Public referendum for Thai charter draft to be held

[smedly]

when society breaks down as it did in Thailand last year then democracy got suspended - that is what happened so get over it, the military stepped in to put an end to the madness that would have prevailed if they hadn't

This now is not democracy - I think we are all clear about that

What we have is a none elected government trying to put in place something that might work here as everything up to now has failed

Should there be a referendum - well normally I would support that but in this instance I don't, time to take the bull by the horns and just implement it.

Like I said already - have an election and see how it goes for the next 2 years under the new charter then hold a referendum when the people can actually see how it has performed

There is no easy solution here, there are too many people that are thieving off the people and want it to continue, the abuse and the abusers are rampant, it's a prime example of how greed overcomes values and morals

Lets get the new charter implemented and get the elections going then have a review in 2 years

or

Just dump the idea of elections for now and let the current government continue cleansing

Society did not break down. Outside of a few parts of Bangkok society functioned normally during the protests. The protests and anti-democrats could have been dealt with using measures far short of a coup, but that would have resulted in elections and a new government with new democratic legitimacy. The military did not want that.

Now we have a blatantly undemocratic constitution written at the direction of a military with no desire to have majority rule in Thailand. Also keep in mind that the military has ruled Thailand many times in the past and never made things better for anyone except the military.

In spite of all this, some people love the temporary stability of military rule and repression and hope it will go on indefinitely.

your lies deflections and miss information don't work on me, go waste it on someone that will actually listen - find a mirror

[smedly]

Snide remarks aside, the 80% threshold is set for the referendum on the new charter only, not on elections.

Over the last months we've had people 'demand' a referendum, telling us that that was what THE THAI PEOPLE demanded. Now you want to tell me I can't seriously expect the Thai people to come and vote in the referendum?

BTW would you be more happy with a minimum voter turnout requirement of 75% or 66.66% ? Do you think there should be no minimum requirement on something as important as a referendum on the future of Thailand?

Why don't you answer the question? What I or somebody else thinks is of no importance.

The very simple question was

Do you think it is realistic to require a 80% minimum voter turn out to make an election valid, in a country that never in history has reached that quota?

Good luck with that, mate. You would have more success in obtaining the Russian nuclear launch codes than receiving an answer from rubl that he couldn't wiggle out of later...

I think it is rather premature to even be discussing this 80% thing, it would be best to wait and see what the EC decides in a few months as it is the EC that have been tasked with arranging the referendum

[candide]

"About 47 million copies of the draft charter need be printed and distributed nationwide". It looks like a joke: so the "average" Thai will read the charter project, analyse it, and then vote!

One of the reason there is a system of electing representative is just to avoid such problems. Citizen delegate power to representative to deal with complex issues. The problem here is that there is no elected constitutional assembly, only an appointed one, so there is no "ex-ante" democracy legitimacy (before designing the charter). Now in order to get a kind of "ex-post" democratic legitimacy, they need to organise a referendum after designing the charter. The result is this totally messed up issue...

Well, some here kept telling that all Thai wanted a referendum to have a direct say, to accept or reject the new charter proposed. That suggest an interest, a desire to read and analyse and judge the proposal for themselves.

Now printing may seem a bit overdone, but not everyone has a speedy enough Internet connection and I'm not sure it would be humane to force people to read the constitution from their mobile device. Some may still have a working tablet which would be a bit better. So 47 million copies, pity about the trees, but even in slightly more advanced countries (like those in Europe) the government has the obligation to distribute information via old and new channels.

An elected constitutional assembly would have made possible to avoid this problem. Since an appointed assembly has no democratic legitimity, I also agree with a referendum as last solution. It's worst than the case in which a charter is designed by an elected constitutional assembly and better than no democratic legitimation at all.

An elected constitutional government misusing it's parliamentary majority to push through some amendments doesn't really sound democratic. Remember

"Referendums can be called direct democracy where the society has a direct role in the particular proposals."

Hmmm.... What about taking advantage of a coup to push through a whole charter?

PS My English is not perfect so it may be unprecise. By constitutional assembly I mean an assembly which aim is to design a constitution, and can have specific rules such as 2/3 majority with minimum quorum in order to avoid the mentioned problem.

[heybruce]

when society breaks down as it did in Thailand last year then democracy got suspended - that is what happened so get over it, the military stepped in to put an end to the madness that would have prevailed if they hadn't

This now is not democracy - I think we are all clear about that

What we have is a none elected government trying to put in place something that might work here as everything up to now has failed

Should there be a referendum - well normally I would support that but in this instance I don't, time to take the bull by the horns and just implement it.

Like I said already - have an election and see how it goes for the next 2 years under the new charter then hold a referendum when the people can actually see how it has performed

There is no easy solution here, there are too many people that are thieving off the people and want it to continue, the abuse and the abusers are rampant, it's a prime example of how greed overcomes values and morals

Lets get the new charter implemented and get the elections going then have a review in 2 years

or

Just dump the idea of elections for now and let the current government continue cleansing

Society did not break down. Outside of a few parts of Bangkok society functioned normally during the protests. The protests and anti-democrats could have been dealt with using measures far short of a coup, but that would have resulted in elections and a new government with new democratic legitimacy. The military did not want that.

Now we have a blatantly undemocratic constitution written at the direction of a military with no desire to have majority rule in Thailand. Also keep in mind that the military has ruled Thailand many times in the past and never made things better for anyone except the military.

In spite of all this, some people love the temporary stability of military rule and repression and hope it will go on indefinitely.

your lies deflections and miss information don't work on me, go waste it on someone that will actually listen - find a mirror

In other words, you can not refute anything I posted.

[rubl]

You still juggle with "transparency' without any indication how such item could be incorporated meaningfully in a charter. Can't you dig up some examples of democratic charters with 'transparency' build in in a meaningful way?

Anyway, it looks like we'll get a referendum, that is assuming that now that the NCPO conceded, people are also willing to agree on conditions.

"Can't you dig up some examples of democratic charters with 'transparency' build in in a meaningful way?"

No, but I also can't dig up examples of functional constitutions with over 300 provisions and written at the direction of the military. Can you?

The subject of transparency came up after smedly posted: "this new charter is radical in the sense that it is designed to stamp out corruption and power abuse". I pointed out that neither the charter nor the junta did anything meaningful to tackle corruption. The ultimate weapon against corruption is transparency. The junta is doing nothing to increase transparency in government, it is doing the opposite.

Anyway, if there is a referendum, it will certainly be in the form of "Accept this charter or you'll get something worse."

Ah, so you don't know what you talk about asking for "transparency requirements" in the charter. No problem.

Ah, so you don't think transparency should be required of the junta or their joke of a charter.

Come to think of it, you seem to consistently oppose any suggestions that corruption in the military or junta be tackled. I wonder why.

Ah, so you still twist and turn unable to define what you mean with putting transparency requirements in the charter?

"If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?"

Again, what rules, what requirements? "Article 371 Transparency is required for all government activities" ?

[rubl]

Well, some here kept telling that all Thai wanted a referendum to have a direct say, to accept or reject the new charter proposed. That suggest an interest, a desire to read and analyse and judge the proposal for themselves.

Now printing may seem a bit overdone, but not everyone has a speedy enough Internet connection and I'm not sure it would be humane to force people to read the constitution from their mobile device. Some may still have a working tablet which would be a bit better. So 47 million copies, pity about the trees, but even in slightly more advanced countries (like those in Europe) the government has the obligation to distribute information via old and new channels.

An elected constitutional assembly would have made possible to avoid this problem. Since an appointed assembly has no democratic legitimity, I also agree with a referendum as last solution. It's worst than the case in which a charter is designed by an elected constitutional assembly and better than no democratic legitimation at all.

An elected constitutional government misusing it's parliamentary majority to push through some amendments doesn't really sound democratic. Remember

"Referendums can be called direct democracy where the society has a direct role in the particular proposals."

Hmmm.... What about taking advantage of a coup to push through a whole charter?

PS My English is not perfect so it may be unprecise. By constitutional assembly I mean an assembly which aim is to design a constitution, and can have specific rules such as 2/3 majority with minimum quorum in order to avoid the mentioned problem.

Of course it's nice to have some discussion on 'what if there hadn't been a coup', but here we deal with the reality of a referendum on the new charter proposed.

It would seem that unlike all Thai you don't see a need for a referendum on the new charter?

[Stradavarius37]

In other news media, this was presented as an excuse for delaying elections still further. Bottom-line is that there will not be any elections until the 'period of uncertainty' has passed (say no more), and we will only see delaying tactics until then.

Good

[heybruce]

"Can't you dig up some examples of democratic charters with 'transparency' build in in a meaningful way?"

No, but I also can't dig up examples of functional constitutions with over 300 provisions and written at the direction of the military. Can you?

The subject of transparency came up after smedly posted: "this new charter is radical in the sense that it is designed to stamp out corruption and power abuse". I pointed out that neither the charter nor the junta did anything meaningful to tackle corruption. The ultimate weapon against corruption is transparency. The junta is doing nothing to increase transparency in government, it is doing the opposite.

Anyway, if there is a referendum, it will certainly be in the form of "Accept this charter or you'll get something worse."

Ah, so you don't know what you talk about asking for "transparency requirements" in the charter. No problem.

Ah, so you don't think transparency should be required of the junta or their joke of a charter.

Come to think of it, you seem to consistently oppose any suggestions that corruption in the military or junta be tackled. I wonder why.

Ah, so you still twist and turn unable to define what you mean with putting transparency requirements in the charter?

"If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?"

Again, what rules, what requirements? "Article 371 Transparency is required for all government activities" ?

rubl, are you thoroughly dense or intentionally playing dense?

I've explained it in detail before, let's try it step by step.

You don't stop corruption by selective punishment after the fact. You stop corruption by making it difficult and risky to begin with. Understand?

The catch-all term for making corruption difficult is "transparency". This means a wide variety of measures to ensure government business is conducted in full view of the press and people. Budgets are published, meetings are open to the press, contracts are awarded by open competitive bidding, anyone in government in a position to influence spending must divest themselves of any assets that represent a conflict of interest, these same people regularly provide a disclosures of assets, and there are stiff penalties for conflicts of interest. Understand?

In a constitution with over 300 provisions designed to cover all contingencies there is room to mandate transparency and forbid conflict of interests. This constitution doesn't have such provisions. Understand?

Prayuth's first made his name in the army serving with the "Eastern Tigers", a military faction that gained immense wealth and power in the 1990's trading with the genocidal Khmer Rouge http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/21/the-new-king-of-siam-thailand-prayuth-junta/. He has clearly ruled out investigations of well founded suspicions of corruption in the military http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/. The current scandal of the large scale importation, ransoming and selling of refugees in the south could not have occurred without the knowledge and cooperation of the police, locals, and army, but so far no army officers have been charged http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32835811. Add to this the wide-spread stories of draft deferrals for sell, military contracts negotiated behind closed doors, and the unexplained wealth of the generals. It's impossible to avoid the obvious conclusion that the military is thoroughly corrupt, achieves great wealth and power through corruption, has every reason to maintain a corrupt system that benefits it, and will do nothing beyond selective prosecutions and show-trials to eliminate corruption. Do you disagree?

This is the more innocent stuff. If you look into the history of how certain people of great prestige have reached this position under questionable circumstances, it becomes obvious the military is also involved in more sinister games. Of course this can not be discussed here.

Have I defined "transparency" to your satisfaction? Have I explained why people who expect the military to fight corruption are fools? Do you understand that this charter, intentionally designed to lead to weak governments checked by unelected bureaucrats, will do nothing to prevent corruption, but will instead allow it to flourish? Any questions?

Edited May 23, 2015 by heybruce

[metisdead]

An off topic baiting post has been removed as well as the totally off topic reply.

[rubl]

Ah, so you don't know what you talk about asking for "transparency requirements" in the charter. No problem.

Ah, so you don't think transparency should be required of the junta or their joke of a charter.

Come to think of it, you seem to consistently oppose any suggestions that corruption in the military or junta be tackled. I wonder why.

Ah, so you still twist and turn unable to define what you mean with putting transparency requirements in the charter?

"If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?"

Again, what rules, what requirements? "Article 371 Transparency is required for all government activities" ?

rubl, are you thoroughly dense or intentionally playing dense?

I've explained it in detail before, let's try it step by step.

You don't stop corruption by selective punishment after the fact. You stop corruption by making it difficult and risky to begin with. Understand?

The catch-all term for making corruption difficult is "transparency". This means a wide variety of measures to ensure government business is conducted in full view of the press and people. Budgets are published, meetings are open to the press, contracts are awarded by open competitive bidding, anyone in government in a position to influence spending must divest themselves of any assets that represent a conflict of interest, these same people regularly provide a disclosures of assets, and there are stiff penalties for conflicts of interest. Understand?

In a constitution with over 300 provisions designed to cover all contingencies there is room to mandate transparency and forbid conflict of interests. This constitution doesn't have such provisions. Understand?

Prayuth's first made his name in the army serving with the "Eastern Tigers", a military faction that gained immense wealth and power in the 1990's trading with the genocidal Khmer Rouge http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/21/the-new-king-of-siam-thailand-prayuth-junta/. He has clearly ruled out investigations of well founded suspicions of corruption in the military http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/. The current scandal of the large scale importation, ransoming and selling of refugees in the south could not have occurred without the knowledge and cooperation of the police, locals, and army, but so far no army officers have been charged http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32835811. Add to this the wide-spread stories of draft deferrals for sell, military contracts negotiated behind closed doors, and the unexplained wealth of the generals. It's impossible to avoid the obvious conclusion that the military is thoroughly corrupt, achieves great wealth and power through corruption, has every reason to maintain a corrupt system that benefits it, and will do nothing beyond selective prosecutions and show-trials to eliminate corruption. Do you disagree?

This is the more innocent stuff. If you look into the history of how certain people of great prestige have reached this position under questionable circumstances, it becomes obvious the military is also involved in more sinister games. Of course this can not be discussed here.

Have I defined "transparency" to your satisfaction? Have I explained why people who expect the military to fight corruption are fools? Do you understand that this charter, intentionally designed to lead to weak governments checked by unelected bureaucrats, will do nothing to prevent corruption, but will instead allow it to flourish? Any questions?

""If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?""

So, pray tell what do you want in the charter regarding transparency?

[smutcakes]

rubl, are you thoroughly dense or intentionally playing dense?

I've explained it in detail before, let's try it step by step.

You don't stop corruption by selective punishment after the fact. You stop corruption by making it difficult and risky to begin with. Understand?

The catch-all term for making corruption difficult is "transparency". This means a wide variety of measures to ensure government business is conducted in full view of the press and people. Budgets are published, meetings are open to the press, contracts are awarded by open competitive bidding, anyone in government in a position to influence spending must divest themselves of any assets that represent a conflict of interest, these same people regularly provide a disclosures of assets, and there are stiff penalties for conflicts of interest. Understand?

In a constitution with over 300 provisions designed to cover all contingencies there is room to mandate transparency and forbid conflict of interests. This constitution doesn't have such provisions. Understand?

Prayuth's first made his name in the army serving with the "Eastern Tigers", a military faction that gained immense wealth and power in the 1990's trading with the genocidal Khmer Rouge http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/21/the-new-king-of-siam-thailand-prayuth-junta/. He has clearly ruled out investigations of well founded suspicions of corruption in the military http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/. The current scandal of the large scale importation, ransoming and selling of refugees in the south could not have occurred without the knowledge and cooperation of the police, locals, and army, but so far no army officers have been charged http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32835811. Add to this the wide-spread stories of draft deferrals for sell, military contracts negotiated behind closed doors, and the unexplained wealth of the generals. It's impossible to avoid the obvious conclusion that the military is thoroughly corrupt, achieves great wealth and power through corruption, has every reason to maintain a corrupt system that benefits it, and will do nothing beyond selective prosecutions and show-trials to eliminate corruption. Do you disagree?

This is the more innocent stuff. If you look into the history of how certain people of great prestige have reached this position under questionable circumstances, it becomes obvious the military is also involved in more sinister games. Of course this can not be discussed here.

Have I defined "transparency" to your satisfaction? Have I explained why people who expect the military to fight corruption are fools? Do you understand that this charter, intentionally designed to lead to weak governments checked by unelected bureaucrats, will do nothing to prevent corruption, but will instead allow it to flourish? Any questions?

""If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?""

So, pray tell what do you want in the charter regarding transparency?

Umm did you read the post?

"The catch-all term for making corruption difficult is "transparency". This means a wide variety of measures to ensure government business is conducted in full view of the press and people. Budgets are published, meetings are open to the press, contracts are awarded by open competitive bidding, anyone in government in a position to influence spending must divest themselves of any assets that represent a conflict of interest, these same people regularly provide a disclosures of assets, and there are stiff penalties for conflicts of interest. "

[rubl]

rubl, are you thoroughly dense or intentionally playing dense?

I've explained it in detail before, let's try it step by step.

You don't stop corruption by selective punishment after the fact. You stop corruption by making it difficult and risky to begin with. Understand?

The catch-all term for making corruption difficult is "transparency". This means a wide variety of measures to ensure government business is conducted in full view of the press and people. Budgets are published, meetings are open to the press, contracts are awarded by open competitive bidding, anyone in government in a position to influence spending must divest themselves of any assets that represent a conflict of interest, these same people regularly provide a disclosures of assets, and there are stiff penalties for conflicts of interest. Understand?

In a constitution with over 300 provisions designed to cover all contingencies there is room to mandate transparency and forbid conflict of interests. This constitution doesn't have such provisions. Understand?

Prayuth's first made his name in the army serving with the "Eastern Tigers", a military faction that gained immense wealth and power in the 1990's trading with the genocidal Khmer Rouge http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/21/the-new-king-of-siam-thailand-prayuth-junta/. He has clearly ruled out investigations of well founded suspicions of corruption in the military http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/. The current scandal of the large scale importation, ransoming and selling of refugees in the south could not have occurred without the knowledge and cooperation of the police, locals, and army, but so far no army officers have been charged http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32835811. Add to this the wide-spread stories of draft deferrals for sell, military contracts negotiated behind closed doors, and the unexplained wealth of the generals. It's impossible to avoid the obvious conclusion that the military is thoroughly corrupt, achieves great wealth and power through corruption, has every reason to maintain a corrupt system that benefits it, and will do nothing beyond selective prosecutions and show-trials to eliminate corruption. Do you disagree?

This is the more innocent stuff. If you look into the history of how certain people of great prestige have reached this position under questionable circumstances, it becomes obvious the military is also involved in more sinister games. Of course this can not be discussed here.

Have I defined "transparency" to your satisfaction? Have I explained why people who expect the military to fight corruption are fools? Do you understand that this charter, intentionally designed to lead to weak governments checked by unelected bureaucrats, will do nothing to prevent corruption, but will instead allow it to flourish? Any questions?

""If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?""

So, pray tell what do you want in the charter regarding transparency?

Umm did you read the post?

"The catch-all term for making corruption difficult is "transparency". This means a wide variety of measures to ensure government business is conducted in full view of the press and people. Budgets are published, meetings are open to the press, contracts are awarded by open competitive bidding, anyone in government in a position to influence spending must divest themselves of any assets that represent a conflict of interest, these same people regularly provide a disclosures of assets, and there are stiff penalties for conflicts of interest. "

Did you?

HeyBruce wrote

"""If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?""

I only seem to get obfuscation, info on possible laws, lots of negatives on the junta, but I'm still trying to Still trying to get him to tell what he wants in the charter apart from "transparency requirements"

[smutcakes]

rubl, are you thoroughly dense or intentionally playing dense?

I've explained it in detail before, let's try it step by step.

You don't stop corruption by selective punishment after the fact. You stop corruption by making it difficult and risky to begin with. Understand?

The catch-all term for making corruption difficult is "transparency". This means a wide variety of measures to ensure government business is conducted in full view of the press and people. Budgets are published, meetings are open to the press, contracts are awarded by open competitive bidding, anyone in government in a position to influence spending must divest themselves of any assets that represent a conflict of interest, these same people regularly provide a disclosures of assets, and there are stiff penalties for conflicts of interest. Understand?

In a constitution with over 300 provisions designed to cover all contingencies there is room to mandate transparency and forbid conflict of interests. This constitution doesn't have such provisions. Understand?

Prayuth's first made his name in the army serving with the "Eastern Tigers", a military faction that gained immense wealth and power in the 1990's trading with the genocidal Khmer Rouge http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/21/the-new-king-of-siam-thailand-prayuth-junta/. He has clearly ruled out investigations of well founded suspicions of corruption in the military http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/. The current scandal of the large scale importation, ransoming and selling of refugees in the south could not have occurred without the knowledge and cooperation of the police, locals, and army, but so far no army officers have been charged http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32835811. Add to this the wide-spread stories of draft deferrals for sell, military contracts negotiated behind closed doors, and the unexplained wealth of the generals. It's impossible to avoid the obvious conclusion that the military is thoroughly corrupt, achieves great wealth and power through corruption, has every reason to maintain a corrupt system that benefits it, and will do nothing beyond selective prosecutions and show-trials to eliminate corruption. Do you disagree?

This is the more innocent stuff. If you look into the history of how certain people of great prestige have reached this position under questionable circumstances, it becomes obvious the military is also involved in more sinister games. Of course this can not be discussed here.

Have I defined "transparency" to your satisfaction? Have I explained why people who expect the military to fight corruption are fools? Do you understand that this charter, intentionally designed to lead to weak governments checked by unelected bureaucrats, will do nothing to prevent corruption, but will instead allow it to flourish? Any questions?

""If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?""

So, pray tell what do you want in the charter regarding transparency?

Umm did you read the post?

"The catch-all term for making corruption difficult is "transparency". This means a wide variety of measures to ensure government business is conducted in full view of the press and people. Budgets are published, meetings are open to the press, contracts are awarded by open competitive bidding, anyone in government in a position to influence spending must divest themselves of any assets that represent a conflict of interest, these same people regularly provide a disclosures of assets, and there are stiff penalties for conflicts of interest. "

Did you?

HeyBruce wrote

"""If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?""

I only seem to get obfuscation, info on possible laws, lots of negatives on the junta, but I'm still trying to Still trying to get him to tell what he wants in the charter apart from "transparency requirements"

Sorry if i am being stupid, but i have no idea what you are requesting. He gave a list of examples of issues which could be addressed in the Constitution to ensure more transparency, eg open bidding, budgets published and open to scrutiny etc

What are you after? His thoughts on every other aspect of the charter.

I think you are just rambling now anyway, because you probably agree with his point, but because of your position on the coup cannot openly accept it, so you are just blathering on aimlessly, and will probably sign off with something referencing Dutch Unc zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[fobuff]

Just have another useless poll by the Happinees for Thai committee

Problem solved

[heybruce]

Ah, so you don't think transparency should be required of the junta or their joke of a charter.

Come to think of it, you seem to consistently oppose any suggestions that corruption in the military or junta be tackled. I wonder why.

Ah, so you still twist and turn unable to define what you mean with putting transparency requirements in the charter?

"If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?"

Again, what rules, what requirements? "Article 371 Transparency is required for all government activities" ?

rubl, are you thoroughly dense or intentionally playing dense?

I've explained it in detail before, let's try it step by step.

You don't stop corruption by selective punishment after the fact. You stop corruption by making it difficult and risky to begin with. Understand?

The catch-all term for making corruption difficult is "transparency". This means a wide variety of measures to ensure government business is conducted in full view of the press and people. Budgets are published, meetings are open to the press, contracts are awarded by open competitive bidding, anyone in government in a position to influence spending must divest themselves of any assets that represent a conflict of interest, these same people regularly provide a disclosures of assets, and there are stiff penalties for conflicts of interest. Understand?

In a constitution with over 300 provisions designed to cover all contingencies there is room to mandate transparency and forbid conflict of interests. This constitution doesn't have such provisions. Understand?

Prayuth's first made his name in the army serving with the "Eastern Tigers", a military faction that gained immense wealth and power in the 1990's trading with the genocidal Khmer Rouge http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/21/the-new-king-of-siam-thailand-prayuth-junta/. He has clearly ruled out investigations of well founded suspicions of corruption in the military http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/. The current scandal of the large scale importation, ransoming and selling of refugees in the south could not have occurred without the knowledge and cooperation of the police, locals, and army, but so far no army officers have been charged http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32835811. Add to this the wide-spread stories of draft deferrals for sell, military contracts negotiated behind closed doors, and the unexplained wealth of the generals. It's impossible to avoid the obvious conclusion that the military is thoroughly corrupt, achieves great wealth and power through corruption, has every reason to maintain a corrupt system that benefits it, and will do nothing beyond selective prosecutions and show-trials to eliminate corruption. Do you disagree?

This is the more innocent stuff. If you look into the history of how certain people of great prestige have reached this position under questionable circumstances, it becomes obvious the military is also involved in more sinister games. Of course this can not be discussed here.

Have I defined "transparency" to your satisfaction? Have I explained why people who expect the military to fight corruption are fools? Do you understand that this charter, intentionally designed to lead to weak governments checked by unelected bureaucrats, will do nothing to prevent corruption, but will instead allow it to flourish? Any questions?

""If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?""

So, pray tell what do you want in the charter regarding transparency?

Read the post rubl. A charter with over 300 provisions that is intended to cover all contingencies can make room for meaningful rules against corruption. It has 50,000 words, 194 pages and 315 articles according to the BP. Lots of stuff about rights, obligations, restrictions, procedures, etc, The detail is amazing, Section 293 begins with: "The State shall reform micro‐economy in accordance with the following means: " followed by nine detailed paragraphs. All this, and yet nothing mandating transparency that I've found. Transparency is conspicuous by its absence.

I'm not going to write the charter, I'm pointing out that the absence of provisions mandating transparency is intentional. As I explained in the post, the military has benefited hugely from corruption and intends to continue to do so. Do you disagree?

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[rubl]

""If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?""

So, pray tell what do you want in the charter regarding transparency?

Read the post rubl. A charter with over 300 provisions that is intended to cover all contingencies can make room for meaningful rules against corruption. It has 50,000 words, 194 pages and 315 articles according to the BP. Lots of stuff about rights, obligations, restrictions, procedures, etc, The detail is amazing, Section 293 begins with: "The State shall reform micro‐economy in accordance with the following means: " followed by nine detailed paragraphs. All this, and yet nothing mandating transparency that I've found. Transparency is conspicuous by its absence.

I'm not going to write the charter, I'm pointing out that the absence of provisions mandating transparency is intentional. As I explained in the post, the military has benefited hugely from corruption and intends to continue to do so. Do you disagree?

The draft charter has some interesting articles. Did you read 73, 270, 271 a.o., some good stuff on governance?

Article 293 is part of the "various on fields of reforms" which starts at article 281. Although we seem to (dis)agree on reforms I'm not sure this type of detail should be in the charter. I think that belongs in some organic law instead. The charter might only have the global lines on direction. Of course this would get us into a different discussion of what should be in a charter and what should be in other laws which elaborate on the articles in the charter. Too much in the charter and no ordinary Thai will ever read it.

Personally I still think the 2007 version should have been used as base with at least the least eight years showing the weaknesses, the point where politicians and other influencial figures tried to bypass control and transparency.

BTW the English language version tbthailand provided a link to has indeed 315 articles in 411Kb. The 1997 version had 336 articles in 250Kb, the 2007 version 305 articles in 295Kb. None of this says much about contents though.

[heybruce]

""If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?""

So, pray tell what do you want in the charter regarding transparency?

Read the post rubl. A charter with over 300 provisions that is intended to cover all contingencies can make room for meaningful rules against corruption. It has 50,000 words, 194 pages and 315 articles according to the BP. Lots of stuff about rights, obligations, restrictions, procedures, etc, The detail is amazing, Section 293 begins with: "The State shall reform micro‐economy in accordance with the following means: " followed by nine detailed paragraphs. All this, and yet nothing mandating transparency that I've found. Transparency is conspicuous by its absence.

I'm not going to write the charter, I'm pointing out that the absence of provisions mandating transparency is intentional. As I explained in the post, the military has benefited hugely from corruption and intends to continue to do so. Do you disagree?

The draft charter has some interesting articles. Did you read 73, 270, 271 a.o., some good stuff on governance?

Article 293 is part of the "various on fields of reforms" which starts at article 281. Although we seem to (dis)agree on reforms I'm not sure this type of detail should be in the charter. I think that belongs in some organic law instead. The charter might only have the global lines on direction. Of course this would get us into a different discussion of what should be in a charter and what should be in other laws which elaborate on the articles in the charter. Too much in the charter and no ordinary Thai will ever read it.

Personally I still think the 2007 version should have been used as base with at least the least eight years showing the weaknesses, the point where politicians and other influencial figures tried to bypass control and transparency.

BTW the English language version tbthailand provided a link to has indeed 315 articles in 411Kb. The 1997 version had 336 articles in 250Kb, the 2007 version 305 articles in 295Kb. None of this says much about contents though.

Article 73, only nice guys can be political leaders. Nothing on who decides who is a nice guy. Nothing on transparency.

Article 270, state audits by auditors appointed by the king and confirmed by the largely unelected Senate. Nothing on what is audited, how often, how thoroughly, and if the results are published.

Article 271, vague words about the selection of the National Counter Corruption Commission with the broad and vague task of "The Chairperson of the National Counter Corruption Commission shall have charge and control over the Organic Law on prevention and suppression of corruption." Nothing on transparency.

Did you find anything in there to keep the military from continuing to profit from smuggling of people, gems, drugs, antiquities, etc? Anything to keep generals out of politics and off the boards of public companies? Anything to catch officers who have unexplained wealth? Anything about auditing the military to see if it has the number of men it claims on its payroll and the equipment it claims to have purchased?

Most important of all, does this constitution do anything to ensure the military is subject to the rule of law? If not, it seems this constitution will exchange what some people call the "dictatorship of democracy" for a worse kind of dictatorship.

[rubl]

""If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?""

So, pray tell what do you want in the charter regarding transparency?

Read the post rubl. A charter with over 300 provisions that is intended to cover all contingencies can make room for meaningful rules against corruption. It has 50,000 words, 194 pages and 315 articles according to the BP. Lots of stuff about rights, obligations, restrictions, procedures, etc, The detail is amazing, Section 293 begins with: "The State shall reform micro‐economy in accordance with the following means: " followed by nine detailed paragraphs. All this, and yet nothing mandating transparency that I've found. Transparency is conspicuous by its absence.

I'm not going to write the charter, I'm pointing out that the absence of provisions mandating transparency is intentional. As I explained in the post, the military has benefited hugely from corruption and intends to continue to do so. Do you disagree?

The draft charter has some interesting articles. Did you read 73, 270, 271 a.o., some good stuff on governance?

Article 293 is part of the "various on fields of reforms" which starts at article 281. Although we seem to (dis)agree on reforms I'm not sure this type of detail should be in the charter. I think that belongs in some organic law instead. The charter might only have the global lines on direction. Of course this would get us into a different discussion of what should be in a charter and what should be in other laws which elaborate on the articles in the charter. Too much in the charter and no ordinary Thai will ever read it.

Personally I still think the 2007 version should have been used as base with at least the least eight years showing the weaknesses, the point where politicians and other influencial figures tried to bypass control and transparency.

BTW the English language version tbthailand provided a link to has indeed 315 articles in 411Kb. The 1997 version had 336 articles in 250Kb, the 2007 version 305 articles in 295Kb. None of this says much about contents though.

Article 73, only nice guys can be political leaders. Nothing on who decides who is a nice guy. Nothing on transparency.

Article 270, state audits by auditors appointed by the king and confirmed by the largely unelected Senate. Nothing on what is audited, how often, how thoroughly, and if the results are published.

Article 271, vague words about the selection of the National Counter Corruption Commission with the broad and vague task of "The Chairperson of the National Counter Corruption Commission shall have charge and control over the Organic Law on prevention and suppression of corruption." Nothing on transparency.

Did you find anything in there to keep the military from continuing to profit from smuggling of people, gems, drugs, antiquities, etc? Anything to keep generals out of politics and off the boards of public companies? Anything to catch officers who have unexplained wealth? Anything about auditing the military to see if it has the number of men it claims on its payroll and the equipment it claims to have purchased?

Most important of all, does this constitution do anything to ensure the military is subject to the rule of law? If not, it seems this constitution will exchange what some people call the "dictatorship of democracy" for a worse kind of dictatorship.

The 2007 constitution had article 138 which in the current draft proposal is article 159 listing the organic laws. Please check the organic laws for details.

Anyway you seem somewhat obsessed with the Military. Nothing you point out to deserves a mention in the charter apart from maybe listing government organisations like police and army and pointing to organic laws to regulate government organisations. Do you really want some lists like "the military shall not ..., the Police shall not ..., Education personel shall not ..." in the charter?

So, what about 'transparency'? Isn't that implicitly covered by 'good governance' and more explicitly in the organic laws? How specific should a charter be while still keeping it in a manageble shape and readable / understandable by normal citizens?

Edited May 24, 2015 by rubl

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[heybruce]

Read the post rubl. A charter with over 300 provisions that is intended to cover all contingencies can make room for meaningful rules against corruption. It has 50,000 words, 194 pages and 315 articles according to the BP. Lots of stuff about rights, obligations, restrictions, procedures, etc, The detail is amazing, Section 293 begins with: "The State shall reform micro‐economy in accordance with the following means: " followed by nine detailed paragraphs. All this, and yet nothing mandating transparency that I've found. Transparency is conspicuous by its absence.

I'm not going to write the charter, I'm pointing out that the absence of provisions mandating transparency is intentional. As I explained in the post, the military has benefited hugely from corruption and intends to continue to do so. Do you disagree?

The draft charter has some interesting articles. Did you read 73, 270, 271 a.o., some good stuff on governance?

Article 293 is part of the "various on fields of reforms" which starts at article 281. Although we seem to (dis)agree on reforms I'm not sure this type of detail should be in the charter. I think that belongs in some organic law instead. The charter might only have the global lines on direction. Of course this would get us into a different discussion of what should be in a charter and what should be in other laws which elaborate on the articles in the charter. Too much in the charter and no ordinary Thai will ever read it.

Personally I still think the 2007 version should have been used as base with at least the least eight years showing the weaknesses, the point where politicians and other influencial figures tried to bypass control and transparency.

BTW the English language version tbthailand provided a link to has indeed 315 articles in 411Kb. The 1997 version had 336 articles in 250Kb, the 2007 version 305 articles in 295Kb. None of this says much about contents though.

Article 73, only nice guys can be political leaders. Nothing on who decides who is a nice guy. Nothing on transparency.

Article 270, state audits by auditors appointed by the king and confirmed by the largely unelected Senate. Nothing on what is audited, how often, how thoroughly, and if the results are published.

Article 271, vague words about the selection of the National Counter Corruption Commission with the broad and vague task of "The Chairperson of the National Counter Corruption Commission shall have charge and control over the Organic Law on prevention and suppression of corruption." Nothing on transparency.

Did you find anything in there to keep the military from continuing to profit from smuggling of people, gems, drugs, antiquities, etc? Anything to keep generals out of politics and off the boards of public companies? Anything to catch officers who have unexplained wealth? Anything about auditing the military to see if it has the number of men it claims on its payroll and the equipment it claims to have purchased?

Most important of all, does this constitution do anything to ensure the military is subject to the rule of law? If not, it seems this constitution will exchange what some people call the "dictatorship of democracy" for a worse kind of dictatorship.

The 2007 constitution had article 138 which in the current draft proposal is article 159 listing the organic laws. Please check the organic laws for details.

Anyway you seem somewhat obsessed with the Military. Nothing you point out to deserves a mention in the charter apart from maybe listing government organisations like police and army and pointing to organic laws to regulate government organisations. Do you really want some lists like "the military shall not ..., the Police shall not ..., Education personel shall not ..." in the charter?

So, what about 'transparency'? Isn't that implicitly covered by 'good governance' and more explicitly in the organic laws? How specific should a charter be while still keeping it in a manageble shape and readable / understandable by normal citizens?

"in the current draft proposal is article 159 listing the organic laws. Please check the organic laws for details."

Ok:

"Section 159. There shall be the following Organic Laws:

(1) Organic Law on Election of Members of the House of

Representatives and Obtaining of Senators;

(2) Organic Law on Council of Ministers

(4) Organic Law on Political Party and Political Group;

(5) Organic Law on Referendum;

(6) Organic Law on Constitutional Court and Rules and Procedure of

the Constitutional Court;

(7) Organic Law on Criminal Proceedings Against Persons Holding

Political Positions;

(8) Organic Law on State Audit;

(9) Organic Law on Counter Corruption;

(10) Organic Law on Human Rights Ombudsmen;

(11) Organic Law on Public Finance and State Budgeting;

(12) Organic Law on National Reform."

No details there.

Obsessed with the military? You mean the military that toppled the elected government and suspended its own constitution and all democratic institutions, that rules by decree and suppresses fundamental human rights, that enriches itself through corruption and is forcing an undemocratic constitution on the country? Yeah, since I am concerned about the future of Thailand I am somewhat concerned about the military.

What is implicitly covered in "good governance" sections is debatable. Transparency is most definitely not explicitly covered in the organic laws section--didn't you read them? The charter is already ridiculously large and detailed, it could easily accommodate explicit requirements for transparency if the junta wanted that, which it clearly doesn't.

As I stated earlier, Prayuth's faction of the army grew rich and powerful illegally trading with the Khmer Rouge in the 1990's. A man like that clearly doesn't want transparency.

Why do you persistently challenge calls for transparency?

[smedly]

tell you what

I don't care what constitution or what party wins the next election because it doesn't really matter

The single most important thing going forward is that any constitution amendments will require a 2/3 majority in the house, along with any bills involving amnesty or similar

I said it here almost 2 years ago that if the above had been in place Thailand would never have needed any intervention from the military and there would have been no people protesting on the streets because what was on the agenda that caused all the problems would never have gone beyond wishful thinking

If you look at any other country especially the US - constitutional amendments are almost impossible and involve a very very long investigative process even to be heard never mind passed

It was this door that was left open for the likes of Thaksin to exploit that caused all the problems regardless of the lies and cheating

Close the door - Lock it - put the key somewhere safe out of reach of abuse...............2/3 majority is pretty good

[smedly]

Article 73, only nice guys can be political leaders. Nothing on who decides who is a nice guy. Nothing on transparency.

Article 270, state audits by auditors appointed by the king and confirmed by the largely unelected Senate. Nothing on what is audited, how often, how thoroughly, and if the results are published.

Article 271, vague words about the selection of the National Counter Corruption Commission with the broad and vague task of "The Chairperson of the National Counter Corruption Commission shall have charge and control over the Organic Law on prevention and suppression of corruption." Nothing on transparency.

Did you find anything in there to keep the military from continuing to profit from smuggling of people, gems, drugs, antiquities, etc? Anything to keep generals out of politics and off the boards of public companies? Anything to catch officers who have unexplained wealth? Anything about auditing the military to see if it has the number of men it claims on its payroll and the equipment it claims to have purchased?

Most important of all, does this constitution do anything to ensure the military is subject to the rule of law? If not, it seems this constitution will exchange what some people call the "dictatorship of democracy" for a worse kind of dictatorship.

The 2007 constitution had article 138 which in the current draft proposal is article 159 listing the organic laws. Please check the organic laws for details.

Anyway you seem somewhat obsessed with the Military. Nothing you point out to deserves a mention in the charter apart from maybe listing government organisations like police and army and pointing to organic laws to regulate government organisations. Do you really want some lists like "the military shall not ..., the Police shall not ..., Education personel shall not ..." in the charter?

So, what about 'transparency'? Isn't that implicitly covered by 'good governance' and more explicitly in the organic laws? How specific should a charter be while still keeping it in a manageble shape and readable / understandable by normal citizens?

"in the current draft proposal is article 159 listing the organic laws. Please check the organic laws for details."

Ok:

"Section 159. There shall be the following Organic Laws:

(1) Organic Law on Election of Members of the House of

Representatives and Obtaining of Senators;

(2) Organic Law on Council of Ministers

(4) Organic Law on Political Party and Political Group;

(5) Organic Law on Referendum;

(6) Organic Law on Constitutional Court and Rules and Procedure of

the Constitutional Court;

(7) Organic Law on Criminal Proceedings Against Persons Holding

Political Positions;

(8) Organic Law on State Audit;

(9) Organic Law on Counter Corruption;

(10) Organic Law on Human Rights Ombudsmen;

(11) Organic Law on Public Finance and State Budgeting;

(12) Organic Law on National Reform."

No details there.

Obsessed with the military? You mean the military that toppled the elected government and suspended its own constitution and all democratic institutions, that rules by decree and suppresses fundamental human rights, that enriches itself through corruption and is forcing an undemocratic constitution on the country? Yeah, since I am concerned about the future of Thailand I am somewhat concerned about the military.

What is implicitly covered in "good governance" sections is debatable. Transparency is most definitely not explicitly covered in the organic laws section--didn't you read them? The charter is already ridiculously large and detailed, it could easily accommodate explicit requirements for transparency if the junta wanted that, which it clearly doesn't.

As I stated earlier, Prayuth's faction of the army grew rich and powerful illegally trading with the Khmer Rouge in the 1990's. A man like that clearly doesn't want transparency.

Why do you persistently challenge calls for transparency?

You mean the military that toppled the elected government

you are serious about that, this was a government that imploded on themselves while trying to shift some dodgy policies through the house using cheating and lies - not to mention sacking some very dedicated honourable people who might have gotten in their way or resisted the corrupt process that followed.

The red paid terrorist organisation were murdering innocent people on the streets of Bankgkok

The police were doing nothing ....zero zilch about it because charlerm plodrasob and tarrit told them not to

What you got was the majority of Thai people saying they had enough of the abuse and nonsense

what PTP and Thaksin have now started in this country is a cycle of price increases (inflation) and wage increases (those employed) to an extent that has caused serious problems for the poor who are actually out of the cycle, not only that but companies that chose Thailand as a manufacturing base will and are moving elsewhere creating more unemployment.................................and I say more unemployment because the figures that are produced are just complete nonsense .......................... this country is highly unemployed in the true sense of the word

Lets get into the debt ............................... not even going there

Greese joined the EU (by telling lies) and got 100's of billions of Euros and they are still in the (deleted)

I said 2 years ago that Thaksin would destroy this country if he didn't get his way ...................he has pretty much done that already in my opinion - it's just not that obvious right now

OK Robert

Edited May 24, 2015 by smedly

[rubl]

The draft charter has some interesting articles. Did you read 73, 270, 271 a.o., some good stuff on governance?

Article 293 is part of the "various on fields of reforms" which starts at article 281. Although we seem to (dis)agree on reforms I'm not sure this type of detail should be in the charter. I think that belongs in some organic law instead. The charter might only have the global lines on direction. Of course this would get us into a different discussion of what should be in a charter and what should be in other laws which elaborate on the articles in the charter. Too much in the charter and no ordinary Thai will ever read it.

Personally I still think the 2007 version should have been used as base with at least the least eight years showing the weaknesses, the point where politicians and other influencial figures tried to bypass control and transparency.

BTW the English language version tbthailand provided a link to has indeed 315 articles in 411Kb. The 1997 version had 336 articles in 250Kb, the 2007 version 305 articles in 295Kb. None of this says much about contents though.

Article 73, only nice guys can be political leaders. Nothing on who decides who is a nice guy. Nothing on transparency.

Article 270, state audits by auditors appointed by the king and confirmed by the largely unelected Senate. Nothing on what is audited, how often, how thoroughly, and if the results are published.

Article 271, vague words about the selection of the National Counter Corruption Commission with the broad and vague task of "The Chairperson of the National Counter Corruption Commission shall have charge and control over the Organic Law on prevention and suppression of corruption." Nothing on transparency.

Did you find anything in there to keep the military from continuing to profit from smuggling of people, gems, drugs, antiquities, etc? Anything to keep generals out of politics and off the boards of public companies? Anything to catch officers who have unexplained wealth? Anything about auditing the military to see if it has the number of men it claims on its payroll and the equipment it claims to have purchased?

Most important of all, does this constitution do anything to ensure the military is subject to the rule of law? If not, it seems this constitution will exchange what some people call the "dictatorship of democracy" for a worse kind of dictatorship.

The 2007 constitution had article 138 which in the current draft proposal is article 159 listing the organic laws. Please check the organic laws for details.

Anyway you seem somewhat obsessed with the Military. Nothing you point out to deserves a mention in the charter apart from maybe listing government organisations like police and army and pointing to organic laws to regulate government organisations. Do you really want some lists like "the military shall not ..., the Police shall not ..., Education personel shall not ..." in the charter?

So, what about 'transparency'? Isn't that implicitly covered by 'good governance' and more explicitly in the organic laws? How specific should a charter be while still keeping it in a manageble shape and readable / understandable by normal citizens?

"in the current draft proposal is article 159 listing the organic laws. Please check the organic laws for details."

Ok:

"Section 159. There shall be the following Organic Laws:

(1) Organic Law on Election of Members of the House of

Representatives and Obtaining of Senators;

(2) Organic Law on Council of Ministers

(4) Organic Law on Political Party and Political Group;

(5) Organic Law on Referendum;

(6) Organic Law on Constitutional Court and Rules and Procedure of

the Constitutional Court;

(7) Organic Law on Criminal Proceedings Against Persons Holding

Political Positions;

(8) Organic Law on State Audit;

(9) Organic Law on Counter Corruption;

(10) Organic Law on Human Rights Ombudsmen;

(11) Organic Law on Public Finance and State Budgeting;

(12) Organic Law on National Reform."

No details there.

Obsessed with the military? You mean the military that toppled the elected government and suspended its own constitution and all democratic institutions, that rules by decree and suppresses fundamental human rights, that enriches itself through corruption and is forcing an undemocratic constitution on the country? Yeah, since I am concerned about the future of Thailand I am somewhat concerned about the military.

What is implicitly covered in "good governance" sections is debatable. Transparency is most definitely not explicitly covered in the organic laws section--didn't you read them? The charter is already ridiculously large and detailed, it could easily accommodate explicit requirements for transparency if the junta wanted that, which it clearly doesn't.

As I stated earlier, Prayuth's faction of the army grew rich and powerful illegally trading with the Khmer Rouge in the 1990's. A man like that clearly doesn't want transparency.

Why do you persistently challenge calls for transparency?

So, why are you still unable or unwilling to tell what you think should be in the charter regarding 'transparency' apart from stating near meaningless 'explicit requirements' ? Why do you complain about the 'organic laws' section without seeming to have read the organic laws?

How specific should a charter be? How explicit should 'governance' or 'transparency' or 'corruption' be spelled out in the charter? Why move items more suitable to organic laws in a charter? Why is your requirement for an explicit description of 'transparency' in the charter the 'proof' the NCPO doesn't want it?

Oh BTW I don't challenge calls for 'transparency' or 'good governance', I only think that should be more explicit in the organic laws, not in the charter. You think differently, that's all.

[heybruce]

Article 73, only nice guys can be political leaders. Nothing on who decides who is a nice guy. Nothing on transparency.

Article 270, state audits by auditors appointed by the king and confirmed by the largely unelected Senate. Nothing on what is audited, how often, how thoroughly, and if the results are published.

Article 271, vague words about the selection of the National Counter Corruption Commission with the broad and vague task of "The Chairperson of the National Counter Corruption Commission shall have charge and control over the Organic Law on prevention and suppression of corruption." Nothing on transparency.

Did you find anything in there to keep the military from continuing to profit from smuggling of people, gems, drugs, antiquities, etc? Anything to keep generals out of politics and off the boards of public companies? Anything to catch officers who have unexplained wealth? Anything about auditing the military to see if it has the number of men it claims on its payroll and the equipment it claims to have purchased?

Most important of all, does this constitution do anything to ensure the military is subject to the rule of law? If not, it seems this constitution will exchange what some people call the "dictatorship of democracy" for a worse kind of dictatorship.

The 2007 constitution had article 138 which in the current draft proposal is article 159 listing the organic laws. Please check the organic laws for details.

Anyway you seem somewhat obsessed with the Military. Nothing you point out to deserves a mention in the charter apart from maybe listing government organisations like police and army and pointing to organic laws to regulate government organisations. Do you really want some lists like "the military shall not ..., the Police shall not ..., Education personel shall not ..." in the charter?

So, what about 'transparency'? Isn't that implicitly covered by 'good governance' and more explicitly in the organic laws? How specific should a charter be while still keeping it in a manageble shape and readable / understandable by normal citizens?

"in the current draft proposal is article 159 listing the organic laws. Please check the organic laws for details."

Ok:

"Section 159. There shall be the following Organic Laws:

(1) Organic Law on Election of Members of the House of

Representatives and Obtaining of Senators;

(2) Organic Law on Council of Ministers

(4) Organic Law on Political Party and Political Group;

(5) Organic Law on Referendum;

(6) Organic Law on Constitutional Court and Rules and Procedure of

the Constitutional Court;

(7) Organic Law on Criminal Proceedings Against Persons Holding

Political Positions;

(8) Organic Law on State Audit;

(9) Organic Law on Counter Corruption;

(10) Organic Law on Human Rights Ombudsmen;

(11) Organic Law on Public Finance and State Budgeting;

(12) Organic Law on National Reform."

No details there.

Obsessed with the military? You mean the military that toppled the elected government and suspended its own constitution and all democratic institutions, that rules by decree and suppresses fundamental human rights, that enriches itself through corruption and is forcing an undemocratic constitution on the country? Yeah, since I am concerned about the future of Thailand I am somewhat concerned about the military.

What is implicitly covered in "good governance" sections is debatable. Transparency is most definitely not explicitly covered in the organic laws section--didn't you read them? The charter is already ridiculously large and detailed, it could easily accommodate explicit requirements for transparency if the junta wanted that, which it clearly doesn't.

As I stated earlier, Prayuth's faction of the army grew rich and powerful illegally trading with the Khmer Rouge in the 1990's. A man like that clearly doesn't want transparency.

Why do you persistently challenge calls for transparency?

You mean the military that toppled the elected government

you are serious about that, this was a government that imploded on themselves while trying to shift some dodgy policies through the house using cheating and lies - not to mention sacking some very dedicated honourable people who might have gotten in their way or resisted the corrupt process that followed.

The red paid terrorist organisation were murdering innocent people on the streets of Bankgkok

The police were doing nothing ....zero zilch about it because charlerm plodrasob and tarrit told them not to

What you got was the majority of Thai people saying they had enough of the abuse and nonsense

what PTP and Thaksin have now started in this country is a cycle of price increases (inflation) and wage increases (those employed) to an extent that has caused serious problems for the poor who are actually out of the cycle, not only that but companies that chose Thailand as a manufacturing base will and are moving elsewhere creating more unemployment.................................and I say more unemployment because the figures that are produced are just complete nonsense .......................... this country is highly unemployed in the true sense of the word

Lets get into the debt ............................... not even going there

Greese joined the EU (by telling lies) and got 100's of billions of Euros and they are still in the (deleted)

I said 2 years ago that Thaksin would destroy this country if he didn't get his way ...................he has pretty much done that already in my opinion - it's just not that obvious right now

OK Robert

Were you drunk when you posted the above?

Yes, the military toppled an elected government. It got quite a lot of coverage in the news. Didn't you notice?

"The red paid terrorist organisation were murdering innocent people on the streets of Bankgkok

The police were doing nothing ....zero zilch about it because charlerm plodrasob and tarrit told them not to"

There were anti-democracy protesters using violence to shut down the government, disrupt the February election, and threatening to disrupt future elections. There were people committing violent acts against these violent anti-democracy protesters. There is no evidence the government was complicit in any of this. All this was also in the news. You should make an effort to stay better informed.

"what PTP and Thaksin have now started in this country is a cycle of price increases (inflation) and wage increases (those employed) to an extent that has caused serious problems for the poor who are actually out of the cycle, not only that but companies that chose Thailand as a manufacturing base will and are moving elsewhere creating more unemployment.................................and I say more unemployment because the figures that are produced are just complete nonsense .......................... this country is highly unemployed in the true sense of the word"

Could you re-state this a little more coherently, and perhaps give evidence and rational? Probably not.

[heybruce]

Article 73, only nice guys can be political leaders. Nothing on who decides who is a nice guy. Nothing on transparency.

Article 270, state audits by auditors appointed by the king and confirmed by the largely unelected Senate. Nothing on what is audited, how often, how thoroughly, and if the results are published.

Article 271, vague words about the selection of the National Counter Corruption Commission with the broad and vague task of "The Chairperson of the National Counter Corruption Commission shall have charge and control over the Organic Law on prevention and suppression of corruption." Nothing on transparency.

Did you find anything in there to keep the military from continuing to profit from smuggling of people, gems, drugs, antiquities, etc? Anything to keep generals out of politics and off the boards of public companies? Anything to catch officers who have unexplained wealth? Anything about auditing the military to see if it has the number of men it claims on its payroll and the equipment it claims to have purchased?

Most important of all, does this constitution do anything to ensure the military is subject to the rule of law? If not, it seems this constitution will exchange what some people call the "dictatorship of democracy" for a worse kind of dictatorship.

The 2007 constitution had article 138 which in the current draft proposal is article 159 listing the organic laws. Please check the organic laws for details.

Anyway you seem somewhat obsessed with the Military. Nothing you point out to deserves a mention in the charter apart from maybe listing government organisations like police and army and pointing to organic laws to regulate government organisations. Do you really want some lists like "the military shall not ..., the Police shall not ..., Education personel shall not ..." in the charter?

So, what about 'transparency'? Isn't that implicitly covered by 'good governance' and more explicitly in the organic laws? How specific should a charter be while still keeping it in a manageble shape and readable / understandable by normal citizens?

"in the current draft proposal is article 159 listing the organic laws. Please check the organic laws for details."

Ok:

"Section 159. There shall be the following Organic Laws:

(1) Organic Law on Election of Members of the House of

Representatives and Obtaining of Senators;

(2) Organic Law on Council of Ministers

(4) Organic Law on Political Party and Political Group;

(5) Organic Law on Referendum;

(6) Organic Law on Constitutional Court and Rules and Procedure of

the Constitutional Court;

(7) Organic Law on Criminal Proceedings Against Persons Holding

Political Positions;

(8) Organic Law on State Audit;

(9) Organic Law on Counter Corruption;

(10) Organic Law on Human Rights Ombudsmen;

(11) Organic Law on Public Finance and State Budgeting;

(12) Organic Law on National Reform."

No details there.

Obsessed with the military? You mean the military that toppled the elected government and suspended its own constitution and all democratic institutions, that rules by decree and suppresses fundamental human rights, that enriches itself through corruption and is forcing an undemocratic constitution on the country? Yeah, since I am concerned about the future of Thailand I am somewhat concerned about the military.

What is implicitly covered in "good governance" sections is debatable. Transparency is most definitely not explicitly covered in the organic laws section--didn't you read them? The charter is already ridiculously large and detailed, it could easily accommodate explicit requirements for transparency if the junta wanted that, which it clearly doesn't.

As I stated earlier, Prayuth's faction of the army grew rich and powerful illegally trading with the Khmer Rouge in the 1990's. A man like that clearly doesn't want transparency.

Why do you persistently challenge calls for transparency?

So, why are you still unable or unwilling to tell what you think should be in the charter regarding 'transparency' apart from stating near meaningless 'explicit requirements' ? Why do you complain about the 'organic laws' section without seeming to have read the organic laws?

How specific should a charter be? How explicit should 'governance' or 'transparency' or 'corruption' be spelled out in the charter? Why move items more suitable to organic laws in a charter? Why is your requirement for an explicit description of 'transparency' in the charter the 'proof' the NCPO doesn't want it?

Oh BTW I don't challenge calls for 'transparency' or 'good governance', I only think that should be more explicit in the organic laws, not in the charter. You think differently, that's all.

"Why do you complain about the 'organic laws' section without seeming to have read the organic laws?"

rubl, I not only read the organic laws section, I posted them in my earlier reply. There is nothing there about transparency. Do you read before you reply?

I have explicitly stated that I am not going to write the charter for the junta. I have also repeatedly stated that in this ridiculously long and detailed charter that there is room for clear requirements for transparency. I have clearly pointed out that this corrupt military government does not want transparency. You have replied with misinformation (a.k.a lies) and whines about my not writing a new section of the constitution.

My point through-out has been that the military doesn't want to eliminate corruption because corruption has made the military rich and powerful Why don't you explicitly tell us how you'd like transparency included in the "organic laws", and how you propose to apply these laws to Thailand's above the law military?

[rubl]

The 2007 constitution had article 138 which in the current draft proposal is article 159 listing the organic laws. Please check the organic laws for details.

Anyway you seem somewhat obsessed with the Military. Nothing you point out to deserves a mention in the charter apart from maybe listing government organisations like police and army and pointing to organic laws to regulate government organisations. Do you really want some lists like "the military shall not ..., the Police shall not ..., Education personel shall not ..." in the charter?

So, what about 'transparency'? Isn't that implicitly covered by 'good governance' and more explicitly in the organic laws? How specific should a charter be while still keeping it in a manageble shape and readable / understandable by normal citizens?

"in the current draft proposal is article 159 listing the organic laws. Please check the organic laws for details."

Ok:

"Section 159. There shall be the following Organic Laws:

(1) Organic Law on Election of Members of the House of

Representatives and Obtaining of Senators;

(2) Organic Law on Council of Ministers

(4) Organic Law on Political Party and Political Group;

(5) Organic Law on Referendum;

(6) Organic Law on Constitutional Court and Rules and Procedure of

the Constitutional Court;

(7) Organic Law on Criminal Proceedings Against Persons Holding

Political Positions;

(8) Organic Law on State Audit;

(9) Organic Law on Counter Corruption;

(10) Organic Law on Human Rights Ombudsmen;

(11) Organic Law on Public Finance and State Budgeting;

(12) Organic Law on National Reform."

No details there.

Obsessed with the military? You mean the military that toppled the elected government and suspended its own constitution and all democratic institutions, that rules by decree and suppresses fundamental human rights, that enriches itself through corruption and is forcing an undemocratic constitution on the country? Yeah, since I am concerned about the future of Thailand I am somewhat concerned about the military.

What is implicitly covered in "good governance" sections is debatable. Transparency is most definitely not explicitly covered in the organic laws section--didn't you read them? The charter is already ridiculously large and detailed, it could easily accommodate explicit requirements for transparency if the junta wanted that, which it clearly doesn't.

As I stated earlier, Prayuth's faction of the army grew rich and powerful illegally trading with the Khmer Rouge in the 1990's. A man like that clearly doesn't want transparency.

Why do you persistently challenge calls for transparency?

So, why are you still unable or unwilling to tell what you think should be in the charter regarding 'transparency' apart from stating near meaningless 'explicit requirements' ? Why do you complain about the 'organic laws' section without seeming to have read the organic laws?

How specific should a charter be? How explicit should 'governance' or 'transparency' or 'corruption' be spelled out in the charter? Why move items more suitable to organic laws in a charter? Why is your requirement for an explicit description of 'transparency' in the charter the 'proof' the NCPO doesn't want it?

Oh BTW I don't challenge calls for 'transparency' or 'good governance', I only think that should be more explicit in the organic laws, not in the charter. You think differently, that's all.

"Why do you complain about the 'organic laws' section without seeming to have read the organic laws?"

rubl, I not only read the organic laws section, I posted them in my earlier reply. There is nothing there about transparency. Do you read before you reply?

I have explicitly stated that I am not going to write the charter for the junta. I have also repeatedly stated that in this ridiculously long and detailed charter that there is room for clear requirements for transparency. I have clearly pointed out that this corrupt military government does not want transparency. You have replied with misinformation (a.k.a lies) and whines about my not writing a new section of the constitution.

My point through-out has been that the military doesn't want to eliminate corruption because corruption has made the military rich and powerful Why don't you explicitly tell us how you'd like transparency included in the "organic laws", and how you propose to apply these laws to Thailand's above the law military?

The 'organic laws' section in the charter list the organic laws. The organic laws cover whatever laws cover. That's why I wrote "without seeming to have read the organic laws?"

So, you're not going to write a charter, well neither am I going to write "organic laws".

BTW "You have replied with misinformation (a.k.a lies)" what lies do you accuse me of ?

Oh and I'm still wondering about your "If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter.". What rules?

[heybruce]

"in the current draft proposal is article 159 listing the organic laws. Please check the organic laws for details."

Ok:

"Section 159. There shall be the following Organic Laws:

(1) Organic Law on Election of Members of the House of

Representatives and Obtaining of Senators;

(2) Organic Law on Council of Ministers

(4) Organic Law on Political Party and Political Group;

(5) Organic Law on Referendum;

(6) Organic Law on Constitutional Court and Rules and Procedure of

the Constitutional Court;

(7) Organic Law on Criminal Proceedings Against Persons Holding

Political Positions;

(8) Organic Law on State Audit;

(9) Organic Law on Counter Corruption;

(10) Organic Law on Human Rights Ombudsmen;

(11) Organic Law on Public Finance and State Budgeting;

(12) Organic Law on National Reform."

No details there.

Obsessed with the military? You mean the military that toppled the elected government and suspended its own constitution and all democratic institutions, that rules by decree and suppresses fundamental human rights, that enriches itself through corruption and is forcing an undemocratic constitution on the country? Yeah, since I am concerned about the future of Thailand I am somewhat concerned about the military.

What is implicitly covered in "good governance" sections is debatable. Transparency is most definitely not explicitly covered in the organic laws section--didn't you read them? The charter is already ridiculously large and detailed, it could easily accommodate explicit requirements for transparency if the junta wanted that, which it clearly doesn't.

As I stated earlier, Prayuth's faction of the army grew rich and powerful illegally trading with the Khmer Rouge in the 1990's. A man like that clearly doesn't want transparency.

Why do you persistently challenge calls for transparency?

So, why are you still unable or unwilling to tell what you think should be in the charter regarding 'transparency' apart from stating near meaningless 'explicit requirements' ? Why do you complain about the 'organic laws' section without seeming to have read the organic laws?

How specific should a charter be? How explicit should 'governance' or 'transparency' or 'corruption' be spelled out in the charter? Why move items more suitable to organic laws in a charter? Why is your requirement for an explicit description of 'transparency' in the charter the 'proof' the NCPO doesn't want it?

Oh BTW I don't challenge calls for 'transparency' or 'good governance', I only think that should be more explicit in the organic laws, not in the charter. You think differently, that's all.

"Why do you complain about the 'organic laws' section without seeming to have read the organic laws?"

rubl, I not only read the organic laws section, I posted them in my earlier reply. There is nothing there about transparency. Do you read before you reply?

I have explicitly stated that I am not going to write the charter for the junta. I have also repeatedly stated that in this ridiculously long and detailed charter that there is room for clear requirements for transparency. I have clearly pointed out that this corrupt military government does not want transparency. You have replied with misinformation (a.k.a lies) and whines about my not writing a new section of the constitution.

My point through-out has been that the military doesn't want to eliminate corruption because corruption has made the military rich and powerful Why don't you explicitly tell us how you'd like transparency included in the "organic laws", and how you propose to apply these laws to Thailand's above the law military?

The 'organic laws' section in the charter list the organic laws. The organic laws cover whatever laws cover. That's why I wrote "without seeming to have read the organic laws?"

So, you're not going to write a charter, well neither am I going to write "organic laws".

BTW "You have replied with misinformation (a.k.a lies)" what lies do you accuse me of ?

Oh and I'm still wondering about your "If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter.". What rules?

"BTW "You have replied with misinformation (a.k.a lies)" what lies do you accuse me of ?"

How about your post:

"So, what about 'transparency'? Isn't that implicitly covered by 'good governance' and more explicitly in the organic laws?"

As I pointed out, after posting the entire section on organic law in the draft constitution, there is nothing explicit about transparency in the document.

Regarding "What rules?" How many times must I state them? From my earlier post:

"The catch-all term for making corruption difficult is "transparency". This means a wide variety of measures to ensure government business is conducted in full view of the press and people. Budgets are published, meetings are open to the press, contracts are awarded by open competitive bidding, anyone in government in a position to influence spending must divest themselves of any assets that represent a conflict of interest, these same people regularly provide a disclosures of assets, and there are stiff penalties for conflicts of interest. Understand?"

Clearly you don't understand, or simply don't approve of transparency.

Let's get back to the core issue: The military is corrupt. Prayuth came to power as leader of the Eastern Tigers faction of the army, an exceptionally corrupt faction that became wealthy and powerful through dealings with the genocidal Khmer Rouge http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/21/the-new-king-of-siam-thailand-prayuth-junta/. The charter does not have transparency because the military doesn't like transparency. The charter has enough checks on law making to ensure that any attempt to write laws mandating transparency can be neutered by unelected appointees, thus preserving the corrupt system that has served the military and the traditional elites so very well. Supporters of this charter and the junta are supporters of corruption.

Edited May 25, 2015 by heybruce

[rubl]

So, why are you still unable or unwilling to tell what you think should be in the charter regarding 'transparency' apart from stating near meaningless 'explicit requirements' ? Why do you complain about the 'organic laws' section without seeming to have read the organic laws?

How specific should a charter be? How explicit should 'governance' or 'transparency' or 'corruption' be spelled out in the charter? Why move items more suitable to organic laws in a charter? Why is your requirement for an explicit description of 'transparency' in the charter the 'proof' the NCPO doesn't want it?

Oh BTW I don't challenge calls for 'transparency' or 'good governance', I only think that should be more explicit in the organic laws, not in the charter. You think differently, that's all.

"Why do you complain about the 'organic laws' section without seeming to have read the organic laws?"

rubl, I not only read the organic laws section, I posted them in my earlier reply. There is nothing there about transparency. Do you read before you reply?

I have explicitly stated that I am not going to write the charter for the junta. I have also repeatedly stated that in this ridiculously long and detailed charter that there is room for clear requirements for transparency. I have clearly pointed out that this corrupt military government does not want transparency. You have replied with misinformation (a.k.a lies) and whines about my not writing a new section of the constitution.

My point through-out has been that the military doesn't want to eliminate corruption because corruption has made the military rich and powerful Why don't you explicitly tell us how you'd like transparency included in the "organic laws", and how you propose to apply these laws to Thailand's above the law military?

The 'organic laws' section in the charter list the organic laws. The organic laws cover whatever laws cover. That's why I wrote "without seeming to have read the organic laws?"

So, you're not going to write a charter, well neither am I going to write "organic laws".

BTW "You have replied with misinformation (a.k.a lies)" what lies do you accuse me of ?

Oh and I'm still wondering about your "If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter.". What rules?

"BTW "You have replied with misinformation (a.k.a lies)" what lies do you accuse me of ?"

How about your post:

"So, what about 'transparency'? Isn't that implicitly covered by 'good governance' and more explicitly in the organic laws?"

As I pointed out, after posting the entire section on organic law in the draft constitution, there is nothing explicit about transparency in the document.

Regarding "What rules?" How many times must I state them? From my earlier post:

"The catch-all term for making corruption difficult is "transparency". This means a wide variety of measures to ensure government business is conducted in full view of the press and people. Budgets are published, meetings are open to the press, contracts are awarded by open competitive bidding, anyone in government in a position to influence spending must divest themselves of any assets that represent a conflict of interest, these same people regularly provide a disclosures of assets, and there are stiff penalties for conflicts of interest. Understand?"

Clearly you don't understand, or simply don't approve of transparency.

Let's get back to the core issue: The military is corrupt. Prayuth came to power as leader of the Eastern Tigers faction of the army, an exceptionally corrupt faction that became wealthy and powerful through dealings with the genocidal Khmer Rouge http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/21/the-new-king-of-siam-thailand-prayuth-junta/. The charter does not have transparency because the military doesn't like transparency. The charter has enough checks on law making to ensure that any attempt to write laws mandating transparency can be neutered by unelected appointees, thus preserving the corrupt system that has served the military and the traditional elites so very well. Supporters of this charter and the junta are supporters of corruption.

So, do you understand the part on "implicit in 'good governance' and explicit in organic laws" ? Have you read the organic laws the charter is referring to ? The organic laws I'm referring to? Don't those organic laws cover transparency?

Why do you want all kind of specifics "This means a wide variety of measures to ensure government business is conducted in full view of the press and people. " in the charter when they are in the organic laws, or more specific in the "Private and Government Sectors Joint Investment Act."

Why do you want to clutter up the charter to the point it becomes unreadable and will be so specific it will require regular amendments because of changing situations?

[heybruce]

"Why do you complain about the 'organic laws' section without seeming to have read the organic laws?"

rubl, I not only read the organic laws section, I posted them in my earlier reply. There is nothing there about transparency. Do you read before you reply?

I have explicitly stated that I am not going to write the charter for the junta. I have also repeatedly stated that in this ridiculously long and detailed charter that there is room for clear requirements for transparency. I have clearly pointed out that this corrupt military government does not want transparency. You have replied with misinformation (a.k.a lies) and whines about my not writing a new section of the constitution.

My point through-out has been that the military doesn't want to eliminate corruption because corruption has made the military rich and powerful Why don't you explicitly tell us how you'd like transparency included in the "organic laws", and how you propose to apply these laws to Thailand's above the law military?

The 'organic laws' section in the charter list the organic laws. The organic laws cover whatever laws cover. That's why I wrote "without seeming to have read the organic laws?"

So, you're not going to write a charter, well neither am I going to write "organic laws".

BTW "You have replied with misinformation (a.k.a lies)" what lies do you accuse me of ?

Oh and I'm still wondering about your "If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter.". What rules?

"BTW "You have replied with misinformation (a.k.a lies)" what lies do you accuse me of ?"

How about your post:

"So, what about 'transparency'? Isn't that implicitly covered by 'good governance' and more explicitly in the organic laws?"

As I pointed out, after posting the entire section on organic law in the draft constitution, there is nothing explicit about transparency in the document.

Regarding "What rules?" How many times must I state them? From my earlier post:

"The catch-all term for making corruption difficult is "transparency". This means a wide variety of measures to ensure government business is conducted in full view of the press and people. Budgets are published, meetings are open to the press, contracts are awarded by open competitive bidding, anyone in government in a position to influence spending must divest themselves of any assets that represent a conflict of interest, these same people regularly provide a disclosures of assets, and there are stiff penalties for conflicts of interest. Understand?"

Clearly you don't understand, or simply don't approve of transparency.

Let's get back to the core issue: The military is corrupt. Prayuth came to power as leader of the Eastern Tigers faction of the army, an exceptionally corrupt faction that became wealthy and powerful through dealings with the genocidal Khmer Rouge http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/21/the-new-king-of-siam-thailand-prayuth-junta/. The charter does not have transparency because the military doesn't like transparency. The charter has enough checks on law making to ensure that any attempt to write laws mandating transparency can be neutered by unelected appointees, thus preserving the corrupt system that has served the military and the traditional elites so very well. Supporters of this charter and the junta are supporters of corruption.

So, do you understand the part on "implicit in 'good governance' and explicit in organic laws" ? Have you read the organic laws the charter is referring to ? The organic laws I'm referring to? Don't those organic laws cover transparency?

Why do you want all kind of specifics "This means a wide variety of measures to ensure government business is conducted in full view of the press and people. " in the charter when they are in the organic laws, or more specific in the "Private and Government Sectors Joint Investment Act."

Why do you want to clutter up the charter to the point it becomes unreadable and will be so specific it will require regular amendments because of changing situations?

"Have you read the organic laws the charter is referring to ?"

No. What organic laws have been written and finalized for this draft constitution that has yet to be approved?

"Why do you want to clutter up the charter to the point it becomes unreadable and will be so specific it will require regular amendments because of changing situations?"

Going back to the CDC itself:

"Mr. Paiboon reasoned that the CDC wants to create a constitution that is as comprehensive as possible." http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/824648-cdc-satisfied-with-charter-suggestions-to-propose-referendum-on-election-timeframe/?hl=%2Bcharter

It wasn't my decision to write a draft charter to cover all contingencies, thus becoming cluttered up "to the point it becomes unreadable and will be so specific it will require regular amendments because of changing situations?"

Let's get back to the key issue, an endemically corrupt military toppling an elected government and writing an undemocratic constitution that formalizes a corrupt patronage system of government and leaves the military above the law. I'm opposed, I think this constitution should mandate transparent governance that will clean up Thai politics. I take it you disagree.