Tone down the rhetoric

EDITORIAL

Published: 4 Jul 2012 at 00.00
Newspaper section: News

The political classes are hardly showing the nation proper conduct for the coming arguments in the Constitution Court. No doubt the charges are controversial.

There is no doubt, either, that many people are distressed at yet another case which could result in the dissolution of a political party.

And there is certainly shock that there is a crisis over a move to amend or change a constitution which everyone agrees is flawed. But it would be better all around to tone down the extreme political statements, at least for the moment.

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

Forum

Your comments

genii
Post : 749
Send message

Discussion 7 : 04 Jul 2012 at 18.317
Post this to my Facebook
Hopefully the end decision will be in line with what the majority of the people want as this is the most important part of a democracy. This is also why all governmental branches should be elected as they would always be held responsible for their actions by the public at election time. Everyone has their passion for party, power, privilage, including officals so it is best to seek the peoples vote.
Like dislike 4 people liked / 3 people disliked this comment
englishjon
Post : 404
Send message

Discussion 6 : 04 Jul 2012 at 17.056
Post this to my Facebook
The politicians need integrity and a sense of right and wrong.

In the interest of Thailand = right. In the interest of themselves = wrong.

The rest will follow.
Like dislike 11 people liked / 0 people disliked this comment
peterl
Post : 448
Send message

Discussion 5 : 04 Jul 2012 at 13.095
Post this to my Facebook
A calm voice of sanity. But will the politicians listen? Overblown rhetoric about possible party dissolution and/or possible impeachment hinging on the outcome of the Court's verdict are hardly conducive to creating an atmosphere in which the judicial process can take place in a balanced fashion.
Like dislike 9 people liked / 0 people disliked this comment
mphilips
Post : 544
Send message

Discussion 4 : 04 Jul 2012 at 10.154
Post this to my Facebook
"The case before the court is unprecedented." Partially true. In May 2006, the courts refused to accept a case against the democrats for contravention of section 63 of the last constitution (which became section 68 in this one, and remains unchanged in the pertinent area). They refused to accept that case as the petition for it had not come from the Attorney General but rather direct from an individual.

"The courts have [always] been a reliable port in the wildest storms." Only for one particular group who use the courts to achieve what they cannot achieve through democratic means.
Like dislike 9 people liked / 22 people disliked this comment
browser
Post : 976
Send message

Discussion 3 : 04 Jul 2012 at 08.293
Post this to my Facebook
A very good article indeed. The call to allow the courts to work through this in peace is essential. Having said that, it is rather extraordinary that Yinkluck has not volunteered to testify on behalf of the government. Surely as prime minister one would assume that she would want her voice heard. At the very least, her apparent detachment does not serve the optics of this at all well.
Like dislike 24 people liked / 3 people disliked this comment
pjt
Post : 896
Send message

Discussion 2 : 04 Jul 2012 at 07.322
Post this to my Facebook
The BP would do a service if they reminded us of the key elements of the charter amendment bill. My understanding is that the charter once drafted does not go to Parliament for debate or approval but goes straight to referendum. It would surely be a circuit breaker for the courts if Parliament had a chance to vote (but not amend) the proposed new charter. BTW given the importance of this matter and the fact that her government included Constitution amendment in its manifesto I do not understand why the PM as head of government is not one of the witnesses
Like dislike 17 people liked / 2 people disliked this comment
amazed
Post : 577
Send message

Discussion 1 : 04 Jul 2012 at 05.381
Post this to my Facebook
When someone does something that is required of them and it adversely affects another person, it is common to say, "Nothing personal". But it has become personal. Here and in the US. In the US, it seems as if they have adopted the need to, "save face". In the past, some strong personalities represented their parties in US politics but they still seemed to see themselves as mainly an extension of the an affiliated party, and when push came to shove, it was, "nothing personal". In both countries now, strong personalities do take it personally, and the result is that any hint of working with the other side is viewed as weakness and treasonable. This is not statesmanship.
Like dislike 23 people liked / 1 people disliked this comment

Tone down the rhetoric | Bangkok Post: opinion