Public referendum for Thai charter draft to be held

[rubl]

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.

As far as I know no new organic laws have been written (as yet), so the existing ones should still be valid. The previous government was big on transparency, so I assume the organic laws cover that aspect well. Also covered is 'transparent open bidding', and so.

Now as for 'comprehensive' charters, it would seem this proposal has all aspects covered and relies on the organic laws for details. That seems normal. The line on "good governance" might be extended with "including measures to ensure transparency" with a reference to the organic laws for details. That should be enough. I even don't have a problem if the CDC adds "because Heybruce demanded it".

Now as for the key issue, well that's not the military, but a "public referendum for the charter proposed".

[heybruce]

"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.

As far as I know no new organic laws have been written (as yet), so the existing ones should still be valid. The previous government was big on transparency, so I assume the organic laws cover that aspect well. Also covered is 'transparent open bidding', and so.

Now as for 'comprehensive' charters, it would seem this proposal has all aspects covered and relies on the organic laws for details. That seems normal. The line on "good governance" might be extended with "including measures to ensure transparency" with a reference to the organic laws for details. That should be enough. I even don't have a problem if the CDC adds "because Heybruce demanded it".

Now as for the key issue, well that's not the military, but a "public referendum for the charter proposed".

Do you seriously assume the old laws on transparency are still in force and are sufficient? The junta suspended the constitution, disbanded democratic institutions, and imposed censorship, with criticism of the junta specifically banned. Does that seem like transparency to you?

Also, under this government and many more before it, the generals sit on the boards of public companies and negotiate contracts behind closed doors. Once again, does that seem like transparency to you? Do you think the junta will change this system, or allow anyone else to change it?

This side issue of transparency began because smedly made the ridiculous claim in post #21:

"this new charter is radical in the sense that it is designed to stamp out corruption and power abuse, it will also hold MP's and government highly responsible for their actions and ultimately transparent to the public, powerful systems and independent institutions will be put in place to maintain checks and balances all of which I agree 100%, influential people will not want it as it will put an end to their pocket lining aspirations which were so easy in the past."

This charter is designed to protect traditional opaque, corrupt, crony governance and ensure that certain people and institutions, the military among them, remain above the law and continue to profit from this position. Measures to ensure transparency before were clearly inadequate and remain so. Any new "checks and balances" are provided by unelected "good people" selected by the very people and institutions that benefit from opaque government and corruption.

That is what Prayuth wants, after all it was his Eastern Tigers and the wealth and power they achieved trading with the Khmer Rouge in the '90's that put him in charge of the country. Do you think he wants to change this wonderful, corrupt system that has made his word the law? It's tragically funny that there are fools that think this man will eliminate corruption in Thailand.

Regarding the referendum; it hardly matters. If there is one it will be a choice between this undemocratic charter or something that will be perceived to be worse, just like the last referendum.