Call for 'reforms before elections' forces a detour in PM's road map

[baboon]

Actually it was democratic as everyone and his dog knew who was actually calling the shots for the previous government, but voted them in anyway.

I remember at the time thinking those voters must be mental, but it was their choice. Given enough time, the PTP may well have been hounded out of office via the ballot box - the correct way to do things as agreed by most bar a few cranks/fascists on here.

Well, that's one of the reasons reforms are needed. To prevent that criminal fugitives can fool the population in voting for his proxy so he can run the country to his liking.

Of course it would be nice to let some criminals run the place till they're amassed enough dough, but to prevent them to get in helps a democracy a bit more. 'stable, horse, gate' and so.

But they weren't "fooled", were they? They knew exactly who and what they were voting for.

Could posters also stop endlessly parroting stock phrases such as 'That is why reform is needed' and rephrase them? Their overuse bores the reader sick and makes the writer sound like he hasn't an original idea in his head...

Edited June 16, 2015 by baboon

[rubl]

Actually it was democratic as everyone and his dog knew who was actually calling the shots for the previous government, but voted them in anyway.

I remember at the time thinking those voters must be mental, but it was their choice. Given enough time, the PTP may well have been hounded out of office via the ballot box - the correct way to do things as agreed by most bar a few cranks/fascists on here.

Well, that's one of the reasons reforms are needed. To prevent that criminal fugitives can fool the population in voting for his proxy so he can run the country to his liking.

Of course it would be nice to let some criminals run the place till they're amassed enough dough, but to prevent them to get in helps a democracy a bit more. 'stable, horse, gate' and so.

more twaddle from Rubl as the ousted PM has NEVER been accused, charged or indicted for ANY crime

the old 'we don't trust the electorate so we, the elite, have to save them from themselves' should be consigned to the bin of history and no decent, honest and freedom loving person would defend such anti-democratic rhetoric.

Except, of course, a few right wing fascist farangs who think they know better and what's 'good for Thailand'

Well, in my universe Thaksin has been charged with 'conflict of interest', been convicted and sentenced to two years jail. furthermore before the trial concluded he asked for permission to watch the Olympic Games in Beijing, was granted permission on promising to return immediately after and jumped bail, becoming a fugitive from justice. Somehow such things seem to make one a 'criminal fugitive'. Of course, non-'right-wing fascist farang' like we have in Lanna Land might not agree.

PS did you see and read the post from 'theoldgit' #120?

Edited June 16, 2015 by rubl

[phycokiller]

Actually it was democratic as everyone and his dog knew who was actually calling the shots for the previous government, but voted them in anyway.

I remember at the time thinking those voters must be mental, but it was their choice. Given enough time, the PTP may well have been hounded out of office via the ballot box - the correct way to do things as agreed by most bar a few cranks/fascists on here.

Well, that's one of the reasons reforms are needed. To prevent that criminal fugitives can fool the population in voting for his proxy so he can run the country to his liking.

Of course it would be nice to let some criminals run the place till they're amassed enough dough, but to prevent them to get in helps a democracy a bit more. 'stable, horse, gate' and so.

more twaddle from Rubl as the ousted PM has NEVER been accused, charged or indicted for ANY crime

the old 'we don't trust the electorate so we, the elite, have to save them from themselves' should be consigned to the bin of history and no decent, honest and freedom loving person would defend such anti-democratic rhetoric.

Except, of course, a few right wing fascist farangs who think they know better and what's 'good for Thailand'

I think more then a few right wing fascist farangs, its whats actually happening in reality, so I think quite a few Thais in positions of power are defending such rhetoric and its a long way off being consigned to the bin of history

Edited June 16, 2015 by phycokiller

[rubl]

Actually it was democratic as everyone and his dog knew who was actually calling the shots for the previous government, but voted them in anyway.

I remember at the time thinking those voters must be mental, but it was their choice. Given enough time, the PTP may well have been hounded out of office via the ballot box - the correct way to do things as agreed by most bar a few cranks/fascists on here.

Well, that's one of the reasons reforms are needed. To prevent that criminal fugitives can fool the population in voting for his proxy so he can run the country to his liking.

Of course it would be nice to let some criminals run the place till they're amassed enough dough, but to prevent them to get in helps a democracy a bit more. 'stable, horse, gate' and so.

But they weren't "fooled", were they? They knew exactly who and what they were voting for.

Could posters also stop endlessly repeating stock phrases such as 'That is why reform is needed' and rephrase them? Their overuse bores the reader sick and makes the writer sound like he hasn't an original idea in his head...

Well, I must admit somehow I find it difficult to blame the voters. Education level being what it is. I'm more for blaming the curious democratic system Thailand had (and has). In other, new refreshing words, Thailand needs reforms which prevent political parties from being owned and run by fugitives. Skyping-in into cabinet meetings by criminals should be prevented with a proper IT solution and be criminalised in the Information and Computer Act.

As for getting bored with stockphrases, why should anyone try to rephrase reasons for reform or against? Do you want to suggest the phrasing till now is not adequate?

BTW I may have missed it and if so my excuses, but I don't remember having seen you come with original thought. Novel ones yes of course.

[baboon]

Actually it was democratic as everyone and his dog knew who was actually calling the shots for the previous government, but voted them in anyway.

I remember at the time thinking those voters must be mental, but it was their choice. Given enough time, the PTP may well have been hounded out of office via the ballot box - the correct way to do things as agreed by most bar a few cranks/fascists on here.

Well, that's one of the reasons reforms are needed. To prevent that criminal fugitives can fool the population in voting for his proxy so he can run the country to his liking.

Of course it would be nice to let some criminals run the place till they're amassed enough dough, but to prevent them to get in helps a democracy a bit more. 'stable, horse, gate' and so.

But they weren't "fooled", were they? They knew exactly who and what they were voting for.

Could posters also stop endlessly repeating stock phrases such as 'That is why reform is needed' and rephrase them? Their overuse bores the reader sick and makes the writer sound like he hasn't an original idea in his head...

Well, I must admit somehow I find it difficult to blame the voters. Education level being what it is. I'm more for blaming the curious democratic system Thailand had (and has). In other, new refreshing words, Thailand needs reforms which prevent political parties from being owned and run by fugitives. Skyping-in into cabinet meetings by criminals should be prevented with a proper IT solution and be criminalised in the Information and Computer Act.

As for getting bored with stockphrases, why should anyone try to rephrase reasons for reform or against? Do you want to suggest the phrasing till now is not adequate?

BTW I may have missed it and if so my excuses, but I don't remember having seen you come with original thought. Novel ones yes of course.

Actually, rubl, you should have taken my second paragraph as a compliment in a way. English is not your first language but your command of it is excellent and you do yourself a great disservice by resorting to the usual mantras to make your points.

Each and every one of my posts are the very summit of human thought, by the way. But as said previously, English is not your first language...

[rubl]

Well, that's one of the reasons reforms are needed. To prevent that criminal fugitives can fool the population in voting for his proxy so he can run the country to his liking.

Of course it would be nice to let some criminals run the place till they're amassed enough dough, but to prevent them to get in helps a democracy a bit more. 'stable, horse, gate' and so.

But they weren't "fooled", were they? They knew exactly who and what they were voting for.

Could posters also stop endlessly repeating stock phrases such as 'That is why reform is needed' and rephrase them? Their overuse bores the reader sick and makes the writer sound like he hasn't an original idea in his head...

Well, I must admit somehow I find it difficult to blame the voters. Education level being what it is. I'm more for blaming the curious democratic system Thailand had (and has). In other, new refreshing words, Thailand needs reforms which prevent political parties from being owned and run by fugitives. Skyping-in into cabinet meetings by criminals should be prevented with a proper IT solution and be criminalised in the Information and Computer Act.

As for getting bored with stockphrases, why should anyone try to rephrase reasons for reform or against? Do you want to suggest the phrasing till now is not adequate?

BTW I may have missed it and if so my excuses, but I don't remember having seen you come with original thought. Novel ones yes of course.

Actually, rubl, you should have taken my second paragraph as a compliment in a way. English is not your first language but your command of it is excellent and you do yourself a great disservice by resorting to the usual mantras to make your points.

Each and every one of my posts are the very summit of human thought, by the way. But as said previously, English is not your first language...

If as non-native English speaker I may be so bold, shouldn't that be

"Each and every one of my posts are the very summit of some humans thought"

Edited June 16, 2015 by rubl

[baboon]

No it should not. ?

[ExPratt]

If as non-native English speaker I may be so bold, shouldn't that be

"Each and every one of my posts are the very summit of some humans thought"

Sub Humans

[rubl]

Challenges aside, it would seem that the more obfuscation is thrown about the more clear it becomes that the current democratic and political system in Thailand doesn't function.

Of course I understand why posters here are so eager for this Dutch uncle to help them out. It's not as it they themselves seem capable of coming up with even elementary reforms, nor do some seem to see reasons for reforms.

BTW draft charter part 2, article section 281 to 296. No need to post a few pages of the text here.

Edited June 16, 2015 by rubl

[lostoday]

Challenges aside, it would seem that the more obfuscation is thrown about the more clear it becomes that the current democratic and political system in Thailand doesn't function.

Of course I understand why posters here are so eager for this Dutch uncle to help them out. It's not as it they themselves seem capable of coming up with even elementary reforms, nor do some seem to see reasons for reforms.

BTW draft charter part 2, article section 281 to 296. No need to post a few pages of the text here.

If the daft charter is so easy to access and the reforms so readily available why can't you be persuaded to post at least one that you like?

[KarenBravo]

You're right. It is a "daft charter".

[rubl]

Challenges aside, it would seem that the more obfuscation is thrown about the more clear it becomes that the current democratic and political system in Thailand doesn't function.

Of course I understand why posters here are so eager for this Dutch uncle to help them out. It's not as it they themselves seem capable of coming up with even elementary reforms, nor do some seem to see reasons for reforms.

BTW draft charter part 2, article section 281 to 296. No need to post a few pages of the text here.

If the daft charter is so easy to access and the reforms so readily available why can't you be persuaded to post at least one that you like?

First you asked 'where are the reforms, what are the reforms', next you posted the draft appended to a post. Why would I need to cut and paste?

[lostoday]

Challenges aside, it would seem that the more obfuscation is thrown about the more clear it becomes that the current democratic and political system in Thailand doesn't function.

Of course I understand why posters here are so eager for this Dutch uncle to help them out. It's not as it they themselves seem capable of coming up with even elementary reforms, nor do some seem to see reasons for reforms.

BTW draft charter part 2, article section 281 to 296. No need to post a few pages of the text here.

If the daft charter is so easy to access and the reforms so readily available why can't you be persuaded to post at least one that you like?

First you asked 'where are the reforms, what are the reforms', next you posted the draft appended to a post. Why would I need to cut and paste?

I have it from a confidential source that you don't like any of the reforms and think they are a joke. I however don't think that is true. If you could post maybe 1 or 2 out of the 3965 things they will be reforming maybe you could salvage your pro gov reputation.

Edited June 17, 2015 by lostoday

[heybruce]

Losing the argument so taking it off-topic. Typical.

Absolutely! Imagine daring to discuss a possible reform some posters don't like.

I was referring to you going back to your favorite "criminal fugitive" diversion.

Well, thanks to our beloved criminal fugitive some loopholes and other unwanted aspects in charter and organic laws came to light. If it weren't for the criminal fugitive's big mouth going on record saying to rule his country, we might not have many of these reforms listed in the draft charter. So, blame him.

Really? Which of the reforms are going to provide his fix? While you're at it, why not point out the specific reforms that will eliminate corruption and "unaffordable populism", the two reforms specifically called for so many times? Don't cop out with a range of sections of the constitution, tell us the specific section and what reform it will bring about.

[rubl]

I was referring to you going back to your favorite "criminal fugitive" diversion.

Well, thanks to our beloved criminal fugitive some loopholes and other unwanted aspects in charter and organic laws came to light. If it weren't for the criminal fugitive's big mouth going on record saying to rule his country, we might not have many of these reforms listed in the draft charter. So, blame him.

Really? Which of the reforms are going to provide his fix? While you're at it, why not point out the specific reforms that will eliminate corruption and "unaffordable populism", the two reforms specifically called for so many times? Don't cop out with a range of sections of the constitution, tell us the specific section and what reform it will bring about.

Not even a "please" ?

Why not ask the NRC and the CDC. They're there to do the work, not me. While you're asking, don't forget to ask why Thaksin is not mentioned by name in the reforms. Now that would be really specific. Surely you'd like that.

[rubl]

First you asked 'where are the reforms, what are the reforms', next you posted the draft appended to a post. Why would I need to cut and paste?

I have it from a confidential source that you don't like any of the reforms and think they are a joke. I however don't think that is true. If you could post maybe 1 or 2 out of the 3965 things they will be reforming maybe you could salvage your pro gov reputation.

Wow, I get the feeling that I've just been promoted. People are actually searching, finding and listening to what 'confidential sources' have to say about what I allegedly have said. I guess I have to go buy a bigger hat. So, what do you not think, that what your confidential source said is true, or that 'reforms being a joke' is true?

As for your suggestion to 'maybe' salvage my 'pro gov repution', maybe I could lodge a defamation case against you. That should give some interesting insight into 'confidential sources' and suggestions I have a reputation and might just be able to salvage it. Of course it could be I should be ever so grateful for your information on a damaged reputation and the need to go into 'salvage' actions.

[metisdead]

Posts and replies in violation of the following forum rules have been removed:

1) You will not express disrespect of the King of Thailand or any one member of the Thai royal family, whether living or deceased, nor to criticize the monarchy as an institution.

By law, the Thai Royal Family are above politics. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family.*

Discussion of the Lese Majeste law or Lese Majeste cases is permitted on the forum, providing no comment or speculation is made referencing the royal family.

To breach these rules may result in immediate ban.

Linking to external sites which break these rules will be treated as if you yourself posted them.

26) The Bangkok Post and Phuketwan do not allow quotes from their news articles or other material to appear on Thaivisa.com. Neither do they allow links to their publications. Posts from members containing quotes from or links to Bangkok Post or Phuketwan publications will be deleted from the forum.

Please note the above rule also pertains to hidden links, continue to violate these forum rules at risk of a nice posting suspension.

[lostoday]

I have it from a confidential source that you don't like any of the reforms and think they are a joke. I however don't think that is true. If you could post maybe 1 or 2 out of the 3965 things they will be reforming maybe you could salvage your pro gov reputation.

Wow, I get the feeling that I've just been promoted. People are actually searching, finding and listening to what 'confidential sources' have to say about what I allegedly have said. I guess I have to go buy a bigger hat. So, what do you not think, that what your confidential source said is true, or that 'reforms being a joke' is true?

As for your suggestion to 'maybe' salvage my 'pro gov repution', maybe I could lodge a defamation case against you. That should give some interesting insight into 'confidential sources' and suggestions I have a reputation and might just be able to salvage it. Of course it could be I should be ever so grateful for your information on a damaged reputation and the need to go into 'salvage' actions.

I wrote, "I however don't think that is true." I really don't know why you have been trying so hard not to discuss any of the reforms though? Try as I may the only conclusion I can come up with is you think the reforms are silly. But maybe not. Here is one. "to reform structure and powers and duties of Office of the Royal Thai Police by transferring the non‐core mission of the Royal Thai Police to other relating agencies, prescribe measures to prevent inference with juridical process by political group, prescribe standard criteria for appointment or transfer of polices to be in accordance with the moral standard, decentralized administrative power of polices to Changwat level, establish public participation process in police businesses, improve investigative works in order to be independent from the Office of the Royal Thai Police, allow attorney‐general official, Governors, Chief District Officer to have power to join investigation with investigative agency where requested by the public, improve forensic works in the Office of the Royal Thai Police to be independent and efficient and having personal administrative system that adhere to the principle of specialized knowledge, and adequately allocate and decentralize the power to manage budget to area areal units for efficient execution."

Perhaps you being the "in guy" and gov supporter that you are, you could splain a few things to me. 1. What are the non-core mission of the Thai police now? 2. Who is the public? 3. Is Pattaya going to have a forensics department? 4. Will it be legal to sell the photos taken in the Pattaya forensics department?

[heybruce]

I was referring to you going back to your favorite "criminal fugitive" diversion.

Well, thanks to our beloved criminal fugitive some loopholes and other unwanted aspects in charter and organic laws came to light. If it weren't for the criminal fugitive's big mouth going on record saying to rule his country, we might not have many of these reforms listed in the draft charter. So, blame him.

Really? Which of the reforms are going to provide his fix? While you're at it, why not point out the specific reforms that will eliminate corruption and "unaffordable populism", the two reforms specifically called for so many times? Don't cop out with a range of sections of the constitution, tell us the specific section and what reform it will bring about.

Not even a "please" ?

Why not ask the NRC and the CDC. They're there to do the work, not me. While you're asking, don't forget to ask why Thaksin is not mentioned by name in the reforms. Now that would be really specific. Surely you'd like that.

It seems the moderators are getting increasingly paranoid, my reply that provided a link to a June 16, 2015 New York Times article about the draft constitution, "The Contrecoup in Thailand", was removed. Perhaps I can get away with an unlinked quote that provides information publicly available in Thailand:

"The draft constitution weakens political parties. It proposes that the Senate be largely appointed. It allows for an unelected prime minister. The section entitled “Good Leaderships and Desirable Political System” forbids anyone in office from exercising “powers and duties to establish political popularity which may be detrimental to the national economic system or the public in the long run.”

The text also creates an array of mechanisms and watchdog bodies that could remove elected politicians. Most prominent and problematic is the National Moral Assembly: Composed mostly of appointed officials, it could start impeachment investigations under a Code of Ethics that has yet to be specified."

That agrees with my impression of the "reforms"; appointed people will decide who can campaign for elected office, who can remain in elected office, and what these people can do. These appointees will exercise their control of government in accordance with unspecified guidelines. This will result in a Thai government that is less democratic than the theocracy that rules Iran.

The reforms Thailand needs to be a real democracy are constitutionally protected freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, transparency in government operations and financial dealings, and a military under the control of an elected civilian government. I don't find any of these reforms anywhere in the constitution, do you?

What reforms do you think should be constitutionally mandated? Please show us where they are in the draft constitution.

By the way, why would I want Thaksin specifically mentioned in the constitution?

[phoenixdoglover]

Yes, the Draft Charter lists reforms, and Rubl has provided the Sections.

There are several very significant problems with the reforms in the Charter:

1) They are a "laundry list"; a veritable smorgasboard of small and large; they appear to have been transcribed from a brainstorming session that yielded a stack of notes.

2) The Charter implementation section for reforms is brain dead; a very large committee with no evident powers will...blah...blah...blah (and I'm being kind)

3) The Charter list of reforms avoids the biggest reform areas. For example, reform of the police is treated like organizational efficiency improvements, whereas everyone knows the issues have to do with power and accountability. And the Army? No reform needed, apparently.

4) The fact that a whole list of reforms is written in to the basic law of the land is problematical in itself. But that's a defect of the Charter overall. It's not a document for the ages; it's a document for current issues, with no comprehension of what is needed for the long term.

Other than that...I really like the idea of reforms.

[rubl]

Yes, the Draft Charter lists reforms, and Rubl has provided the Sections.

There are several very significant problems with the reforms in the Charter:

1) They are a "laundry list"; a veritable smorgasboard of small and large; they appear to have been transcribed from a brainstorming session that yielded a stack of notes.

2) The Charter implementation section for reforms is brain dead; a very large committee with no evident powers will...blah...blah...blah (and I'm being kind)

3) The Charter list of reforms avoids the biggest reform areas. For example, reform of the police is treated like organizational efficiency improvements, whereas everyone knows the issues have to do with power and accountability. And the Army? No reform needed, apparently.

4) The fact that a whole list of reforms is written in to the basic law of the land is problematical in itself. But that's a defect of the Charter overall. It's not a document for the ages; it's a document for current issues, with no comprehension of what is needed for the long term.

Other than that...I really like the idea of reforms.

I also like the idea of reforms, but like you I'm not sure they should be in the charter in any detail. I can understand that one would want some general directions regarding "good governance", 'transparancy", "responsibility and accountability" and "evolution and evolving", but more than that would mean the moment the "Mission Accomplished" banner is raised the charter should be amended. Much better to put all details in an organic law dealing with reforms.

Of course if like the topic deals with reforms should be concluded before elections, then also the charter can be simplified and a referendum could be much more fruitful, same with the elections themselves. Pity such scenario takes a bit more than just a few months, but there time to do so.

[lostoday]

Yes, the Draft Charter lists reforms, and Rubl has provided the Sections.

There are several very significant problems with the reforms in the Charter:

1) They are a "laundry list"; a veritable smorgasboard of small and large; they appear to have been transcribed from a brainstorming session that yielded a stack of notes.

2) The Charter implementation section for reforms is brain dead; a very large committee with no evident powers will...blah...blah...blah (and I'm being kind)

3) The Charter list of reforms avoids the biggest reform areas. For example, reform of the police is treated like organizational efficiency improvements, whereas everyone knows the issues have to do with power and accountability. And the Army? No reform needed, apparently.

4) The fact that a whole list of reforms is written in to the basic law of the land is problematical in itself. But that's a defect of the Charter overall. It's not a document for the ages; it's a document for current issues, with no comprehension of what is needed for the long term.

Other than that...I really like the idea of reforms.

I also like the idea of reforms, but like you I'm not sure they should be in the charter in any detail. I can understand that one would want some general directions regarding "good governance", 'transparancy", "responsibility and accountability" and "evolution and evolving", but more than that would mean the moment the "Mission Accomplished" banner is raised the charter should be amended. Much better to put all details in an organic law dealing with reforms.

Of course if like the topic deals with reforms should be concluded before elections, then also the charter can be simplified and a referendum could be much more fruitful, same with the elections themselves. Pity such scenario takes a bit more than just a few months, but there time to do so.

American constitution 116 days and Japanese constitution not long maybe a few weeks.

Rubi if you like reforms why won't you discuss any of them?

Or have you realized there is not going to be an election in our lifetimes so there is lots of time for the reform process?

[rubl]

Yes, the Draft Charter lists reforms, and Rubl has provided the Sections.

There are several very significant problems with the reforms in the Charter:

1) They are a "laundry list"; a veritable smorgasboard of small and large; they appear to have been transcribed from a brainstorming session that yielded a stack of notes.

2) The Charter implementation section for reforms is brain dead; a very large committee with no evident powers will...blah...blah...blah (and I'm being kind)

3) The Charter list of reforms avoids the biggest reform areas. For example, reform of the police is treated like organizational efficiency improvements, whereas everyone knows the issues have to do with power and accountability. And the Army? No reform needed, apparently.

4) The fact that a whole list of reforms is written in to the basic law of the land is problematical in itself. But that's a defect of the Charter overall. It's not a document for the ages; it's a document for current issues, with no comprehension of what is needed for the long term.

Other than that...I really like the idea of reforms.

I also like the idea of reforms, but like you I'm not sure they should be in the charter in any detail. I can understand that one would want some general directions regarding "good governance", 'transparancy", "responsibility and accountability" and "evolution and evolving", but more than that would mean the moment the "Mission Accomplished" banner is raised the charter should be amended. Much better to put all details in an organic law dealing with reforms.

Of course if like the topic deals with reforms should be concluded before elections, then also the charter can be simplified and a referendum could be much more fruitful, same with the elections themselves. Pity such scenario takes a bit more than just a few months, but there time to do so.

American constitution 116 days and Japanese constitution not long maybe a few weeks.

Rubi if you like reforms why won't you discuss any of them?

Or have you realized there is not going to be an election in our lifetimes so there is lots of time for the reform process?

Actually I was talking about the reforms, reforms before elections. That may cause some delay.

As I wrote a few times already the 2007 constitution could be used to make a few amendments, both covering reforms and trying to cover aspects of all the reforms suggested or refused on the 2007 constitution since it was accepted in 2007. Now that shouldn't take too long. Of course since the Thai are at it anyway, they may as well take time to do it good and proper.

The original American constitution may have taken only 116 days to write, but I don't think it was that elaborate, nor do I know if in it's original form it would be accepted by the current American population (were all 'right' people equal?). The Japanese constitution might have taken a few weeks only, but that was pushed through by an occupying power.

Now as for discussing reform further, well, why don't you consult your informer again, the 'confidential source'. Obviously your cause is 'just', enough so to justify informers where if the government uses them it's to be condemned. Maybe you're not satisfied with what the confidential source told you? That's why you keep bothering me? I start to feel like the PM "PM, a confidential source told us...", PM groaning "... oh no, not again. What absurd rumour do I have to deny this time?"

Edited June 19, 2015 by rubl

[lostoday]

American constitution 116 days and Japanese constitution not long maybe a few weeks.

Rubi if you like reforms why won't you discuss any of them?

Or have you realized there is not going to be an election in our lifetimes so there is lots of time for the reform process?

Actually I was talking about the reforms, reforms before elections. That may cause some delay.

As I wrote a few times already the 2007 constitution could be used to make a few amendments, both covering reforms and trying to cover aspects of all the reforms suggested or refused on the 2007 constitution since it was accepted in 2007. Now that shouldn't take too long. Of course since the Thai are at it anyway, they may as well take time to do it good and proper.

The original American constitution may have taken only 116 days to write, but I don't think it was that elaborate, nor do I know if in it's original form it would be accepted by the current American population (were all 'right' people equal?). The Japanese constitution might have taken a few weeks only, but that was pushed through by an occupying power.

Now as for discussing reform further, well, why don't you consult your informer again, the 'confidential source'. Obviously your cause is 'just', enough so to justify informers where if the government uses them it's to be condemned. Maybe you're not satisfied with what the confidential source told you? That's why you keep bothering me? I start to feel like the PM "PM, a confidential source told us...", PM groaning "... oh no, not again. What absurd rumour do I have to deny this time?"

They are still using both Japanese and American constitutions on a daily basis and it is accepted by the American people (there is a procedure to add amendments).

You make it sound like America has a new constitutions (not so the same old one is working just fine). Only one for all these years. Funny eh?

Specifically what reforms did you have in mind? You have never told us. I told you before I did not agree with my source. I think you want reforms but are not willing to tell anyone and I don't know why. You could tell us why you have never told us what reforms you want or you could tell us what reforms you want or continue to stonewall my simple question.

[rubl]

American constitution 116 days and Japanese constitution not long maybe a few weeks.

Rubi if you like reforms why won't you discuss any of them?

Or have you realized there is not going to be an election in our lifetimes so there is lots of time for the reform process?

Actually I was talking about the reforms, reforms before elections. That may cause some delay.

As I wrote a few times already the 2007 constitution could be used to make a few amendments, both covering reforms and trying to cover aspects of all the reforms suggested or refused on the 2007 constitution since it was accepted in 2007. Now that shouldn't take too long. Of course since the Thai are at it anyway, they may as well take time to do it good and proper.

The original American constitution may have taken only 116 days to write, but I don't think it was that elaborate, nor do I know if in it's original form it would be accepted by the current American population (were all 'right' people equal?). The Japanese constitution might have taken a few weeks only, but that was pushed through by an occupying power.

Now as for discussing reform further, well, why don't you consult your informer again, the 'confidential source'. Obviously your cause is 'just', enough so to justify informers where if the government uses them it's to be condemned. Maybe you're not satisfied with what the confidential source told you? That's why you keep bothering me? I start to feel like the PM "PM, a confidential source told us...", PM groaning "... oh no, not again. What absurd rumour do I have to deny this time?"

They are still using both Japanese and American constitutions on a daily basis and it is accepted by the American people (there is a procedure to add amendments).

You make it sound like America has a new constitutions (not so the same old one is working just fine). Only one for all these years. Funny eh?

Specifically what reforms did you have in mind? You have never told us. I told you before I did not agree with my source. I think you want reforms but are not willing to tell anyone and I don't know why. You could tell us why you have never told us what reforms you want or you could tell us what reforms you want or continue to stonewall my simple question.

They are still using those constitutions in modified form. The originals, especially the American one, was for the times then. It took a few amendment before slavery was abolished, before all people were equal.

I wrote that reforms should not be detailed in the constitutions, but in an organic law on reforms. Reforms we (will) have now are one time only (at least that should be the idea). Later (gradual) evolution of society might not even require a constitution amendment, but only adjustments to the organic laws.

Now as for what reforms, let me first say that obviously it doesn't matter at all what I want in reforms. I'm not a Thai citizen. Neither are you I think. Furthermore with what is described in the draft charter already rejected by some with accusations of 'reforms like the PDRC wanted' ignoring that reforms are necessary I don't feel like answering your question only to have negative and/or insulting replies. I'm a sensitive soul, you know and all those automatic negative waves get to me at times.

A nice Sunday, time for family, time for contemplation.

[KarenBravo]

This thread has turned into.............

Edited June 20, 2015 by KarenBravo

[lostoday]

They are still using both Japanese and American constitutions on a daily basis and it is accepted by the American people (there is a procedure to add amendments).

You make it sound like America has a new constitutions (not so the same old one is working just fine). Only one for all these years. Funny eh?

Specifically what reforms did you have in mind? You have never told us. I told you before I did not agree with my source. I think you want reforms but are not willing to tell anyone and I don't know why. You could tell us why you have never told us what reforms you want or you could tell us what reforms you want or continue to stonewall my simple question.

They are still using those constitutions in modified form. The originals, especially the American one, was for the times then. It took a few amendment before slavery was abolished, before all people were equal.

I wrote that reforms should not be detailed in the constitutions, but in an organic law on reforms. Reforms we (will) have now are one time only (at least that should be the idea). Later (gradual) evolution of society might not even require a constitution amendment, but only adjustments to the organic laws.

Now as for what reforms, let me first say that obviously it doesn't matter at all what I want in reforms. I'm not a Thai citizen. Neither are you I think. Furthermore with what is described in the draft charter already rejected by some with accusations of 'reforms like the PDRC wanted' ignoring that reforms are necessary I don't feel like answering your question only to have negative and/or insulting replies. I'm a sensitive soul, you know and all those automatic negative waves get to me at times.

A nice Sunday, time for family, time for contemplation.

To answer your first paragraph. No America is not using the constitution in a modified form.

There are 27 Amendments. The first 10 can be considered part of the original Constitution. And Amendment 18 was repealed by Amendment 21, which means that in a span of more than two centuries, there have been only 15 amendments.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).

the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.

PS......

Since you are posting in a thread about reforms what reforms do you want?

Gobbledygook aside I fail to see why that is not a relevant if not the most relevant question in the thread.

[rubl]

They are still using both Japanese and American constitutions on a daily basis and it is accepted by the American people (there is a procedure to add amendments).

You make it sound like America has a new constitutions (not so the same old one is working just fine). Only one for all these years. Funny eh?

Specifically what reforms did you have in mind? You have never told us. I told you before I did not agree with my source. I think you want reforms but are not willing to tell anyone and I don't know why. You could tell us why you have never told us what reforms you want or you could tell us what reforms you want or continue to stonewall my simple question.

They are still using those constitutions in modified form. The originals, especially the American one, was for the times then. It took a few amendment before slavery was abolished, before all people were equal.

I wrote that reforms should not be detailed in the constitutions, but in an organic law on reforms. Reforms we (will) have now are one time only (at least that should be the idea). Later (gradual) evolution of society might not even require a constitution amendment, but only adjustments to the organic laws.

Now as for what reforms, let me first say that obviously it doesn't matter at all what I want in reforms. I'm not a Thai citizen. Neither are you I think. Furthermore with what is described in the draft charter already rejected by some with accusations of 'reforms like the PDRC wanted' ignoring that reforms are necessary I don't feel like answering your question only to have negative and/or insulting replies. I'm a sensitive soul, you know and all those automatic negative waves get to me at times.

A nice Sunday, time for family, time for contemplation.

To answer your first paragraph. No America is not using the constitution in a modified form.

There are 27 Amendments. The first 10 can be considered part of the original Constitution. And Amendment 18 was repealed by Amendment 21, which means that in a span of more than two centuries, there have been only 15 amendments.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).

the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.

PS......

Since you are posting in a thread about reforms what reforms do you want?

Gobbledygook aside I fail to see why that is not a relevant if not the most relevant question in the thread.

Well, first of all let me thank you for indicating the correct term. The American Constitution is not modified, it's amended only. That's a relief.

As for reforms, well the topic starts with

"Opinion polls and web pages advocating "reforms before elections" have sprung up."

Nothing in the topic really describes the reforms, only the process, when reforms should take place in relation to referendum and elections.

[lostoday]

To answer your first paragraph. No America is not using the constitution in a modified form.

There are 27 Amendments. The first 10 can be considered part of the original Constitution. And Amendment 18 was repealed by Amendment 21, which means that in a span of more than two centuries, there have been only 15 amendments.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).

the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.

PS......

Since you are posting in a thread about reforms what reforms do you want?

Gobbledygook aside I fail to see why that is not a relevant if not the most relevant question in the thread.

Well, first of all let me thank you for indicating the correct term. The American Constitution is not modified, it's amended only. That's a relief.

As for reforms, well the topic starts with

"Opinion polls and web pages advocating "reforms before elections" have sprung up."

Nothing in the topic really describes the reforms, only the process, when reforms should take place in relation to referendum and elections.

That is the point. Without knowing what the reforms are the people maybe very intelligent or very not intelligent depending on what is to be reformed.

I'm reminded of the captain of the ship giving the command to abandon ship without knowing if the ship is sinking. One would think the first item on the agenda would be to discover the danger of ship sinking.

In this case the first thing on the agenda is to examine the reforms to know if they are indeed significant enough to delay the elections.

So again I ask what reforms do you think are important enough to delay the election?

Edited June 20, 2015 by lostoday

[rubl]

To answer your first paragraph. No America is not using the constitution in a modified form.

There are 27 Amendments. The first 10 can be considered part of the original Constitution. And Amendment 18 was repealed by Amendment 21, which means that in a span of more than two centuries, there have been only 15 amendments.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).

the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.

PS......

Since you are posting in a thread about reforms what reforms do you want?

Gobbledygook aside I fail to see why that is not a relevant if not the most relevant question in the thread.

Well, first of all let me thank you for indicating the correct term. The American Constitution is not modified, it's amended only. That's a relief.

As for reforms, well the topic starts with

"Opinion polls and web pages advocating "reforms before elections" have sprung up."

Nothing in the topic really describes the reforms, only the process, when reforms should take place in relation to referendum and elections.

That is the point. Without knowing what the reforms are the people maybe very intelligent or very not intelligent depending on what is to be reformed.

I'm reminded of the captain of the ship giving the command to abandon ship without knowing if the ship is sinking. One would think the first item on the agenda would be to discover the danger of ship sinking.

In this case the first thing on the agenda is to examine the reforms to know if they are indeed significant enough to delay the elections.

So again I ask what reforms do you think are important enough to delay the election?

Since I think the country needs to be build up from scratch to ever reach something resembling a democratic state, or at least work on educating the population for a generation or two, delay of election has no meaning to me. That's even without me being unable to vote.

Edited June 20, 2015 by rubl