CDC's Meechai insists explanation of draft charter must be straightforward and honest

[rubl]

Yes you indeed do need some Thai when you apply for a residency permit,

of course in Holland, any long term visa (we actually have only one, the D visum) requires certain nationalities to even do a language test PRIOR to being able to even apply for the visa. That way we ensure they are not totally clueless about the language of their country of choice. When they do arrive on that D visum, ALL nationalities are required to follow additional, lengthy courses to learn about society and language, among other things. Passing those courses is a hard requirement for both permanent residency and obtaining the Dutch nationality (one such other requirement is that you need to have stayed in Holland for at least five years for both ).

Anyway,

I am not suggesting anything regarding learning Thai, not only because such a requirement would be in the immigration law, not in the charter, but I'm not the one complaining about an English language version of the Charter, so naturally learning Thai would negate that need for the English translation.

The points I mentioned have been communicated by the CDC themselves, or the source if you will. So I am quite surprised that you seem to think that the CDC is offering all of us false information ? And how will they fare with all of those volunteers that are supposed to inform the Thai electorate about the draft ?

You are clutching at straws, amusing.

With your twisting and turning you could be sitting next to Heybruce for all I know.

I never suggested the CDC could not be trusted, it you who relied on them and don't want to believe them because you have other, 'better' sources. It's you who does not feel the need to read and understand.

Sorry, but where did I ever claim to have better sources ? Let me spell it out to you one last time, the points I mentioned is from documents and interviews or announcements from the CDC themselves.

So the question still stands, do you think the CDC gave us false information, and that in fact the senate isn't appointed as was claimed ? Of course you are not going to answer, but going to spend several more post claiming things I have never actually said...

Don't try to construct your own version of what I said and no need to try leading questions based on your construction.

You're the one who uses the CDC provided info to reject that info.

As I wrote in my first post in this topic, I wonder who has read the current draft charter to be able to judge straightforward and honestly. Answers seems to be "no one here" with some even proud of the fact.

[rubl]

so it seems that the farang from below sea-level has bumped up the post count dramatically on this topic.

not bad for having nothing to say....

Well thank you very much for your kind words, my dear, dear tbthailand.

I guess you also didn't read the draft charter ?

[heybruce]

"twists and turns", rubl's favorite nonsense post when he has nothing worth posting.

Regarding "denigration of fellow posters", I believe the words you used while denigrating the Thai people were "inconvenient truths". Of course you offered no evidence to prove your denigration.

Well, even sjaak327 agrees that very few Thai will read the draft constitution. They seem to like to rely on their betters who 'of course' know all much better than they.

So if you have not read the draft and tried to understand it, asked more questions and so, how are you going to judge the CDC will give a straightforward and honest explanation of the charter? Are you simply repeating what others tell you?

So, 'twists and turns', but ignoring the charter, ignoring the need to read and understand, relying on 'a few good men', etc., etc.

You obviously ignored my post where I explained the obvious, so I'll do it again:

The CDC wrote the d*mned thing, they are incapable of giving an objective assessment of it. Just as an author is incapable of giving an objective review of his own work. That, and the fact that the junta is detaining anyone critical of the document and banning public discussions that it doesn't control is enough to convince me the draft is cr*p.

This view is supported by reviews of the constitution written by people who have more patience with reading legalese than I do. It's also supported by history; the military has a poor track record when it comes to constitutions.

If the constitution had been written by people with a track record of supporting democracy I would be more open-minded about it. Even then I wouldn't read a constitution that is over 200 pages long. The very length of the document is suspicious.

The Thai version of the current draft charter is 105 pages in a PDF as I downloaded from the government website. Anyway it's not really less or more 'thick' than either 2007 or 1997 version. Now that's really suspicious. Also totally distracting from actual contents.

Anyway, for someone who doesn't believe the CDC you seem to have lots of faith in others who might be just as 'biassed' as they don't want it one way or another.

Once more rubl twists and turns, ignoring the substance of what I wrote to comment on the page count of a constitution he hasn't read in the language he doesn't want to read.

I have explained, twice, why I don't think the CDC is qualified to give an objective assessment of their own work. I can't make the rationale any simpler. If it is still beyond you we'll just have to agree that some people can grasp the obvious and you can't.

[rubl]

Well, even sjaak327 agrees that very few Thai will read the draft constitution. They seem to like to rely on their betters who 'of course' know all much better than they.

So if you have not read the draft and tried to understand it, asked more questions and so, how are you going to judge the CDC will give a straightforward and honest explanation of the charter? Are you simply repeating what others tell you?

So, 'twists and turns', but ignoring the charter, ignoring the need to read and understand, relying on 'a few good men', etc., etc.

You obviously ignored my post where I explained the obvious, so I'll do it again:

The CDC wrote the d*mned thing, they are incapable of giving an objective assessment of it. Just as an author is incapable of giving an objective review of his own work. That, and the fact that the junta is detaining anyone critical of the document and banning public discussions that it doesn't control is enough to convince me the draft is cr*p.

This view is supported by reviews of the constitution written by people who have more patience with reading legalese than I do. It's also supported by history; the military has a poor track record when it comes to constitutions.

If the constitution had been written by people with a track record of supporting democracy I would be more open-minded about it. Even then I wouldn't read a constitution that is over 200 pages long. The very length of the document is suspicious.

The Thai version of the current draft charter is 105 pages in a PDF as I downloaded from the government website. Anyway it's not really less or more 'thick' than either 2007 or 1997 version. Now that's really suspicious. Also totally distracting from actual contents.

Anyway, for someone who doesn't believe the CDC you seem to have lots of faith in others who might be just as 'biassed' as they don't want it one way or another.

Once more rubl twists and turns, ignoring the substance of what I wrote to comment on the page count of a constitution he hasn't read in the language he doesn't want to read.

I have explained, twice, why I don't think the CDC is qualified to give an objective assessment of their own work. I can't make the rationale any simpler. If it is still beyond you we'll just have to agree that some people can grasp the obvious and you can't.

Substance? Must have missed that.

The topic talks about the explanation of the draft charter must be "straightforward and honest". If a group making something can't be trusted to do their job and truthfully explain about it, you seem to require any activity to have a watchdog which of course requires their own watchdog as 'who can you trust' and so on. You question the professionalism of the CDC. No problem, your opinion.

As for grasping, well I understand that you do not agree with my opinion to the point of condemning it, democratically of course.

Edited May 14, 2016 by rubl

[baboon]

Yes you indeed do need some Thai when you apply for a residency permit,

of course in Holland, any long term visa (we actually have only one, the D visum) requires certain nationalities to even do a language test PRIOR to being able to even apply for the visa. That way we ensure they are not totally clueless about the language of their country of choice. When they do arrive on that D visum, ALL nationalities are required to follow additional, lengthy courses to learn about society and language, among other things. Passing those courses is a hard requirement for both permanent residency and obtaining the Dutch nationality (one such other requirement is that you need to have stayed in Holland for at least five years for both ).

Anyway,

I am not suggesting anything regarding learning Thai, not only because such a requirement would be in the immigration law, not in the charter, but I'm not the one complaining about an English language version of the Charter, so naturally learning Thai would negate that need for the English translation.

The points I mentioned have been communicated by the CDC themselves, or the source if you will. So I am quite surprised that you seem to think that the CDC is offering all of us false information ? And how will they fare with all of those volunteers that are supposed to inform the Thai electorate about the draft ?

You are clutching at straws, amusing.

With your twisting and turning you could be sitting next to Heybruce for all I know.

I never suggested the CDC could not be trusted, it you who relied on them and don't want to believe them because you have other, 'better' sources. It's you who does not feel the need to read and understand.

Sorry, but where did I ever claim to have better sources ? Let me spell it out to you one last time, the points I mentioned is from documents and interviews or announcements from the CDC themselves.

So the question still stands, do you think the CDC gave us false information, and that in fact the senate isn't appointed as was claimed ? Of course you are not going to answer, but going to spend several more post claiming things I have never actually said...

Don't try to construct your own version of what I said and no need to try leading questions based on your construction.

You're the one who uses the CDC provided info to reject that info.

As I wrote in my first post in this topic, I wonder who has read the current draft charter to be able to judge straightforward and honestly. Answers seems to be "no one here" with some even proud of the fact.

Certainly not you. You haven't read it and support it all the same.

[rubl]

With your twisting and turning you could be sitting next to Heybruce for all I know.

I never suggested the CDC could not be trusted, it you who relied on them and don't want to believe them because you have other, 'better' sources. It's you who does not feel the need to read and understand.

Sorry, but where did I ever claim to have better sources ? Let me spell it out to you one last time, the points I mentioned is from documents and interviews or announcements from the CDC themselves.

So the question still stands, do you think the CDC gave us false information, and that in fact the senate isn't appointed as was claimed ? Of course you are not going to answer, but going to spend several more post claiming things I have never actually said...

Don't try to construct your own version of what I said and no need to try leading questions based on your construction.

You're the one who uses the CDC provided info to reject that info.

As I wrote in my first post in this topic, I wonder who has read the current draft charter to be able to judge straightforward and honestly. Answers seems to be "no one here" with some even proud of the fact.

Certainly not you. You haven't read it and support it all the same.

That's the third time you tell me I support the current draft charter. Do I really have to ask again to tell me where I have ever written I support or not support this latest draft charter?

As I've written before, I am still waiting for a reasonable English, Dutch, German or (gasp) French version to read and form my opinion. That's unlike others who don't read and are already entrenched.

Edited May 14, 2016 by rubl

[heybruce]

You obviously ignored my post where I explained the obvious, so I'll do it again:

The CDC wrote the d*mned thing, they are incapable of giving an objective assessment of it. Just as an author is incapable of giving an objective review of his own work. That, and the fact that the junta is detaining anyone critical of the document and banning public discussions that it doesn't control is enough to convince me the draft is cr*p.

This view is supported by reviews of the constitution written by people who have more patience with reading legalese than I do. It's also supported by history; the military has a poor track record when it comes to constitutions.

If the constitution had been written by people with a track record of supporting democracy I would be more open-minded about it. Even then I wouldn't read a constitution that is over 200 pages long. The very length of the document is suspicious.

The Thai version of the current draft charter is 105 pages in a PDF as I downloaded from the government website. Anyway it's not really less or more 'thick' than either 2007 or 1997 version. Now that's really suspicious. Also totally distracting from actual contents.

Anyway, for someone who doesn't believe the CDC you seem to have lots of faith in others who might be just as 'biassed' as they don't want it one way or another.

Once more rubl twists and turns, ignoring the substance of what I wrote to comment on the page count of a constitution he hasn't read in the language he doesn't want to read.

I have explained, twice, why I don't think the CDC is qualified to give an objective assessment of their own work. I can't make the rationale any simpler. If it is still beyond you we'll just have to agree that some people can grasp the obvious and you can't.

Substance? Must have missed that.

The topic talks about the explanation of the draft charter must be "straightforward and honest". If a group making something can't be trusted to do their job and truthfully explain about it, you seem to require any activity to have a watchdog which of course requires their own watchdog as 'who can you trust' and so on. You question the professionalism of the CDC. No problem, your opinion.

As for grasping, well I understand that you do not agree with my opinion to the point of condemning it, democratically of course.

"Substance? Must have missed that."

I see, it's not that you ignore the substance of my post, it's that you can't understand it. By conceding that, you confirmed the rest of my post, though I don't expect you to see how.

You could go back to my posts in which I explained the obvious absurdity of expecting an objective assessment of a constitution from the people who wrote the constitution, at the direction of a military that routinely trashes constitutions, under a junta so insecure about the draft constitution that they ban all discussion that isn't under their strict control. But, as you've already explained, recognizing such absurdity is beyond your mental ability.

BTW: Your playing dumb and missing the obvious replies (you are just playing dumb, aren't you?) are quite amusing. Please do keep them up.

Edited May 14, 2016 by heybruce

[baboon]

Rubl - Your opinion is that you support it, regardless of any language that it is written in. This is without having read it. Obviously you must be simply repeating what others tell you.

[rubl]

The Thai version of the current draft charter is 105 pages in a PDF as I downloaded from the government website. Anyway it's not really less or more 'thick' than either 2007 or 1997 version. Now that's really suspicious. Also totally distracting from actual contents.

Anyway, for someone who doesn't believe the CDC you seem to have lots of faith in others who might be just as 'biassed' as they don't want it one way or another.

Once more rubl twists and turns, ignoring the substance of what I wrote to comment on the page count of a constitution he hasn't read in the language he doesn't want to read.

I have explained, twice, why I don't think the CDC is qualified to give an objective assessment of their own work. I can't make the rationale any simpler. If it is still beyond you we'll just have to agree that some people can grasp the obvious and you can't.

Substance? Must have missed that.

The topic talks about the explanation of the draft charter must be "straightforward and honest". If a group making something can't be trusted to do their job and truthfully explain about it, you seem to require any activity to have a watchdog which of course requires their own watchdog as 'who can you trust' and so on. You question the professionalism of the CDC. No problem, your opinion.

As for grasping, well I understand that you do not agree with my opinion to the point of condemning it, democratically of course.

"Substance? Must have missed that."

I see, it's not that you ignore the substance of my post, it's that you can't understand it. By conceding that, you confirmed the rest of my post, though I don't expect you to see how.

You could go back to my posts in which I explained the obvious absurdity of expecting an objective assessment of a constitution from the people who wrote the constitution, at the direction of a military that routinely trashes constitutions, under a junta so insecure about the draft constitution that they ban all discussion that isn't under their strict control. But, as you've already explained, recognizing such absurdity is beyond your mental ability.

BTW: Your playing dumb and missing the obvious replies (you are just playing dumb, aren't you?) are quite amusing. Please do keep them up.

Thanks for all the nice words, Heybruce.

Now back to substance, like a draft charter no one here seems to have read and some tell me all about. Especially that I'm supposed to be against as they are also against. Rather amusing.

[baboon]

Who has said you are supposed to be against the draft charter you haven't read because they are too?

[rubl]

Rubl - Your opinion is that you support it, regardless of any language that it is written in. This is without having read it. Obviously you must be simply repeating what others tell you.

Stop monkeying around, my dear baboon.

I have never stated to support the current draft charter, nor that I reject it. I'm still waiting for a version I can more easily read, like Dutch, German or even English. Mind you, with some so rabidly against there could be some good stuff in there.

In the meantime you're just trying to provoke me. I wonder why? Does my refusal to join the rabid rejecters make you feel threatened? No need to, I'm not one for denigrating or insulting others who have a different opinion.

[baboon]

Rubl - Your opinion is that you support it, regardless of any language that it is written in. This is without having read it. Obviously you must be simply repeating what others tell you.

Stop monkeying around, my dear baboon.

I have never stated to support the current draft charter, nor that I reject it. I'm still waiting for a version I can more easily read, like Dutch, German or even English. Mind you, with some so rabidly against there could be some good stuff in there.

In the meantime you're just trying to provoke me. I wonder why? Does my refusal to join the rabid rejecters make you feel threatened? No need to, I'm not one for denigrating or insulting others who have a different opinion.

You have never to my knowledge stated to support the draft charter you have never read, but you will support it nonetheless. Obviously you must be simply repeating what others tell you. Edited May 14, 2016 by baboon

[rubl]

Rubl - Your opinion is that you support it, regardless of any language that it is written in. This is without having read it. Obviously you must be simply repeating what others tell you.

Stop monkeying around, my dear baboon.

I have never stated to support the current draft charter, nor that I reject it. I'm still waiting for a version I can more easily read, like Dutch, German or even English. Mind you, with some so rabidly against there could be some good stuff in there.

In the meantime you're just trying to provoke me. I wonder why? Does my refusal to join the rabid rejecters make you feel threatened? No need to, I'm not one for denigrating or insulting others who have a different opinion.

You have never to my knowledge stated to support the draft charter you have never read, but you will support it nonetheless. Obviously you must be simply repeating what others tell you.

That's better, my dear baboon, much better.

Still it's your opinion I will support the draft charter, uninformed opinion, but nonetheless your opion. Be my guest.

Oh by the way, which part you think I'm told by others to repeat and who are those others? What proof you have, or is this part of your opinion for which no proof is needed?

Anyway, you don't seem a reading type yourself. I guess if I find a nice translation I don't have to inform you. Will post a link anyway

Edited May 14, 2016 by rubl

[baboon]

It is my opinion you will support the draft charter because you do and will, even though you have not read it.

Who has said you are supposed to be against the draft charter you haven't read because they are too?

Edited May 14, 2016 by baboon

[rubl]

It is my opinion you will support the draft charter because you do and will, even though you have not read it.

Who has said you are supposed to be against the draft charter you haven't read because they are too?

"because you do and will"

That's nice, even I myself didn't know that.

Well, to be fair no one really said I should be against the draft charter. It's much more a matter of 'how can you possibly not condemn it?', or "how can someone with a Western background not condemn it?".

Same, same but different.

PS did I miss you expressing your own opinion on the draft charter?

Edited May 14, 2016 by rubl

[baboon]

It is my opinion you will support the draft charter because you do and will, even though you have not read it.

Who has said you are supposed to be against the draft charter you haven't read because they are too?

"because you do and will"

That's nice, even I myself didn't know that.

Well, to be fair no one really said I should be against the draft charter. It's much more a matter of 'how can you possibly not condemn it?', or "how can someone with a Western background not condemn it?".

Same, same but different.

PS did I miss you expressing your own opinion on the draft charter?

You did know that because you do and will support the charter you have never read regardless of its contents.

So nobody in fact said you should be against the draft charter because they are too and you were just making a snide remark. Fair enough, at least we have one thing established.

Edited May 14, 2016 by baboon

[rubl]

It is my opinion you will support the draft charter because you do and will, even though you have not read it.

Who has said you are supposed to be against the draft charter you haven't read because they are too?

"because you do and will"

That's nice, even I myself didn't know that.

Well, to be fair no one really said I should be against the draft charter. It's much more a matter of 'how can you possibly not condemn it?', or "how can someone with a Western background not condemn it?".

Same, same but different.

PS did I miss you expressing your own opinion on the draft charter?

You did know that because you do and will support the charter you have never read regardless of its contents.

So nobody in fact said you should be against the draft charter because they are too and you were just making a snide remark. Fair enough, at least we have one thing established.

Ah, so you have nothing to say about the topic yourself, apart from "watch the clip" of course.

and that I will support the charter, unread. I guess you saw that in your Crystal Ball. Should you tell others as well what they will do?

In the mean time I'm neither for nor against and the more people here try to push me the less likely it is I will move from that point of view. I like to read the innovative reasoning some posters come up with though.

[baboon]

That's right, I actually posted something on topic, useful and constructive quite unlike yourself.

You will support the charter no matter of its contents.

Edited May 14, 2016 by baboon

[sjaak327]

Yes you indeed do need some Thai when you apply for a residency permit,

of course in Holland, any long term visa (we actually have only one, the D visum) requires certain nationalities to even do a language test PRIOR to being able to even apply for the visa. That way we ensure they are not totally clueless about the language of their country of choice. When they do arrive on that D visum, ALL nationalities are required to follow additional, lengthy courses to learn about society and language, among other things. Passing those courses is a hard requirement for both permanent residency and obtaining the Dutch nationality (one such other requirement is that you need to have stayed in Holland for at least five years for both ).

Anyway,

I am not suggesting anything regarding learning Thai, not only because such a requirement would be in the immigration law, not in the charter, but I'm not the one complaining about an English language version of the Charter, so naturally learning Thai would negate that need for the English translation.

The points I mentioned have been communicated by the CDC themselves, or the source if you will. So I am quite surprised that you seem to think that the CDC is offering all of us false information ? And how will they fare with all of those volunteers that are supposed to inform the Thai electorate about the draft ?

You are clutching at straws, amusing.

With your twisting and turning you could be sitting next to Heybruce for all I know.

I never suggested the CDC could not be trusted, it you who relied on them and don't want to believe them because you have other, 'better' sources. It's you who does not feel the need to read and understand.

Sorry, but where did I ever claim to have better sources ? Let me spell it out to you one last time, the points I mentioned is from documents and interviews or announcements from the CDC themselves.

So the question still stands, do you think the CDC gave us false information, and that in fact the senate isn't appointed as was claimed ? Of course you are not going to answer, but going to spend several more post claiming things I have never actually said...

Don't try to construct your own version of what I said and no need to try leading questions based on your construction.

You're the one who uses the CDC provided info to reject that info.

As I wrote in my first post in this topic, I wonder who has read the current draft charter to be able to judge straightforward and honestly. Answers seems to be "no one here" with some even proud of the fact.

Yes I do. So no idea where the other sources come into play, but I guess that's just yet another distraction.

Silly me, rejecting the draft based upon information from the very source. They were unable to sell their draft to me, let's see how they fare selling it to the people that do matter, the Thai electorate. I for one am not holding my breath on that one..

[rubl]

With your twisting and turning you could be sitting next to Heybruce for all I know.

I never suggested the CDC could not be trusted, it you who relied on them and don't want to believe them because you have other, 'better' sources. It's you who does not feel the need to read and understand.

Sorry, but where did I ever claim to have better sources ? Let me spell it out to you one last time, the points I mentioned is from documents and interviews or announcements from the CDC themselves.

So the question still stands, do you think the CDC gave us false information, and that in fact the senate isn't appointed as was claimed ? Of course you are not going to answer, but going to spend several more post claiming things I have never actually said...

Don't try to construct your own version of what I said and no need to try leading questions based on your construction.

You're the one who uses the CDC provided info to reject that info.

As I wrote in my first post in this topic, I wonder who has read the current draft charter to be able to judge straightforward and honestly. Answers seems to be "no one here" with some even proud of the fact.

Yes I do. So no idea where the other sources come into play, but I guess that's just yet another distraction.

Silly me, rejecting the draft based upon information from the very source. They were unable to sell their draft to me, let's see how they fare selling it to the people that do matter, the Thai electorate. I for one am not holding my breath on that one..

Silly me, I should have known you were present during the Thai sessions when the CDC explained to the Thai public.

Just hearing about the 'senate' seems to have been enough for you to see red. No need to read.

Me, I'm still deferring my decision, still waiting and wanting to read the draft charter myself.

[sjaak327]

Yes I do. So no idea where the other sources come into play, but I guess that's just yet another distraction.

Silly me, rejecting the draft based upon information from the very source. They were unable to sell their draft to me, let's see how they fare selling it to the people that do matter, the Thai electorate. I for one am not holding my breath on that one..

Silly me, I should have known you were present during the Thai sessions when the CDC explained to the Thai public.

Just hearing about the 'senate' seems to have been enough for you to see red. No need to read.

Me, I'm still deferring my decision, still waiting and wanting to read the draft charter myself.

Good you seem to finally get the point. Yes just hearing about the senate, it's composition and their power instruments is indeed more than enough to reject this draft outright.

No need to read any of it, the role of the senate makes the rest inconsequential.

Not sure if you would see a Dutch, German or French translation any time soon, maybe an English translation lands before August 7, so you can read it for yourself.

[rubl]

Yes I do. So no idea where the other sources come into play, but I guess that's just yet another distraction.

Silly me, rejecting the draft based upon information from the very source. They were unable to sell their draft to me, let's see how they fare selling it to the people that do matter, the Thai electorate. I for one am not holding my breath on that one..

Silly me, I should have known you were present during the Thai sessions when the CDC explained to the Thai public.

Just hearing about the 'senate' seems to have been enough for you to see red. No need to read.

Me, I'm still deferring my decision, still waiting and wanting to read the draft charter myself.

Good you seem to finally get the point. Yes just hearing about the senate, it's composition and their power instruments is indeed more than enough to reject this draft outright.

No need to read any of it, the role of the senate makes the rest inconsequential.

Not sure if you would see a Dutch, German or French translation any time soon, maybe an English translation lands before August 7, so you can read it for yourself.

OK, that's how you feel about it. No problem.

I'm less 'radical' in how a Senate should be setup. Even indirect like in the Netherlands politics tend to creep in distorting lines. The American version seems to encourage obstruction. A House of Lords anachronistic in these modern times.

Pity that altruism seems to be dying out.

[sjaak327]

Yes I do. So no idea where the other sources come into play, but I guess that's just yet another distraction.

Silly me, rejecting the draft based upon information from the very source. They were unable to sell their draft to me, let's see how they fare selling it to the people that do matter, the Thai electorate. I for one am not holding my breath on that one..

Silly me, I should have known you were present during the Thai sessions when the CDC explained to the Thai public.

Just hearing about the 'senate' seems to have been enough for you to see red. No need to read.

Me, I'm still deferring my decision, still waiting and wanting to read the draft charter myself.

Good you seem to finally get the point. Yes just hearing about the senate, it's composition and their power instruments is indeed more than enough to reject this draft outright.

No need to read any of it, the role of the senate makes the rest inconsequential.

Not sure if you would see a Dutch, German or French translation any time soon, maybe an English translation lands before August 7, so you can read it for yourself.

OK, that's how you feel about it. No problem.

I'm less 'radical' in how a Senate should be setup. Even indirect like in the Netherlands politics tend to creep in distorting lines. The American version seems to encourage obstruction. A House of Lords anachronistic in these modern times.

Pity that altruism seems to be dying out.

You are forgetting that the composition and power balance in the Dutch senate is a direct result of elections, it's power balance reflects the will of the electorate one to one.

By the way, the Dutch senate cannot influence who become PM, nor can it send the government packing, that privilege is reserved for parliament, where such privilege belongs.

[rubl]

Silly me, I should have known you were present during the Thai sessions when the CDC explained to the Thai public.

Just hearing about the 'senate' seems to have been enough for you to see red. No need to read.

Me, I'm still deferring my decision, still waiting and wanting to read the draft charter myself.

Good you seem to finally get the point. Yes just hearing about the senate, it's composition and their power instruments is indeed more than enough to reject this draft outright.

No need to read any of it, the role of the senate makes the rest inconsequential.

Not sure if you would see a Dutch, German or French translation any time soon, maybe an English translation lands before August 7, so you can read it for yourself.

OK, that's how you feel about it. No problem.

I'm less 'radical' in how a Senate should be setup. Even indirect like in the Netherlands politics tend to creep in distorting lines. The American version seems to encourage obstruction. A House of Lords anachronistic in these modern times.

Pity that altruism seems to be dying out.

You are forgetting that the composition and power balance in the Dutch senate is a direct result of elections, it's power balance reflects the will of the electorate one to one.

By the way, the Dutch senate cannot influence who become PM, nor can it send the government packing, that privilege is reserved for parliament, where such privilege belongs.

where is belongs? You mean as defined and working in the type of Democratic system the Netherlands has.

It would seem no two countries have identical democratic systems and as such 'Democracy' is much more a framework and state of mind with rights and duties than stone tablets with engraved text.

[sjaak327]

You are forgetting that the composition and power balance in the Dutch senate is a direct result of elections, it's power balance reflects the will of the electorate one to one.

By the way, the Dutch senate cannot influence who become PM, nor can it send the government packing, that privilege is reserved for parliament, where such privilege belongs.

where is belongs? You mean as defined and working in the type of Democratic system the Netherlands has.

It would seem no two countries have identical democratic systems and as such 'Democracy' is much more a framework and state of mind with rights and duties than stone tablets with engraved text.

Hmm when it suits you, you love to point out how democracy is being executed in other countries, whilst if it doesn't suit you, suddenly no democracy is the same.

Democracy as such means that people in position of power are elected, either directly (the US would be a good example) or indirectly (the Dutch senate), they are not appointed by a select group of people.

And this is one of the reasons why I reject this draft constitution and one of the reasons why I rejected the 2007 constitution.

Other then you, I would like the people's constitution being reinstated.