Thread: House speaker recommends fast-track charter rewrite

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Thaihome

Thus, it may not be surprising that the Thai definition of democracy, in response to criticism over issues as diverse as the thinly veiled amnesty bills for Thaksin to the mass killings of suspected drug dealers, is simply “we have the most votes.”

indeed, the monkey school of thought, promoted here by sab and Calgary

Or "might is right", one of the ultra-right wing/conservative favourite mantras.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Thaihome

Thus, it may not be surprising that the Thai definition of democracy, in response to criticism over issues as diverse as the thinly veiled amnesty bills for Thaksin to the mass killings of suspected drug dealers, is simply “we have the most votes.”

indeed, the monkey school of thought, promoted here by sab and Calgary

Or "might is right", one of the ultra-right wing/conservative favourite mantras.

Yes, electorally speaking.

Any other questions?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Or "might is right", one of the ultra-right wing/conservative favourite mantras.

also known as RWA, a trait 100% present in conservatives, moderate or otherwise, sign of the mind of a sheep

While the constitution court is clearly biased, there has to be some respect for the law.

No it doesn't.

Not for coupist law......electoral law is another thing altogether.

But the damage this is doing to the court system here has far reaching implications....and may have severe consequences.

Correcting coupist law and the 'double standards' it bred, is merely repairing damage....not creating it.

[QUOTE]New bunch of judges? Who chooses them?[/QUOTE]

The elected representatives of the people.

Any other questions?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Admiral P trying to block charter change: Pheu Thai spokesman - The Nation

Admiral P trying to block charter change: Pheu Thai spokesman

June 8, 2012 3:40 pm

An admiral with the initial P was the mastermind of a plot to derail the charter change bill, Pheu Thai Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said on Friday.

"Retired admiral P has joined hands with the government opponents in a conspiracy," he said.

Prompong said the admiral was pulling strings designed to project the escalating conflict and chaos in the legislature in order to pave way for an intervention to usurp power.

He said the public should not fall prey to such a political ploy. The charter change as per Article 291 of the Constitution will not topple the democratic rule with the King as head of state as alleged, he said.

The Nation

it's getting hilarious, PT and friends are in full paranoid mode, they all starting to sound like Calgary

jesus, what a bunch of deranged freaks, and they want to run a country in that state of mind, perfect condition for the creation of a brutal dictatorship ala Cambodia,

Originally Posted by Calgary

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Thaihome

Thus, it may not be surprising that the Thai definition of democracy, in response to criticism over issues as diverse as the thinly veiled amnesty bills for Thaksin to the mass killings of suspected drug dealers, is simply “we have the most votes.”

indeed, the monkey school of thought, promoted here by sab and Calgary

Or "might is right", one of the ultra-right wing/conservative favourite mantras.

Yes, electorally speaking.

Any other questions?

Yes, why is it that you support dictatorship?

Democracy isn't about domination and absolute power/control. What you appear to be condoning is tyranny.

Democracy is about negotiation and compromise.

Originally Posted by Thaihome

Traditionally, Thai governments have expected to be totally exempt from pressure from the public or other checks and balances once they are in power. The independent organizations and judiciary oversight enshrined in the 1997 constitution were an anathema to many in the Thai political world.

Intellectual gobble-de-gook.

Even to the point of visiting the sins of the coupist constitution upon the 1997 version.

Trying to imply that this CC thing is an honorable effort at checks and balances doesn't fly.

Checks and balances using coupist entities do not check and balance. They are merely an effort to project coupist shenanigans into the future, and force them upon an elected Government.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Originally Posted by Calgary

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Thaihome

Thus, it may not be surprising that the Thai definition of democracy, in response to criticism over issues as diverse as the thinly veiled amnesty bills for Thaksin to the mass killings of suspected drug dealers, is simply “we have the most votes.”

indeed, the monkey school of thought, promoted here by sab and Calgary

Or "might is right", one of the ultra-right wing/conservative favourite mantras.

Yes, electorally speaking.

Any other questions?

Yes, why is it that you support dictatorship?

Democracy isn't about domination and absolute power/control. What you appear to be condoning is tyranny.

Democracy is about negotiation and compromise.

After the recent tyranny of the minority, anything else is refreshing.

Amart and PADite's efforts to cast a Parliamentary majority as being Parliamentary dictatorship, is just being a sore loser.

Originally Posted by Calgary

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Originally Posted by Calgary

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Originally Posted by Butterfly

indeed, the monkey school of thought, promoted here by sab and Calgary

Or "might is right", one of the ultra-right wing/conservative favourite mantras.

Yes, electorally speaking.

Any other questions?

Yes, why is it that you support dictatorship?

Democracy isn't about domination and absolute power/control. What you appear to be condoning is tyranny.

Democracy is about negotiation and compromise.

After the recent tyranny of the minority, anything else is refreshing.

Amart and PADite's efforts to cast a Parliamentary majority as being Parliamentary dictatorship, is just being a sore loser.

No, it is reality.

Thaksin tried it before. I guess you weren't here then.

He already has complete control of the police here. Of course he has total control of Parliament.

If you think it is a good situation that he can reign unopposed, then all you are doing is advocating dictatorship.

The Constitution Court, created by the 1997 Constitution is one of the essental 'checks and balances' here. The current bunch of judges are clearly biased and compromised, but the actual court itself needs to be kept. Unless you think the 1997 Constitution is somehow wrong too?

Somebody needs to keep those DH's in control.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Democracy is about negotiation and compromise.

not in Thailand, it's about those who won dictating everything to those who lost

isn't it wonderful ?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Yes, why is it that you support dictatorship?

Democracy isn't about domination and absolute power/control. What you appear to be condoning is tyranny.

Democracy is about negotiation and compromise.

Democracy is simply a framework for choosing and more importantly remove a government without the need for civil wars or messy revolutions.

It has nothing to do with the nature of the government that gets elected, democracy does not automatically mean liberal inclusive government, it can just as easily be a dictatorship or hard line religious rule.

For me all an election does is appoint a government with a mandate to run the country, but a duty to run that country taking into account the wishes of the entire electorate. If it fails in that duty, then it should expect trouble. If the government does something seriously wrong, you protest and if necessary attempt to bring it down. It does not matter that the government has a mandate to run the country, it does not matter that they are simply carrying out their electoral promises... you go to the streets.

I have lived though this, I have had to make the choice and been on those streets. It is for this reason I find the faith some people have in the sancity of the peoples mandate, the sanctity of the parliamentary majority, the peoples right to self determination and for some of them the belief that a government should have unfettered power to rule a country very nieve... to the point that for most of them I really don't think in their heart they believe this any more than I do.

Originally Posted by hazz

I have lived though this, I have had to make the choice and been on those streets.

And when you were "on the streets", were you consciously acting as a proxy force for a military/royalist conspiracy that had subverted democratic procedure and denied the principle of popular sovereignty for the previous 60 years or so? Your point is a good one, in theory, but we are not "in theory" here, we are in Thailand.

This thread is making me question ever having given up on calling you people "PADites", because the twisting and squirming and shoveling of horseshit to justify the continued marginalization of parliament, the only representative body in the system of checks and balances being celebrated and distorted here, is precisely what they are about.

Sorry I ever questioned your approach, Calgary.

Originally Posted by hazz

It has nothing to do with the nature of the government that gets elected, democracy does not automatically mean liberal inclusive government, it can just as easily be a dictatorship or hard line religious rule.

you seem to be mistaken like our red friends in your definition of Democracy.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

This thread is making me question ever having given up on calling you people "PADites", because the twisting and squirming and shoveling of horseshit to justify the continued marginalization of parliament, the only representative body in the system of checks and balances being celebrated and distorted here, is precisely what they are about.

here we go, when everything else fails with your TEFLEr logic, subscribe to Calgary line of thought

soon you will be losing your mind completely

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Sorry I ever questioned your approach, Calgary.

you never questioned it in the first place, you are a raving loon like him, and now you can't hold it no more publicly and need to do your full coming out in loons terms

Originally Posted by mao say dung

"........... the twisting and squirming and shoveling of horseshit to justify the continued marginalization of parliament, the only representative body in the system of checks and balances being celebrated and distorted here, is precisely what they (PADites) are about.

I saw some more evidence of obscure forces "twisting and squirming" to marginalize a Democratically elected Govt. they really don't want.

On a website frequented by Red Shirts this morning, I saw foto's of a gathering of 'Communist' sympathisers in Khon kean.

I didn't even know they existed.

There they were, being addressed by a Government Official.

Ostensibly, they gathered to support the CC judges and the powers behind them.

Who instigated that?........................... We can all speculate about it, but rest assured, it was from the shadows.

So the forces from the shadows we can speculate about, are very actively fomenting disparate groups, with which to stand up to democratic forces and to achieve their objectives via this anti-democratic CC institution.

I keep being reminded that these Judges upon their retirement age of 70, graduate to the "Privy Council".

Over to you!

[QUOTE=Calgary;1861295]

Originally Posted by Bangkok Post

Asked if the new constitution would bring about an amnesty for politicians, Mr Somsak said the decision would rest with people. The new charter would not be designed to favour a particular person.[/QUOTE]

Abhi. and Suthep must be shaking in their flip-flops.

Not sure a new constitution will absolve them of Ratchaprasong.

But will it absolve the Red-shirts or Thaksin for that matter ????????????

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Originally Posted by hazz

I have lived though this, I have had to make the choice and been on those streets.

And when you were "on the streets", were you consciously acting as a proxy force for a military/royalist conspiracy that had subverted democratic procedure and denied the principle of popular sovereignty for the previous 60 years or so? Your point is a good one, in theory, but we are not "in theory" here, we are in Thailand.

This thread is making me question ever having given up on calling you people "PADites", because the twisting and squirming and shoveling of horseshit to justify the continued marginalization of parliament, the only representative body in the system of checks and balances being celebrated and distorted here, is precisely what they are about.

Sorry I ever questioned your approach, Calgary.

There were lots of accusations that we were proxies of the Russians and the revolutionary hard left, that we were fighting for an anti-democratic minority who had successfully taken down elected an government that threatened their interests by attempting to implement its electoral promises and routinely interfered with the sovereignty of parliament in the narrow interests of its membership. Many of these accusations were true and to be honest, my attitude then and now is whats that got to do with it, if I am fighting for a principle I believe cannot be compromised?

As for the padit, coupist accusations, I guess you could be right. After all, in supporting the miners in 1984 I was attempting to overthrow a democratically elected government with a mandate from the people to curtail trade union power and for a trade union that had successfully brought down a government in the 1970's. By the broad definition definition of coup that used in these threads these would be an attempted and successful coup respectively. There's the coupist supporter

It is also arguable that I was supporting an anti democratic minority that were prepared to use the raw power they possessed to force government policy to favour their own narrow interests at the expense of the country as a whole and undermine the sovereignty of parliament. Certainly many conservatives in the UK made this point to me. I guess that might be good enough for a padit accusation.

But what does this make you chaps. Mrs T was a firm believer in the the "right of the elected government to rule", "the sovereignty of the popular mandate" and rather like you she would also bang on about it all the time.
she absolutely believed in the type of democracy that you promote for thailand and given this shared belief in these general principles of democracy; its a bit of a shame that TD wasn't around so that you could tell us that we should be respecting her popular mandate and just let her get on with destroying the trade unions, implementing her unfair taxes and generally turning the uk in to some kind of neocon utopia.

Had the UK's upper chamber and court been less tame, its highly likely that Mrs T would have done a lot less damage to the UK.
Whilst I cannot speak for the others its where my personal belief that parliaments need to have independent upper chambers and courts as a counter balance to the tendency to elect autocrats. Yes these institutions are broken in thailand, but they need fixed and made independent, not abolished.

The twisting and diving you describe me and others doing isn't support of pad and what it stands for, despite the claims I have yet to see anyone on this forum that supports the political aims of PAD. we are simply attempting to get you to consider the flip side of your arguments. Remebr that general principles are not partisan they apply equally to everyone, not just the people you happen to like.

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Originally Posted by hazz

I have lived though this, I have had to make the choice and been on those streets.

And when you were "on the streets", were you consciously acting as a proxy force for a military/royalist conspiracy that had subverted democratic procedure and denied the principle of popular sovereignty for the previous 60 years or so? Your point is a good one, in theory, but we are not "in theory" here, we are in Thailand.

This thread is making me question ever having given up on calling you people "PADites", because the twisting and squirming and shoveling of horseshit to justify the continued marginalization of parliament, the only representative body in the system of checks and balances being celebrated and distorted here, is precisely what they are about.

Sorry I ever questioned your approach, Calgary.

There were lots of accusations that we were proxies of the Russians and the revolutionary hard left, that we were fighting for an anti-democratic minority who had successfully taken down elected an government that threatened their interests by attempting to implement its electoral promises and routinely interfered with the sovereignty of parliament in the narrow interests of its membership. Many of these accusations were true and to be honest, my attitude then and now is whats that got to do with it, if I am fighting for a principle I believe cannot be compromised?

As for the padit, coupist accusations, I guess you could be right. After all, in supporting the miners in 1984 I was attempting to overthrow a democratically elected government with a mandate from the people to curtail trade union power and for a trade union that had successfully brought down a government in the 1970's. By the broad definition definition of coup that used in these threads these would be an attempted and successful coup respectively. There's the coupist supporter

It is also arguable that I was supporting an anti democratic minority that were prepared to use the raw power they possessed to force government policy to favour their own narrow interests at the expense of the country as a whole and undermine the sovereignty of parliament. Certainly many conservatives in the UK made this point to me. I guess that might be good enough for a padit accusation.

But what does this make you chaps. Mrs T was a firm believer in the the "right of the elected government to rule", "the sovereignty of the popular mandate" and rather like you she would also bang on about it all the time.
she absolutely believed in the type of democracy that you promote for thailand and given this shared belief in these general principles of democracy; its a bit of a shame that TD wasn't around so that you could tell us that we should be respecting her popular mandate and just let her get on with destroying the trade unions, implementing her unfair taxes and generally turning the uk in to some kind of neocon utopia.

Had the UK's upper chamber and court been less tame, its highly likely that Mrs T would have done a lot less damage to the UK.
Whilst I cannot speak for the others its where my personal belief that parliaments need to have independent upper chambers and courts as a counter balance to the tendency to elect autocrats. Yes these institutions are broken in thailand, but they need fixed and made independent, not abolished.

The twisting and diving you describe me and others doing isn't support of pad and what it stands for, despite the claims I have yet to see anyone on this forum that supports the political aims of PAD. we are simply attempting to get you to consider the flip side of your arguments. Remebr that general principles are not partisan they apply equally to everyone, not just the people you happen to like.

Excellent post. Absolutely nailed it.

Constitution Court was only 'doing its duty' | Bangkok Post: news

In PRINT

Constitution Court was only 'doing its duty'

Controversial order was made because allegations raised in petitions were too serious to ignore

• Published: 9/06/2012 at 03:14 AM
• Newspaper section: News

Constitution Court president Wasan Soipisudh defended the court's decision to accept for examination petitions against the charter amendment bill and to order parliament to suspend the third reading until the court has completed the job, reported Post Today.


Constitution Court president Wasan Soipisudh says the court was well within its rights to accept the anti-amendment petitions for consideration.

Mr Wasan said the issue was grave but it did not mean the court will immediately rule in favour of the plaintiff who also petitioned the Attorney-General's Office and the Administrative Court to look into the case.

He said the court was within its rights to accept the petition for consideration. It did not issue the order for parliament to comply, but was just informing the Office of the House of Representatives to tell the parliamentary president about its decision. Whatever action the parliament decided to take was its own responsibility.

"They will have to accept the responsibility in the future [if they defy the court's injunction]. I would not meddle as it is the parliament's affair. I would not want to be accused of lecturing them."

Now the court will examine the petition to see whether there is any merit to the plaintiff's allegation that there was an attempt to topple democracy and the constitutional monarchy, he said, citing the Constitution's Section 68. If the court finds in favour of the plaintiff, it could issue an order to stop the action, which may or may not include dissolving a political party.

"I don't want to talk about dissolving a political party, as it is still too far off," Mr Wasan said. "Right now, I don't even know whether the accused will come to the court to testify. Just accepting the petition for consideration has already generated a lot of problems."

He urged the accused not to boycott the court as the court will not be able to gather the information to determine whether the plaintiff's case is justified or not.

Since the plaintiff's allegation is serious, the court could not sit tight, but had to accept the case for consideration to ascertain the facts. It will not damage the country if parliament cooperates and postpones the third reading for one month.

Mr Wasan explained that the court accepted the plaintiff's petition for consideration because the court deemed it was feasible that the constitutional monarchy could be toppled as the new constitution could be written in any manner by the constitution drafting assembly.

The court's critics point out that a constitution drafting assembly drafted the 1997 Constitution with no problems. Mr Wasan noted during that time the country was governed under the 1991 Constitution which had only a constitution panel to make a ruling on whether any law was against the constitution. The 1991 Constitution also did not have any provision for an individual's rights to protect the charter.

So the 1991 Constitution could be amended in any manner without an objection. But the 1997 Constitution established a constitution court and there was a provision to grant a citizen's rights to protect the constitution. The circumstances are not the same.

About critics' observation that the Constitution Court was a political tool of the ammart (the elite), Mr Wasan wanted the critics to name names, saying whoever becomes a judge must base his ruling on legal codes and the evidence and facts presented.

Mr Wasan said he could not say whether the parliament would face any consequences if it defied the court's injunction as MPs believed they were capable.

Mr Wasan said all of the judges are worried about divisiveness.

"Those who accuse the court of double standards don't even know what it means. Double standards means two identical cases being given different verdicts. Those who always cite 'double standards', thinking it is clever and trendy, don't possess any intelligence."

Don't trample charter

As long as the 2007 Constitution is in force, any ruling by the charter court is final. There is no appeal and there is no other authority to counter it because Section 216 says "the Constitution Court's ruling is final and binding for the parliament, cabinets, courts and other government organisations", noted a Thai Rath writer.

Those who are displeased with a court ruling and decide to protest against it either do not know or are pretending not to know that they are acting against the constitution.

The Pheu Thai Party's Chaturon Chaisaeng's criticism was only a personal opinion with no standard to back it. It was only rhetoric, designed to please the "Big Boss", said the writer.

It was true any criticism of the court's ruling would not incur any punishment except showing the speaker's own stupidity or bull-headedness to the public. However, if the parliament president decided to defy the ruling and proceed with the third reading of the constitution amendment bill, then a wrongful act would result.

Such action was obviously against the constitution. The parliament president, deputy presidents, MPs and parliament officials who organised the meeting would be held accountable.

Would Somsak Kiatsuranont, House speaker as well as parliament president, dare to defy the court's injunction? Thai Rath did not think so. Nor did the prime minister who needs to tread carefully.

Thai Rath ridiculed the attempt by red-shirt leaders to gather signatures to submit to the Senate to impeach all of the Constitution Court judges except for Chat Cholaworn, the single voice which opposed the decision, as being no more than a bad joke.

With such outright hostility, there is no reason to doubt that if a new Constitution is written, the fate of the charter court would be dire indeed.

If the Constitution Court could be meddled with, would the Administrative Court and the court system be spared? Don't even talk about other organisations - government or non-government - whose social prestige and status are even less. They would be trampled and totally dominated by political goons, concluded Thai Rath.

As for your hate for Thatcher and thinly veiled attack on market economy, let the history run its course and then you will see - too late though

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Originally Posted by hazz

I have lived though this, I have had to make the choice and been on those streets.

And when you were "on the streets", were you consciously acting as a proxy force for a military/royalist conspiracy that had subverted democratic procedure and denied the principle of popular sovereignty for the previous 60 years or so? Your point is a good one, in theory, but we are not "in theory" here, we are in Thailand.

This thread is making me question ever having given up on calling you people "PADites", because the twisting and squirming and shoveling of horseshit to justify the continued marginalization of parliament, the only representative body in the system of checks and balances being celebrated and distorted here, is precisely what they are about.

Sorry I ever questioned your approach, Calgary.

There were lots of accusations that we were proxies of the Russians and the revolutionary hard left, that we were fighting for an anti-democratic minority who had successfully taken down elected an government that threatened their interests by attempting to implement its electoral promises and routinely interfered with the sovereignty of parliament in the narrow interests of its membership. Many of these accusations were true and to be honest, my attitude then and now is whats that got to do with it, if I am fighting for a principle I believe cannot be compromised?

As for the padit, coupist accusations, I guess you could be right. After all, in supporting the miners in 1984 I was attempting to overthrow a democratically elected government with a mandate from the people to curtail trade union power and for a trade union that had successfully brought down a government in the 1970's. By the broad definition definition of coup that used in these threads these would be an attempted and successful coup respectively. There's the coupist supporter

It is also arguable that I was supporting an anti democratic minority that were prepared to use the raw power they possessed to force government policy to favour their own narrow interests at the expense of the country as a whole and undermine the sovereignty of parliament. Certainly many conservatives in the UK made this point to me. I guess that might be good enough for a padit accusation.

But what does this make you chaps. Mrs T was a firm believer in the the "right of the elected government to rule", "the sovereignty of the popular mandate" and rather like you she would also bang on about it all the time.
she absolutely believed in the type of democracy that you promote for thailand and given this shared belief in these general principles of democracy; its a bit of a shame that TD wasn't around so that you could tell us that we should be respecting her popular mandate and just let her get on with destroying the trade unions, implementing her unfair taxes and generally turning the uk in to some kind of neocon utopia.

Had the UK's upper chamber and court been less tame, its highly likely that Mrs T would have done a lot less damage to the UK.
Whilst I cannot speak for the others its where my personal belief that parliaments need to have independent upper chambers and courts as a counter balance to the tendency to elect autocrats. Yes these institutions are broken in thailand, but they need fixed and made independent, not abolished.

The twisting and diving you describe me and others doing isn't support of pad and what it stands for, despite the claims I have yet to see anyone on this forum that supports the political aims of PAD. we are simply attempting to get you to consider the flip side of your arguments. Remebr that general principles are not partisan they apply equally to everyone, not just the people you happen to like.

Anyone who disagrees with you is ultra-right wing? Right. You sound like butters, but perhaps you just picked that up from him? Your intelligence score is down by [security clearance level 1 required]

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Thaihome

Thus, it may not be surprising that the Thai definition of democracy, in response to criticism over issues as diverse as the thinly veiled amnesty bills for Thaksin to the mass killings of suspected drug dealers, is simply “we have the most votes.”

indeed, the monkey school of thought, promoted here by sab and Calgary

Or "might is right", one of the ultra-right wing/conservative favourite mantras.