NEW CONSTITUTION

CDC hands final charter draft to Prayut

KHANITTHA THEPPAJORN, 
ANAPAT DEECHUEY 
THE NATION 

 

Meechai

 

BANGKOK: -- THE NEW charter was delivered to Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha yesterday, who will seek to have it royally endorsed before it is implemented.

 

After working on the charter for a year, the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) yesterday finished its job and delivered the completed draft to the premier at Government House at the auspicious time of 08.59am.

The premier said he would spend 30 days reviewing the charter and checking whether it was complete before seeking royal endorsement. 

 

The CDC had 30 days to amend the charter in accordance with the August referendum results.

 

Full story: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/CDC-hands-final-charter-draft-to-Prayut-30297463.html

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2016-10-12

the turd has been rolled... 

 

I can't help thinking of Neville Chamberlain waving papers on his return from Munich and history recorded only too well how much value they had.

Interesting logic. First they draft a constitution. Then they have a referendum to approve it. Then they change it.

 

Must be a Thainess thing.

1 hour ago, tbthailand said:

the turd has been rolled... 

 

 

And polished until it looks just like a mirror... or something

 

40 minutes ago, TweedleDee said:

Interesting logic. First they draft a constitution. Then they have a referendum to approve it. Then they change it.

 

Must be a Thainess thing.

Yes. It was always a 'draft' charter.

 

The referendum farcical.

54 minutes ago, TweedleDee said:

Interesting logic. First they draft a constitution. Then they have a referendum to approve it. Then they change it.

 

Must be a Thainess thing.

And it's still likely to be far from final as the referendum has been used to justify all sorts of ' fine tuning ' and the introduction of new issues that never appeared previously.

It's so easy to move the goalposts when they've been fitted with wheels. 

"...Once the constitution is implemented, the government will push for further work in line with its political roadmap, especially the writing of more than 100 laws as stipulated in the charter..."

 

Hold the phone - before you guys get too engrossed in writing "more than 100 laws" (??? as stipulated in the charter ???), perhaps you should reflect on Section 77:

Prior to the enactment of any law, the State shall conduct consultation with the stakeholders, thoroughly and systematically assess possible impact of the law, and disclose results of the consultation and the assessment to the public as well as taking such results into consideration at every stage of the legislation process. While the law comes into force, the State shall undertake an evaluation of the achievement of the law on a specified periodic basis, including the feedbacks from all stakeholders thereof, with a view to developing all laws in a manner corresponding with and appropriate for the changing contexts.

 

One would hope that, once the Constitution has been promulgated, the junta and its cronies try to make some attempt to adhere to it. After all, if Section 5 counts for anything, it is the supreme law of the State!

 

As for the CDC's role in this, well once the Constitution has been promulgated, according to Section 267, they will have two-hundred and forty days to complete the following Organic Bills for submission to the NLA for consideration and approval:

(1) the Organic Act on Election of Members of the House of Representatives;
(2) the Organic Act on Acquisition of Members of the Senate;
(3) the Organic Act on the Election Commission;
(4) the Organic Act on Political Parties;
(5) the Organic Act on the Procedure of the Constitutional Court;
(6) the Organic Act on the Criminal Procedure for Persons Holding Political Positions;
(7) the Organic Act on the Ombudsman;
(8) the Organic Act on Prevention and Suppression of Corruption;
(9) the Organic Law on the State Audit;
(10) the Organic Law on the National Human Rights Commission.

 

More importantly, Section 267 also notes that, upon consideration of the Organic bills by the NLA, the CDC shall vacate office!

 

The other key consideration in all of this is that (as stipulated in Section 268), election of members of the House of Representatives under this Constitution shall be held within one hundred and fifty days as from the date the organic laws under Section 267 (1), (2), (3) and (4) have come into force.
 

So, in the time available under the Constitution, it's going be be almost impossible for the junta to produce more than 100 laws - unless they have a few aces up their sleeves !!!

 

Will the last page be titled "Further Changes by the NCPO" ?

46 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Will the last page be titled "Further Changes by the NCPO" ?

The last page will be empty, except for the headline, reading "Your notes here:"!

5 hours ago, maoro2013 said:

Yes. It was always a 'draft' charter.

 

The referendum farcical.

So the people voted on a pig in a poke. 

8 hours ago, TweedleDee said:

 

And polished until it looks just like a mirror... or something

 

it does reflect the type of "government" we have... 

Authoritaian/elite rule with elections.... 

If the International news media are following this farce, Thailand must be an absolute laughing stock.

On 12/10/2016 at 7:37 AM, TweedleDee said:

Interesting logic. First they draft a constitution. Then they have a referendum to approve it. Then they change it.

 

Must be a Thainess thing.

To be fair, the public were made aware the constitution would be 'tweaked' at the time, but they still voted for it. If they now find themselves shafted, it is difficult to have sympathy. 

Well, now they need something to work more than ever without the wonderful King.

8 hours ago, baboon said:

To be fair, the public were made aware the constitution would be 'tweaked' at the time, but they still voted for it. If they now find themselves shafted, it is difficult to have sympathy. 

 

No, not at all. I direct your attention to the referendum law. It expressly forbid campaigning. It was illegal to publish, or to discuss the subject. Although all major political parties including the Democrats rejected the Constitution they were not allowed to explain their reasons why.  How then can you use the expression "to be fair" under such circumstances?

9 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

 

No, not at all. I direct your attention to the referendum law. It expressly forbid campaigning. It was illegal to publish, or to discuss the subject. Although all major political parties including the Democrats rejected the Constitution they were not allowed to explain their reasons why.  How then can you use the expression "to be fair" under such circumstances?

Very interesting and pertinent comeback. 

As you and I both know, campaigning was allowed on one side. The 'Yes' side. The side of coup stagers who have a lengthy track record of being somewhat 'liberal with the truth', not to mention threatening, jailing and sending their opponents off to attitude adjustment camps. Their next wheeze was to present the public with a 'democratic' constitution they had such confidence in, they threatened naysayers with 10 years in prison.

Clearly something stank but still the public trooped off and voted for it despite the above points I made AND in the full knowledge it would be, ahem, 'subject to revision'. Now what sensible person would vote for that?

is it possible that the sensible people didn't vote