Jump to content

Talk:Constitution of Thailand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reminder

[edit]

Hi there. Please remember that

  • All important or contraversial facts in the article should be backed up by a reference. To do this, put the reference <ref>inside a pair of ref tags</ref>. For further information on how to use the ref tag, see Wikipedia:Footnotes.
  • If you think an external resource would be useful to the reader, but haven't included any facts from that external resource into the article, put it under "Further reading"
  • Discuss anything important in the Discussion page. Remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) Patiwat 19:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article length

[edit]

As of 16 Sep 2006, the article body (not including Intro and References) is less than 5,700 words long and 51KB in size. This is less than the suggested 6,000 to 10,000 word length which Wikipedia:Article size notes as the limit at which readers may tire of reading a page. It is, however, larger than the 30-50KB recommended article size. Its large size, despite its reasonable length, is due to the large number of footnotes and citations. Subsequent edits should try not to significantly increase the overall size of the article body.Patiwat 10:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Sarit retain the '52 Constitution for a year after he seized power in '57?

[edit]

The article portrays Sarit's abrogation of the 1952 Constitution as occuring immediately after he seized power. But this wasn't so: Thanet (2001) lists that it was only abrogated in 20 October 1958. So for nearly a year, during which Pote Sarasin was appointed as figurehead Premier, elections occured on 15 December 1957 (military backed parties and a slightly smaller contingent of Democrats), General Thanom was appointed Premier, and Sarit got treatment for his liver, the country was governed with the 1952 Constitution.

But that's weird. Didn't the 1932/1952 Constitution ban coups? So how could he (and his figurehead and crony) rule under it? Patiwat 06:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kobkua Suwannathat-Pia's "Kings, Country and Constitutions: Thailand's Political Development 1932-2000"

[edit]

I wish I had a copy of Kobkua Suwannathat-Pia, "Kings, Country and Constitutions: Thailand's Political Development 1932-2000", RoutledgeCurzon, ISBN: 0700714731. The book costs $135 on Amazon.com - no used copies. And I don't have access to an academic library, either. Patiwat 17:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some major themes in Thai constitutions

[edit]

The current article is organized chronologically. It could also be organized by themes.

General

[edit]
  • Cabinet Members must not be civil servants/military officers. 7 constitutions had this clause: 1946, 1949, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1991, 1997.
  • Prime Minister must be elected. 5 constitutions had this clause: 1932a, 1932b, 1974, 1991/1992, 1997.
  • Ministers must be Members of Parliament. 3 constitutions had this clause: 1932a (all Ministers), 1932b (at least 14, 58% of all Ministers), 1974 (at least 50% of all Ministers).
  • President of the House of Representatives is the President of the legislature. 3 out of 9 bicameral constitutions had this clause: 1994, 1991/1992, 1997.

Seperation of Powers

[edit]
  • Judges and Tribunal Members must not be political civil servants or hold political positions. 4 constitutions had this clause: 1994, 1998, 1991, 1997.
  • Ministers must not be Members of Parliament (i.e., they must resign in order to become Ministers). 2 constitutions had this clause: 1968 and 1997.

Source: Prof. Rangsan Thanaphornphan, "Constitutional Convention and Santiprachatham", Puay Ungphakorn lecture, 9 March 2007. - Patiwat 22:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twentieth century impressions of Siam

[edit]

Twentieth century impressions of Siam (1908) contains information on the unwritten constitution of Siam subtitled Siamese Law : Old and New', by T. Masao, D.C. LL.D., Senior Legal Adviser to H.S.M.'s Government and Judge of H.S.M.'s Supreme Court of Appeal beginning on p. 91 --Pawyilee (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

I have removed the 'Etymology' section.

"ธรรมนูญ" (thammanun) does not mean "rule with dharma". The term is from Pāḷi, dhammanuññō, meaning a procedural law. It was the name of the procedural law in the Code of the Three Great Seals. As part of the administrative reform in the reign of King Chulalongkorn, the said procedural law was repealed and replaced with a new modern court statute, which was still called "Thammanun". The term "thammanun", from that time on, just means a law, statute or charter. In this respect, the term "รัฐธรรมนูญ" just means 'Thammanun (Law/Statute/Charter) of the Nation/State.' Nothing in the term "thammanun" deals with "dharma" (virtue, morals, etc.).

Also, there are and have been many laws in Thailand called "Thammanun", for instance, "court statutes" or "Thammanun San" (ธรรมนูญศาล). The international court statutes are also translated as "ธรรมนูญ" (thammanun), including "ธรรมนูญกรุงโรม" (Thammanun Krung Rom) or "Rome Statute".

For further information, see The Thammanun (Code of the Three Great Seals), ISBN 9786167073118, which has just been published by the Royal Institute of Thailand.

--Aristitleism (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"supposed to be"

[edit]

Articles are supposed to be neutral in content, but this one had an American bias that conflates Constitution with a written or codified constitution, and presupposes an uncodified constitution to be no constitution at all. Piping Supreme Law (which otherwise redirects to The Golden Rule) to Constitution shows an American bias to Supreme Law of the Land, a concept derived from the supremacy clause in America's constitution. After looking at Law, which opens with a footnote to an on-going debate, and Rule of Law, which opens with the phrase, "supremacy of regular [power] as opposed to arbitrary power"[ref, Black's Law Dictionary] I'm inclined to favor the latter. I recently added that Rama VII agreed to a "codified constitution," from which article I lifted the sentence, "A significant disadvantage of a codified constitution is that controversies arise due to different understandings of the usages and customs from which the fundamental provisions of the constitution derive." Though I myself have not read its reference, the sentence adds some context into why Thailand is having on-going difficulties with the concept. I have, however, read one that relates to American difficulties: "More disturbingly, codification also fosters overcriminalization.Privatized Lawmaking, Sasha Volokh • February 6, 2013 2:52 pm Write now, I'm at a loss as to how best to balance the lede. —Pawyilee (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC) .[reply]

I've tried to clarify that Siam/Thailand has always had a constitution of some sort, with a brief statement of the difficulties inherent in shifting from un-codified to codified, and changed as many links as I could find from a narrow American view of constitutionality to a broader world view. In particular, Separation of powers traces back at least to the constitution of the republic of Rome, and likely could be found in some form in the Manuic codes. —Pawyilee (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History and origins

[edit]

I've bit off more than I can chew, but I've read enough to know this consistent with constitutional theory all the way back to the Code of Manu: Thai Constitution Court chief admits decision to dissolve pro-Thaksin PPP was political --Pawyilee (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitution of Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Corrected formatting/usage for //www.law.uvic.ca/seals/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Constitution of Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Constitution of Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Constitution of Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1977 charter error

[edit]

Hi there, i note that the article claimed the King appointed Kriangsak into the Privy Council after Kraivichien was deposed. That makes no sense, so i looked at the Kraivichien article itself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanin_Kraivichien

It says that Kraivichien was appointed, not Kriangsak

Could someone check, and if necessary, fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.189.190.212 (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constitution_of_Thailand&oldid=1206779599"