Fair Elections Not Possible Under Junta: Panel

[webfact]

Fair Elections Not Possible Under Junta: Panel

By Punsita Ritthikarn, Contributor

 

Soldiers block protesters from rallying against the coup at Victory Monument in Bangkok, Thailand, 29 May 2014 (DPA).

 

BANGKOK — Democratic elections next year will be meaningless under the existing political and legal conditions imposed by the military government, according to rights advocates.

 

Speaking Friday at a discussion on human rights after four years of junta rule, legal advocates and activists said freedoms have eroded to not be conducive for elections through the arbitrary use of absolute power, detention of critics, media censorship and the ban on political activities.

 

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2018/06/26/fair-elections-not-possible-under-junta-panel/

 

-- © Copyright Khaosod English 2018-06-26

[Thaiwrath]

8 minutes ago, webfact said:

Democratic elections next year will be meaningless under the existing political and legal conditions imposed by the military government,

I think most of the population know that, except the person (and his associates) who will call the elections.

[PatOngo]

11 minutes ago, webfact said:

Fair Elections Not Possible Under Junta: Panel

.......….we've returned happiness to the people and now they want a fair election...………….COME ON!...………...be fair.

[tracker1]

Old news most knew this 4 years ago!

[Thailand]

That will come as a blow to the two P's, they may have to stay in power to right the ship, unless the rats start to leave of course.

[darksidedog]

28 minutes ago, webfact said:

Fair Elections Not Possible Under Junta

And that is exactly how Prayut wants it to be. He can proclaim to the world an election was held and it all was free and fair, when it was of course completely the opposite, and he stays in control. He probably thinks things are running like clockwork.

[sweatalot]

Fair Elections Not Possible Under Junta

 

neither  with thaksin around,  still able to talk and pay

[Sir Dude]

Quote

Fair Elections Not Possible Under Junta: Panel

Well, way-to-go Sherlock.

[yellowboat]

Thai elections are a farce launched by half witted, shameless, cowards.  It's sickening.  We can thank the hapless democrats for ruining or marginalizing Thailand.  I love Vietnam . 

[pokerface1]

4 hours ago, sweatalot said:

Fair Elections Not Possible Under Junta

 

neither  with thaksin around,  still able to talk and pay

Yes, it's all about peace and order that the reason the military took over government. A fair election would be contrary to their objectives. You can't have it both ways in Thailand, as the past has shown.

[harada]

The Junta are merely message boys in this smoke and mirrors show.

[JAG]

13 hours ago, sweatalot said:

Fair Elections Not Possible Under Junta

 

neither  with thaksin around,  still able to talk and pay

I don't know whether you've noticed, but I'm quite an observant sort of chap, and I've noticed that he's not around, here in Thailand,, andsn't been for quite a few years...

[Samui Bodoh]

14 hours ago, webfact said:

Fair Elections Not Possible Under Junta: Panel

If that is the case, then the parties should not participate in one.

 

Better no election than one which falsely legitimizes military rule.

 

[mtls2005]

This, of course, gives the Junta yet another reason to delay elections, until such time as they can be made to be fair, which is probably never.

 

If the vote on the constitution was any harbinger, one assumes that any election can/will only be held when the outcome can be jiggered in favor of the Green/Camo party.

 

They won't go through the Myanmar experiment where the Army got ~ 3% of the vote and the election had to be annulled.

[Anak Nakal]

Not fair don't do.

I embarrassed for Thailand. 

[greenchair]

We've made it so complicated that the parties won't be ready in time, and elections wouldn't be fair anyway. 

 

Therefore. 

 

that's the perfect reason not to have an election. 

[peperobi]

How can be fair elections if someone decides what party can take part in it, and when some fix a part of the position in the parliament for the army!

[AGareth2]

Burma MKII

[Lupatria]

Any arrest warrants out already for members of a panel of legal advocates and activists?

[DM07]

No $4!t, Sherlock?! ?

[Krataiboy]

The facts about the junta's repression of all and any dissent speak for themselves:

 

More than 1,100 people have been threatened, intimidated, harassed or detained for “attitude adjustment” sessions through May 2018, according to Sirikan Charoensiri of Thai Lawyers for Human Rights.

 

More than 200 people who’ve protested for elections have been prosecuted for violating the junta’s updated public assembly law, whereas at least 92 people have been charged with sedition-like offenses.

 

Sirikan also said 264 public activities including forums and academic seminars have been blocked.

[Damrongsak]

Will any of these boys grow up to be men?  I rather doubt it.

[jayboy]

19 hours ago, Thaiwrath said:

I think most of the population know that, except the person (and his associates) who will call the elections.

They know it too.

[gamini]

I don't think that the Thai people really care that much.  Even if there was no military presence , as in the past, the people have no choice anyway. There is no workers party, farmers party, Socialist party, Green party, farmers party etc. every single party wants to be part of the government, regardless of the policies.

They all have exactly the same ones. No capital gains tax, no property tax . Very low taxes for the rich.

They are all, in fact right-wing conservative business parties. The only difference being their leaders.

 

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

If that is the case, then the parties should not participate in one.

 

Better no election than one which falsely legitimizes military rule.

 

The problem is that without opposition parties in the election, pro-military parties will still participate and assuredly win the majority of seats.

I'm of the opposite viewpoint that as many parties as possible (hope the Communist Party changes its name so it can register) should participate and promote a high 80%+ voter turnout. Let Prayut  illegitimize a democratic election process by banning parties, disqualifying candidates, gerrymandering constituencies, bribing officials, using state resources for campaign purposes, etc.

[Samui Bodoh]

46 minutes ago, gamini said:

I don't think that the Thai people really care that much.  Even if there was no military presence , as in the past, the people have no choice anyway. There is no workers party, farmers party, Socialist party, Green party, farmers party etc. every single party wants to be part of the government, regardless of the policies.

They all have exactly the same ones. No capital gains tax, no property tax . Very low taxes for the rich.

They are all, in fact right-wing conservative business parties. The only difference being their leaders.

 

Good post; let me both agree and disagree.

 

I disagree that the Thai people do not care; Thailand actually has a high voter turnout figure which demonstrates that they do care. Apologies, I don't have the precise number in front of me, but it is north of 70%. Perhaps another member who has a more accurate number could post it? @Eric Loh? TIA. @Srikcir? TIA.

 

I agree that currently the Thai people don't have a great deal of choice among the parties, but there are differences and they are significant, if not to the scale of a mature Western Democracy. The best example is/was the 30 Baht health scheme introduced by Thaksin. Without getting into the whole 'red' vs. 'yellow' debate, it was a crystal clear difference at the time and was a hugely significant factor in the early 2000's. That said, I would tend to agree that the two main parties/groups have similar policies and that they lean toward the right-wing business type.

 

I disagree that it will continue for the long run, although I think Thailand is stuck with it for a bit. The reason is one of political development; despite parties winning elections and forming a government, Thailand is still in it's infancy of political development. Again, despite the events and election of this century, Thailand has never seen an elected government hand over power to another elected government; this is a HUGE HUGE step in a country's development and it has been thwarted every time. Until this type of handover occurs and occurs more than once, Thailand will be stuck in a rut.

 

Finally, you mention that you would like to see "...workers party, farmers party, Socialist party, Green party, farmers party etc....". It is an excellent point, and I would like to see it too. Unfortunately, when one looks at the history of political development, there is a 'general rule' (with exceptions) that countries go through a phase of two, right-wing business parties whose differences are usually personalities rather than policies. I am not sure of your nationality, but as most members of TVF seem to be British, let me use a British example. The Magna Carta was signed in 1215 (?) and Parliament(s) were established in (?Don't know the first one, anyone?), but the emergence of the Labour Party didn't occur until around 1915 or so. My point here is that although the first steps of Democracy occurred in 1215, it wasn't until several hundred years later that a 'Labour Party' emerged. I strongly suspect that the political development of Thailand will occur much more rapidly, but nothing will happen until the military stops interfering and allows political development to progress here. When it does, a large number of parties will develop and eventually vie for power.

 

Some say that Thailand isn't ready for Democracy; I say "BS!!!" to that. Democracy is a process of political development and Thailand and the Thai people are certainly capable of beginning the journey; I would say that they have already begun. The problem is the military.

 

Until the military stays in the barracks, Thailand and the Thai people will suffer and be denied their future.

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

[holy cow cm]

The problem is the 20 year order of road map that no one can contest or go against or will go to jail. That seals the fate directly right there. 

[Samui Bodoh]

26 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The problem is that without opposition parties in the election, pro-military parties will still participate and assuredly win the majority of seats.

I'm of the opposite viewpoint that as many parties as possible (hope the Communist Party changes its name so it can register) should participate and promote a high 80%+ voter turnout. Let Prayut  illegitimize a democratic election process by banning parties, disqualifying candidates, gerrymandering constituencies, bribing officials, using state resources for campaign purposes, etc.

Valid point.

 

At this particular moment in time, I am honestly not sure if participation is a better way to go or if boycott is the answer. 

 

How about we re-visit this question in a while? Deal?

 

I would say that the parties need to begin speaking up about the legitimacy of the process, if for no other reason than laying the groundwork for a possible boycott and putting the Junta on notice that any thought of legitimacy requires an agreement regarding the process.

 

If the parties are questioning the process now, it will negate the Junta later claiming legitimacy; if they don't do it now/soon and loudly, it will be too late as their participation will give legitimacy no matter what they say at a future date. 

 

BTW, I have a message for the political parties; stop going to meetings called by the Junta! You look like 13 year old boys cowering in front of a stern headmistress. Or, to put it another way, weak and pathetic. You are supposed to be/want to be representatives of the people; act like it!!! Grow a pair!!!

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Samui Bodoh

[Dave67]

Malaysia style landslide win to the parties opposing the Junta, such a heavy loss they wont be able to manufacture a win.

[JAG]

59 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Good post; let me both agree and disagree.

 

I disagree that the Thai people do not care; Thailand actually has a high voter turnout figure which demonstrates that they do care. Apologies, I don't have the precise number in front of me, but it is north of 70%. Perhaps another member who has a more accurate number could post it? @Eric Loh? TIA. @Srikcir? TIA.

 

I agree that currently the Thai people don't have a great deal of choice among the parties, but there are differences and they are significant, if not to the scale of a mature Western Democracy. The best example is/was the 30 Baht health scheme introduced by Thaksin. Without getting into the whole 'red' vs. 'yellow' debate, it was a crystal clear difference at the time and was a hugely significant factor in the early 2000's. That said, I would tend to agree that the two main parties/groups have similar policies and that they lean toward the right-wing business type.

 

I disagree that it will continue for the long run, although I think Thailand is stuck with it for a bit. The reason is one of political development; despite parties winning elections and forming a government, Thailand is still in it's infancy of political development. Again, despite the events and election of this century, Thailand has never seen an elected government hand over power to another elected government; this is a HUGE HUGE step in a country's development and it has been thwarted every time. Until this type of handover occurs and occurs more than once, Thailand will be stuck in a rut.

 

Finally, you mention that you would like to see "...workers party, farmers party, Socialist party, Green party, farmers party etc....". It is an excellent point, and I would like to see it too. Unfortunately, when one looks at the history of political development, there is a 'general rule' (with exceptions) that countries go through a phase of two, right-wing business parties whose differences are usually personalities rather than policies. I am not sure of your nationality, but as most members of TVF seem to be British, let me use a British example. The Magna Carta was signed in 1215 (?) and Parliament(s) were established in (?Don't know the first one, anyone?), but the emergence of the Labour Party didn't occur until around 1915 or so. My point here is that although the first steps of Democracy occurred in 1215, it wasn't until several hundred years later that a 'Labour Party' emerged. I strongly suspect that the political development of Thailand will occur much more rapidly, but nothing will happen until the military stops interfering and allows political development to progress here. When it does, a large number of parties will develop and eventually vie for power.

 

Some say that Thailand isn't ready for Democracy; I say "BS!!!" to that. Democracy is a process of political development and Thailand and the Thai people are certainly capable of beginning the journey; I would say that they have already begun. The problem is the military.

 

Until the military stays in the barracks, Thailand and the Thai people will suffer and be denied their future.

 

The first "elected' House of Commons met in 1341 I believe. However for centuries the right to vote was based on your property holdings, and it was until absolute total unqualified suffrage ( including women) was introduced after the First World War that the sort of parties which principally existed to represent the working man became prominent.

 

There is a difference in Thailand today. Firstly it has (and has had for some time) universal suffrage, and secondly it now has a virtually uncontrollable form of media ( effectively a free media) in the shape of modern internet based social media. The foundation of modern Thai society is the power and influence of a very small but very wealthy group. They wield that power through influence and control of the public arena (including the political parties) through the media and the beaurocracy, backed up by the threat of force from the military. That power will be undermined by the new uncontrollable social media, and that will I suspect happen rather, maybe very, quickly, as you suggest. Maybe we are seeing the first signs of that with the emergence of the new "Future Forward' party?

 

The next stage in the process may well be when realisation sets in that the military is not actually capable of weilding enough force ้้้้้้้้้้้้้ throughout the country to actually hold onto that power. That will spread up the process of change dramatically. 

Edited June 27, 2018 by JAG