'Two-thirds of MPs must back charter amendment'

[LivinLOS]

Bangkok post put up a new piece today showing that 84% of the political class are against pryuths current plans and policies..

So he gets to make up the rules with just 16% approval.. And the rules cant be changes without 66% approval..

Sounds legit..

What is a political class, and who is in it? If 84% of PTP and Democrat politicians are against it, the chances are it might be democratic.

MPs from the previous administrations..

Basically even their allies in the Dems have now come out and said this is simply way to dictatorial and is keeping power in the hands of people with no mandate from the population. I guess they should have thought of that before they boycotted elections huh ??

[smedly]

what on earth are you talking about

nobody is appointing anyone, there will be a general election and a government formed - these rules will apply when the new charter is enacted and apply to all future governments

Elected MPs.. With an unelected senate.. and the suggestion of an unelected 120 man council who can command the MPs and senate on what they must do.

Sounds legit..

and you left out the rest of my post so I will post it for you

what on earth are you talking about

nobody is appointing anyone, there will be a general election and a government formed - these rules will apply when the new charter is enacted and apply to all future governments

I would also make this clause in the charter unchangeable no matter what, in case any future government tries to amend it, as I see it it would not be something any MP would be in favour of no matter what political affiliation as it dilutes their ability to make changes were they would have to rely on opposition approval in most cases

I see it as a critical element to put and end to power abuse and influence once and for all

[smedly]

Bangkok post put up a new piece today showing that 84% of the political class are against pryuths current plans and policies..

So he gets to make up the rules with just 16% approval.. And the rules cant be changes without 66% approval..

Sounds legit..

What is a political class, and who is in it? If 84% of PTP and Democrat politicians are against it, the chances are it might be democratic.

MPs from the previous administrations..

Basically even their allies in the Dems have now come out and said this is simply way to dictatorial and is keeping power in the hands of people with no mandate from the population. I guess they should have thought of that before they boycotted elections huh ??

no it is making certain changes more difficult to do (as it should be) - the last PTP government spent almost two years trying to push through amendments which basically had little to do with the betterment of the Thai people of Thailand - only one agenda - amnesty for the criminal Thaksin

This 2/3 majority clause if in place 2 years ago would have avoided all of that

Now it is ex MP's that are complaining about it because it makes such changes more difficult and they would have to get buy in from opposition parties to propose such amendments - it is the best way to truly represent all of the electorate for such serious matters - no other country in the world has a path to amend the constitution by just a simple majority in the lower house - the very idea is ridiculous - look at the trouble it caused last year - I rest my case

[billd766]

"Asked by reporters about polls that pointed to public disapproval regarding the main elements of the new charter, Wissanu said people should wait and consider the results from other polls as well."

My god, he was accidentally honest!

He didn't like the results of the last poll, so he's going to have a poll that gives different results. And some people wonder why I don't trust polls taken in Thailand.

Most people and I would think most Thais don't really care if you don't trust polls in Thailand.

[NeverSure]

Bangkok post put up a new piece today showing that 84% of the political class are against pryuths current plans and policies..

So he gets to make up the rules with just 16% approval.. And the rules cant be changes without 66% approval..

Sounds legit..

But a government poll shows that 94.7 percent of appointed MPs will vote for it.

[MisterBig]

Bangkok post put up a new piece today showing that 84% of the political class are against pryuths current plans and policies..

So he gets to make up the rules with just 16% approval.. And the rules cant be changes without 66% approval..

Sounds legit..

What is a political class, and who is in it? If 84% of PTP and Democrat politicians are against it, the chances are it might be democratic.

MPs from the previous administrations..

Basically even their allies in the Dems have now come out and said this is simply way to dictatorial and is keeping power in the hands of people with no mandate from the population. I guess they should have thought of that before they boycotted elections huh ??

no it is making certain changes more difficult to do (as it should be) - the last PTP government spent almost two years trying to push through amendments which basically had little to do with the betterment of the Thai people of Thailand - only one agenda - amnesty for the criminal Thaksin

This 2/3 majority clause if in place 2 years ago would have avoided all of that

Now it is ex MP's that are complaining about it because it makes such changes more difficult and they would have to get buy in from opposition parties to propose such amendments - it is the best way to truly represent all of the electorate for such serious matters - no other country in the world has a path to amend the constitution by just a simple majority in the lower house - the very idea is ridiculous - look at the trouble it caused last year - I rest my case

How is making the Senate fully appointed as opposed to being packed with elitist stooges nothing to do with the betterment of the people?

The amnesty bill was not an amendment to the constitution - try to get your facts right.

The reason Thailand has always had such silly mechanisms to alter the constitution is because the elites don't want the people to have the power to choose the constitution they want. Charter amendments should be by referendum - not by any body consisting of elite appointed stooges.

[smedly]

What is a political class, and who is in it? If 84% of PTP and Democrat politicians are against it, the chances are it might be democratic.

MPs from the previous administrations..

Basically even their allies in the Dems have now come out and said this is simply way to dictatorial and is keeping power in the hands of people with no mandate from the population. I guess they should have thought of that before they boycotted elections huh ??

no it is making certain changes more difficult to do (as it should be) - the last PTP government spent almost two years trying to push through amendments which basically had little to do with the betterment of the Thai people of Thailand - only one agenda - amnesty for the criminal Thaksin

This 2/3 majority clause if in place 2 years ago would have avoided all of that

Now it is ex MP's that are complaining about it because it makes such changes more difficult and they would have to get buy in from opposition parties to propose such amendments - it is the best way to truly represent all of the electorate for such serious matters - no other country in the world has a path to amend the constitution by just a simple majority in the lower house - the very idea is ridiculous - look at the trouble it caused last year - I rest my case

How is making the Senate fully appointed as opposed to being packed with elitist stooges nothing to do with the betterment of the people?

The amnesty bill was not an amendment to the constitution - try to get your facts right.

The reason Thailand has always had such silly mechanisms to alter the constitution is because the elites don't want the people to have the power to choose the constitution they want. Charter amendments should be by referendum - not by any body consisting of elite appointed stooges.

no but amendments were proposed to try and force it through and illegally alter the senate through cheating votes - it was all part of the program and Thaksins agenda

and certain types of bills should also require 2/3 majority just like charter amendments so individuals like Thaksin cannot bribe and pay their way through parliament

stay off the yogurt

[smedly]

nobody should have the ability to buy a government especially a convicted criminal on the run - that is just wrong no matter how you look at it and it needs to be stopped for good

[heybruce]

nobody should have the ability to buy a government especially a convicted criminal on the run - that is just wrong no matter how you look at it and it needs to be stopped for good

If you're saying the rich should not be allowed to influence government, you're fighting a losing battle.

Some of us are of the opinion that no military should have the right to topple an elected government, but obviously not everyone agrees.

[MisterBig]

nobody should have the ability to buy a government especially a convicted criminal on the run - that is just wrong no matter how you look at it and it needs to be stopped for good

Noboddy argues that governments should not be able to be bought. Where you are wrong is accusing Thaksin of doing so. It is clear he commands the support and loyalty of an election winning majority in this nation. Thaksin popularity has resulted in something worse than a bought government, a government stolen at the barrel of a gun - if anything needs to be stopped for good it is military backed coups that rob the citizens of their sovereignty.

[rubl]

nobody should have the ability to buy a government especially a convicted criminal on the run - that is just wrong no matter how you look at it and it needs to be stopped for good

Noboddy argues that governments should not be able to be bought. Where you are wrong is accusing Thaksin of doing so. It is clear he commands the support and loyalty of an election winning majority in this nation. Thaksin popularity has resulted in something worse than a bought government, a government stolen at the barrel of a gun - if anything needs to be stopped for good it is military backed coups that rob the citizens of their sovereignty.

I think you should rephrase your post a bit.

The election winning majority was Pheu Thai party and MPs and since Thaksin owns the party, pays important members a salary and has 'Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts' as slogan, a fugitive criminal has taken over the democratic elections for his own (business) purpose.

At least that's how you seem to have written your post.

[MisterBig]

nobody should have the ability to buy a government especially a convicted criminal on the run - that is just wrong no matter how you look at it and it needs to be stopped for good

Noboddy argues that governments should not be able to be bought. Where you are wrong is accusing Thaksin of doing so. It is clear he commands the support and loyalty of an election winning majority in this nation. Thaksin popularity has resulted in something worse than a bought government, a government stolen at the barrel of a gun - if anything needs to be stopped for good it is military backed coups that rob the citizens of their sovereignty.

I think you should rephrase your post a bit.

The election winning majority was Pheu Thai party and MPs and since Thaksin owns the party, pays important members a salary and has 'Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts' as slogan, a fugitive criminal has taken over the democratic elections for his own (business) purpose.

At least that's how you seem to have written your post.

You are confused.

If Thaksin loses the support of ordinary Thais and can no longer win elections then it is irrelevant how much money he has, he will not be in government. This is the main reason why Thaksin, flawed as he is, is much, much better for Thailand than the Generals - because he comes from elections and he can be got rid of by elections.

[rubl]

nobody should have the ability to buy a government especially a convicted criminal on the run - that is just wrong no matter how you look at it and it needs to be stopped for good

Noboddy argues that governments should not be able to be bought. Where you are wrong is accusing Thaksin of doing so. It is clear he commands the support and loyalty of an election winning majority in this nation. Thaksin popularity has resulted in something worse than a bought government, a government stolen at the barrel of a gun - if anything needs to be stopped for good it is military backed coups that rob the citizens of their sovereignty.

I think you should rephrase your post a bit.

The election winning majority was Pheu Thai party and MPs and since Thaksin owns the party, pays important members a salary and has 'Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts' as slogan, a fugitive criminal has taken over the democratic elections for his own (business) purpose.

At least that's how you seem to have written your post.

You are confused.

If Thaksin loses the support of ordinary Thais and can no longer win elections then it is irrelevant how much money he has, he will not be in government. This is the main reason why Thaksin, flawed as he is, is much, much better for Thailand than the Generals - because he comes from elections and he can be got rid of by elections.

Well, flawed as Thaksin is (your words, not mine) he knew how to misuse a faulty democratic system to buy himself an election based on promises which just happened to be only partially fulfilled and by his sisters government using lots of tax payers billions.

Anyway, if the amendment of an article in the constitution is deemed so needed I'm sure a 2/3 majority can be found to vote for it, putting aside party interests and think of country and population first for once.

[MisterBig]

Well, flawed as Thaksin is (your words, not mine) he knew how to misuse a faulty democratic system to buy himself an election based on promises which just happened to be only partially fulfilled and by his sisters government using lots of tax payers billions.

Anyway, if the amendment of an article in the constitution is deemed so needed I'm sure a 2/3 majority can be found to vote for it, putting aside party interests and think of country and population first for once.

Thinking of the country and its population is not what the current regime and its backers are doing or have ever done - it has always been the opposite for them.

Anyway, the military is now writing the constitution they want with zero external input or involvement meaning what they produce will be a document that they DO NOT EVER want amended in anyway because any amendments would only mean a diminishment in their unelected rule. The fully appointed senate is their safety net against there ever being a successful constitutional amendment. It is most certainly not in the interests of the country and its population to force an unwanted undemocratic constitution down its and their throats and making it impossible for it ever to be modified and thus improved.

[smutcakes]

Well, flawed as Thaksin is (your words, not mine) he knew how to misuse a faulty democratic system to buy himself an election based on promises which just happened to be only partially fulfilled and by his sisters government using lots of tax payers billions.

Anyway, if the amendment of an article in the constitution is deemed so needed I'm sure a 2/3 majority can be found to vote for it, putting aside party interests and think of country and population first for once.

And who made that 'flawed'system? (years of military Govts) Its only flawed now because they are being pushed out or marginalized.

If TS had paid the correct people, the correct shares of the loot, there would not be a problem now.

Funny how now a Constitution which is going to be put on everyone (for want of any other option), is expected to work out ok....

They are delusional and the violence and unrest sadly will be ten fold.

[rubl]

Well, flawed as Thaksin is (your words, not mine) he knew how to misuse a faulty democratic system to buy himself an election based on promises which just happened to be only partially fulfilled and by his sisters government using lots of tax payers billions.

Anyway, if the amendment of an article in the constitution is deemed so needed I'm sure a 2/3 majority can be found to vote for it, putting aside party interests and think of country and population first for once.

Thinking of the country and its population is not what the current regime and its backers are doing or have ever done - it has always been the opposite for them.

Anyway, the military is now writing the constitution they want with zero external input or involvement meaning what they produce will be a document that they DO NOT EVER want amended in anyway because any amendments would only mean a diminishment in their unelected rule. The fully appointed senate is their safety net against there ever being a successful constitutional amendment. It is most certainly not in the interests of the country and its population to force an unwanted undemocratic constitution down its and their throats and making it impossible for it ever to be modified and thus improved.

I appreciate your opinion, although I do not agree with it. It's especially the tone which seems to suggest you state facts rather than write your opinion.

Now as for the 'do not ever' that seems to contradict the inclusion of the '2/3 majority MPs in favour of' and when many agree than an amendment is necessary for country and people, of course a 2/3 majority of elected MPs will be happy to vote for said amendment. After double checking it still the amendment as they originally agreed with, that is.

[MisterBig]

Well, flawed as Thaksin is (your words, not mine) he knew how to misuse a faulty democratic system to buy himself an election based on promises which just happened to be only partially fulfilled and by his sisters government using lots of tax payers billions.

Anyway, if the amendment of an article in the constitution is deemed so needed I'm sure a 2/3 majority can be found to vote for it, putting aside party interests and think of country and population first for once.

Thinking of the country and its population is not what the current regime and its backers are doing or have ever done - it has always been the opposite for them.

Anyway, the military is now writing the constitution they want with zero external input or involvement meaning what they produce will be a document that they DO NOT EVER want amended in anyway because any amendments would only mean a diminishment in their unelected rule. The fully appointed senate is their safety net against there ever being a successful constitutional amendment. It is most certainly not in the interests of the country and its population to force an unwanted undemocratic constitution down its and their throats and making it impossible for it ever to be modified and thus improved.

I appreciate your opinion, although I do not agree with it. It's especially the tone which seems to suggest you state facts rather than write your opinion.

Now as for the 'do not ever' that seems to contradict the inclusion of the '2/3 majority MPs in favour of' and when many agree than an amendment is necessary for country and people, of course a 2/3 majority of elected MPs will be happy to vote for said amendment. After double checking it still the amendment as they originally agreed with, that is.

The system being proposed in the Junta Constitution makes it practically impossible for any one political party to gain a majority in the lower house add to this the stacked unelected Junta upper house and there will never ever be a situation where 2/3's of MP's can be found to amend the constitution - particularly if the amendments make for a more democratic system which would directly threaten the ill gotten salaries of the appointed ones. Requiring a 2/3's majority under the proposed constitution is just another way of saying NEVEAR EVER.

Out of curiosity, why do you suppose the Junta won't allow the Constitution to be amended the normal way that normal countries amend their charters - by a referendum?

[rubl]

Well, flawed as Thaksin is (your words, not mine) he knew how to misuse a faulty democratic system to buy himself an election based on promises which just happened to be only partially fulfilled and by his sisters government using lots of tax payers billions.

Anyway, if the amendment of an article in the constitution is deemed so needed I'm sure a 2/3 majority can be found to vote for it, putting aside party interests and think of country and population first for once.

And who made that 'flawed'system? (years of military Govts) Its only flawed now because they are being pushed out or marginalized.

If TS had paid the correct people, the correct shares of the loot, there would not be a problem now.

Funny how now a Constitution which is going to be put on everyone (for want of any other option), is expected to work out ok....

They are delusional and the violence and unrest sadly will be ten fold.

The flawed system was set up by the military which made Thailand a democracy in 1932 and was distorded by both military and elected governments over the years.

BTW "if TS paid the correct people the correct shares of the loot" as you so succinctly write, there would be a problem as a corrupt government run be a crook would hardly be a fine example of a democratic government, or a government other countries like, can or want to deal with.

So, it's really interesting that the topic of 2/3 majority MPs voting for an amendment is so uninteresting to many. As if they'd rather have the CDC spent another year on it getting it right in one go, something no other country has yet managed.

[rubl]

Well, flawed as Thaksin is (your words, not mine) he knew how to misuse a faulty democratic system to buy himself an election based on promises which just happened to be only partially fulfilled and by his sisters government using lots of tax payers billions.

Anyway, if the amendment of an article in the constitution is deemed so needed I'm sure a 2/3 majority can be found to vote for it, putting aside party interests and think of country and population first for once.

Thinking of the country and its population is not what the current regime and its backers are doing or have ever done - it has always been the opposite for them.

Anyway, the military is now writing the constitution they want with zero external input or involvement meaning what they produce will be a document that they DO NOT EVER want amended in anyway because any amendments would only mean a diminishment in their unelected rule. The fully appointed senate is their safety net against there ever being a successful constitutional amendment. It is most certainly not in the interests of the country and its population to force an unwanted undemocratic constitution down its and their throats and making it impossible for it ever to be modified and thus improved.

I appreciate your opinion, although I do not agree with it. It's especially the tone which seems to suggest you state facts rather than write your opinion.

Now as for the 'do not ever' that seems to contradict the inclusion of the '2/3 majority MPs in favour of' and when many agree than an amendment is necessary for country and people, of course a 2/3 majority of elected MPs will be happy to vote for said amendment. After double checking it still the amendment as they originally agreed with, that is.

The system being proposed in the Junta Constitution makes it practically impossible for any one political party to gain a majority in the lower house add to this the stacked unelected Junta upper house and there will never ever be a situation where 2/3's of MP's can be found to amend the constitution - particularly if the amendments make for a more democratic system which would directly threaten the ill gotten salaries of the appointed ones. Requiring a 2/3's majority under the proposed constitution is just another way of saying NEVEAR EVER.

Out of curiosity, why do you suppose the Junta won't allow the Constitution to be amended the normal way that normal countries amend their charters - by a referendum?

Well Mr. Big, I have nothing against a parliament in which no political party gained a majority (as in 50% + 1 seats). Must be because that doesn't seem to have happened in my life time in the Netherlands and life still went on rather nicely. Coalition governments with right/middle, left/middle or even left/right no middle.

As for the upper house (aka Senate as the locals call it), it's not a junta Senate, and I doubt it will be stacked as there are various intellectual requirements before a candidate senator can be nominated.

Now the 'never ever' seems a reflection of how things work in your country of origin. Maybe you should spent some time on educating your MP's or members of congress. With 'ill gotten' salaries

you probably mean the salary any MP and Senator will receive independent of being elected, what party (s)hes from or where elected/appointed. Levels as by law, nothing ill gotten to it.

As for referendum the state the charter proposal may be in according to some and the announcement it to be approved in September suggests that a referendum will unfortunately delay things a wee bit. Not important, democracy is worth a wait.

[MisterBig]

Well Mr. Big, I have nothing against a parliament in which no political party gained a majority (as in 50% + 1 seats). Must be because that doesn't seem to have happened in my life time in the Netherlands and life still went on rather nicely. Coalition governments with right/middle, left/middle or even left/right no middle.

As for the upper house (aka Senate as the locals call it), it's not a junta Senate, and I doubt it will be stacked as there are various intellectual requirements before a candidate senator can be nominated.

Now the 'never ever' seems a reflection of how things work in your country of origin. Maybe you should spent some time on educating your MP's or members of congress. With 'ill gotten' salaries

you probably mean the salary any MP and Senator will receive independent of being elected, what party (s)hes from or where elected/appointed. Levels as by law, nothing ill gotten to it.

As for referendum the state the charter proposal may be in according to some and the announcement it to be approved in September suggests that a referendum will unfortunately delay things a wee bit. Not important, democracy is worth a wait.

You lack an understanding of the Junta's constitutions purpose, it aims to weaken the legislature and strengthen an appointed executive and bureaucracy i.e. effectively remove the peoples voice from politics.

Referendums are the purest means to hear the peoples voice - thus no referendums in post coup Thailand.

[Chris Lawrence]

Are not the MPs all appointed by the PM? It seems that so far, everything the PM wants has been passed with little descent. I don't think they'll have much issue with getting a two-thirds vote. But, I'm very concerned that the new charter is the product of the PM rather than a product of the Thai people. Who appointed the PM? - The MPs who were appointed by him before he was PM. Who gave Gen Prayut the authority to over throw the government in the first place? Perhaps the new charter is a product of a group of people who are controlled by the same person that gave the Gen commanding authority.

Perhaps Mickey Mouse is still in Thailand, masquerading as an innocent bystander.

The charter will come into law and rule the new general election, new MPs, Senate, etc., etc.

BTW if a charter amendment is deemed so important it should be no problem to get a two-third majority in parliament. The charter is not about politics.

Of course this new constitution is political. It is being designed to eradicate a political party and that the ruling elites hold on as a minority to the majority of power.

Even the German way of doing things promotes political parties?

The previous Government tried to change the 50/50 rule with the senate. One of the reasons for the coup. Now the regime are offering 100% of senate to be handpicked by 'professionals'.

What role will the judiciary have in challenging constitutional matters? Or will this always remain the role of the military? And they want a Prime Minister appointed? Will this influence come from the senate? What happens if the senate is unhappy with the Prime Minister? Will they sack them? Or will the German style of calling a fresh election be adopted within 100 days?

Of course it’s a political Charter. That’s why they call it a coup.

[rubl]

Well Mr. Big, I have nothing against a parliament in which no political party gained a majority (as in 50% + 1 seats). Must be because that doesn't seem to have happened in my life time in the Netherlands and life still went on rather nicely. Coalition governments with right/middle, left/middle or even left/right no middle.

As for the upper house (aka Senate as the locals call it), it's not a junta Senate, and I doubt it will be stacked as there are various intellectual requirements before a candidate senator can be nominated.

Now the 'never ever' seems a reflection of how things work in your country of origin. Maybe you should spent some time on educating your MP's or members of congress. With 'ill gotten' salaries

you probably mean the salary any MP and Senator will receive independent of being elected, what party (s)hes from or where elected/appointed. Levels as by law, nothing ill gotten to it.

As for referendum the state the charter proposal may be in according to some and the announcement it to be approved in September suggests that a referendum will unfortunately delay things a wee bit. Not important, democracy is worth a wait.

You lack an understanding of the Junta's constitutions purpose, it aims to weaken the legislature and strengthen an appointed executive and bureaucracy i.e. effectively remove the peoples voice from politics.

Referendums are the purest means to hear the peoples voice - thus no referendums in post coup Thailand.

You suffer from overconfidence in your opinion and the 'facts' you might base it.

Thailand did have a referendum post coup and before a new general election, in 2007. Why would it be difficult to accept that the referendum now still is a possibility?

As for the pure form of the peoples voice, did you ever check what was said about the referendum in 2007? Apart from that can you imagine how even political parties can corrupt the peoples voice?

[rubl]

Are not the MPs all appointed by the PM? It seems that so far, everything the PM wants has been passed with little descent. I don't think they'll have much issue with getting a two-thirds vote. But, I'm very concerned that the new charter is the product of the PM rather than a product of the Thai people. Who appointed the PM? - The MPs who were appointed by him before he was PM. Who gave Gen Prayut the authority to over throw the government in the first place? Perhaps the new charter is a product of a group of people who are controlled by the same person that gave the Gen commanding authority.

Perhaps Mickey Mouse is still in Thailand, masquerading as an innocent bystander.

The charter will come into law and rule the new general election, new MPs, Senate, etc., etc.

BTW if a charter amendment is deemed so important it should be no problem to get a two-third majority in parliament. The charter is not about politics.

Of course this new constitution is political. It is being designed to eradicate a political party and that the ruling elites hold on as a minority to the majority of power.

Even the German way of doing things promotes political parties?

The previous Government tried to change the 50/50 rule with the senate. One of the reasons for the coup. Now the regime are offering 100% of senate to be handpicked by 'professionals'.

What role will the judiciary have in challenging constitutional matters? Or will this always remain the role of the military? And they want a Prime Minister appointed? Will this influence come from the senate? What happens if the senate is unhappy with the Prime Minister? Will they sack them? Or will the German style of calling a fresh election be adopted within 100 days?

Of course it’s a political Charter. That’s why they call it a coup.

Of course?

Pray tell me where in the draft proposal you see politics instead of objectivism? Do you even have a reliable draft English version of what may or maybe based on the right draft Thai version.

You come with many questions which no one can answer with a certain level of reliability and you still call the charter political? Maybe Ms. Yingluck's version of justice?

[MisterBig]

Well Mr. Big, I have nothing against a parliament in which no political party gained a majority (as in 50% + 1 seats). Must be because that doesn't seem to have happened in my life time in the Netherlands and life still went on rather nicely. Coalition governments with right/middle, left/middle or even left/right no middle.

As for the upper house (aka Senate as the locals call it), it's not a junta Senate, and I doubt it will be stacked as there are various intellectual requirements before a candidate senator can be nominated.

Now the 'never ever' seems a reflection of how things work in your country of origin. Maybe you should spent some time on educating your MP's or members of congress. With 'ill gotten' salaries

you probably mean the salary any MP and Senator will receive independent of being elected, what party (s)hes from or where elected/appointed. Levels as by law, nothing ill gotten to it.

As for referendum the state the charter proposal may be in according to some and the announcement it to be approved in September suggests that a referendum will unfortunately delay things a wee bit. Not important, democracy is worth a wait.

You lack an understanding of the Junta's constitutions purpose, it aims to weaken the legislature and strengthen an appointed executive and bureaucracy i.e. effectively remove the peoples voice from politics.

Referendums are the purest means to hear the peoples voice - thus no referendums in post coup Thailand.

You suffer from overconfidence in your opinion and the 'facts' you might base it.

Thailand did have a referendum post coup and before a new general election, in 2007. Why would it be difficult to accept that the referendum now still is a possibility?

As for the pure form of the peoples voice, did you ever check what was said about the referendum in 2007? Apart from that can you imagine how even political parties can corrupt the peoples voice?

The 2007 referendum was a rigged military administered farce.

Those that think they own the country will not allow the citizens to express their will in a proper referendum and now not in elections either.

The sad result of this elite / military hegemony is that there will almost certainly be blood spilled in the streets again, if not this year, then next year.

Let the people vote, that is all they want - their voices to be not only heard but also listened to.

You want the above for yourself and your countrymen so why do you try so hard to deny it to Thais by supporting the current regime?

[rubl]

Well Mr. Big, I have nothing against a parliament in which no political party gained a majority (as in 50% + 1 seats). Must be because that doesn't seem to have happened in my life time in the Netherlands and life still went on rather nicely. Coalition governments with right/middle, left/middle or even left/right no middle.

As for the upper house (aka Senate as the locals call it), it's not a junta Senate, and I doubt it will be stacked as there are various intellectual requirements before a candidate senator can be nominated.

Now the 'never ever' seems a reflection of how things work in your country of origin. Maybe you should spent some time on educating your MP's or members of congress. With 'ill gotten' salaries

you probably mean the salary any MP and Senator will receive independent of being elected, what party (s)hes from or where elected/appointed. Levels as by law, nothing ill gotten to it.

As for referendum the state the charter proposal may be in according to some and the announcement it to be approved in September suggests that a referendum will unfortunately delay things a wee bit. Not important, democracy is worth a wait.

You lack an understanding of the Junta's constitutions purpose, it aims to weaken the legislature and strengthen an appointed executive and bureaucracy i.e. effectively remove the peoples voice from politics.

Referendums are the purest means to hear the peoples voice - thus no referendums in post coup Thailand.

You suffer from overconfidence in your opinion and the 'facts' you might base it.

Thailand did have a referendum post coup and before a new general election, in 2007. Why would it be difficult to accept that the referendum now still is a possibility?

As for the pure form of the peoples voice, did you ever check what was said about the referendum in 2007? Apart from that can you imagine how even political parties can corrupt the peoples voice?

The 2007 referendum was a rigged military administered farce.

Those that think they own the country will not allow the citizens to express their will in a proper referendum and now not in elections either.

The sad result of this elite / military hegemony is that there will almost certainly be blood spilled in the streets again, if not this year, then next year.

Let the people vote, that is all they want - their voices to be not only heard but also listened to.

You want the above for yourself and your countrymen so why do you try so hard to deny it to Thais by supporting the current regime?

A farce? It was a referendum pure and simple, the purest means to hear the peoples voice someone told me.

BTW the Thai electorate tends to vote as they are 'induced' by their local elite. That's so in NorthEast, South and other parts of the country. The vote in Thailand doesn't mean the same as in my country of origin or Australia or other established democracies. It took us centuries, why do you think that Thailand is different?

Solve problems, have an election. Childish thinking. Ignoring circumstances, mindset, the might of local elite.

Grow up man and help the Thai to self-reliance and self-entitlement before forcing them to vote s they are told.

[candide]

Are not the MPs all appointed by the PM? It seems that so far, everything the PM wants has been passed with little descent. I don't think they'll have much issue with getting a two-thirds vote. But, I'm very concerned that the new charter is the product of the PM rather than a product of the Thai people. Who appointed the PM? - The MPs who were appointed by him before he was PM. Who gave Gen Prayut the authority to over throw the government in the first place? Perhaps the new charter is a product of a group of people who are controlled by the same person that gave the Gen commanding authority.

Perhaps Mickey Mouse is still in Thailand, masquerading as an innocent bystander.

The charter will come into law and rule the new general election, new MPs, Senate, etc., etc.

BTW if a charter amendment is deemed so important it should be no problem to get a two-third majority in parliament. The charter is not about politics.

Of course this new constitution is political. It is being designed to eradicate a political party and that the ruling elites hold on as a minority to the majority of power.

Even the German way of doing things promotes political parties?

The previous Government tried to change the 50/50 rule with the senate. One of the reasons for the coup. Now the regime are offering 100% of senate to be handpicked by 'professionals'.

What role will the judiciary have in challenging constitutional matters? Or will this always remain the role of the military? And they want a Prime Minister appointed? Will this influence come from the senate? What happens if the senate is unhappy with the Prime Minister? Will they sack them? Or will the German style of calling a fresh election be adopted within 100 days?

Of course it’s a political Charter. That’s why they call it a coup.

I quite agree. This constitution looks like it's designed to allow coups without having to resort to "judicial" coup or military coup. I imagine how it may work:

- Suthep (or another one) organises protests. The protests are authorized according to the constitution by the police chief who has been appointed by the junta (or his successor that he appointed himself as he is the only one who is allowed to do it)

- He is welcomed by the appointed citizen assembly which enthusiastly decides to call for government impeachment, according to the principle of "empowering the people"

- The appointed ethical committee supports the proposal, outlining that it is about a great offense to morals

- The appointed Senate votes impeachment of the government with a large majority

- The appointed reconciliation committee unanimously decides that it is a special case of political crisis as cited in the constitution and that a non-elected PM should be empowered

- The non-elected PM, General XX decides new laws without the agreement of parliament, as allowed by constitution,

- The parliament makes a vote of censure, and therefore is dissolved, according to the constitution

- Because of the dissolution, the appointed Senate now also plays the role of the parliament,

- etc....

Am I just paranoid?

[MisterBig]

Are not the MPs all appointed by the PM? It seems that so far, everything the PM wants has been passed with little descent. I don't think they'll have much issue with getting a two-thirds vote. But, I'm very concerned that the new charter is the product of the PM rather than a product of the Thai people. Who appointed the PM? - The MPs who were appointed by him before he was PM. Who gave Gen Prayut the authority to over throw the government in the first place? Perhaps the new charter is a product of a group of people who are controlled by the same person that gave the Gen commanding authority.

Perhaps Mickey Mouse is still in Thailand, masquerading as an innocent bystander.

The charter will come into law and rule the new general election, new MPs, Senate, etc., etc.

BTW if a charter amendment is deemed so important it should be no problem to get a two-third majority in parliament. The charter is not about politics.

Of course this new constitution is political. It is being designed to eradicate a political party and that the ruling elites hold on as a minority to the majority of power.

Even the German way of doing things promotes political parties?

The previous Government tried to change the 50/50 rule with the senate. One of the reasons for the coup. Now the regime are offering 100% of senate to be handpicked by 'professionals'.

What role will the judiciary have in challenging constitutional matters? Or will this always remain the role of the military? And they want a Prime Minister appointed? Will this influence come from the senate? What happens if the senate is unhappy with the Prime Minister? Will they sack them? Or will the German style of calling a fresh election be adopted within 100 days?

Of course it’s a political Charter. That’s why they call it a coup.

I quite agree. This constitution looks like it's designed to allow coups without having to resort to "judicial" coup or military coup. I imagine how it may work:

- Suthep (or another one) organises protests. The protests are authorized according to the constitution by the police chief who has been appointed by the junta (or his successor that he appointed himself as he is the only one who is allowed to do it)

- He is welcomed by the appointed citizen assembly which enthusiastly decides to call for government impeachment, according to the principle of "empowering the people"

- The appointed ethical committee supports the proposal, outlining that it is about a great offense to morals

- The appointed Senate votes impeachment of the government with a large majority

- The appointed reconciliation committee unanimously decides that it is a special case of political crisis as cited in the constitution and that a non-elected PM should be empowered

- The non-elected PM, General XX decides new laws without the agreement of parliament, as allowed by constitution,

- The parliament makes a vote of censure, and therefore is dissolved, according to the constitution

- Because of the dissolution, the appointed Senate now also plays the role of the parliament,

- etc....

Am I just paranoid?

No paranoia present.

[smedly]

nobody should have the ability to buy a government especially a convicted criminal on the run - that is just wrong no matter how you look at it and it needs to be stopped for good

If you're saying the rich should not be allowed to influence government, you're fighting a losing battle.

Some of us are of the opinion that no military should have the right to topple an elected government, but obviously not everyone agrees.

yes and some of us are saying that no convicted criminal on the run living abroad should be allowed to buy votes and run a government with his corrupt riches - if only the Thai people could count all the zeros' of what Thaksins thieved while in office - it really is astounding and lets get into the murders and deaths he is also responsible for - some compare him to hitler I actually think he is worse - hitler never lay by a swimming pool orchestrating death and paying for a terrorist organisation - heybruse ever been to Amsterdam ?

[MisterBig]

nobody should have the ability to buy a government especially a convicted criminal on the run - that is just wrong no matter how you look at it and it needs to be stopped for good

If you're saying the rich should not be allowed to influence government, you're fighting a losing battle.

Some of us are of the opinion that no military should have the right to topple an elected government, but obviously not everyone agrees.

yes and some of us are saying that no convicted criminal on the run living abroad should be allowed to buy votes and run a government with his corrupt riches - if only the Thai people could count all the zeros' of what Thaksins thieved while in office - it really is astounding and lets get into the murders and deaths he is also responsible for - some compare him to hitler I actually think he is worse - hitler never lay by a swimming pool orchestrating death and paying for a terrorist organisation - heybruse ever been to Amsterdam ?

farcical conviction by a biased judiciary for a non crime - check

vote buying affected the outcome of elections - check

more corrupt than those that preceded him and those that ejected him - check

Well done, you scored 3 out of 3 for yellow propaganda crap.

However,

You lose points for mentioning the Drug War and Tak Bai.

Aren't you curious as to why the Thai anti democrats never mention these two issues?

Revised score = 1 out of 3

But,

you lose another point for saying Thaksin is worse than Hitler as this idiotic statement reveals the sort of intellect required to be a yellow junta supporter.

Final score = 0 out of 3.

Thanks for playing.

[brucec64]

No, not paranoid at all. You have outlined all of the checks (and no balances) that are built into this Constitution to efficiently remove any elected government that does not please the ruling elite.