., etc.

As for 'flood of input' allows easy cherry picking, well the alternative would be limited input. Do you think 'the people' should be allowed to help ?

As for what would or wouldn't be allowed, you guessing probably based on 'history teaches us'. Well with such attitude there is no progress possible. In a way you sound like a reactionair at times.

People with integrity would be those who are willing to put their personal disliked aside and help in getting their country finally on a path to democracy. IMHO.

"As for 'flood of input' allows easy cherry picking, well the alternative would be limited input. Do you think 'the people' should be allowed to help ?"

I think the process should be totally different; there are a number of possibilities, but the key element is that an unelected junta should not be allowed to decide what goes in the constitution.

"As for what would or wouldn't be allowed, you guessing probably based on 'history teaches us'. Well with such attitude there is no progress possible."

You don't believe in learning from history, except the history of the amnesty bill of course. No surprise there.

"People with integrity would be those who are willing to put their personal disliked aside and help in getting their country finally on a path to democracy. IMHO."

If this were process that would actually lead to democracy and not a military dominated government, I would agree. However this would require a process that was not under the control of a military dictator. I see no integrity in giving legitimacy to a dictatorship.

[tbthailand]

Rubl returns singing the same old song: "There was an attempt at amnesty and even though it was dropped the attempt justifies the coup."

Maybe it's unfortunate that political parties don't want to work on a constitution that will please their new masters. Unfortunate maybe, but it's certainly not surprising after they've had their elected government toppled and since they are still being subjected to martial law, censorship, bans on political gatherings, bans on calls for elections, etc. I can understand why they'd be in an uncooperative mood.

and some still didn't read up on the shenanigans around the 'blanket amnesty bill' to avoid learning from the past I guess?

Had there been an overwhelming support for the CDC it would offer the real possibility to make the new constitution awork of art even Western Democracies could admire. But no, better to sit on the side and complain.

I know you would like to change this topic into a detailed review of the amnesty bill and all you disliked about it, but the fact remains that it was attempted then dropped, and it in no way justified a military coup.

If you are truly interested in lessons from the past, then study the results of past military governments in Thailand.

The only constitution Thailand will produce under current circumstances is one that other military-dominated governments will admire. A true democratic constitution would reform the military and put it firmly under the control of an elected civilian government, which the NCPO and Prayuth will never allow. The parties that refuse to participate in this farce realize this, so they won't legitimize the NRC with their presence.

You continue distorting history by stating that the 'blanket amnesty bill' was 'dropped'. It wasn't. If you're really interested in history read about it.

The possible constitution the CDC may come up with could be anything and will most likely resemble the 2007 version which resembled the 1997 version. How much I don't know. My guesstimate of course which I think is just as valid as a guesstimate as yours.

The parties that refuse to cooperate only make Thailand lose an opportunity. An overwhelming support and flood of input would ensure an improvement if only because the CDC and NCPO would have no choice assuming they don't want to end up in complete isolation. IMHO.

you continue to deny reality by insisting that the bill was not dead. Yingluck made a public statement before the senate vote basically asking the senate to kill the bill. Which they then proceeded to do.

BANGKOK (AP) — Thailand's Senate has defeated an amnesty bill that could have led to the return from exile of deposed former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, but opponents of the bill vowed to continue their protests against the government.

...

The Senate voted 141-0 late Monday to reject the bill after the ruling party withdrew its support. Although the more-powerful lower house can legally pass legislation without Senate approval after a 180-day wait, Yingluck and the government coalition parties have pledged that the bill will not be revived.

http://news.yahoo.com/thai-senate-kills-contentious-amnesty-bill-174137689.html

Then there was this;

9 November 2013

Due to the strong opposition to the Amnesty Bill expressed by some sectors of society, the leaders of the four coalition parties gave a joint statement and signed a written pledge that if the Amnesty Bill is rejected by the Senate and returned to the House of Representatives, the Members of Parliament of the coalition parties would not revive the Bill and will allow it to be dropped in accordance with the Constitution. They explained that this decision was made out of respect for the views of the people and upon consideration that allowing the conflict to persist would adversely affect the country.

http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/media-center/14/41464-Chronology-of-Events-Related-to-the-Amnesty-Bill.html

which is technically as "dead" as a bill can get once it passes the lower house. There is no other action that could possibly be done to 'kill' the bill any further.

furthermore, to you your twisted logic, then no bill is ever dead, because the legislature could revive any bill ever created in the past, slap version 2.0 on it and there you go.

So, pleeeeeeeezuh ... stop with the complete and totally absurd the-amnesty-bill-wasnt-dead nonsense

[tbthailand]

You continue distorting history by stating that the 'blanket amnesty bill' was 'dropped'. It wasn't. If you're really interested in history read about it.

The possible constitution the CDC may come up with could be anything and will most likely resemble the 2007 version which resembled the 1997 version. How much I don't know. My guesstimate of course which I think is just as valid as a guesstimate as yours.

The parties that refuse to cooperate only make Thailand lose an opportunity. An overwhelming support and flood of input would ensure an improvement if only because the CDC and NCPO would have no choice assuming they don't want to end up in complete isolation. IMHO.

It was dropped as much as the constitution, the 2007 constitution written to the standards of the military government, would allow. How much more "dropped" would you have it?

Oh spare me this BS, my dear Brucy. Next you'll tell me that Ms. Yingluck dropped the parliament as much as the 2007 constitution allowed her.

The only things dropped were six amnesty bills which hadn't progressed through parliament yet except for being proposed/ deposited. The 'blanket amnesty bill' was put on hold only.

As for your 'as far as ... standards of the military government would allow', please tell me where this is different between the 1997 and the 2007 constitution?

Anyway, you should be happy, here we had a member of the NRC say "more power to the people"

As I wrote, the bill was dropped as much as the constitution would allow. How could the government have done anything more?

he reads what happened, but he doesn't understand what happened. mai pen rai

[Fat Haggis]

in my humble opinion we have past experience when politicians get too much power, this will perhaps encourage corruption as it did in the past.

OR we can try to learn from it, and move forward to better times.

Learn what? That all Goverments in the past 30 years have failed and the Big Green steps in ?

We? By this you mean the Thai electorate I presume? as We farangs have no say whatsoever in or have to learn anything from something that is a Thai issue and a Thai failure to have decent institutions that can keep their word without the MIK stepping in every time.

If you have a vote then yes you can say " we" but if not, it's "they" ?

[rubl]

The possible constitution the CDC may come up with could be anything and will most likely resemble the 2007 version which resembled the 1997 version. How much I don't know. My guesstimate of course which I think is just as valid as a guesstimate as yours.

The parties that refuse to cooperate only make Thailand lose an opportunity. An overwhelming support and flood of input would ensure an improvement if only because the CDC and NCPO would have no choice assuming they don't want to end up in complete isolation. IMHO.

It was dropped as much as the constitution, the 2007 constitution written to the standards of the military government, would allow. How much more "dropped" would you have it?

Oh spare me this BS, my dear Brucy. Next you'll tell me that Ms. Yingluck dropped the parliament as much as the 2007 constitution allowed her.

The only things dropped were six amnesty bills which hadn't progressed through parliament yet except for being proposed/ deposited. The 'blanket amnesty bill' was put on hold only.

As for your 'as far as ... standards of the military government would allow', please tell me where this is different between the 1997 and the 2007 constitution?

Anyway, you should be happy, here we had a member of the NRC say "more power to the people"

As I wrote, the bill was dropped as much as the constitution would allow. How could the government have done anything more?

More BS. The government couldn't do anything by law. As such they even couldn't drop nor is it correct to ask "what more could they do" as they could do nothing even if they wanted to.

The blanket amnesty bill was put on hold.

[rubl]

Oh spare me this BS, my dear Brucy. Next you'll tell me that Ms. Yingluck dropped the parliament as much as the 2007 constitution allowed her.

The only things dropped were six amnesty bills which hadn't progressed through parliament yet except for being proposed/ deposited. The 'blanket amnesty bill' was put on hold only.

As for your 'as far as ... standards of the military government would allow', please tell me where this is different between the 1997 and the 2007 constitution?

Anyway, you should be happy, here we had a member of the NRC say "more power to the people"

As I wrote, the bill was dropped as much as the constitution would allow. How could the government have done anything more?

he reads what happened, but he doesn't understand what happened. mai pen rai

you guys are just trying to annoy me or bait me into saying something I shouldn't according to forum rules.

So, one more time:

The blanket amnesty bill was rejected by the Senate and by law put on hold for 180 days. There was no action possible by the government to 'drop' the bill. To even suggest that is just as laughable as the statement by the Yingluck government they dropped the amnesty bill only meaning the six bills which hadn't progressed through parliament yet. Deflection, distraction, dishonestly.

The truth will set you free, even if history teaches us differently at times

[rubl]

History teaches us

the people know

the junta will

etc., etc.

Anyway, more power to the people in politics. Teach self-reliance, self-entitlement. Give the masses courts which can enforce laws on ALL.

[rubl]

You continue to deny reality by insisting that the bill was not dead. Yingluck made a public statement before the senate vote basically asking the senate to kill the bill. Which they then proceeded to do.

BANGKOK (AP) — Thailand's Senate has defeated an amnesty bill that could have led to the return from exile of deposed former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, but opponents of the bill vowed to continue their protests against the government.

...

The Senate voted 141-0 late Monday to reject the bill after the ruling party withdrew its support. Although the more-powerful lower house can legally pass legislation without Senate approval after a 180-day wait, Yingluck and the government coalition parties have pledged that the bill will not be revived.

http://news.yahoo.com/thai-senate-kills-contentious-amnesty-bill-174137689.html

Then there was this;

9 November 2013

Due to the strong opposition to the Amnesty Bill expressed by some sectors of society, the leaders of the four coalition parties gave a joint statement and signed a written pledge that if the Amnesty Bill is rejected by the Senate and returned to the House of Representatives, the Members of Parliament of the coalition parties would not revive the Bill and will allow it to be dropped in accordance with the Constitution. They explained that this decision was made out of respect for the views of the people and upon consideration that allowing the conflict to persist would adversely affect the country.

http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/media-center/14/41464-Chronology-of-Events-Related-to-the-Amnesty-Bill.html

which is technically as "dead" as a bill can get once it passes the lower house. There is no other action that could possibly be done to 'kill' the bill any further.

furthermore, to you your twisted logic, then no bill is ever dead, because the legislature could revive any bill ever created in the past, slap version 2.0 on it and there you go.

So, pleeeeeeeezuh ... stop with the complete and totally absurd the-amnesty-bill-wasnt-dead nonsense

More distraction, you guys simply don't understand the meaning of "put on hold for 180 days".

As for Ms. Yingluck, she tried to wash her hands of the bill, suggest it wasn't her fault and noew up to the senate anyway. Still trying to implore the protesters to go home, saying she wouldn't pressure the senate, has the senate speaker suddenly try to move forward the start of senate discussions, etc., etc.

So, trusting a statement made by the politicians and political parties doesn't seem to have much value. The honorable people who sneakily modified a bill into being a blanket bill and who voted for their own amnesty on political wrongdoing (coverage period till 2013-08-09) suddenly promised? Not to pick it up again later? Dropped?

Can I interest you in a beach front property in Loei?

[rubl]

There're still some posts I haven't replied to, but to be honest I'm fed up with the political games here. Some seem to live is such perfect countries that they feel compelled to change the world and especially Thailand to be the same.

Tomorrow is another day.

Take care folks,

uncle rubl

[heybruce]

History teaches us

the people know

the junta will

etc., etc.

Anyway, more power to the people in politics. Teach self-reliance, self-entitlement. Give the masses courts which can enforce laws on ALL.

Right, military courts that enforce laws in closed-door proceedings with no note taking allowed and no right to appeal http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/772498-concerns-over-trying-civilians-in-thai-military-court/. What does history teach about...Oh yeah, you don't believe in learning from history.

[heybruce]

There're still some posts I haven't replied to, but to be honest I'm fed up with the political games here. Some seem to live is such perfect countries that they feel compelled to change the world and especially Thailand to be the same.

Tomorrow is another day.

Take care folks,

uncle rubl

Not perfect, just countries that don't have governments that alternate between military juntas and civilian governments living in constant fear of the next coup. And yes, I would like Thailand to be like that. Wouldn't that be provide "more power to the people in politics."

[tbthailand]

You continue to deny reality by insisting that the bill was not dead. Yingluck made a public statement before the senate vote basically asking the senate to kill the bill. Which they then proceeded to do.

BANGKOK (AP) — Thailand's Senate has defeated an amnesty bill that could have led to the return from exile of deposed former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, but opponents of the bill vowed to continue their protests against the government.

...

The Senate voted 141-0 late Monday to reject the bill after the ruling party withdrew its support. Although the more-powerful lower house can legally pass legislation without Senate approval after a 180-day wait, Yingluck and the government coalition parties have pledged that the bill will not be revived.

http://news.yahoo.com/thai-senate-kills-contentious-amnesty-bill-174137689.html

Then there was this;

9 November 2013

Due to the strong opposition to the Amnesty Bill expressed by some sectors of society, the leaders of the four coalition parties gave a joint statement and signed a written pledge that if the Amnesty Bill is rejected by the Senate and returned to the House of Representatives, the Members of Parliament of the coalition parties would not revive the Bill and will allow it to be dropped in accordance with the Constitution. They explained that this decision was made out of respect for the views of the people and upon consideration that allowing the conflict to persist would adversely affect the country.

http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/media-center/14/41464-Chronology-of-Events-Related-to-the-Amnesty-Bill.html

which is technically as "dead" as a bill can get once it passes the lower house. There is no other action that could possibly be done to 'kill' the bill any further.

furthermore, to you your twisted logic, then no bill is ever dead, because the legislature could revive any bill ever created in the past, slap version 2.0 on it and there you go.

So, pleeeeeeeezuh ... stop with the complete and totally absurd the-amnesty-bill-wasnt-dead nonsense

More distraction, you guys simply don't understand the meaning of "put on hold for 180 days".

As for Ms. Yingluck, she tried to wash her hands of the bill, suggest it wasn't her fault and noew up to the senate anyway. Still trying to implore the protesters to go home, saying she wouldn't pressure the senate, has the senate speaker suddenly try to move forward the start of senate discussions, etc., etc.

So, trusting a statement made by the politicians and political parties doesn't seem to have much value. The honorable people who sneakily modified a bill into being a blanket bill and who voted for their own amnesty on political wrongdoing (coverage period till 2013-08-09) suddenly promised? Not to pick it up again later? Dropped?

Can I interest you in a beach front property in Loei?

I understand put on hold and I understand your insistence to take that point and try to make it relevant to the PDRC protests from December up to May 22nd.

But that is not what happened. Yingluck basically asked the senate to kill it. And the senate did exactly that. The PTP coalition - all four parties - drafted a written statement to not take up the bill as the constitution left that as an option. The PDRC then moved on to protest about other issues. After December, neither side was discussing the amnesty bill. Only the news reports continued to mentioned it as the trigger for the PDRC protests - which is was.

The bill was dead, rubl. It had nothing to do with the continuing of the PDRC protests nor did it have anything to do with the eventual 'intervention'.

[rubl]

I understand put on hold and I understand your insistence to take that point and try to make it relevant to the PDRC protests from December up to May 22nd.

But that is not what happened. Yingluck basically asked the senate to kill it. And the senate did exactly that. The PTP coalition - all four parties - drafted a written statement to not take up the bill as the constitution left that as an option. The PDRC then moved on to protest about other issues. After December, neither side was discussing the amnesty bill. Only the news reports continued to mentioned it as the trigger for the PDRC protests - which is was.

The bill was dead, rubl. It had nothing to do with the continuing of the PDRC protests nor did it have anything to do with the eventual 'intervention'.

More untruths.

Ms. Yingluck publicly defended the blanket amnesty bill and even suggested the senate should make the 'right' decision.

""I would like the Senate, which comprises elected and selected senators and those who are for and against the government, to exercise their judgment," Yingluck said during a televised speech at Government House."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2013/11/05/Thai-PM-Yingluck-defends-amnesty-bill/UPI-11561383678864/#ixzz3HxsMchYp

[ginjag]

There're still some posts I haven't replied to, but to be honest I'm fed up with the political games here. Some seem to live is such perfect countries that they feel compelled to change the world and especially Thailand to be the same.

Tomorrow is another day.

Take care folks,

uncle rubl

Rube, your wasting your time, these guys we all know who they are-are not interested they twist and turn and refuse to understand, they are on a one track mission.

You explained right to the point what happened and still argue it out any way shape or form. IT WAS NOT DEAD the bill GET IT.

Soon some of these guys will have no one to speak to as it now is getting a joke.

I was the focus yesterday, but managed to draw attention from other harassed posters. If they met Yingluck face to face and she explained the truth they would not believe her.

Please read re-amnesty you guys FULLY from start to finish.