Porked & busted: Thai woman nabbed for telling ‘pork’ pies 208 times

[webfact]

'Good points from rejected draft charter can be included'
WASAMON AUDJARINT,
WIRAJ SRIPONG,
PRAPHAN JINDALERT-UDOMDEE
THE NATION

OPPONENTS AND SUPPORTERS OFFER IDEAS ON NEXT CONSTITUTION

BANGKOK: -- SUPPORTERS and opponents of the rejected charter draft gave suggestions yesterday on what a new group of drafters should do to prevent a new constitution from being rejected, in a referendum.

They agreed that a new draft did not have to be written from scratch, as widely accepted good points in the previous constitutions - and even in the rejected draft - could be incorporated into the new one.

The draft was voted down by a majority of members of the National Reform Council (NRC) on Sunday.

Pheu Thai Party deputy secretary-general Chavalit Vichayasuthi said yesterday that by incorporating good points from older charters, the new group of drafters could save a lot of time.

Chavalit suggested that the maximum 180 days designated for drafting could be reduced considerably this way. He also said that organic laws for the new constitution could also be drafted at the same time as the new charter was being written.

He said that with reduced time for a new charter draft, the original roadmap for Thailand's return to democracy would be affected only slightly.

"This way, the international community will have less concern that the NCPO may want to stay on in power," he said, referring to the National Council for Peace and Order.

Suriyasai Katasila, a political activist-turned-lecturer, said the new 21-member Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) should focus on the pros and cons of the rejected charter draft in writing a new draft.

"I don't know where they'll start if they have to rework the whole thing," said Suriyasai, who is former spokesperson of the yellow-shirt People's Democratic Alliance (PAD) and now a lecturer at Rangsit University.

He suggested that members of the new CDC should work in unison. The former CDC's formation was a worthy one, he said, considering the members' mixed backgrounds and genders. But they were split on opinions and didn't work properly as a team on the draft.

Selection of the new CDC's members would also prove if the NCPO worked for the country or for themselves, he added.

"If they are of low profile or rather look like the NCPO's nominees, society won't accept them and their future work won't be [good for] the people," Suriyasai said.

The community must have more participation in writing the new draft, he added. For example, universities could be platforms for public hearings on the draft, as well as the Interior Ministry, whose mechanisms could promote opinion sharing at local levels. Opinions should also be gathered from civil society groups. He also suggested a clear separation between the charter and reforms.

"There's now no clear working timeline on reforms, unlike that on the charter. If we mix two things together, we have to start drafting the new charter again and again. That will eventually become laborious and not innovative like it should be."

Democrat Party politician Boonyod Suktinthai said yesterday that new drafters should reflect more diversity. The committee should comprise people who understand the principles of democracy and are open to the general public.

"The drafters should start by having more positive perceptions vis-a-vis politicians from the very first," said Boonyod, a former MP.

As individuals who will be part of the new political rules, politicians should be able to participate and share perceptions about the content of the charter draft - albeit without being part of the drafting committee. Boonyod said making the process more accessible to the wider public would help prevent any strange clauses emerging in the draft. One example was creation of the National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Committee (NSRRC), which could lead to overlapping duties between the government and the NSRRC.

Attasit Pankaew, a political science lecturer at Thammasat University, suggested that the drafting process should be accessible from the beginning.

"There should be a channel which people can participate in more than [just] listening," Attasit said yesterday.

He said people on the committee should also consist of representatives from across the political spectrum in order to reflect different viewpoints in all schools of thought that exist in society.

Public voices should be heard from the first stage, Attasit said. They should also be informed about the overview of the draft. All in all, the general public should be able to access the planning and realisation of the draft.

Meanwhile, Rosana Tositrakul, a former member of the NRC, which was automatically dissolved after voting on the charter draft on Sunday, said a new constitution should ensure a balance of power between the government and the people. There should be a mechanism to ensure scrutiny of government in order to help prevent corruption.

She said the powers-that-be made a mistake in allowing the majority of NRC members to vote down the final charter draft written by the Constitution Drafting Committee.

"They may think that rejecting the draft could allow the government to stay in power longer. Without the NRC, they will have nobody to oppose them like before. But they will face reaction in the future," Rosana said.

Nattawut Saikuar, a Pheu Thai politician who is also a red-shirt leader, said the rejection of the draft pointed to the NCPO's failure in regard to politics.

"They appointed the drafters, their people drafted the constitution and their people also rejected the draft," he said. "Nobody opposed what they were doing but still they failed. Are they going to take responsibility for that?"

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Good-points-from-rejected-draft-charter-can-be-inc-30268359.html


-- The Nation 2015-09-08

[mikemac]

I would have someone who has absolutely no affiliation with the Military, Thai politics, the government whatsoever draft a new constitution. The new improved constitution would not include any mention of the words "amnesty" or "coup".

This would deter dirty politicians and power hungry Military men.

[MZurf]

I would have someone who has absolutely no affiliation with the Military, Thai politics, the government whatsoever draft a new constitution. The new improved constitution would not include any mention of the words "amnesty" or "coup".

This would deter dirty politicians and power hungry Military men.

Sadly it doesn't matter what's in the constitution as long as the military can take power, tear the constitution up and grant themselves an amnesty.

[Eric Loh]

I would have someone who has absolutely no affiliation with the Military, Thai politics, the government whatsoever draft a new constitution. The new improved constitution would not include any mention of the words "amnesty" or "coup".

This would deter dirty politicians and power hungry Military men.

Sadly it doesn't matter what's in the constitution as long as the military can take power, tear the constitution up and grant themselves an amnesty.

Unless someone has the fortitude to include coup in the Article for sedition to read "sedition is overt conduct that leads to coup and resurrection against established order or the lawful democratic authority". We can only hope.

[BarnicaleBob]

I hope they keep in mind that a good constitution should be about rights of the people and to protect the people from tyranny and oppression.

[bamnutsak]

I hope they keep in mind that a good constitution should be about rights of the people and to protect the people from tyranny and oppression.

Well that will never, ever happen.

The first section in any Thai Constitution covers exactly who the "Head of State" and the "Head of the Military is, in very clear terms.

All the other bits are just "democracy theater", meant to make sure the first section is adhered to, no matter what.

[HappyinNE]

I hope they keep in mind that a good constitution should be about rights of the people and to protect the people from tyranny and oppression.

Well that will never, ever happen.

The first section in any Thai Constitution covers exactly who the "Head of State" and the "Head of the Military is, in very clear terms.

All the other bits are just "democracy theater", meant to make sure the first section is adhered to, no matter what.

How about the "Head of Military" is the Prime Minister. While at it include freedom of speech, assembly and religion. I knot lots of luck!!!!

[waldroj]

First question they need to ask is "Why must a Thai Constitution be so voluminous (it's around 60,000 words)"?

Look for examples elsewhere:

US (including Bill of Rights) 8,350 words.

UK 3,529 words.

France 15,400 words.

Germany 9,450 words.

Singapore 6,260 words.

Australia 20,000 words.

Incredulously, the Thai offering is as large as the combined total of six countries above.

Whoever is involved in the next attempt, needs to K.I.S.S. and makeup! (Keep It Simple Stupid)

As Albert Einstein observed, “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”

[Baerboxer]

First question they need to ask is "Why must a Thai Constitution be so voluminous (it's around 60,000 words)"?

Look for examples elsewhere:

US (including Bill of Rights) 8,350 words.

UK 3,529 words.

France 15,400 words.

Germany 9,450 words.

Singapore 6,260 words.

Australia 20,000 words.

Incredulously, the Thai offering is as large as the combined total of six countries above.

Whoever is involved in the next attempt, needs to K.I.S.S. and makeup! (Keep It Simple Stupid)

As Albert Einstein observed, “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”

"Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single constitutional document. This is sometimes expressed by stating that it has an uncodified or "unwritten" constitution.^[1] Much of the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes,court judgments, works of authority and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions."

Source Wikipedia.

Which 3,529 words are you referring to for the UK?

[Thai at Heart]

Get one and use Google translate.

[Thai at Heart]

I would have someone who has absolutely no affiliation with the Military, Thai politics, the government whatsoever draft a new constitution. The new improved constitution would not include any mention of the words "amnesty" or "coup".

This would deter dirty politicians and power hungry Military men.

I am quite handy on Word....

[toybits]

Useless exercise making suggestions. Just sit back, relax and wait for the next one to come. It will be served to you on a silver platter.

[Srikcir]

I would have someone who has absolutely no affiliation with the Military, Thai politics, the government whatsoever draft a new constitution. The new improved constitution would not include any mention of the words "amnesty" or "coup".

This would deter dirty politicians and power hungry Military men.

Sadly it doesn't matter what's in the constitution as long as the military can take power, tear the constitution up and grant themselves an amnesty.

Unless someone has the fortitude to include coup in the Article for sedition to read "sedition is overt conduct that leads to coup and resurrection against established order or the lawful democratic authority". We can only hope.

You need look no further than the 2007 Constitution written ironically by the last military coup. Part 13, “Right to Protect the Constitution,” Article 68 stated:

“No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution. “

The 2015 draft Constitution deleted this provision.

However, the NCPO did not alter existing Criminal Code under Article 113 and 114 that punishes "anyone" who attempts to overthrow the government, seize power of any government branch or change the Constitution in an manner not prescribed by the Constitution.

anybody who commits treason by overthrowing the country's constitution faces the maximum penalty of death

[Srikcir]

I hope they keep in mind that a good constitution should be about rights of the people and to protect the people from tyranny and oppression.

Well that will never, ever happen.

The first section in any Thai Constitution covers exactly who the "Head of State" and the "Head of the Military is, in very clear terms.

All the other bits are just "democracy theater", meant to make sure the first section is adhered to, no matter what.

It is the Head of State and the Head of Government. There is no "Head of Military" specified in the constitutions. When the Thai military overthrows the elected governments, it assumes the Head of Government but the Head of State has always remained untouched.

In Republics the Head of State and Head of Government are the same person.

What Thai constitutions should make clear is that the military is an organ of the State, As such it SERVES the democratic regime and is not recognized as an Independent Organization. If the military overthrows the State, its self-declared amnesty for such a crime will never have legitimacy under the sovereignty of the Thai People. Military that have issues with the politics of an elected government can resign and run for office.