Old constitutions to be adopted if public votes no to draft charter

[webfact]

Old constitutions to be adopted if public votes no to draft charter

BANGKOK, 15 April 2016 (NNT) - Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said he could not go into detail regarding the government's contingency plan for if the public votes against the draft charter.

However, Dr. Wissanu disclosed that the first step would be to have the 2014 interim constitution amended. Unofficial results of the referendum are expected to be released within three hours after voting ends on August 7. However, it will take up to three days before the official results can be revealed.

The Deputy Prime Minister said the government would eventually be forced to produce a new charter. He said it could resemble previous constitutions or draft constitutions created by charter drafters assembled during the Prayut Chan-o-cha administration.


-- NNT 2016-04-15

[NickJ]

Most Thais dont even know what a constitution is.............maybe thats been the problem all along.

[DrTuner]

It won't be the '97.

[Inn Between]

"However, Dr. Wissanu disclosed that the first step would be to have the 2014 interim constitution amended."

I'm probably wrong here, but wouldn't that mean it's a choice of accepting the coup government's new draft constitution or their old constitution from 2014, shortly after seizing power -- but changed a bit -- amended, as they say?

Does that mean if the latter of the situation happens, the General would have to stay on for a few more years, leading the country in his own unique style until he and his cronies finally get people to accept a constitution presented by them?

Edited April 15, 2016 by Inn Between

[Just1Voice]

But...but....but, the Good general said if this one was voted down, he would personally write one from his head and heart!

Ok, so maybe they figured out a blank page would not be such a good Constitution after all.

[greenchair]

Isn't that the constitution that could not be put to a referendum, because they knew it would be overwhelmingly rejected and cost the country billions if baht ?

The one that had an appointed senate and could vote in an outsider as pm ?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am actually having a hard time understanding the difference between the 2014 interim constitution and the constitution they are currently arguing about.

Could someone tell me the differences plleeeaaasse.

[noosard]

Isn't that the constitution that could not be put to a referendum, because they knew it would be overwhelmingly rejected and cost the country billions if baht ?

The one that had an appointed senate and could vote in an outsider as pm ?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am actually having a hard time understanding the difference between the 2014 interim constitution and the constitution they are currently arguing about.

Could someone tell me the differences plleeeaaasse.

The difference is this one can be rejected

the other one can't be

[greenchair]

Isn't that the constitution that could not be put to a referendum, because they knew it would be overwhelmingly rejected and cost the country billions if baht ?

The one that had an appointed senate and could vote in an outsider as pm ?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am actually having a hard time understanding the difference between the 2014 interim constitution and the constitution they are currently arguing about.

Could someone tell me the differences plleeeaaasse.

The difference is this one can be rejected

the other one can't be

Oh.

But the point of contention in both is the same right? ???

[MZurf]

Isn't that the constitution that could not be put to a referendum, because they knew it would be overwhelmingly rejected and cost the country billions if baht ?

The one that had an appointed senate and could vote in an outsider as pm ?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am actually having a hard time understanding the difference between the 2014 interim constitution and the constitution they are currently arguing about.

Could someone tell me the differences plleeeaaasse.

The difference is this one can be rejected

the other one can't be

Oh.

But the point of contention in both is the same right? ???

Yes, they're both deeply undemocratic.

[jesimps]

Most Thais dont even know what a constitution is.............maybe thats been the problem all along.

It's thay thingymejig they keep changing every time there's a military coup.

[Kiwiken]

You can vote for fait accomplis or have the old constitution amended to give you a fait accomplis. Sounds like Democracy to me

[JAG]

Isn't that the constitution that could not be put to a referendum, because they knew it would be overwhelmingly rejected and cost the country billions if baht ?

The one that had an appointed senate and could vote in an outsider as pm ?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am actually having a hard time understanding the difference between the 2014 interim constitution and the constitution they are currently arguing about.

Could someone tell me the differences plleeeaaasse.

The difference is this one can be rejected

the other one can't be

It doesn't really matter.

If this one is the one that they want, it will be the one Thailand will get, irrespective of the referendum decision.

However if it is rejected there may well be a magnificent world record breaking hissy fit!

Something to look forward to!

Edited April 15, 2016 by JAG

[jerojero]

Asked the wifey if she knew about the new constitution, she said stomach OK, no problem hong nam.

[bark]

Can't we all just get along !

[Kiwiken]

My Thai Sister explained to me. She said you not understand Thai way. People on land (Farmers) are stupid therefore should not have vote. People of Krung Thep old educated Ruler understand how to run Country therefore they should have vote not stupid Country people. See simple.

[elgordo38]

It won't be the '97.

The key word is amended.

[SeniorNice]

God help the thai people

[2fishin2]

My Thai Sister explained to me. She said you not understand Thai way. People on land (Farmers) are stupid therefore should not have vote. People of Krung Thep old educated Ruler understand how to run Country therefore they should have vote not stupid Country people. See simple.

Seriously those thoughts are Thailand which, is exactly the rich and military want. They want total control of the country.

Times are changing and slowly people are also. Maybe not in our lifetime but sometime the country will undergo a major change. Who then again who knows maybe very soon.

[MaxLee]

Well it means "put up, shut up, and do as you're told,..."

[Mudcrab]

Isn't that the constitution that could not be put to a referendum, because they knew it would be overwhelmingly rejected and cost the country billions if baht ?

The one that had an appointed senate and could vote in an outsider as pm ?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am actually having a hard time understanding the difference between the 2014 interim constitution and the constitution they are currently arguing about.

Could someone tell me the differences plleeeaaasse.

The difference is this one can be rejected

the other one can't be

Oh.

But the point of contention in both is the same right? ???

Yes, they're both deeply undemocratic.

Who signed the Constitution of the United States? Were they democratically elected at the time??

No they were not.

Just a bunch of guys who took charge at the time

[gk10002000]

So what? They constantly throw out the constitution every coup. It has been and always will be a useless document unless they uphold it and peacefully and legally amend or change it according to its terms, not the terms of a coup overthrow.

[SeniorNice]

As long as the new Constitution can be amended by a democratically elected government then just get on with it. Any amnesty granted to themselves should be removed by the next democratically elected government. Seize their unusual wealth & strip them of their rank & lock them up to see if their attitudes adjust. Fair's fair

[heybruce]

"He said it could resemble previous constitutions or draft constitutions..."

In other words, it would be anything the junta wants it to be.

[heybruce]

My Thai Sister explained to me. She said you not understand Thai way. People on land (Farmers) are stupid therefore should not have vote. People of Krung Thep old educated Ruler understand how to run Country therefore they should have vote not stupid Country people. See simple.

I know the children of some of these stupid people. Many of them are the first in their families to finish secondary school and now have graduate degrees. My favorite has barely literate parents, she is now studying for her PhD in Chemistry in South Korea on a full academic scholarship.

I'm only a generation removed from these farmer's children. I have three degrees; none of my grandparents finished high school.

Edited April 15, 2016 by heybruce

[heybruce]

As long as the new Constitution can be amended by a democratically elected government then just get on with it. Any amnesty granted to themselves should be removed by the next democratically elected government. Seize their unusual wealth & strip them of their rank & lock them up to see if their attitudes adjust. Fair's fair

But the new constitution is being written to ensure that there will be no amendments that the "quality people" don't approve of. If a loophole is found and democratic amendments are somehow made, then the military will stage another coup and write another constitution.

[SeniorNice]

As long as the new Constitution can be amended by a democratically elected government then just get on with it. Any amnesty granted to themselves should be removed by the next democratically elected government. Seize their unusual wealth & strip them of their rank & lock them up to see if their attitudes adjust. Fair's fair

But the new constitution is being written to ensure that there will be no amendments that the "quality people" don't approve of. If a loophole is found and democratic amendments are somehow made, then the military will stage another coup and write another constitution.

First amendment should be to make it treason for any future military coups. Play them at their own game.

[CharlieH]

Post 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.


To breach these rules may result in immediate ban.

[MaiChai]

The hub of constitutions! Vote for our constitution or get the one we will substitute. Thus not much point in voting?

[phoenixdoglover]

Isn't that the constitution that could not be put to a referendum, because they knew it would be overwhelmingly rejected and cost the country billions if baht ?

The one that had an appointed senate and could vote in an outsider as pm ?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am actually having a hard time understanding the difference between the 2014 interim constitution and the constitution they are currently arguing about.

Could someone tell me the differences plleeeaaasse.

The difference is this one can be rejected

the other one can't be

Oh.

But the point of contention in both is the same right? ???

Yes, they're both deeply undemocratic.

Who signed the Constitution of the United States? Were they democratically elected at the time??

No they were not.

Just a bunch of guys who took charge at the time

You may wish to learn about the ratification process for the US Constitution. It took 3 years.

[Krataiboy]

A trustworthy outside body, such as UN or an NGO, should be called in to monitor the Charter referendum,. Otherwise, the outcome is likely to be as believable as those "independent" pro-junta popularity polls published in the Thai media.