Share your thoughts

Discussion 1 : 01/11/2012 at 07:42 AM

To all those who feel a govt holding 51% of the vote in parliament is entitled to use that to change something as important as the constitution, consider that we would forever be changing the charter back and forth with self-serving articles and amendments every time we had a change of guard at govt house. Supposing PT splinters again, the opposition take power and immediately reverse all the changes. We should be suspicious of a govt initiating a process that gives it an unfair advantage (e.g proposing one representative per province despite the unbalanced per capita representation). 2/3 parliament approval for charter change is standard.

Discussion 2 : 31/10/2012 at 09:44 PM

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Thomas Jefferson, July 12, 1816

Discussion 3 : 31/10/2012 at 06:03 PM

By requiring the 2/3 majority from the MP's could pose problems that could be in direct conflict with the majority of the public voters wishes. The vote should go directly to the public. The constitution belongs to the people.

Discussion 4 : 31/10/2012 at 05:34 PM

The Government wants to make changes to the Constitution, asks the Chamber of Representatives to approve the NEXT Legislature to be 'constituent', if a 3/4 (or 2/3) majority of MPs agrees, the different groups prepare their project of revision... FFW... The Parliament by a same consolidated majority approves the final negotiated project, which is followed by a Referendum requiring a majority in the 4 main regions: North, East, Central, South. That's Democracy!

Discussion 5 : 31/10/2012 at 05:32 PM

Why is it there is never a call for fresh elections from the oppositon to this government. In 2006 there was not a call for new elections before or after the illegal coup. Why is it the 1997 constitution was removed immediately after the coup without question. Why is it there are calls for a judical or military coup now and the only thing the UDD ask for was fresh elections. Why is it the 2006 constitution was the only thing offered other than a continual military rule. Is this all starting to make sense.

Discussion 6 : 31/10/2012 at 04:40 PM

Bikeme dis#37, the fresh charter review has all the elements that you brought up. The government does not have all luxury even though they have majority in Parliment. First they have to hold a referendum to ask the public to decide if the charter re-write can proceed. Second the government does not dominate the CDA. It consist of 77 members from all provinces including Demo held southern provinces. And they will be 22 appointed member expert in related fields like law, political science, environment etc. you simply can't have forums as its too time consuming and it's the responsibility of the 77 members to collect their opinions from their pr

Discussion 7 : 31/10/2012 at 02:13 PM

D31 Eric - it really doesn't matter how the 2007 constitution came about, it exists and we can't change how it was created. The ONLY thing that counts is the future. And that means making sure that ANY changes to the constitution are based on the needs and the voice of the Thai people ... not a party that hold only a 51% majority ... not a fugitive hiding in Dubai ... Form a constitutional committee with no political appointments (half elected by population based districting, half selected by peers of socio-economic groups), let them hold public forums, let them decide based on the public's feedback what if anything needs changing, then

Discussion 8 : 31/10/2012 at 01:24 PM

I think if we re-write the constitution, how about some anti-nepotism clauses? Perhaps term limits (1-2) for ALL members of parliament? What about permanent political bans for anyone convicted in a court of law, effectively retroactively? Surely this is a middle ground all honest people can meet on, if we seek clean governance. Propose this, and make the Thaksinites openly defend nepotism and corruption.

Discussion 9 : 31/10/2012 at 01:17 PM

With all the challenges facing Thailand today - all clearly solvable by a competent, honest, government under the current constitution - it is evident that PTP is as incompetent as they are destructively self-serving. They must realize, that in addition to not addressing the nation's challenges, they are creating new ones with this unwarranted attempt to rewrite the constitution.

Discussion 10 : 31/10/2012 at 01:04 PM

The Government is supposed to be for the people it seems here it is for themselves and forget the people.How many times have they had a go at changing the constitution because it did not suit the government's needs and forget the majority of peoples needs.It would appear the main driver to change is to get a certain criminal back.

Discussion 11 : 31/10/2012 at 12:45 PM

Facts_Only # 29, I would appreciate you give all the facts, "former members of the Communist Party of Thailand" is a one sided comment. There are many more of them in the UDD and the like, to the point that they are creating "Red Villages". Now that I call a Communist symbol par excellence.

Discussion 12 : 31/10/2012 at 12:35 PM

The Big Boss does not get it. Until he repents or until he passes on naturally there will be no peace in this country. I don't suppose he reads history unless it is a profit/loss table.His dynastic ambitions are beyond the understanding of his supporters - the rich who want the fall-out: the poor who think all will be well. How can a convicted person in Thai Law work in Myanmar (according to his PAID advisor) on behalf of a sister? Hmmm! Does she not believe in Thai legal procedures?

Discussion 13 : 31/10/2012 at 11:57 AM

Bikeme dis#26, nice words about people opinions. Then you surely will not support the current constitution which is drafted by the coup appointees - much critized but ignored and key charter drafters resigned in protest - referendum held with a must not fail clause I.e. if referendum failed, the junta has the right to promulgate any constitution of their choosing. Certainly no sign of people's opinion. And 59.39% referendum votes for put of 55.6% of junta qualified voters. This also answer to dis#27 on what so bad about the current constitution.

Discussion 14 : 31/10/2012 at 11:32 AM

D24@wandee - but the process you suggest (Set up a body by decree that will rewrite the constitution and put it in front of the people) has produced a Constitution which a significant proportion of the population does not respect. Why do you think using the same process would produce a different result? Two wrongs do not a right make

Discussion 15 : 31/10/2012 at 10:04 AM

somnamna 12 - "Welcome to the new communist State of Thailand" "Siam Pitak group plans to escalate protest action...The event drew various anti-government groups including...former members of the Communist Party of Thailand, and supporters of the opposition Democrat Party." - BangkokPost, Oct 29, 2012

Discussion 16 : 31/10/2012 at 09:58 AM

disc 22-23-24-25-26- Somnamna ...wow you r on fire today ..thanks ,very good comments...Thai political leaders have one thing in mind ....Control..... everything and be more powerfull then everybody in thailand , then they can do what they want and put money where they want ..in their pocket . Control is the power for them .Not helping the Thai people, not helping the country to get back on track after many dark years( Killing in the south , burning and killing in bkk. ect ect) ,and not to bring the country to be a model for other asian country.but just helping their friends and look at how they can control there money( thaipeople money )

Discussion 17 : 31/10/2012 at 09:44 AM

RE: D16.....Tell us what you did not like about the old constitution and why you think the present one is so much better and more democratic ?

Discussion 18 : 31/10/2012 at 09:02 AM

Once again the PTP are approaching this backwards ... they should be getting the people's opinion as to what needs to be changed if anything with the constitution, not trying to change people's opinions to match their vision. Whatever happened to all of the public meetings and forums that have been promised time & time again? It is just PTP dictatorship as normal.

Discussion 19 : 31/10/2012 at 09:00 AM

D18 Domdunn - your description sounds just like what the PTP propose, their version, voted in by their people and no place for the opposition or public to contribute to the drafting. You are replacing a one sided constitution with a different one sided constitution.

Discussion 20 : 31/10/2012 at 08:56 AM

Why not do what the military did when ousting Thaskin? Set up a body by decree that will rewrite the constitution and put it in front of the people. Nobody complaint at that time and the old constitution, according to sources in the West hailed as the most liberal constitution in this part of the world was scrapped.

Discussion 21 : 31/10/2012 at 08:46 AM

He does not think about merit and sin. He thinks about how he can be a powerful man. He wants to be the leader of everybody, the big boss of everybody. This kind of thinking to me reflects not Thai Buddhism, but his ancestor’s imperial thinking, Other Thai political leaders have not acted like that, if you look back, No Thai leader in history has ever tried to do this.

Discussion 22 : 31/10/2012 at 08:45 AM

He manipulated and the poor by giving them fish but not teaching them how to fish. This is why the poor is always poor and dependent. Vote buying by Thaksin is rampant in rural area in Thailand with utterly no shame and that is not constitutional at all?!! Please do not judge election win by majority is democratic in the civil world sense. His money can turn black into white.

Discussion 23 : 31/10/2012 at 08:37 AM

Thaksin had little interest in strengthening Thailand’s democracy. Indeed, like Hugo Chávez, Vladimir Putin, Evo Morales, and other leaders who have emerged in many weak democracies today, Thaksin became an elected autocrat. He used his power to threaten Thailand’s free media, eviscerate its independent civil service, and launch a bloody campaign against insurgents in the country’s Muslim-majority south. Like other elected autocrats, Thaksin also rewarded political allies with large government contracts and punished political enemies financially.

Discussion 24 : 31/10/2012 at 08:37 AM

Thai political leaders / greedy businessmen have waged wars to rob the country by any means they have even starved their own people to guard their self interest. The only one valid purpose for the government is protecting its people, protecting the people from those violating, initiating force against them. When government moves beyond that one valid purpose of protecting the people, and begins pushing its agenda on the populous; whether that be from the red, or yellow it makes no difference because their surpassing the one and only proper purpose of government and that's to protect the people. At that point, no matter how right they believe.

Discussion 25 : 31/10/2012 at 08:30 AM

l am surprised that a man of so much unual wealth,a convicted criminal having to go down this route (reconcillation bill ) to overturn his conviction so he can return to his country,the conviction wasnt politically motivated as some suggested,but actul fact and well documented and with all his ill gotten money cannot overturn the surpreme courts ruling ? the propaganda of pt for demorcracy,the new pt leader was the only nominee,chosen by only one man,its laughable

Discussion 26 : 31/10/2012 at 08:04 AM

brilliant D16 I'm surprised that you don't understand that there is world of difference between making simple electoral choices such as which party is most likely to meet your day to day aspirations and making judgements on constitutional issues many of which would tax the brain of a qualified constitutional lawyer. My doubts about the ability of the man in the street to resolve complicated constitutional issues is not limited to Thai people.

Discussion 27 : 31/10/2012 at 07:49 AM

brilliant D7 And if PT allowed a vote on the same basis as the junta did, -The Government leads the campaigns for it. -Civil servants and the army are forced to campaign for it. -The opposition and others are not allowed to oppose it. -In the event of a 'no' vote the government gets to impose its own version which may or may not be the one voted on. I presume you think the government would lose. To quote your favourite saying, LOL!!!

Discussion 28 : 31/10/2012 at 07:41 AM

johnb - please. Do some research of your own and some critical thinking. PTP wants to shove a constitution down the throats of Thailand, it's judiciary and it's people. They don't want a referendum. Period. They've said so. And dom has constantly said the Thai people are not sophisticated or smart enough to vote on a referendum. So PTP and it's supporters want a free pass on making this a legitimate, publicly approved constitution. I laugh at dom because one minute he's talking about how smart the Thai electorate is by voting in Thaksin(or Yingluck, depends on the day and which way the wind is blowing) yet the next minute, he is saying the Th

Discussion 29 : 31/10/2012 at 07:24 AM

Jarupong was voted in as new PT secretary general with 332 yes votes, and two spoilt ballots, sounds like the usual farce, what happened to the other 'candidates' does this political party really agree so unanimously, or were they all told what to do by their owner in Dubai. A few months ago they were telling us all they would amend the charter point-by-point, given the resistance to a re-write, of course they doesn't help free Thaksin quite as effectively. I personally think we have a constitution that is mostly fine but could use some amending of certain unrealistic articles, a total re-write would of course serve a different purpose.

Discussion 30 : 31/10/2012 at 07:18 AM

D2: at this stage in time it does not really matter how the current constitution came into place. The fact is whe have it and either it is good (for the country) or it is not and then it needs to be amended. If it needs to be amended, then it should be done in a proper way, otherwise we will have people (like youe) complaining in five years that the constituation was not drafted in proper ways and according to decent standards. As pointed out many times by others, the one in front of you driving over a red-light does not make it legimitate for you to drive over it too. Somebody has to start to play by the rules.

Discussion 31 : 31/10/2012 at 07:17 AM

It is easy to see the current constitution is constructed to favor one side and yes it is time for a new equal rights, freedoms, liberties, constitution.

Discussion 32 : 31/10/2012 at 07:16 AM

Welcome to the new communist State of Thailand. congratulation commis.

Discussion 33 : 31/10/2012 at 06:54 AM

Glad to see the government has got it priorities in order - not. Daily deaths in the south, the 3G debacle, the rising cost of everything, exports falling, the rice scheme debts and from Sundays rally a possible renewed round of conflict. My gut feeling is there are more pressing matters that will help the ordinary person that needs the governments (and oppositions) energy.

Discussion 34 : 31/10/2012 at 06:52 AM

Alot of ignorant responses to this article.....the only reason to change the constitution is to bring back Taksin...period, end of story...that's the only reason. It's not for the good of the country, it's for the good of one person and all his buddies who hope to reap the spoils of all their greed and corruption.

Discussion 35 : 31/10/2012 at 06:50 AM

brilliant (?); You may think Dom Dunn is "LOL", but he has obviously read about the undemocratic way in which this constitution was drafted and passed. You obviously haven't or you simply wouldn't support it. Also PT, have clearly stated they would have a public referendum after the new constitution has been drafted. Don't comment without finding out the relevant facts.

Discussion 36 : 31/10/2012 at 05:51 AM

Dems will be very busy again with this new charter amendment bill proposal.

Discussion 37 : 31/10/2012 at 04:58 AM

dom - "It is an undemocratic and ignoble document and should be replaced as soon as possible" LOL, well considering that the public did get to vote on it is better than shoving it through with no vote or thought for the public as PTP has demonstrated they will do. wakeup - forget it, rational does not work with red supporters.

Discussion 38 : 31/10/2012 at 04:47 AM

Iff this new constitution ( to bring back the man from Dubai ) is accepted by the public then we will see a coup or a civil war .....meaning the tourist will be told by their goverment to not travel in Thailand( lot of tourist job will be loss for sure) and also means that the goverment promess to do the reconciliation was just a big lie....Nothing was done yet in more then a year plus nothing was done for the south problem ...the focus is only for 1 man not for the Thai people ....wow.... soooo longtime and energy waste for 1 man ....like i always say we need youngnew blood in charge of a new goverment

Discussion 39 : 31/10/2012 at 04:24 AM

Khun Domdunnn #2, the US Constitution was conceived, and drafted by a handful of people, the so-called "Founding Fathers." Worst, it was ratified by another handful of representatives from all the 13 colonies then, without being voted on by the people in those colonies. Worst ever, an army general, named George Washington was appointed to serve as the first President of the newly found nation, who refused to be made "King George" nor serving for the third term. The Electoral College System and the 3/4 Supermajority requirement to amend the Constitution is anything but democratic. But how come today, the American people are the best repres

Discussion 40 : 31/10/2012 at 04:20 AM

#2 is talking about 58% not being a super majority and the current constitution being on shaky grounds. PTP was voted in by 48% of participating voters, 32% of all eligible voters - not even a popular majority. Now that's shaky grounds, and not the foundation you'd expect a party to launch a charter change from - not one they hope will be successful at any rate.

Discussion 41 : 31/10/2012 at 04:19 AM

before it can be changed the population should vote whether it should be changed not the other way round. the thai constitution can't be that important if they just change it every time new politicians feel like it.

Discussion 42 : 31/10/2012 at 03:37 AM

Spiceman D1. The current constitution is a very different beast to the US Constitution, it was passed without any support from the opposition and only 58% of the voters supported it, not a super majority by any means. And remember that whilst it was illegal to campaign against it, the army and thousands of civil servants were mobilised to drum up support, not exactly an even playing field. Plus the military junta refused to say what would happen if the people voted 'no', hardly what you'd call giving them democratic choice. It is an undemocratic and ignoble document and should be replaced as soon as possible

Discussion 43 : 31/10/2012 at 02:23 AM

In the US, it takes a 3/4 Supermajority to amend the US Constitution, meaning that at least 1/2 of the Opposition must be willing to go along with it. I suggest Thailand do the same or risk worsening the already bad crisis toward possibly a civil war.