PM wants world to accept the new Thai charter

[Alwyn]

He really is a buffoon.. "The PM said the government would invite legal specialists from Germany and France to share experiences about drafting their charters and how they manage after a coup." When did these countries have to manage after a coup? Well for France the last time was 1851 but Germany, never. That's if my dimming memory serves me still anyway. Great idea, while he's at it, why doesn't he ask Myanmarr how they coped after winning the World Cup.

[rwhoov]

New Thai Democracy - a guarantee that the minority will win.

Corruption - something that applies to the "other party" only.

[jerojero]

Solved less than 30% of the country's problems? So Mr All-knowing sees all the problems. Understands all the problems. Determines success or resolution to each problem. Calculates what's left? Would love to see his list. Not enough Generals? Is that on the list? Military men do not know how to govern only command, know nothing of macroeconomic theory only military theory, do not understand international politics (other than simulated war games once a year!). But they know all the country's problems! Yes indeed.

Edited April 8, 2015 by jerojero

[NanLaew]

When military law was abolished and replaced with the provisional constitution it was widely publicised despite you pretending not knowing anything about it. Perform a search on Google or ask the NCPO to supply you with a copy of it; no doubt you receive one.

It isn’t up to me to decide if I agree or disagree with it I only stated that I can inform myself about it if interested in it. My opinion is that it is up to the Thai people to decide if they want to keep article 44 or if they feel a re-write of it is necessary.

Yes, we all know that martial law was replaced by article 44 very publicly. He even talked about doing it the previous week so everyone knew it was only an inevitability.

You earlier contention that article 44 "..has been placed into the open and article 44 is there to be read by all people" has now been somewhat modified by your suggestion that if anyone wants to study what it can and cannot do, all I need to do is ask the NCPO for a copy? Really? Only Prayuth knows what it allows or disallows and it's NOT for debate and it's NOT negotiable.

And what's this about the Thai people having a choice of keeping article 44 as-is and requesting a re-write of the bits they don't like?

Article 44 isn't the Thai Constitution.

Yes there is an exception to your rule and that applies to Germany if referring to your etc. The German constitution was drawn up under the supervision of the British, US and French military leaders that ruled the three military zones in the defeated Germany. (Exception was East Germany under Soviet rule)

Without the approval of the three occupying powers the constitution could have not come into force and funny enough it was only seen as a short term solution that didn’t require the approval of the German people in a plebiscite. The German constitution became the constitutions for all of Germany in 1990 after re-unification.

Here we have a constitution that has been written by a selected group of people and didn’t require all people to vote on; and as we can see when looking at the last 65 years it seems to have worked for the German people.

Post-war Germany's constitution was written for the well being of the populace of a nation who's unelected leader had invaded other nations over a couple of years before being called on it, whereupon he chose to wage war on most of the civilised world for about another 6 years before being eventually bombed and embargoed into capitulation. It was a totally broken nation.

The current article 44 that you seem to infer is a standing constitution, has been promulgated by an unelected leader after what?... maybe a dozen years of 'loss of earnings' and face by the Thai elite?

The comparisons you make would be risible if the future of a nation wasn't at stake.

[JAG]

Did USA, France, Russia, etc ask the world to accept their charter?

Yes there is an exception to your rule and that applies to Germany if referring to your etc. The German constitution was drawn up under the supervision of the British, US and French military leaders that ruled the three military zones in the defeated Germany. (Exception was East Germany under Soviet rule)

Without the approval of the three occupying powers the constitution could have not come into force and funny enough it was only seen as a short term solution that didn’t require the approval of the German people in a plebiscite. The German constitution became the constitutions for all of Germany in 1990 after re-unification.

Here we have a constitution that has been written by a selected group of people and didn’t require all people to vote on; and as we can see when looking at the last 65 years it seems to have worked for the German people.

The situation in Germany was totally different. As a state it had totally ceased to exist, having surrendered unilaterally in May 1945. The occupying powers wrote the constitution on a blank slate, and that constitution was a document which explicitly demanded democracy. The first act carried out under that constitution was a free election which dictated the composition of the government.

All very different from what is going on here.

[phycokiller]

Thais could learn a lot from French history, but it didnt go too well for the side that Prayut represents

You don’t seem to know a lot about French history and being happy to conclude that it ended after the French revolution.

The truth is that after Napoleons defeat the old order was re-installed which lead again to political unrest and in 1871 after the defeat of Napoleon III by the Prussian and German armies France turned from Monarchy to Republic. Still even at that time French history didn’t stop and had many ups and downs. But if you go to France today you still will find members of the old aristocratic families involved in politics and public life.

well yes, you dont think theres a lesson to be learned there?

[GerdT]

Did USA, France, Russia, etc ask the world to accept their charter?

Yes there is an exception to your rule and that applies to Germany if referring to your etc. The German constitution was drawn up under the supervision of the British, US and French military leaders that ruled the three military zones in the defeated Germany. (Exception was East Germany under Soviet rule)

Without the approval of the three occupying powers the constitution could have not come into force and funny enough it was only seen as a short term solution that didn’t require the approval of the German people in a plebiscite. The German constitution became the constitutions for all of Germany in 1990 after re-unification.

Here we have a constitution that has been written by a selected group of people and didn’t require all people to vote on; and as we can see when looking at the last 65 years it seems to have worked for the German people.

Well after loosing the war you need the approval from these who won. So Austria and Germany, maybe also Japan.

But there were lots of changes afterwards in Austria (and most probably in Germany) which no one outside got asked for.

There have been changes to the German constitution after it was invoked and you are right no third party had to give its approval for them. However, the changes haven’t changed the German constitution as much as you might think. Amendments have been made to articles that required these. I remember the debate about article 218 which defined when human life starts and if abortion was permissible (in the 1970’s) and the debates in the papers and on TV including the voices that rose abroad from Roman Catholic countries and the Vatican. Still to pass the hurdle the government needed a 2/3 majority in the Bundestag (First Chamber) and the Bundesrat (Second Chamber) to get the changes approved, which involved compromising with the opposition and gain a consensus.

[GerdT]

Thais could learn a lot from French history, but it didnt go too well for the side that Prayut represents

You don’t seem to know a lot about French history and being happy to conclude that it ended after the French revolution.

The truth is that after Napoleons defeat the old order was re-installed which lead again to political unrest and in 1871 after the defeat of Napoleon III by the Prussian and German armies France turned from Monarchy to Republic. Still even at that time French history didn’t stop and had many ups and downs. But if you go to France today you still will find members of the old aristocratic families involved in politics and public life.

well yes, you dont think theres a lesson to be learned there?

In lessons to be learned I agree with Nietsche: Also sprach Zarathusra

Once you were apes, yet even now man is more of an ape than any of the apes.

If we would have learned our lessons (includes all of humanity) we wouldn’t fight wars anymore or regarding someone with different skin colour as alien and not belonging to the same species.

[BusyB]

If France and/or Germany had suffered a military coup then the leader of the coup would be tried for treason and democracy would be restored.

With the mods' permission, France's neighbour Spain:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Tejero

Indeed, that's been at the back of my mind for some time now. And it was King Juan Carlos who refused to back the coupmakers and sent them back to barracks after they invaded parliament. That ensured the survival of democracy and finished off Franco Spain for good. I think that might have something to do with things we can't talk about here.

Edited April 8, 2015 by BusyB

[jesimps]

If France and/or Germany had suffered a military coup then the leader of the coup would be tried for treason and democracy would be restored.

But first of all Germany or France wouldn't have a government like Yingluck because a Thaksin would be tried and put into jail years ago, so there wouldn't be any need for a coup.

My goodness, 40 post before Thaksin got a mention. Thought we were going to see the miracle of an entire thread without reference to him (or Yingluck). Guess some people just miss them too much.

Edited April 8, 2015 by jesimps

[teacherpaul]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Ha ha.... Must be accepted. The arrogance of this leader continues.

Fortunately, we have the arrogance of farangs on TVF to fall back on.

I wondered how long it would be before the "if you don't like it, go home, snigger snigger" brigade reared its ugly head.

[sambum]

I have mixed feelings...

Sure it's worrying about the power that article 44 allows, but that same power also allows for all of the red tape and bureaucracy to be side stepped in order to make meaningful changes in months rather than years or decades...

I look at many western countries and see that the road to 'meaningful democracy' was paved with Violent revolutions, civil wars, protests and uprisings.... And to be honest, if you asked me about a year ago, seemed this was the path that Thailand was heading as well.

So while I do not look through any rose tinted glasses and while I do look at article 44 with some trepidation and fear as to how it could be abused...

I also do have some amount of hope that it could allow for real changes in Thailand government and institutions that could greatly benefit Thai society and democracy in the long term.

So it will all come down to how things play out and how it is used, but personally I am willing to wait and see before I make any final judgements.

BANGKOK: -- THE NEW charter must be accepted by the international community, Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha said yesterday.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and it's starting to show - he is now starting to try to enforce his will on the "International community" by virtually saying that if they don't like the fact that he has given himself absolute power, they can lump it (or words to that effect!)

(Mods - Sorry can't change the bold type!)

[GerdT]

When military law was abolished and replaced with the provisional constitution it was widely publicised despite you pretending not knowing anything about it. Perform a search on Google or ask the NCPO to supply you with a copy of it; no doubt you receive one.

It isn’t up to me to decide if I agree or disagree with it I only stated that I can inform myself about it if interested in it. My opinion is that it is up to the Thai people to decide if they want to keep article 44 or if they feel a re-write of it is necessary.

Yes, we all know that martial law was replaced by article 44 very publicly. He even talked about doing it the previous week so everyone knew it was only an inevitability.

You earlier contention that article 44 "..has been placed into the open and article 44 is there to be read by all people" has now been somewhat modified by your suggestion that if anyone wants to study what it can and cannot do, all I need to do is ask the NCPO for a copy? Really? Only Prayuth knows what it allows or disallows and it's NOT for debate and it's NOT negotiable.

And what's this about the Thai people having a choice of keeping article 44 as-is and requesting a re-write of the bits they don't like?

Article 44 isn't the Thai Constitution.

Yes there is an exception to your rule and that applies to Germany if referring to your etc. The German constitution was drawn up under the supervision of the British, US and French military leaders that ruled the three military zones in the defeated Germany. (Exception was East Germany under Soviet rule)

Without the approval of the three occupying powers the constitution could have not come into force and funny enough it was only seen as a short term solution that didn’t require the approval of the German people in a plebiscite. The German constitution became the constitutions for all of Germany in 1990 after re-unification.

Here we have a constitution that has been written by a selected group of people and didn’t require all people to vote on; and as we can see when looking at the last 65 years it seems to have worked for the German people.

Post-war Germany's constitution was written for the well being of the populace of a nation who's unelected leader had invaded other nations over a couple of years before being called on it, whereupon he chose to wage war on most of the civilised world for about another 6 years before being eventually bombed and embargoed into capitulation. It was a totally broken nation.

The current article 44 that you seem to infer is a standing constitution, has been promulgated by an unelected leader after what?... maybe a dozen years of 'loss of earnings' and face by the Thai elite?

The comparisons you make would be risible if the future of a nation wasn't at stake.

First of all martial law was not replaced by article 44 but by the provisional constitution of which article 44 is one part of it.

somewhat modified by your suggestion that if anyone wants to study what it can and cannot do

I didn’t modify anything but said that it was publicised and to repeat it here again if anyone missed that they can Google it or ask the NCPO to have access to the text.

Coming to your second bone of contention which implies that the Post-war German constitution was written because an unelected leader had invaded foreign countries is not only historically wrong and misleading but only shows that you haven’t looked really deep into recent German history. Hitler was elected (his party didn’t gain an absolute majority in the Reichstag and relied on coalition partners) and the laws that enabled him to abolish elections (Ermächtigungsgesetz) were laws that broke actually the German continuation at that time. They circumvented the constitution permitting to abolish elections and democracy in Germany.

The current German constitution doesn’t permit any laws to be passed that would be in conflict with the constitution but that doesn’t say that German lawmakers have no right to change or amend the constitution if getting the 2/3 majority required for it; which means that any changes to the constitution can be used by future elected governments.

[JAWF]

"The new charter must be accepted by the international community"

Or should it be Honda please dont move out

like every country $$ make the politicians listen

[JOC]

>>PM says he is not worried about Thai reaction but is unsure of international response<< Quote

A leader of a country saying: " I don't give a sh1t about my fellow Thais"

And he want to get the acceptance of the international community??

He are aware of that people living in free countries, have access to free press, not censored internet and are free to form and express their own opinion??

Arrogance??

[visionchaser45]

How about getting the Thai people to accept it first?

[MaxLee]

We live in the 21st century,.... hint-hint.....

[a99az]

Wow just how far off can this guy be? Just because he thinks he has all the answers for Thailand does not mean that he can enact them. In any case I think I have all the right answers and he does not play in part of it. Move over.

[cookee68]

that wont happen

[Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere]

Hmmm... Now there is a revelation and confirmation. He says only 30 percent of Thailand's problems have been solved so that mean he will stay in power for about 3 years or more if a hiccup doesn't occur. If the last 12 months equals 30%.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere

[peecee]

He needs to put in a bit more effort with his salute if he's going to be taken seriously by the international community!

[Thaddeus]

[jerojero]

PM wants.... PM wants. International community does not give a s**t what Mr Coup PM wants.

[Anon999]

"The new charter must be accepted by the international community"

If they don't accept it and tow the Junta's line, what are you going to do. Prayuth can't treat the International community like he treats the suppressed Thais. The international community are still allowed to think, analyse and form thier own opinions. The compulsory brainwashing and propoganda doesn't work and never will on the free.

Do you think it is possible that there could have been something lost in the translation? I doubt that he said, 'must accept it', in Thai.

[Denim]

Unfortunately , Prayuth craves the very thing he denies to others .........respect. He just can't understand that respect from others has to be earned. It cannot be forced from them.