CDC chairman says he has to see written proposal on selected Senate first



BANGKOK: Constitution Drafting Committee chairman Meechai Ruchupan said Friday he was waiting for a formal proposal about non-elected Senate during the transition period from Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan.

He said he could not make any comment about the controversial proposal whether it could be done or could not be done. He disclosed that there was an agreement between the CDC and the military junta as well as the government that if there is any problem about the charter draft between them they would communicate through writings instead of face-to-face discussions.

He said that he would like to see the formal proposal in writing first before he could say whether the proposal could be done or not and, if it could not done, then the two sides might have talks.

Mr Meechai explained that the transitional mechanism written in the charter draft was normal but if there must be something special for the transition period, then it must be clearly stipulated.

He maintained that the CDC had limited time to do its job and it could not afford to make amendments too many times.

Regarding the proposed amendments of the non-governmental organizations, the CDC chairman said that only those which are deemed beneficial to the public at large would be incorporated to the draft. He made clear that the CDC would not accept every proposed amendment.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/content/154722

-- Thai PBS 2016-03-12

Reasonable comments.

Good luck with your discussions.

power struggle.

Does practice really makes perfect?

18 charters (and as many coups) and counting... Anyway, who is counting.

To be continued in the following coups

Edited March 12, 201610 yr by pisico

if it could not done, then the two sides might have talks.

It's special that the NCPO and Prayut's government have direct access to the CDC that ordinary Thai people and political parties do not have to discuss draft constitution proposals. Meechai is smart to know who he must to listen to.

Does practice really makes perfect?

18 charters (and as many coups) and counting... Anyway, who is counting.

To be continued in the following coups

But you must understand that everything is different this time around! At least that is what the junta supporters claim. But lo and behold, not ONE SINGLE junta supporter can explain exactly what's different this time.

Pathetic.

Does practice really makes perfect?

18 charters (and as many coups) and counting... Anyway, who is counting.

To be continued in the following coups

But you must understand that everything is different this time around! At least that is what the junta supporters claim. But lo and behold, not ONE SINGLE junta supporter can explain exactly what's different this time.

Pathetic.

Only speaking for myself I can just repeat that I think the 2007 constitution should have been used as starting point. Being enacted for six years strong and weak points should be clear (seeing attempts at modification by 'elected' governments).

As for what's different now, no idea. I for one didn't see the nearly final, without cross-outs and with ink dried, complete draft proposal. Without difficult to say what's different. Of course we know and have heard all conflicting 'statements', 'suggestions', 'interviews', etc., etc., but that just shows all seem to have a different idea of what a constitution is or should be.

Does practice really makes perfect?

18 charters (and as many coups) and counting... Anyway, who is counting.

To be continued in the following coups

But you must understand that everything is different this time around! At least that is what the junta supporters claim. But lo and behold, not ONE SINGLE junta supporter can explain exactly what's different this time.

Pathetic.

Only speaking for myself I can just repeat that I think the 2007 constitution should have been used as starting point. Being enacted for six years strong and weak points should be clear (seeing attempts at modification by 'elected' governments).

As for what's different now, no idea. I for one didn't see the nearly final, without cross-outs and with ink dried, complete draft proposal. Without difficult to say what's different. Of course we know and have heard all conflicting 'statements', 'suggestions', 'interviews', etc., etc., but that just shows all seem to have a different idea of what a constitution is or should be.

When I ask what's different this time around I mean what's different about this junta? Something about them must instill confidence since nothing good has come out of any of the previous coups.

So what is it?

Does practice really makes perfect?

18 charters (and as many coups) and counting... Anyway, who is counting.

To be continued in the following coups

But you must understand that everything is different this time around! At least that is what the junta supporters claim. But lo and behold, not ONE SINGLE junta supporter can explain exactly what's different this time.

Pathetic.

Only speaking for myself I can just repeat that I think the 2007 constitution should have been used as starting point. Being enacted for six years strong and weak points should be clear (seeing attempts at modification by 'elected' governments).

As for what's different now, no idea. I for one didn't see the nearly final, without cross-outs and with ink dried, complete draft proposal. Without difficult to say what's different. Of course we know and have heard all conflicting 'statements', 'suggestions', 'interviews', etc., etc., but that just shows all seem to have a different idea of what a constitution is or should be.

When I ask what's different this time around I mean what's different about this junta? Something about them must instill confidence since nothing good has come out of any of the previous coups.

So what is it?

Obviously the answer is "the new constitution" under discussion as in the OP

The old guards have enough of the shenanigans of the young Turks trying to upset their status quo. Both sides ought to go and they have no place in the fortune and future of the country.