Political parties and groups to be asked to sign pact : Prawit

[webfact]

Political parties and groups to be asked to sign pact : Prawit

 

BANGKOK: -- Deputy Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan Monday said he would ask all political parties and political groups to sign a mutual understanding agreement to enhance reconciliation as part of reconciliation promotion.

 

“We need to create a mutual agreement which satisfies and be acceptable to all stakeholders so they can live together peacefully,” Prawit, who was assigned by Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha to oversee the reconciliation progress in society, said.

 

Full story: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/breakingnews/30304205

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-01-16

[Eric Loh]

Leave a column for the military to sign a non-intervention clause in the reconciliation pact. They are the biggest elephant in the room. 

[Enoon]

 

Passivity Contract.

 

Usually signed after Attitude Adjustment "interview".

 

 

[waldroj]

A simplistic solution to an inherently wicked problem!

 

At best, they (political parties) will agree to disagree. 

[yellowboat]

They, the junta, usurped power from an elected government.  Now they wish to authoritatively make all parties sign an agreement based on what ?  Their authority ?  This is simple corrosion in lieu of conversation.

[Thailand]

Shame,I think there is already a movie called dumb and dumber?

[Srikcir]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

he would ask

Not a legal requirement unless Prayut invokes Art. 44.

So just say "no".

The junta won't set elections in any case and currently doesn't recognize legitimacy of political parties. Why give the junta legitimacy to agree to any political issue?

[johng]

Shame,I think there is already a movie called dumb and dumber?

I liked the film "Idiocracy" many similarities to everyday Thai events.

[Jimbo2014]

Sign on the dotted line.... or else :D

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, yellowboat said:

They, the junta, usurped power from an elected government.  Now they wish to authoritatively make all parties sign an agreement based on what ?  Their authority ?  This is simple corrosion in lieu of conversation.

 

An elected government whose figurehead leader had been removed by a court, who frequently broke laws, who ignored questions by the Ombudsman, who refused to ensure the police up-held law and order for all, who refused to provide information to parliament and who broke parliamentary rules and procedures in an attempt to whitewash their party owner and dictator so he could return without having to face any of his crimes. 

 

When elected governments act like this, their legitimacy evaporates.

[Baerboxer]

Well have do you remember the films about the "Commission" that got the five families to sign a pact in NY ?

 

Sound familiar.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Baerboxer

[JAG]

1 hour ago, yellowboat said:

They, the junta, usurped power from an elected government.  Now they wish to authoritatively make all parties sign an agreement based on what ?  Their authority ?  This is simple corrosion in lieu of conversation.

 

6 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

An elected government whose figurehead leader had been removed by a court, who frequently broke laws, who ignored questions by the Ombudsman, who refused to ensure the police up-held law and order for all, who refused to provide information to parliament and who broke parliamentary rules and procedures in an attempt to whitewash their party owner and dictator so he could return without having to face any of his crimes. 

 

When elected governments act like this, their legitimacy evaporates.

 

I've had an idea chaps, why not ask the Thai people to decide on the legitimacy of the government by by allowing them to elect it?

 

Ah, wait a mo, silly me, they were in the process of doing that weren't they when the present incumbents staged their little exercise in taking power....

[Baerboxer]

29 minutes ago, JAG said:

 

 

I've had an idea chaps, why not ask the Thai people to decide on the legitimacy of the government by by allowing them to elect it?

 

Ah, wait a mo, silly me, they were in the process of doing that weren't they when the present incumbents staged their little exercise in taking power....

 

Yeah, a party full of lawbreakers, headed and instructed by a criminal fugitive whose shit scared to return. They wanted an election held so long as they were free to intimidate, bribe, coerce and threaten to make sure votes were delivered in their favor. And stop any opposition daring to try and campaign on their turf. (Just as the opposition would probably do on their turf to). 

 

And of course if they won they'd claim it as a mandate to pass into law the one remaining version of the Amnesty Bill that they hadn't killed, which would whitewash their boss, regardless of the protests it caused before and likely violent consequences. 

 

Ever wondered how they might have reacted if they'd lost? Check out how they behaved after losing the "safe seat" of Don Meuang or the Bangkok governor election in which they thought they'd win even if they put a telephone pole up. 

 

Reform is desperately needed, including the judicial system. Or it's just the same lot jockeying for position whilst trying to thwart one man and his clan from gaining a stranglehold.

[Nbarch]

It is a 'Pact with the Devil'

 

[chainarong]

5 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Leave a column for the military to sign a non-intervention clause in the reconciliation pact. They are the biggest elephant in the room. 

That they are , and have been for centuries, when Prayut talks about democracy , he doesn't realize how stupid he looks, in a Democracy the military has no input what so ever in politics .....................................

[Eric Loh]

20 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Yeah, a party full of lawbreakers, headed and instructed by a criminal fugitive whose shit scared to return. They wanted an election held so long as they were free to intimidate, bribe, coerce and threaten to make sure votes were delivered in their favor. And stop any opposition daring to try and campaign on their turf. (Just as the opposition would probably do on their turf to). 

 

And of course if they won they'd claim it as a mandate to pass into law the one remaining version of the Amnesty Bill that they hadn't killed, which would whitewash their boss, regardless of the protests it caused before and likely violent consequences. 

 

Ever wondered how they might have reacted if they'd lost? Check out how they behaved after losing the "safe seat" of Don Meuang or the Bangkok governor election in which they thought they'd win even if they put a telephone pole up. 

 

Reform is desperately needed, including the judicial system. Or it's just the same lot jockeying for position whilst trying to thwart one man and his clan from gaining a stranglehold.

 

How long will you whine and sulk. PTP will still be the people choice next election whatever the reforms. The coup has done them a big favor by completely mishandle the economy and allowing corruption among its ranks and the police too. An elected government no matter how bad can't be worse than a junta government and police state.  

[JAG]

38 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Yeah, a party full of lawbreakers, headed and instructed by a criminal fugitive whose shit scared to return. They wanted an election held so long as they were free to intimidate, bribe, coerce and threaten to make sure votes were delivered in their favor. And stop any opposition daring to try and campaign on their turf. (Just as the opposition would probably do on their turf to). 

 

And of course if they won they'd claim it as a mandate to pass into law the one remaining version of the Amnesty Bill that they hadn't killed, which would whitewash their boss, regardless of the protests it caused before and likely violent consequences. 

 

Ever wondered how they might have reacted if they'd lost? Check out how they behaved after losing the "safe seat" of Don Meuang or the Bangkok governor election in which they thought they'd win even if they put a telephone pole up. 

 

Reform is desperately needed, including the judicial system. Or it's just the same lot jockeying for position whilst trying to thwart one man and his clan from gaining a stranglehold.

1. The previous two elections, which had placed this party in power, with decisive victories, were both, I believe, declared by experienced international observers (and the main opposition party)  to be fair and effectively representative.

 

2. The current government is however using intimidation, coercion and threats to stop any opposition from campaigning, on any turf, anywhere in the country.

 

2. If they had won the election, and their platform had included the proposed amnesty, well then they would have had a mandate wouldn't they?

 

3. Your vehement opposition to the proposed amnesty ( a perfectly acceptable stance in isolation),  contrasts somewhat with your silence on the matter of the "mother of all amnesties" which the junta gave themselves, almost as their first act on seizing power.

 

4. The then constitution mandated the "security forces", (to use a western phrase), to deal, within the law, with any protests and violent consequences, including, no especially, those preventing a lawful election. It didn't mandate them to overthrow the government effectively on the behest of the protesters. That is what they chose to do.

 

5.  How would they have behaved if they had lost? I don't know, but given their muted response to being overthrown by the military, and as the military would have been lawfully able to put a stop to protests and violence on the instructions of the new government, (probably with some enthusiasm), I doubt it would have been the apocalyptic reaction which you imagine.

 

6.I agree that reform is needed. The most desperately needed reform is one which ensures that the military, and those they serve, respect the electoral decision of the people. Unfortunately  I do not detect any moves towards real reform from the junta, rather a process designed to perpetuate their hold on power notwithstanding the wishes of the electorate in any possible future election. Ironically, it is this process which could well eventually result in the sort of apocalyptic reaction which you allude to in your third paragraph.

Edited January 16, 2017 by JAG

[Becker]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

An elected government whose figurehead leader had been removed by a court, who frequently broke laws, who ignored questions by the Ombudsman, who refused to ensure the police up-held law and order for all, who refused to provide information to parliament and who broke parliamentary rules and procedures in an attempt to whitewash their party owner and dictator so he could return without having to face any of his crimes. 

 

When elected governments act like this, their legitimacy evaporates.

And who decides when an elected government's legitimacy evaporates? The army - the institution that is plagued with the same problems as the rest of society (corruption, nepotism, cronyism)?

That has been tried a number of times and it NEVER ended well, and based on what's (not) happened the last 2.5 years it won't this time either.

[khunpa]

Wonder if they need to stamp it too? Because then its serious :-)

Edited January 16, 2017 by khunpa

[yellowboat]

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Reform is desperately needed, including the judicial system. Or it's just the same lot jockeying for position whilst trying to thwart one man and his clan from gaining a stranglehold.

One man does have a strangle hold and he will not let go, ever.  He holds jazzercize sessions every Wednesday at 3pm and looses gracefully at ping pong.  And not sure what to think of a court that would allow article 44 and hold perpetrators of a coup harmless.  There is no moral high ground in Thailand at this time.  

[elliss]

7 hours ago, waldroj said:

A simplistic solution to an inherently wicked problem .

 

            Do you mean democracy ?.

 

             Under the Junta ,  Thai people  have  never had it so good .

[sjaak327]

10 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

 

How long will you whine and sulk. PTP will still be the people choice next election whatever the reforms. The coup has done them a big favor by completely mishandle the economy and allowing corruption among its ranks and the police too. An elected government no matter how bad can't be worse than a junta government and police state.  

The trouble is that even IF PTP would win (even when they win an outright majority in the lower house, just as last time) it doesn't really matter. The senate not only is instrumental in the election of the PM, they have the authority to sent the government packing.

 

Democracy is not what the 'approved' constitution will bring.

[Eric Loh]

5 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

The trouble is that even IF PTP would win (even when they win an outright majority in the lower house, just as last time) it doesn't really matter. The senate not only is instrumental in the election of the PM, they have the authority to sent the government packing.

 

Democracy is not what the 'approved' constitution will bring.

 

I will reserve my comment after the draft charter revision. I think that the revision involves the senate authority to elect a non-elected PM. I also think that political parties do have some 'tricks' to bring some of the appointed senators to their sides. IMHO. 

[PatOngo]

The Crossroads.........sell your soul to the Devil.......get on the gravy train!