'Two-thirds of MPs must back charter amendment'

[smedly]

I am all for a referendum - but I would also say that in Thailand how many people are actually equipped to understand what they are voting for - none of you can ignore the fact - that there are very few - and that many will/would be influenced by village heads etc.........................that is why this country is not ready for a true democracy were people can actually have the free will to vote without being intimidated - influenced or bought, unfortunate as that may sound it is reality

[smedly]

I am all for a referendum - but I would also say that in Thailand how many people are actually equipped to understand what they are voting for - none of you can ignore the fact - that there are very few - and that many will/would be influenced by village heads etc.........................that is why this country is not ready for a true democracy were people can actually have the free will to vote without being intimidated - influenced or bought, unfortunate as that may sound it is reality

It's pretty obvious that the average Thai is much better equipped to exercise the right to vote than you are.

Own your views, opinions and beliefs. If you think dictatorship is better than democracy then that's fine, but don't make excuses for your horrible beliefs by denigrating Thai people. Your beliefs are a reflection of your upbringing, your ethics, your education and your morals and nothing to do with the IQ of the Thai populace.

What sort of coward can't even admit who he is to himself?

its pretty obvious you have no idea how things work in Thailand or have an evil motive to resist change - well I have news for you - it is happening whether you like it or not - money will no longer buy the people of this country

fortunately people like me want to see change were all Thai people can make their own informed choices - if you believe that exists here now you are deluded and naïve and quite frankly limited or have an agenda - go figure

and go get lost in the sand

[MisterBig]

I am all for a referendum - but I would also say that in Thailand how many people are actually equipped to understand what they are voting for - none of you can ignore the fact - that there are very few - and that many will/would be influenced by village heads etc.........................that is why this country is not ready for a true democracy were people can actually have the free will to vote without being intimidated - influenced or bought, unfortunate as that may sound it is reality

It's pretty obvious that the average Thai is much better equipped to exercise the right to vote than you are.

Own your views, opinions and beliefs. If you think dictatorship is better than democracy then that's fine, but don't make excuses for your horrible beliefs by denigrating Thai people. Your beliefs are a reflection of your upbringing, your ethics, your education and your morals and nothing to do with the IQ of the Thai populace.

What sort of coward can't even admit who he is to himself?

its pretty obvious you have no idea how things work in Thailand or have an evil motive to resist change - well I have news for you - it is happening whether you like it or not - money will no longer buy the people of this country

fortunately people like me want to see change were all Thai people can make their own informed choices - if you believe that exists here now you are deluded and naïve and quite frankly limited or have an agenda - go figure

and go get lost in the sand

Money has never, repeat never, been the reason that Thaksin has won so many consecutive elections. The claim of buying elections is a complete nonsense disproved time and time again such that the farcical fallacy now only lives on in the repeated posts of yellow TVF farang anti democrats.

Get it into your head - for better or worse - THE MAJORITY OF THAIS WANT THAKSIN OR A THAKSIN PROXY RUNNING THIS COUNTRY.

You repeatedly spout off that Thais are too dumb to vote because you haven't the courage to admit your unpopular and immoral beliefs come from within yourself.

[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.

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 ?

Yes I've been to Amsterdam, I have no idea what your swimming pool statement is in reference to, and I regard Hitler's SS as history's best example of a terrorist organization, one funded in large part by the wealth stolen from those sent to death camps. smedly, ever been to Auschwitz?

Oh, and in addition to not setting up death camps, Thaksin didn't invade and occupy neighboring countries. How could you possibly think that Thaksin is worse than Hitler?

Regarding your obsession with Thaksin being a criminal fugitive, if Thaksin were to seize the government of Thailand using an army and grant himself amnesty for his crimes, would that make him acceptable to you? It seems that approach is acceptable to a great many posters on this forum.

[halloween]

Money has never, repeat never, been the reason that Thaksin has won so many consecutive elections. The claim of buying elections is a complete nonsense disproved time and time again such that the farcical fallacy now only lives on in the repeated posts of yellow TVF farang anti democrats.

Get it into your head - for better or worse - THE MAJORITY OF THAIS WANT THAKSIN OR A THAKSIN PROXY RUNNING THIS COUNTRY.

You repeatedly spout off that Thais are too dumb to vote because you haven't the courage to admit your unpopular and immoral beliefs come from within yourself.

Yeah right, and the rice scam wasn't an electoral bribe, and those that bought it weren't stupid to believe the Shin lies.

Neither was rising the minimum wage an electoral bribe, and all those who voted for it understood that inflation would negate the effects.

Even the new uni graduates who voted PTP didn't really xapect that they would get a massive pay rise, and most weren't disappointed.

Oh yeah, those tax breaks on cars and houses, they had nothing to do with money.

[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.

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?

Rubi, a draft is a draft. It’s not the real document. Have you read every word of a reliable draft constitutional document?

Are you a Thai plant? As I have read a few of your posts and they seem to always have the flavour of mentioning the Shins? Why is this your obsession?

A constitution is basically a way to follow good orderly direction for the Government and its people. Changes to a constitution are usually done by way of referendum or are challenged by means of a high court.

It appears that this constitution will have none of that?

It appears that the constitution will be decided by military types?

It appears that the people that did the last constitution are re-writing this one?

While all this is happening the last government is being impeached in order that they are disqualified from running in the next parliament?

The people of the last government are also being systematically removed from their positions in government by this regime?

So what is the motive? of this regime in changing the last constitution? It is also said the 1997? Constitution was very good?

So why are they changing a good thing that has had to be re-written?

• Objectivism is essentially a cult, and have no place among freethinkers. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectivism

This charter for all intense and purpose sounds very political.

Please indicate how it is not political?

[rubl]

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?

Rubi, a draft is a draft. It’s not the real document. Have you read every word of a reliable draft constitutional document?

Are you a Thai plant? As I have read a few of your posts and they seem to always have the flavour of mentioning the Shins? Why is this your obsession?

A constitution is basically a way to follow good orderly direction for the Government and its people. Changes to a constitution are usually done by way of referendum or are challenged by means of a high court.

It appears that this constitution will have none of that?

It appears that the constitution will be decided by military types?

It appears that the people that did the last constitution are re-writing this one?

While all this is happening the last government is being impeached in order that they are disqualified from running in the next parliament?

The people of the last government are also being systematically removed from their positions in government by this regime?

So what is the motive? of this regime in changing the last constitution? It is also said the 1997? Constitution was very good?

So why are they changing a good thing that has had to be re-written?

• Objectivism is essentially a cult, and have no place among freethinkers. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectivism

This charter for all intense and purpose sounds very political.

Please indicate how it is not political?

Oh come on , Chris, cut the crap.

A Thai plant? Does such accusation make you happy and helps you in defending your point of view? What is a Thai plant anyway?

You ask if I have seen or read some of the draft whereas before I asked if you had a reliable version. A draft is a draft and that's why you start with all kind of leading questions and making assumptions? Based on snippets you've seen, various discussions you followed.

Lastly you even state for all intense intent and purpose the new charter is political and you ask me to describe how it's not? Maybe you mean the purpose of rewriting is political, not the charter.

[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.

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?

Not all at, just barely informed and assuming a lot you heard to be 'facts'.

[smutcakes]

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?

Not all at, just barely informed and assuming a lot you heard to be 'facts'.

There would be less reason to make assumption and be informed if they involved people in the process which they promised to do.......

[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 its a political Charter. Thats 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?

Not all at, just barely informed and assuming a lot you heard to be 'facts'.

What I heard or rather read was from statements by CDC members, NRC, etc... Then I wrote this fiction by thinking: "if I wanted to make a coup without resorting to judicial or military coup, how could I use the various laws and organisations proposed in the draft charter?

[rubl]

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 its a political Charter. Thats 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?

Not all at, just barely informed and assuming a lot you heard to be 'facts'.

What I heard or rather read was from statements by CDC members, NRC, etc... Then I wrote this fiction by thinking: "if I wanted to make a coup without resorting to judicial or military coup, how could I use the various laws and organisations proposed in the draft charter?

'fiction', or should I say 'alternate history' (aka history as we would have liked to see it, or as it could have happened). You read Harry Turtledove novels?

[rubl]

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?

Not all at, just barely informed and assuming a lot you heard to be 'facts'.

There would be less reason to make assumption and be informed if they involved people in the process which they promised to do.......

Well, the initial enthusiasm to cooperate was limited. Still lots of people involved and those Thai know. Of course the CDC and sub-commissions could do a daily write-up and claim half an hour broadcasting time every day, but I fear the interest shown would be disappointing.

Oh, by the way, I doubt 'we farang' are included in the information channel, or even thought of. As such we have to wait for a 'reasonably stable draft version' and a kind soul to translate that into English (or Dutch).

[toybits]

But it only takes one person to tear up the charter?

[Chris Lawrence]

Rubi have you read a reliable draft of the new constitution?

I haven't got one and am sure most people here don't have one. Whats your point? The charter is being leaked by the people drafting it. Not sure anyone has a Thai copy let alone a English copy?

The drafting of the new constitution is political. If you have some evidence to show that it is not more than happy to look at what you are reading?

• The CDC has vowed to create not only a ‘good system of government’ but also to find ‘good people’ to run it. The definition of a ‘good person’ is vague but generally refers to one who is ethical and free from political influence. In this vein, the draft constitution proposes to transfer the power to appoint and remove government officials from the cabinet to a new independent commission.

• Another controversial provision of the draft constitution is section 7, which declares that if no constitutional provision is applicable to a case, it should be decided according to the constitutional convention of the democratic regime. The CDC has clarified that the Constitutional Court has full power to interpret the constitutional convention in question; it confers immense power on the judiciary.

• Current Thai politics remains a battleground between the poorer masses and the traditional elite, led by bureaucrats. The new constitution would help the elite fulfill its aspiration of total control over the country. As the fear of parliamentary dictatorship reaches hysterical levels, the CDC's proposed solution is an electoral system that would only ensure a fragmented parliament and a coalition government.

• The CDC's proposals provoke concerns that the new constitution would bring about a chaotic cabinet with limited power that is unable to implement any significant policies. At the same time, the elite could manipulate the government through these newly established bodies, the appointment of an unelected prime minister and screenings based on the ‘right moral standard’.

If the above actions are written into the constitution, than the results are political.

[rubl]

But it only takes one person to tear up the charter?

Depends, written on vellum it might take two or three.

[rubl]

Rubi have you read a reliable draft of the new constitution?

I haven't got one and am sure most people here don't have one. Whats your point? The charter is being leaked by the people drafting it. Not sure anyone has a Thai copy let alone a English copy?

The drafting of the new constitution is political. If you have some evidence to show that it is not more than happy to look at what you are reading?

• The CDC has vowed to create not only a ‘good system of government’ but also to find ‘good people’ to run it. The definition of a ‘good person’ is vague but generally refers to one who is ethical and free from political influence. In this vein, the draft constitution proposes to transfer the power to appoint and remove government officials from the cabinet to a new independent commission.

• Another controversial provision of the draft constitution is section 7, which declares that if no constitutional provision is applicable to a case, it should be decided according to the constitutional convention of the democratic regime. The CDC has clarified that the Constitutional Court has full power to interpret the constitutional convention in question; it confers immense power on the judiciary.

• Current Thai politics remains a battleground between the poorer masses and the traditional elite, led by bureaucrats. The new constitution would help the elite fulfill its aspiration of total control over the country. As the fear of parliamentary dictatorship reaches hysterical levels, the CDC's proposed solution is an electoral system that would only ensure a fragmented parliament and a coalition government.

• The CDC's proposals provoke concerns that the new constitution would bring about a chaotic cabinet with limited power that is unable to implement any significant policies. At the same time, the elite could manipulate the government through these newly established bodies, the appointment of an unelected prime minister and screenings based on the ‘right moral standard’.

If the above actions are written into the constitution, than the results are political.

It's like a lot of talk and all or nothing we try to digest from confusing and often contradicting pieces of info might be true or false.

The actions you might call political, not the result. The result is a charter valid for all citizens of the country of Thailand.

[smedly]

what on earth are you taking about, the structures that are set in place to enact laws and create rules by which a government can run a country and be held accountable to the people is of course "political" - it also sets standards for human rights - the judiciary - elections - it sets the standard by which the country is governed

of course it is political - what a stupid argument