CDC Chairman: New charter will require 3 conditions to be met before charter amendment can take place



BANGKOK, 18 January 2015 (NNT) - The Constitution Drafting Commission has set in the new charter a number of conditions that must be met before any amendment of the charter can take place.

CDC Chairman Meechai Ruchupan said that the charter drafters have worked on the part of the charter amendment and agreed to set up three conditions before such a process can proceed.

Mr. Meechai said that the first condition calls for a majority vote by all parties legally authorized to join the amendment process in order to allow the proposed change to move on. He added that the CDC agreed to take note that in the first reading of the amendment draft, at least one-third of the senators must support it, and if it is the third reading, at least 10% of MPs must cast their votes to endorse the amendment.

For the second condition, the CDC has stated in Article 260 of the draft charter that any attempted amendment which will lead to the change in the Constitutional Monarchy will not be allowed, Mr. Meechai said.

The CDC President said that the charter drafters’ third condition demands that any proposed amendment concerning the parts of the Constitution which are about the Monarchy, the power of any independent organizations and the forbidden qualification of the senators and the MPs must be endorsed by a public referendum even after the Parliament’s approval.


-- NNT 2016-01-18

Any attempts to amend the Constitution of the US in the past? Was the process as complicated as the conditions set in this draft?

I'll keep quiet in this one.

Any attempts to amend the Constitution of the US in the past? Was the process as complicated as the conditions set in this draft?

The US constitution was circumvented decades ago by "Executive Orders".

Sadly, it's a dead letter now.

Did they just rush in off the golf course

Perhaps an amendment stipulating that all votes take place during regular business hours would be in order. Some MPs have difficulty attending the ones at 04:00.

Did they just rush in off the golf course

Could well have done - but the wearing of flat caps indoors is very poor manners

The Wheeltappers and Shunters Social Club

"On behalf of the Committee, I should like to tell you we made a mistake in offering the raffle prize of a diving suit.

It is in fact a divan suite."

Perhaps an amendment stipulating that all votes take place during regular business hours would be in order. Some MPs have difficulty attending the ones at 04:00.

Ban MPs from Turkish baths when the House is in session?

I am not quite sure what they mean in the first condition

But it seems to fall short, consitution amendments should be extremely difficult

- a simple majority is not good enough - it should be at least 2/3 majority of both houses

- also the special categorys in conditon 3 should also include some additional critical structures in the charter that cannot be changed with a referendum

- there should also be certain items that cannot be changed at all - set them in stone

So they make up stringent rules for how a constitution imposed on the country by a junta who overthrew an elected government and tore up the previous constitution can be amended?

Hypocrisy on an epic scale!

So they make up stringent rules for how a constitution imposed on the country by a junta who overthrew an elected government and tore up the previous constitution can be amended?

Hypocrisy on an epic scale!

The schoolmaster has to set stringent rules because the students ran amok the last time round...

So they make up stringent rules for how a constitution imposed on the country by a junta who overthrew an elected government and tore up the previous constitution can be amended?

Hypocrisy on an epic scale!

The schoolmaster has to set stringent rules because the students ran amok the last time round...

No, the present "schoolmaster" kicked the previous, elected one out as he was denied access to the school budget.

So they make up stringent rules for how a constitution imposed on the country by a junta who overthrew an elected government and tore up the previous constitution can be amended?

Hypocrisy on an epic scale!

The schoolmaster has to set stringent rules because the students ran amok the last time round...

No, the present "schoolmaster" kicked the previous, elected one out as he was denied access to the school budget.

And the tuck-shop kitty....

Just a side note as I find the whole Meechai draft to be contrived against allowing a democratic "We The People" styled elected government.

Condition 2 states "that any attempted amendment which will lead to the change in the Constitutional Monarchy will not be allowed"

Condition 3 states that "any proposed amendment concerning the parts of the Constitution which are about the Monarchy, .... must be endorsed by a public referendum even after the Parliament’s approval."

Either Condition 3 contradicts Condition 2 (pending more details into what constitutes "parts"); or Condition 3 allows the public referendum to create a proposed amendment which would then be immediately neutralized by Condition 2.

In any case Meechai once again produces confusing and needlessly elaborate provisions (from the perspective of the Thai electorate). Given the overall direction of his draft to maintain the NCPO agenda, this draft will not pass a majority of the electorate vote in a referendum.

So they make up stringent rules for how a constitution imposed on the country by a junta who overthrew an elected government and tore up the previous constitution can be amended?

Hypocrisy on an epic scale!

The schoolmaster has to set stringent rules because the students ran amok the last time round...

No, the present "schoolmaster" kicked the previous, elected one out as he was denied access to the school budget.

No. A schoolmaster would not set up a bully gang to lob grenades and plant bombs at rival gangs...

So they make up stringent rules for how a constitution imposed on the country by a junta who overthrew an elected government and tore up the previous constitution can be amended?

Hypocrisy on an epic scale!

The schoolmaster has to set stringent rules because the students ran amok the last time round...

No, the present "schoolmaster" kicked the previous, elected one out as he was denied access to the school budget.

No. A schoolmaster would not set up a bully gang to lob grenades and plant bombs at rival gangs...

Actually, both sides are using the bully tactics and if you don't see that you should go to your schoolmaster and demand a refund.

Edited January 18, 201610 yr by MZurf

So they make up stringent rules for how a constitution imposed on the country by a junta who overthrew an elected government and tore up the previous constitution can be amended?
Hypocrisy on an epic scale!

The schoolmaster has to set stringent rules because the students ran amok the last time round...

No, the present "schoolmaster" kicked the previous, elected one out as he was denied access to the school budget.

No. A schoolmaster would not set up a bully gang to lob grenades and plant bombs at rival gangs...

Actually, both sides are using the bully tactics and if you don't see that you should go to your schoolmaster and demand a refund.

Yes, both sides of the student population... Thus the schoolmaster stepped in...

What us with all the golf hats? Can't wait to tee up?

What us with all the golf hats? Can't wait to tee up?

No. Forgotten they are there. Just came in from the green...

That's where ideas were exchanged!

Actually, both sides are using the bully tactics and if you don't see that you should go to your schoolmaster and demand a refund.

Yes, both sides of the student population... Thus the schoolmaster stepped in...

No, the "schoolmaster" supports one side. The only reason he stepped in was to ensure his side won (and will never lose again). There is not one ounce of altruism in him whatsoever.

Actually, both sides are using the bully tactics and if you don't see that you should go to your schoolmaster and demand a refund.

Yes, both sides of the student population... Thus the schoolmaster stepped in...

No, the "schoolmaster" supports one side. The only reason he stepped in was to ensure his side won (and will never lose again). There is not one ounce of altruism in him whatsoever. Thinking otherwise is naivety on an epic scale.

So they make up stringent rules for how a constitution imposed on the country by a junta who overthrew an elected government and tore up the previous constitution can be amended?

Hypocrisy on an epic scale!

lets set aside your bias for a moment and answer one question

do you believe it should be easy for a government to amend or change the Constituion ?

my answer is of course that it should be extemely difficult, and if such rules had existed before the election of the last government things would have been very different

If you think it should be easy then it just makes a mockery of the whole idea of democracy in Thailand exactly why for the last 30 odd years it has repeatedly failed, a strong constitution will keep the abusers at bay and just maybe they might actually be focused on serving the people rather than themselves

so in short - a simple yes or no answer will do

no - means the current government are doing the right thing for the people.....go figure

yes - means they are wrong

simple as that

''For the second condition, the CDC has stated in Article 260 of the draft charter that any attempted amendment which will lead to the change in the Constitutional Monarchy will not be allowed, Mr. Meechai said.''

Unless you use 1 and 3 to circumvent 2.

What if 99.99999% (the other 0.00001 being members of the royal family) wanted to become a republic???

So they make up stringent rules for how a constitution imposed on the country by a junta who overthrew an elected government and tore up the previous constitution can be amended?

Hypocrisy on an epic scale!

lets set aside your bias for a moment and answer one question

do you believe it should be easy for a government to amend or change the Constituion ?

my answer is of course that it should be extemely difficult, and if such rules had existed before the election of the last government things would have been very different

If you think it should be easy then it just makes a mockery of the whole idea of democracy in Thailand exactly why for the last 30 odd years it has repeatedly failed, a strong constitution will keep the abusers at bay and just maybe they might actually be focused on serving the people rather than themselves

so in short - a simple yes or no answer will do

no - means the current government are doing the right thing for the people.....go figure

yes - means they are wrong

simple as that

"lets set aside your bias for a moment..."

You mean my bias against juntas? Guilty as charged!

"do you believe it should be easy for a government to amend or change the Constituion ?"

No, it should be very hard for any government. And it should be impossible for the military to do so (as they have done so many times).

"a strong constitution will keep the abusers at bay..."

Apparently not the military.

"so in short - a simple yes or no answer will do"

And my reply to a demand for either a yes or a no is as always that I will answer your question if you answer with a yes or no the following question:

Have you stopped beating your wife - yes or no?

Did they just rush in off the golf course

Yeah, they are on their way ti the pub for a pint and a puff.

The article is not clear (as usual).

The procedure for amending the Constitution should be crystal clear and as simple as possible. The bar should be set high, but there should be no contradictory elements. I would prefer something like: 2/3 of both houses, followed by majority vote of citizens; with veto power by the Monarch.

The conduct of a coup and substitution of a replacement Constitution, logically, would be illegal.

However, the Monarch would be permitted to declare temporary martial law in the event of a national emergency that threatens the integrity of the country.

I don't think we're going to get this....and in practice, there is no commitment by various parties, especially the military, to actually play by the rules. Until the Constitution clearly defines the accountability of the armed forces and their exclusion from political roles, this should be regarded as an elaborate charade.

So they make up stringent rules for how a constitution imposed on the country by a junta who overthrew an elected government and tore up the previous constitution can be amended?

Hypocrisy on an epic scale!

lets set aside your bias for a moment and answer one question

do you believe it should be easy for a government to amend or change the Constituion ?

my answer is of course that it should be extemely difficult, and if such rules had existed before the election of the last government things would have been very different

If you think it should be easy then it just makes a mockery of the whole idea of democracy in Thailand exactly why for the last 30 odd years it has repeatedly failed, a strong constitution will keep the abusers at bay and just maybe they might actually be focused on serving the people rather than themselves

so in short - a simple yes or no answer will do

no - means the current government are doing the right thing for the people.....go figure

yes - means they are wrong

simple as that

What will a yes or no answer, on this forum, do for the people of Thailand?

What many democratically minded people consider to be an unfortunate characteristic of the socio-political nature of this part of the world is that the question of constitutional "arrangements" appear to be irrelevant.

It makes no difference if it is easy or difficult to change the constitution given that the the military has become all too comfortable with the reality of Thai politics since the alleged "Democratic" revolution. Which is that it, and the rest of its factional grouping (no names mentioned), consider themselves to be the government of Thailand, in perpetuity.

The moment anyone (virtuous or venal) appears to threaten the Absolute Plutocracy that supplanted the Absolute Monarchy in 1932 the consequences are entirely predictable.

Whatever goes on within the elected assemblies of Thailand is window dressing.

“The supremacy of the civil over the military authority I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.” Thomas Jefferson

Of course, like so many before them, they will not go quietly. Like so many before them, it will not be pretty.

Simple as that.