Court offers 'advice' only

Published: 13 Jul 2012 at 21.32
Online news:

The government can continue with third reading of its charter change bill and ignore the Constitution Court's call for a public referendum if it wants to draft a new constitution. However, it would have to accept the consequences, the court's head spokesman said on Friday.

Pimin Thammapitakwong said the court voted 8-0 that the charter amendment was within the scope of parliament’s authority, and that there was no evidence to prove any alleged intention to topple the constitutional monarchy.

However, the court did not "order" that a referendum must be held if the government wanted to write an entirely new constitution, as some commentators had concluded when the ruling was first announced on Friday afternoon.

This article is older than 60 days, which we reserve for our premium members only.You can subscribe to our premium member subscription, here.

Your comments

brilliant
Post : 1,462
Send message

Discussion 11 : 14 Jul 2012 at 21.3011
Post this to my Facebook
"but to claim some special protection for this constitution against parliamentary change, because a majority voted for it, is a very dubious argument."

??? So the majority voting for it doesn't matter? I guess not in a red shirt version of democracy.
Like dislike 9 people liked / 0 people disliked this comment
bern1005
Post : 686
Send message

Discussion 10 : 14 Jul 2012 at 16.1010
Post this to my Facebook
About 40% of the total possible voters voted for PT in the last election (78% turnout - 53% of the vote) and they claim a mandate for change. However, the existing constitution was only voted for by about 36% of the total voters (60% turnout - 60% of the vote).

I do not say that PT can do whatever they wish, but to claim some special protection for this constitution against parliamentary change, because a majority voted for it, is a very dubious argument.
Like dislike 2 people liked / 4 people disliked this comment
browser
Post : 976
Send message

Discussion 9 : 14 Jul 2012 at 10.079
Post this to my Facebook
This certainly does add more light. If on the other hand, Pheu Thai takes this as a green light to do simply as they please, then I think we are heading towards another obstacle course. If Pheu Thai has learned anything in the last six weeks, it is that that approach meets with great resistance. They should accept the spirit of the ruling, and that is that the process should be opened up to public input. It is seasoned advice.
Like dislike 21 people liked / 3 people disliked this comment
aussie
Post : 613
Send message

Discussion 8 : 14 Jul 2012 at 10.048
Post this to my Facebook
Oh stop it , now your just confusing jatuporn and the redshirts , LOL ?
Like dislike 11 people liked / 2 people disliked this comment
Panu Sittiwong

Discussion 7 : 14 Jul 2012 at 09.527
This is not a clarification but a tactic to threatening the parliament. In my opinion the Court had set a very dangerous precedent in involving itself into politic. From not on when ever the opposition does not agree with the government all it has to do is to file petition to the Court.
from iPhone application.
Like dislike 4 people liked / 12 people disliked this comment
whatajoke
Post : 1,771
Send message

Discussion 6 : 14 Jul 2012 at 09.406
Post this to my Facebook
What they are saying is; 'in ruling to the letter of the law we would be overstepping our mandate (as accused) in ordering a referendum, but as the highest experts on the constitution, that is our advice, and if you don't want to follow it then expect trouble from your opponents'. They have armed the PAD with a valid justification to take to the streets if the third reading goes ahead. Calling for a referendum is a sensible suggestion, 60% of the people empowered the present ruling coalition in parliament, and (separately) 60% gave the 2007 charter the thumbs up, so if you want to cite people's mandate in your interpretation of democratic power then defer to the people first. This time there is no military junta media blackout, lots more people seemed informed of the charter's good and bad points, the hidden agendas are out of the closet, let the people decide.
Like dislike 13 people liked / 2 people disliked this comment
genii
Post : 753
Send message

Discussion 5 : 14 Jul 2012 at 07.385
Post this to my Facebook
Once the new constitution is drawn up by the drafting committee then it can be sent for review and referendum by the public. No need for a referendum to have the committee draw up a draft.
Like dislike 0 people liked / 2 people disliked this comment
brilliant
Post : 1,462
Send message

Discussion 4 : 14 Jul 2012 at 07.124
Post this to my Facebook
Why is it that red shirt apologists believe that courts are innately wrong and corrupt? Because that's what they expect from everyone. How sad. You don't see one person against the red shirts vilifying the courts for this decision. But you see a lot of red shirts eating their words.
Like dislike 10 people liked / 2 people disliked this comment
nui
Post : 532
Send message

Discussion 3 : 14 Jul 2012 at 04.383
Post this to my Facebook
The police do not order drivers to drive slowly. You can drive fast, if you want. But if you get caught, you will be fully responsible for your action. The police reserve the right to stop you or not. The police recommendation is: Drive slowly. Same.
Like dislike 27 people liked / 2 people disliked this comment
mphilips
Post : 544
Send message

Discussion 2 : 14 Jul 2012 at 00.372
Post this to my Facebook
"The bill's backers could go ahead with the third reading; however, parliament and the House speaker must be responsible for their subsequent actions"

I am starting to take back a lot of what I said about this (and only this) constitution court. I have to admit that they keep surprising me with how well they have followed most of the law. With that in mind, I guess I should wait until the above cryptic statement has been properly explained before I comment further.
Like dislike 25 people liked / 1 people disliked this comment