Scrutiny committee bans entertainment activities during election campaign

[robblok]

Just now, Srikcir said:

It's justification to suppress voter interest. That favors a new and/or medium to small political party.

Reread the 2nd article.

 

The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) "previously had overturned the original draft written by the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) and allowed entertainment in campaigning, on the grounds that amusement could encourage political participation." 

What's wrong about encouraging voter participation in the electoral process? Is that now the new threat against Thai sovereignty?

 

But "the CDC viewed the provision as increasing the odds of vote buying."

So how many twerks does it take to buy a vote? How many songs? How many expressions of opinions does it take to "buy" a vote? This is the rational being presented for banning entertainment. In fact it's irrational.

Except from the viewpoint of restricting political messages to only those messages expressed by a minority body or political party who has unrestricted access to government resources to broadcast their own messages to the public.

 

It was banned in the past (also during past elections) so it should have no influence its nothing new. 

[thaiguzzi]

Siam-Saudi has said "and there will be no fun".

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

It was banned in the past (also during past elections) so it should have no influence its nothing new. 

Being nothing new does not mean it was ever fair or rational in support of a democratic electoral process. CDC argued it was required to prevent vote buying - how do you defend that?

 

You say it "should have no influence" as a conditional supposition - not a proven fact. Let's say for the sake of argument that indeed it will have no influence. Then what's the harm to amend the law - the ban is unnecessary. There is only an upside to amend the ban as more people will likely be  attracted to hear election campaigns. But maybe encouraging a high voter turnout might not favor a minority party, especially a pro-military party.

 

The Thai general election of 1976 was the last time there was no such ban. Democrats won the election - was that wrong in some way without the ban? How many coupes since then? There were allegations that there was vote buying in the 2012 election that lead to Yingluck's PTP to power. Did the ban play any beneficial role to prevent some vote buying or was it either ineffective or non consequential!

 

Almost six years now with no elections and suddenly this ban is somehow critical to fair and open elections? Being supported by junta-appointed people makes its continuation at least suspicious by its timing.

 

Things have changed since 1976 and not for the better with regards for the Thai electorate. The two major political parties currently oppose continued military rule, regardless if as a junta or as a disguised military political party. New laws and the MMA electoral system already impact large political parties. The military now has unfettered access to government resources to promote itself regardless of any transparency, accountability and laws.  

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Being nothing new does not mean it was ever fair or rational in support of a democratic electoral process. CDC argued it was required to prevent vote buying - how do you defend that?

 

You say it "should have no influence" as a conditional supposition - not a proven fact. Let's say for the sake of argument that indeed it will have no influence. Then what's the harm to amend the law - the ban is unnecessary. There is only an upside to amend the ban as more people will likely be  attracted to hear election campaigns. But maybe encouraging a high voter turnout might not favor a minority party, especially a pro-military party.

 

The Thai general election of 1976 was the last time there was no such ban. Democrats won the election - was that wrong in some way without the ban? How many coupes since then? There were allegations that there was vote buying in the 2012 election that lead to Yingluck's PTP to power. Did the ban play any beneficial role to prevent some vote buying or was it either ineffective or non consequential!

 

Almost six years now with no elections and suddenly this ban is somehow critical to fair and open elections? Being supported by junta-appointed people makes its continuation at least suspicious by its timing.

 

Things have changed since 1976 and not for the better with regards for the Thai electorate. The two major political parties currently oppose continued military rule, regardless if as a junta or as a disguised military political party. New laws and the MMA electoral system already impact large political parties. The military now has unfettered access to government resources to promote itself regardless of any transparency, accountability and laws.  

So the ban was here since 1976 and now all of a sudden its a problem it stays on the books. You really need something to nag about don't you ? 

 

The only reason this ban is in the news is because someone wanted to lift this ban and it was opposed and the status quo remained. (so no difference from all elections since 1976). So please tell me why should they change this all of a sudden ?

 

You seem deadly afraid that an army party gets some votes, I thought the army was so hated (according to posters here) that they would never ever get votes. 

 

I personally want all the little parties to have as much chance as possible because I don't expect any changes from the major parties. New parties (non military parties) are the way of the future. I think its good that they are given a chance and the new voting system does that. Now with rules like this the smaller parties will have more chances as big parties can buy the votes with their big money and campaigns. I see you want to keep everything in place so Thaksins money will buy him a seat back into power. I guess you don't want any change for Thailand.

[Humpy]

Whenever the election happens and there's no entertainment all the Thais have to do is get a few crates of beer in , get stoned and forget to vote ....simple.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Humpy

[rvaviator]

"Is it safe?"

Yes that was a good film ....


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Hank Gunn]

13 hours ago, baboon said:

"Is it safe?"

 

Marathon Man, with Dustin Hoffman, Sir "Larry", and Roy Scheider. The book, which I read before seeing the movie, was quite good too.

[Hutch68]

Is it compulsory in Thailand that if you hold some kind of hiso position that your face has to be covered in warts?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect