NCPO would select all 250 senators under EC draft

[heybruce]

59 minutes ago, ldiablo72 said:

The Thai people voted to accept the draft constitution, as flawed as the referendum was, so now they rightfully get what they deserve, which by any definition is nothing less than an authoritarian government. As much as I dislike this government, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for the population of Thailand.

 

 

47 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

They voted for this for a reason.  They didn't want to go back to what happened under the previous government.  It's the least "worst" choice.  Sadly...

Only people in deep denial, or desperate to justify authoritarian military rule, claim that the referendum was valid.  The Thai people were given a choice between a constitution written for the military, or to let the military choose a constitution. 

 

In other words, the choice was military rule, or military rule; no choice at all.  No surprise that 40% of the voters chose to ignore the referendum.

[elgordo38]

7 hours ago, Thechook said:

Well no elections then.  Democracy prayuth style where the regime get to appoint themselves.

Democracy in any country is the same. Elections come and go and mean nothing. If and when Trump or Hillary enter the Whitehouse the men in black will be waiting with their briefcases and marching orders. Yes here the NCPO will anoint sorry appoint the senators and it will be the same loaded game as exists now. The lipstick will be applied but the end product is the same. Its like playing Russian roulette with all the chambers containing live rounds. The debate last night was a media circus an attention grabber much like TV wrestling was like when I was a kid. The outcome in wrestling pretty well matches the outcome in politics its all a charade. 

[Redline]

7 hours ago, jamesbrock said:

Well, who didn't call this???

 

How can the people vote on a constitution for it to be torn up and the junta to do what it pleases? Do they really think the people will be happy about this? 

 

Are they trying to incite unrest?

Trying to unite the country?  Um, this will have the opposite affect

[craigt3365]

37 minutes ago, Tallagada said:

" a majority of Thais is willing to sacrifice certain democratic freedoms for stability and unity, the same supporters claimed in explaining Sunday’s “yes” vote. "

 

Except it is not the majority but around 30% of the thais.

Not unusual in a democracy.  60% of the population turned out to vote.  And 61% of those voted for the draft charter.

[jcsmith]

(Waits for someone to mention something about Dubai)

 

Seriously nobody read the charter. It would be about as exciting as reading a dictionary. Nobody other than government sanctioned propaganda agents was even allowed to talk about the charter leading up to the vote. Then after the process people get hit with these surprises. These things should have all been discussed, debated and out in the open before. They obviously were not and I'm sure we all know why that was. 

Edited September 27, 2016 by jcsmith

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

(Waits for someone to mention something about Dubai)

 

Seriously nobody read the charter. It would be about as exciting as reading a dictionary. Nobody other than government sanctioned propaganda agents was even allowed to talk about the charter leading up to the vote. Then after the process people get hit with these surprises. These things should have all been discussed, debated and out in the open before. They obviously were not and I'm sure we all know why that was. 

I actually read a good part of it.  Lots of loopholes for lots of shenanigans. Thailand has had good constitutions in the past, they just needed amending.

[jamesbrock]

12 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Not unusual in a democracy.  60% of the population turned out to vote.  And 61% of those voted for the draft charter.

 

Not unusual, but it means that 64% of the population either rejected it or chose not to endorse it.

[jesimps]

6 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Got ya!  Yes, it's scary they are proposing this.  Sadly, due to the political landscape here, it might be the best of two lousy options!

There's only ONE lousy option. The other is a democratically elected government and senate.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2016 by jesimps

[craigt3365]

14 minutes ago, jamesbrock said:

 

Not unusual, but it means that 64% of the population either rejected it or chose not to endorse it.

Or decided it was good and knew it was going to pass.  Nobody knows why they didn't vote, or how they would have voted except those who didn't vote.

Edited September 27, 2016 by craigt3365

[craigt3365]

11 minutes ago, jesimps said:

There's only ONE lousy option. The other is a democratically elected government and senate.

Agreed!  But look how it turned out last time.  I'd call that a pretty lousy option.

[williamgeorgeallen]

have to wonder if they were not intending to go to the china style one party system all along.  wonder if they will still to elections for show. wonder if the people will take this lying down. slim chance this will work, probably a greater chance there is a lot of blood to be spilt.

[craigt3365]

45 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

 

Worked from 2001 to 2006.

Then why did it fail?

[JAG]

50 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Then why did it fail?

To find an answer to your question you have to look at who, in terms of individuals, groups within society and even agencies of the state, we're responsible for the demise of the elected governments both in 2006 and 2014, and where they stand in the present power structure.

 

I"ll  give you a clue, they will all probably be in the appointed senate.

Edited September 27, 2016 by JAG

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, JAG said:

To find an answer to your question you have to look at who, in terms of individuals, groups within society and even agencies of the state, we're responsible for the demise of the elected governments both in 2006 and 2014, and where they stand in the present power structure.

 

I"ll  give you a clue, they will all probably be in the appointed senate.

It was 100% in the hands of the politicians.  We are where we are because of their mistakes.  Arrogance is what got them.

[JAG]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

It was 100% in the hands of the politicians.  We are where we are because of their mistakes.  Arrogance is what got them.

No, we're here because a group of political dinosaurs could not accept the will of the electorate. So they prevented an election, staged a coup and installed a junta. They are now rigging the system to ensure no matter what the electorate wish or decide,  they will remain in power indefinable you. 

[jamesbrock]

31 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Or decided it was good and knew it was going to pass.  Nobody knows why they didn't vote, or how they would have voted except those who didn't vote.

 

True, there is no way of knowing why only 34% of the voting population voted for it.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, JAG said:

No, we're here because a group of political dinosaurs could not accept the will of the electorate. So they prevented an election, staged a coup and installed a junta. They are now rigging the system to ensure no matter what the electorate wish or decide,  they will remain in power indefinable you. 

We're getting off topic.  But the spark was the inappropriate vote in the parliment for Thaksin's amnesty.  Protests started immediately.  Again, arrogance.

 

The prevented election was a long way after that.

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, JAG said:

No, we're here because a group of political dinosaurs could not accept the will of the electorate. So they prevented an election, staged a coup and installed a junta. They are now rigging the system to ensure no matter what the electorate wish or decide,  they will remain in power indefinable you. 

 

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

We're getting off topic.  But the spark was the inappropriate vote in the parliment for Thaksin's amnesty.  Protests started immediately.  Again, arrogance.

 

The prevented election was a long way after that.

Right.  And what started the 2010 protests, riots and killings was the appointment, at the military's bidding, of an unelected PM from the party that lost the election.  Strangely enough the military took up arms and killed many to defend an unelected government, but deposed an elected government before a new election could be held.

 

The first prevented election was in February 2014, and was prevented by Suthep and his antidemocracy minions.  The proposed elections were for July 2014, by which time Suthep's fading protests would have certainly have ended and the election held in peace.  That is why the military staged the coup; it looks bad when they topple a newly elected government.

 

Stop making excuses for military rule.  The military has run this country, overtly or behind the scenes, since 1932.  It looks like it will run it for a long time into the future.  Military rule will stifle all progress and defend all the corruption and inequality that the military thrives on.

 

 

[robblok]

10 hours ago, NongKhaiKid said:

Like you I often wonder what goes on with the average Thai, are they genuinely apathetic, which what the elite rely on,  or have the been brainwashed into accepting ' resistance is futile ' ?

I've been disappointed with a couple of well educated people I know who come out with the ' what can we do, we're only little people ' mantra so beaten before they start which makes life easier for those running the show.

The danger for the whole country is a pressure cooker scenario with things building up to such a level that when it blows it really blows ! 

Problem is who do they have to represent them.. PTP bunch of crooks.. democrats (besides Abisith and Korn) not much better. There are not many clean politicians that really want to help the people They all want a slice of the pie once they are in power. 

 

So your friends might be totally right.. who do they have to vote for ?

[robblok]

37 minutes ago, heybruce said:

ight.  And what started the 2010 protests, riots and killings was the appointment, at the military's bidding, of an unelected PM from the party that lost the election.  Strangely enough the military took up arms and killed many to defend an unelected government, but deposed an elected government before a new election could be held.

 

The first prevented election was in February 2014, and was prevented by Suthep and his antidemocracy minions.  The proposed elections were for July 2014, by which time Suthep's fading protests would have certainly have ended a

Nothing unelected.. just a different coalition formed.. happens all over the world perfectly legal. Yes then the armed red thugs came out to play and the army had to respond. 

[craigt3365]

43 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Right.  And what started the 2010 protests, riots and killings was the appointment, at the military's bidding, of an unelected PM from the party that lost the election.  Strangely enough the military took up arms and killed many to defend an unelected government, but deposed an elected government before a new election could be held.

 

The first prevented election was in February 2014, and was prevented by Suthep and his antidemocracy minions.  The proposed elections were for July 2014, by which time Suthep's fading protests would have certainly have ended and the election held in peace.  That is why the military staged the coup; it looks bad when they topple a newly elected government.

 

Stop making excuses for military rule.  The military has run this country, overtly or behind the scenes, since 1932.  It looks like it will run it for a long time into the future.  Military rule will stifle all progress and defend all the corruption and inequality that the military thrives on.

100% Agreed!  But why was the previous government ousted?  The one led by Thaksin?  P.S. This is a loaded question!

 

The election in February 2014 was already a sham.  Rushed by the Yingluck government, and opposed by many.  As you know, what started that was the rigged vote in parliment, which led to street protests immediately.

 

Sorry, but if the politicians behaved, and abided by the laws, we would not be here today.  The country would probably still be corrupt, but it would be a different scenario.

[heybruce]

21 minutes ago, robblok said:

Nothing unelected.. just a different coalition formed.. happens all over the world perfectly legal. Yes then the armed red thugs came out to play and the army had to respond. 

Nothing unelected?  Two PM's kicked out by the judiciary (military coups are pardonable offenses, cooking shows aren't) and a new PM put in place by military arm twisting behind the scenes.

[heybruce]

14 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

100% Agreed!  But why was the previous government ousted?  The one led by Thaksin?  P.S. This is a loaded question!

 

The election in February 2014 was already a sham.  Rushed by the Yingluck government, and opposed by many.  As you know, what started that was the rigged vote in parliment, which led to street protests immediately.

 

Sorry, but if the politicians behaved, and abided by the laws, we would not be here today.  The country would probably still be corrupt, but it would be a different scenario.

Why was the Thaksin government ousted?  Because the Democrats obstructed an election they knew they couldn't win and the military staged a coup.  Why do you think?

 

The attempted February 2014 election was an attempt to let all the people have a say in government, not just Suthep and fiends.  Obviously the Suthep crowd, including the military, didn't want that to happen.  The military also didn't want a July election, which looked like a distinct possibility.

 

Street protests led to the amnesty bill being dropped.  Of course some people maintain that it couldn't be properly dropped without overthrowing the government, suspending the constitution, dissolving all elected bodies, etc.

 

I agree that if the politicians hadn't stepped on the toes of the elite we wouldn't be here.  However elected politicians are supposed to serve all the people, not just the elite. 

 

BTW, what law was broken by the politicians comparable to treason?

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Nothing unelected?  Two PM's kicked out by the judiciary (military coups are pardonable offenses, cooking shows aren't) and a new PM put in place by military arm twisting behind the scenes.

There was a coalition change and that is totally legal and normal in countries all over the world. That brought Abisith into power. That is legal, the PTP had a coalition with Newin and he broke off formed a new goverment with the Democrats. 

That is how it happend. 

[sujoop]

The senate was designed to provide checks & balances to the ruling party controlled house.
 

However, during the years when Thaksin was prime minister, the senate became dominated with spouses and relatives from his political party and affiliated / purchased party MPs. The senate was supposed to be non-political, but became  loaded with the spouses of MPs from the ruling party which meant that Thaksin’s political machine could override the intent of the constitution for a neutral senate that could check the expected overreach of the elected.
   

Thus in the 2007 constitution following Thaksin's exile, the chamber was changed to a minority appointed Senate whereby 76 Senators were directly elected from the 76 Provinces and Bangkok, while the other 74 were appointed from various sectors by the Senate Selection Committee.

But then in 2013 the upper house passed a bill for amnesty in the middle of the night (primarily designed to free Thaksin from charges and allow him to return). The Senate  which would likely have narrowly passed the bill ultimately rejected it following massive protests.
   

Also in 2013 the Thaksin-backed Govt tried to amend the constitution to return to of a fully elected Senate which would allow husbands, wives and  relatives of ruling House MP's to become Senators (again effectively removing all impartiality, thus removing the very checks & balances to the governing party controlled house - the very purpose the Senate was meant for).  Further, the Thaksin-backed Puea Thai Govt proposed a bill which would remove the rights of citizens to petition the constitution court and instead all charges against the Govt would have to be lodged firstly to the Govt appointed Attorney General, who would then deem if a charge 'merited' being sent on to the court.
 

Thaksin also had relatives appointed to head both the Military and Police, plus appointed 'trusted' allies in key positions such as CHALERM as JUSTICE Minister... (however these appointments are within the purview of the ruling party, no matter how obviously controlling or repugnant).
   

Thus, this is just a small example of how various Thaksin controlled Govt's have systematically abused, diverted, subverted and corrupted not only the checks and balances of government but the very intent of democracy.

 

This brings us to the current very sad state of affairs (brought upon by Mr Thaksin himself one might argue). As a direct result, the Senate will now be appointed for a period of 5 years preventing any further ram-rodding through self-serving bills in the wee hours. Meanwhile, the house majority can still choose it's PM and pass bills (whilst being baby-sat which unfortunately has been proven highly necessary).

 

Edited September 27, 2016 by sujoop
edit format

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Why was the Thaksin government ousted?  Because the Democrats obstructed an election they knew they couldn't win and the military staged a coup.  Why do you think?

 

The attempted February 2014 election was an attempt to let all the people have a say in government, not just Suthep and fiends.  Obviously the Suthep crowd, including the military, didn't want that to happen.  The military also didn't want a July election, which looked like a distinct possibility.

 

Street protests led to the amnesty bill being dropped.  Of course some people maintain that it couldn't be properly dropped without overthrowing the government, suspending the constitution, dissolving all elected bodies, etc.

 

I agree that if the politicians hadn't stepped on the toes of the elite we wouldn't be here.  However elected politicians are supposed to serve all the people, not just the elite. 

 

BTW, what law was broken by the politicians comparable to treason?

No if they had not worked to get Thaksin home this would not have happened... so by serving that convicted criminal instead of the normal people we are here where we are today. Even the PTP admits that it was a mistake. 

[Eric Loh]

13 minutes ago, sujoop said:

The senate was designed to provide checks & balances to the ruling party controlled house.
 

However, during the years when Thaksin was prime minister, the senate became dominated with spouses and relatives from his political party and affiliated / purchased party MPs. The senate was supposed to be non-political, but became  loaded with the spouses of MPs from the ruling party which meant that Thaksin’s political machine could override the intent of the constitution for a neutral senate that could check the expected overreach of the elected.
   

Thus in the 2007 constitution following Thaksin's exile, the chamber was changed to a minority appointed Senate whereby 76 Senators were directly elected from the 76 Provinces and Bangkok, while the other 74 were appointed from various sectors by the Senate Selection Committee.

But then in 2013 the upper house passed a bill for amnesty in the middle of the night (primarily designed to free Thaksin from charges and allow him to return). The Senate  which would likely have narrowly passed the bill ultimately rejected it following massive protests.
   

Also in 2013 the Thaksin-backed Govt tried to amend the constitution to return to of a fully elected Senate which again allowed husbands, wives and  relatives of ruling House MP's to become Senators (again effectively removing all impartiality, thus removing the very checks & balances to the governing party controlled house - the very purpose the Senate was meant for).  Further, the Thaksin-backed Puea Thai Govt proposed a bill which would remove the rights of citizens to petition the constitution court and instead all charges against the Govt would have to be lodged firstly to the Govt appointed Attorney General, who would then deem if a charge 'merited' being sent on to the court.
 

Thaksin also had relatives appointed to head both the Military and Police, plus appointed 'trusted' allies in key positions such as CHALERM as JUSTICE Minister... (however these appointments are within the purview of the ruling party, no matter how obviously controlling or repugnant).
   

Thus, this is just a small example of how various Thaksin controlled Govt's have systematically abused, diverted, subverted and corrupted not only the checks and balances of government but the very intent of democracy. This brings us to the current very sad state of affairs (brought upon by Mr Thaksin himself one might argue). As a result, the Senate will now be appointed for a period of 5 years preventing any further ram-rodding through self-serving bills in the wee hours. Meanwhile, the house majority can still choose it's PM and pass bills (whilst being baby-sat which unfortunately has been proven highly necessary).

 

  

Sounds about right if you replace Thaksin with Prayut. All that same elements like appointed crony senators and amnesty. 

[chainarong]

11 hours ago, NongKhaiKid said:

Like you I often wonder what goes on with the average Thai, are they genuinely apathetic, which what the elite rely on,  or have the been brainwashed into accepting ' resistance is futile ' ?

I've been disappointed with a couple of well educated people I know who come out with the ' what can we do, we're only little people ' mantra so beaten before they start which makes life easier for those running the show.

The danger for the whole country is a pressure cooker scenario with things building up to such a level that when it blows it really blows ! 

You may need either the pressure cooker or the students,  all change made in Thailand has been achieved by students then the rest follow, that is the reason why they are monitored very closely, truthfully they are shit frightened of them ,  however they will have to get up early to actually beat the young people, mind you if there is a next time, there won't be any trade off with the military, to save face, the reason at the moment why Generals are heads of departments , they will be confined permanently to barracks  

[candide]

50 minutes ago, sujoop said:

The senate was designed to provide checks & balances to the ruling party controlled house.
 

However, during the years when Thaksin was prime minister, the senate became dominated with spouses and relatives from his political party and affiliated / purchased party MPs. The senate was supposed to be non-political, but became  loaded with the spouses of MPs from the ruling party which meant that Thaksin’s political machine could override the intent of the constitution for a neutral senate that could check the expected overreach of the elected.
   

Thus in the 2007 constitution following Thaksin's exile, the chamber was changed to a minority appointed Senate whereby 76 Senators were directly elected from the 76 Provinces and Bangkok, while the other 74 were appointed from various sectors by the Senate Selection Committee.

But then in 2013 the upper house passed a bill for amnesty in the middle of the night (primarily designed to free Thaksin from charges and allow him to return). The Senate  which would likely have narrowly passed the bill ultimately rejected it following massive protests.
   

Also in 2013 the Thaksin-backed Govt tried to amend the constitution to return to of a fully elected Senate which would allow husbands, wives and  relatives of ruling House MP's to become Senators (again effectively removing all impartiality, thus removing the very checks & balances to the governing party controlled house - the very purpose the Senate was meant for).  Further, the Thaksin-backed Puea Thai Govt proposed a bill which would remove the rights of citizens to petition the constitution court and instead all charges against the Govt would have to be lodged firstly to the Govt appointed Attorney General, who would then deem if a charge 'merited' being sent on to the court.
 

Thaksin also had relatives appointed to head both the Military and Police, plus appointed 'trusted' allies in key positions such as CHALERM as JUSTICE Minister... (however these appointments are within the purview of the ruling party, no matter how obviously controlling or repugnant).
   

Thus, this is just a small example of how various Thaksin controlled Govt's have systematically abused, diverted, subverted and corrupted not only the checks and balances of government but the very intent of democracy.

 

This brings us to the current very sad state of affairs (brought upon by Mr Thaksin himself one might argue). As a direct result, the Senate will now be appointed for a period of 5 years preventing any further ram-rodding through self-serving bills in the wee hours. Meanwhile, the house majority can still choose it's PM and pass bills (whilst being baby-sat which unfortunately has been proven highly necessary).

 

Talking about checks and balance, will there be any during the next 5 Years? 

A senate appointed by the Junta, a government on the same political side as the junta (with 250 senators, they only need 126 MPS to get a majority), and most members of the so-called independent organisations and the higher judicial institutions appointed by the Junta and their political allies.

All powers and counter-powers will belong to the same political faction. 

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Why was the Thaksin government ousted?  Because the Democrats obstructed an election they knew they couldn't win and the military staged a coup.  Why do you think?

 

The attempted February 2014 election was an attempt to let all the people have a say in government, not just Suthep and fiends.  Obviously the Suthep crowd, including the military, didn't want that to happen.  The military also didn't want a July election, which looked like a distinct possibility.

 

Street protests led to the amnesty bill being dropped.  Of course some people maintain that it couldn't be properly dropped without overthrowing the government, suspending the constitution, dissolving all elected bodies, etc.

 

I agree that if the politicians hadn't stepped on the toes of the elite we wouldn't be here.  However elected politicians are supposed to serve all the people, not just the elite. 

 

BTW, what law was broken by the politicians comparable to treason?

Hmmmm.  Thaksin was ousted because he was corrupt and broke the law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra#The_ouster

Quote

The Thaksin government faced allegations of corruption, authoritarianism, treason, conflicts of interest, acting non-diplomatically, and muzzling of the press.^[45] Thaksin was accused of tax evasion, lèse majesté (insulting King Bhumibol), and selling assets of Thai companies to international investors.^[46][47] Independent bodies, including Amnesty International, criticized Thaksin's human rights record. Thaksin was also charged for concealing his wealth during his premiership.

Again, he was kicked out well before there was another election.  The February 2014 election was a result of the previous government trying to ram through legislation to give him an amnesty.  The election was well after the spark that caused the political problems.  You have to get to the source.  Not the aftermath.

 

And yes, they stepped on too many toes. Thus, my comment they were arrogant.  If they hadn't been, we might not be where we are today.