Pheu Thai in court-ordered quandary

COMMENTARY

Published: 19 Jul 2012 at 00.00
Newspaper section: News

The Constitution Court's ruling on Friday is putting the government and Pheu Thai Party in a difficult position in its push for charter amendment as all the choices to move the case forward pose major problems.

About 30 red-shirt supporters from Pathum Thani burn coffins and pictures of Constitution Court judges outside the court on Chaeng Watthana Road on Friday to protest against the court’s charter amendment bill ruling. The ruling has left the Pheu Thai Party in the thorny position of having to choose between some unpalatable routes for amending the constitution.

The court recommended a public referendum be held to ask people whether they agree to change the entire charter as the original was approved by a referendum before enactment. It also suggested that partial amendments be made section by section in parliament in which case there might be no need to hold a referendum at all.

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

hawaiiman
Post : 658
Send message

Discussion 20 : 20 Jul 2012 at 22.3620
Post this to my Facebook
It's clear that the broader constitutional issues are simply smoke and mirrors to distract from the one true purpose, to clear Thaksin and bring him back with a clean record. A section by section process is opposed simply because that would make this particularly odious revision stand alone.
Like dislike 2 people liked / 4 people disliked this comment
johninbkk
Post : 2,930
Send message

Discussion 19 : 20 Jul 2012 at 19.1319
Post this to my Facebook
whatajoke - "imagine if the Democrats during their tenuous rule, used a 51% parliament majority to ram through an act or clause stating the charter could not be further amended without a 90% parliamentary approval. There would have been an uproar on the streets."
The Dems amended the organic laws of the 2007 Constitution on three separate occasions. Specifically, they rewrote the election laws just before the election. No one demanded a referendum, then.
Like dislike 7 people liked / 1 people disliked this comment
SteveCM
Post : 639
Send message

Discussion 18 : 20 Jul 2012 at 12.3518
Post this to my Facebook
whatajoke (#17) "Forget the 'military pen' or 'junta referendum' accusations, if we are to move forward peacefully we should be determining that more than half of all voters agree to re-write, otherwise defer to the amendment option. What's so unreasonable about that?"

You might find it convenient to "forget" the circumstances of the 2007 referendum - many others don't & doing so is thus no route to "moving forward peacefully". Added to which, but particularly given those circumstances, arbitrarily raising the bar for what it should now take to revise that constitution guarantees "instability in the country".
Like dislike 2 people liked / 3 people disliked this comment
whatajoke
Post : 1,876
Send message

Discussion 17 : 20 Jul 2012 at 07.4817
Post this to my Facebook
SteveCM D7, 10, 13, 15; Super majority is a sensible thing for something so important, imagine if the Democrats during their tenuous rule, used a 51% parliament majority to ram through an act or clause stating the charter could not be further amended without a 90% parliamentary approval. There would have been an uproar on the streets. So, election pledge or not, Peua Thai needs to do this the correct way, or face instability in the country. Given their opaque agenda on it, PAD protesting on the streets is not an unreasonable prospect. Forget the 'military pen' or 'junta referendum' accusations, if we are to move forward peacefully we should be determining that more than half of all voters agree to re-write, otherwise defer to the amendment option. What's so unreasonable about that? Unless of course Peua Thai are trying to reach a goal that might actually not be what most the country wants.
Like dislike 7 people liked / 3 people disliked this comment
nui
Post : 568
Send message

Discussion 16 : 20 Jul 2012 at 05.2516
Post this to my Facebook
All political parties are interested to change crucial sections of the constitution. Why not sit together, agree and change those sections in the parliament first. No referendum needed. After this, other sections can be discussed. The possibility for an amnesty and consequently whitewashing of previous crimes must be excluded. Some sections are not allowed to touch. Section 68 should give any person the right to submit a petition to the constitution court, if the petition is blocked or rejected by the Attorney-General, because this is a fundamental right of the people. The Attorney-General Office can only investigate but cannot rule on constitutional matters. It all depends, whether the ruling party wants to change the constitution to the benefit of all Thai people or only to benefit themselves and certain people.
Like dislike 6 people liked / 1 people disliked this comment
SteveCM
Post : 639
Send message

Discussion 15 : 20 Jul 2012 at 02.4815
Post this to my Facebook
ykcir9 (#14): The "real numbers" in elections & referenda are counted from those who actually turn up to vote - not from all those who are eligible to vote.
Like dislike 5 people liked / 3 people disliked this comment
ykcir9
Post : 326
Send message

Discussion 14 : 19 Jul 2012 at 22.5214
Post this to my Facebook
The referendum card is the one that the ruling party will try to avoid playing if possible because there is no guarantee that the vote will come out in its favour. At least 23 million out of 46 million votes are needed in a referendum to receive a mandate from eligible voters on this issue. Pheu Thai garnered 15 million votes in the last election and winning over another 8 million voters would not be an easy task.

here are the real numbers.finally.the ud insists they are ther majority. numbers dont lie.
good reserch on this artticle bravo.
Like dislike 9 people liked / 5 people disliked this comment
SteveCM
Post : 639
Send message

Discussion 13 : 19 Jul 2012 at 21.4713
Post this to my Facebook
browser (#11) - What does Nattaya say that "makes it clear that a referendum win would be much more challenging than an election campaign"?
Like dislike 3 people liked / 5 people disliked this comment
johninbkk
Post : 2,930
Send message

Discussion 12 : 19 Jul 2012 at 21.2912
Post this to my Facebook
The referendum for the 2007 Constitution wasn't held until *after* it was written in secret, without input from the political opposition, while those who campaigned against it were arrested and their materials and printing machines confiscated.

I think the method to create and approve the 1997 Constitution would serve as a much better model.
Like dislike 12 people liked / 3 people disliked this comment
browser
Post : 976
Send message

Discussion 11 : 19 Jul 2012 at 21.0911
Post this to my Facebook
Nattaya's article here is a good one, and makes it quite clear that the choices Pheu Thai have in this matter are more restricted than they think. She also makes it clear that a referendum win would be much more challenging than an election campaign, and with the stakes much higher, Pheu Thai is clearly reluctant to do that. They also wouldn't be too fond of the transparency that went along with it, either.
Like dislike 13 people liked / 8 people disliked this comment

1 2 Next Last

Pheu Thai in court-ordered quandary | Bangkok Post: opinion