Public sceptical of new charter: poll

By WASAMON AUDJARINT 
THE NATION

 

 

WHILE MOST people are aware of anti-corruption mechanisms promoted in the 2017 Constitution, they also view the charter as a tool used by the ruling National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) to prolong its time in power, according to Suan Dusit Poll results released yesterday.

The poll entitled “Thai charter in people’s eyes” was conducted from Wednesday to Saturday in light of Constitution Day yesterday.

 

Promulgated in April of this year, the charter, whose drafters were handpicked by the junta, has been promoted for its graft-fighting mechanisms, increased legal obligations, legal enforcement by the courts and the use of independent organisations to carry out government actions.

 

This same charter, however, is controversial, as some of its so-called innovations tend to not only tone down the influence of the existing major parties but also likely pave the way for political outsiders to hold power.

 

For instance, the new mixed-member apportionment election system will probably scatter MPs’ seats to parties of medium and small sizes. The entire Senate will be handpicked by the junta and the selection procedure for the premiership could allow an outsider to get the job.

 

The draft of the Kingdom’s 20th constitution was publicly approved in last year’s referendum. Campaigners with different opinions were tightly controlled and some were even convicted of offences.

 

While 72 per cent of all 1,164 people agreed that the current charter was rich with graft-fighting elements, 65 per cent thought that it would be hard to amend it as this would require approval from both the upper and lower houses.

 

Sixty-three per cent thought it would pave the way for a prime minister from outside, almost 58 per cent thought that it would allow the NCPO to prolong its stay in power and more than 55 per cent thought that the new electoral system might result in an unstable government.

 

Almost 46 per cent thought the charter would make governance more state-centric with less emphasis on public participation.

 

Asked for their opinions on the charter, 36 per cent agreed that it focused on fighting corruption, 26 per cent hoped that it would bring about justice for all people and 26 per cent hopes it would be practical and would not be adjusted too often.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30333641

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-12-11

The clue lay in who wrote it and the threats to those who opposed it. But still the turkeys obediently showed up and voted for Christmas. Too late to have second thoughts now...

That will all be watered down

I remember a poll in the immediate aftermath of the "referendum" which said that the vast majority of people who voted for it did not actually read it. I usually do not believe polls in Thailand, but I suspect that one was true.

 

The interesting question will be what happens when an election occurs, the votes are counted, and people realize that their vote doesn't matter as much as it used to or even at all?

 

Let the games begin...

 

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Almost 46 per cent thought the charter would make governance more state-centric with less emphasis on public participation.

The 46 percent seem to clearly see as where Thailand is heading. 

Uh oh...could this be the beginning of the end? Will elections finally be mandated by the Thais? Thais may be easy going and relatively tolerant, but they are not stupid and eventually they are going to demand that they govern their own country.

What % actually read it or understood it ?

The clue lay in who wrote it and the threats to those who opposed it. But still the turkeys obediently showed up and voted for Christmas. Too late to have second thoughts now...

Perhaps a bit unfair, I can only speak for my "neck of the woods", but the referendum passed unremarked. There was no debate, no posters, the much vaunted copies of the new charter were nowhere to be seen and come the day no polling station. The locals ignored it. Up here the turkeys were not even informed about Christmas.

Sent from my KENNY using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Wikipedia says that "protest delayed implementation of school decentralization" under the 1997 charter.... that was being protested in Lumpini Park the same weekend that Sondhi started a protest.... at the very same location about 10 years ago. a bit more than 10.

did I get anything wrong?
and what does the new charter say about schools?
 

Edited December 22, 20178 yr by chompolsky

24 minutes ago, JAG said:

Perhaps a bit unfair, I can only speak for my "neck of the woods", but the referendum passed unremarked. There was no debate, no posters, the much vaunted copies of the new charter were nowhere to be seen and come the day no polling station. The locals ignored it. Up here the turkeys were not even informed about Christmas.

Sent from my KENNY using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Same round my way, polling station excepted. All they seemed to be aware of was something about there being a new constitution thingy and that they were required to vote 'Yes', so they did.

On 11/12/2560 at 5:25 AM, Samui Bodoh said:

I remember a poll in the immediate aftermath of the "referendum" which said that the vast majority of people who voted for it did not actually read it. I usually do not believe polls in Thailand, but I suspect that one was true.

 

The interesting question will be what happens when an election occurs, the votes are counted, and people realize that their vote doesn't matter as much as it used to or even at all?

 

Let the games begin...

 

Concurring with you, the BBC reported that there are many cited reasons for the result, including repression on campaigning and criticizing the charter with only few people actually saw a copy. The drafters argued that it will address political corruption and help reform the country. Some trusted the military junta. Many voters were tired of endless political crisis and saw the charter as a way back to normality.^[2]

 

Those who voted yes was hopeful that there will be election in 2017 after royal endorsement. Now they know never to trust the military.