Vote 'no' Or Not Vote At All?

[Sanpatong]

We can't decide what/how to vote in the consitution referendum.

On the one hand you could just look at the constitution, decide that it sucks and vote 'no'.

However voting at all would be legitimizing the whole thing.

But then not voting might mean the thing gets accepted or the government would point to a big/larger 'yes' vote.

What to do?

[Solosiam]

err... vote no, its pretty simple.

Thats like stating that voting if a murderer should go to trial, is legitamizing murder!

[Sanpatong]

True, though a no vote would be explained to the world as "well, I guess there was this or that in the constitution that not everyone liked, business as usual, move on, etc.". Mass abstentions will be a much clearer signal to the world that we don't like coups and military governments.

[Solosiam]

True, though a no vote would be explained to the world as "well, I guess there was this or that in the constitution that not everyone liked, business as usual, move on, etc.". Mass abstentions will be a much clearer signal to the world that we don't like coups and military governments.

Or it will just look like everyone is too lazy to go to vote, and therefore don't care.

[jumnien]

Things have changed. Under other inferior leaders a no vote was possible with no consequences. This is a military not to be toyed with. Perhaps it's best for everyone to lay down and support their every whim. He who controls the weapons controls the battlefield. Would Myanmar been better off with a widespread revolution the last 20 years? I don't have answers, only questions.

[LinkPopularity]

vote NO !

it doesn't matter what the signal is, they don't care !

if it gets accepted because not enough people voted NO, it will be accepted, no matter what you think the signal is ...

[jumnien]

Thaksin clearly one the last election but the no vote was strong. Perhaps if the no vote is strong this time the military will show the same concern for the will of the populace and allow citizens to be part of the process? Yes, I'm kidding!

[Aujuba]

What's the point of this thread? Are the first two posters buddies? What exactly do you think is wrong with the new constitution? Can't it be changed in the future by an elected government? Don't you just want Thaksin and his family to grace Thailand again?

[Mid]

What exactly do you think is wrong with the new constitution? Can't it be changed in the future by an elected government?

1/2 the Senate will be appointed NOT elected ,

and for question two , NO ... see above .

[Sanpatong]

Or it will just look like everyone is too lazy to go to vote, and therefore don't care.

Only to people seriously uninformed about Thailand, which consistently has VERY high voter turnout.

Thanks for the responses so far, I do now think 'No!' is better than abstention.

[Nikkijah]

Or it will just look like everyone is too lazy to go to vote, and therefore don't care.

Only to people seriously uninformed about Thailand, which consistently has VERY high voter turnout.

high voter turnout when handed travel expenses etc

[mellow1]

You can't vote.You are Farangs.

[sriracha john]

It's high voter turnout every time because it's the law that requires citizens to vote and has been for a long time through many elections.

The interesting thing about this one is that it is in the form of a referendum, where the ballot is a simple yes or no and it is not an election.

I've spoken to several Thais who seem rather put off by the concept of this or simplicity of it... or lack of choice, as in an election with multiple candidates. It's like they can't be bothered to go to trouble of voting when it's "only a yes or no." For this reason and also the polls (even considering their traditional unrealibility) would seem to indicate to me that the voter turnout for this will be lower than typical.

It will still be high when compared to Western democracies that don't have a law requiring them to vote.

To the OP, that is a consideration to take into account. When not fulfilling the requirement to cast your ballot, it comes with repercussions. Granted these "punishments" may not be all that severe or even applicable to any real extent to some citizens, it very well may to many.

As for changing of this constitution, I thought everyone took it for granted that when the elections occur and a new PM and Parliament are in place, that an entirely new constitution will be written... or short of that, that wholesale changes will be made to the one being voted on.

[ColPyat]

We can't decide what/how to vote in the consitution referendum.

On the one hand you could just look at the constitution, decide that it sucks and vote 'no'.

However voting at all would be legitimizing the whole thing.

But then not voting might mean the thing gets accepted or the government would point to a big/larger 'yes' vote.

What to do?

In my view the question is not about the constitution, but about giving the coup and increased role of the military legitimacy or not.

Not voting at all means acceptance either way, the 'Yes' vote will show ones support, and the 'No' vote will show disagreement with the role of the military.

A constitution will anyhow come, and it will be one the military approves. The 'No' vote is the only option not to give popular legitimacy to the military. But given the "policy corruption" and "vote buying" of the military regarding the referendum (free bus rides, holiday, etc.) combined with intimidation tactics against opponents (stopping people from attending demonstrations, arresting leaders of demonstrations under flimsy excuses, especially the case of Sombat Boon-ngamanong, etc.) - even a 'Yes' result will be disputed in the end, and the problems of legitimacy crises in Thailand will continue for the foreseeable future.

[WaiWai]

Are you a Thai citizen ?

I confess to knowing little about the issues being voted upon.

However, there are ways you can deliver the message you wish to deliver. One is to write, very neatly, the Thai equivalent of "informal vote" across the ballot paper.

(In Australia, an "informal" vote is an invalid vote. There are many kinds, ranging through crude pictures to people writing "EFF ***FFF ! THE HOLE LOT OF YOUSE ARE XXX**&^ers ! I HAV BEEN WRITING TO THE TELEPHON COMPANY FOR THREE MONTHS AND THEY STIL HAV NOT FIXED MY LINE" to errors and the like to considered statements of opinion. )

Carefully writing "informal vote" says that you were interested & involved enough to turn up and express your opinion, which was neither "yes" or "no". I am not sure how it works in Thailand, but in Oz the scrutineers will take note of such things.

Edited August 12, 2007 by WaiWai

[ColPyat]

Are you a Thai citizen ?

I confess to knowing little about the issues being voted upon.

However, there are ways you can deliver the message you wish to deliver. One is to write, very neatly, the Thai equivalent of "informal vote" across the ballot paper.

(In Australia, an "informal" vote is an invalid vote. There are many kinds, ranging through crude pictures to people writing "EFF ***FFF ! THE HOLE LOT OF YOUSE ARE XXX**&^ers ! I HAV BEEN WRITING TO THE TELEPHON COMPANY FOR THREE MONTHS AND THEY STIL HAV NOT FIXED MY LINE" to errors and the like to condidered statements of opinion.

Carefully writing "informal vote" says that you were interested & involved enough to turn up and express your opinion, which was neither "yes" or "no". I am not sure how it works in Thailand, but in Oz the scrutineers will take note of such things.

In the referendum my wife will use the "No" option. And, given the present political situation, if there is not going to be a left-liberal party with sound pro people policies added, she will make the ballot invalid as a form of protest.

Previously she voted Democrat as the lesser of the evils, but since the Democrats issued the boycott, and turned into military apologists, she will not vote for them anymore.

[marshbags]

We can't decide what/how to vote in the consitution referendum.

On the one hand you could just look at the constitution, decide that it sucks and vote 'no'.

However voting at all would be legitimizing the whole thing.

But then not voting might mean the thing gets accepted or the government would point to a big/larger 'yes' vote.

What to do?

In my view the question is not about the constitution, but about giving the coup and increased role of the military legitimacy or not.

Not voting at all means acceptance either way, the 'Yes' vote will show ones support, and the 'No' vote will show disagreement with the role of the military.

A constitution will anyhow come, and it will be one the military approves. The 'No' vote is the only option not to give popular legitimacy to the military. But given the "policy corruption" and "vote buying" of the military regarding the referendum (free bus rides, holiday, etc.) combined with intimidation tactics against opponents (stopping people from attending demonstrations, arresting leaders of demonstrations under flimsy excuses, especially the case of Sombat Boon-ngamanong, etc.) - even a 'Yes' result will be disputed in the end, and the problems of legitimacy crises in Thailand will continue for the foreseeable future.

In the mean time there will be the little matter of taking the PUYAI with vested self rewarding interest who started all present situations off, into account.

The way Thai politics have evovled in the past there are 2 considerations

Do you want more of the same or do you want to at least try and lay a foundation for real change and put a line under all the exploitation and minipulating of the last constitution were it belongs......

Then progress from there and hopefully continue with good intentions and real progress in mind as and when the election is concluded.

Thank god many have an option to decide their childrens futures and i count myself among them.

On the other hand isn,t it a tragic situation for all those not able to choose, as applicable to most of my Thai friends in Issan, should the PUYAI with their greedy, dishonest, self interest be allowed to continue to prosper.

The foul aroma of S**T is over powering when these @#$@#$ are around.

There,s a strong smell drifting all the way from the U.K. that certainly needs neutralising and permanently capping.

marshbags

Edited August 12, 2007 by marshbags

[ColPyat]

We can't decide what/how to vote in the consitution referendum.

On the one hand you could just look at the constitution, decide that it sucks and vote 'no'.

However voting at all would be legitimizing the whole thing.

But then not voting might mean the thing gets accepted or the government would point to a big/larger 'yes' vote.

What to do?

In my view the question is not about the constitution, but about giving the coup and increased role of the military legitimacy or not.

Not voting at all means acceptance either way, the 'Yes' vote will show ones support, and the 'No' vote will show disagreement with the role of the military.

A constitution will anyhow come, and it will be one the military approves. The 'No' vote is the only option not to give popular legitimacy to the military. But given the "policy corruption" and "vote buying" of the military regarding the referendum (free bus rides, holiday, etc.) combined with intimidation tactics against opponents (stopping people from attending demonstrations, arresting leaders of demonstrations under flimsy excuses, especially the case of Sombat Boon-ngamanong, etc.) - even a 'Yes' result will be disputed in the end, and the problems of legitimacy crises in Thailand will continue for the foreseeable future.

In the mean time there will be the little matter of taking the PUYAI with vested self rewarding interest who started all present situations off.

The way Thai politics have evovled in the past there are 2 considerations

Do you want more of the same or do you want to at least try and lay a foundation for real change and put a line under all the exploitation and minipulating of the last constitution were it belongs......

Then progress from there and hopefully continue with good intentions and real progress in mind as and when the election is concluded.

Thank god many have an option to decide their childrens futures and i count myself among them.

On the other hand isn,t it a tragic situation for all those not able to choose as applicable to most of my Thai friends in Issan, should the PUYAI with their greedy, dishonest, self interest be allowed to continue to prosper.

The foul aroma of S**T is over powering when these @#$@#$ are around.

There,s a strong smell drifting all the way from the U.K. that certainly needs neutralising and permanently capping.

marshbags

The political crises of Thailand was not started by Thaksin. If you care to read books you will learn that Thaksin was nothing than a product of a dysfunctional system that started long before he was even born, and what we see now is part of a logical evolution of the old semi feudal patron client system, and not "foundations for real change".

What great difference is in the new constitution other than going back to semi appointed senate with powers to dismiss politicians, a greater role of military and bureaucracy, weakening of powers of elected politicians. Nothing we didn't have already, only that already 20 to 30 years ago this same system led to nothing but injustice.

[slimdog]

It's high voter turnout every time because it's the law that requires citizens to vote and has been for a long time through many elections.

The interesting thing about this one is that it is in the form of a referendum, where the ballot is a simple yes or no and it is not an election.

I've spoken to several Thais who seem rather put off by the concept of this or simplicity of it... or lack of choice, as in an election with multiple candidates. It's like they can't be bothered to go to trouble of voting when it's "only a yes or no." For this reason and also the polls (even considering their traditional unrealibility) would seem to indicate to me that the voter turnout for this will be lower than typical.

It will still be high when compared to Western democracies that don't have a law requiring them to vote.

To the OP, that is a consideration to take into account. When not fulfilling the requirement to cast your ballot, it comes with repercussions. Granted these "punishments" may not be all that severe or even applicable to any real extent to some citizens, it very well may to many.

As for changing of this constitution, I thought everyone took it for granted that when the elections occur and a new PM and Parliament are in place, that an entirely new constitution will be written... or short of that, that wholesale changes will be made to the one being voted on.

The laws governing elections and referendums are not quite the same, the major difference is that in any election be it local or general, the citizens have a duty to vote, whereas in a referendum they don't. As the ECT points out on their website:

The referendum according to the 2006 interim constitution is not compulsory; therefore, there is no penalty for a person who does not turn out to vote. It is different from an election which is compulsory.

As for changing the Constitution. There is a process for doing this, but it will require a total support of 301 members of the House of Representatives and Senate. Historically there have been very few changes made to Constitutions. The largest number of changes to date was to the 1991 Constitution, which had a total of 3 ammendments 2 of which were to repeal sections in Chapter 11 (Transitory Provisions, Articles 219 & 221) and the 3rd was to change the date for the first sitting of the National Assembly (Article 133). The 1997 Constitution was never ammended. (Just cremated.....)

[mrtoad]

I don't think either way things will greatly change. From what I can see, all the same old self interested toads are hanging around the pond waiting to jump back in.

Whatever changes are made, you can be certain that the benefits for the average Thai will be a lot less than the benefits for the Puyai.

As it is, the old elite are only trying to stregnthen their grip on power, and this tinpot Junta have been an able tool in performing that duty.

I don't care much for Thaksin but I can see why he was popular with the masses.

[marshbags]

We can't decide what/how to vote in the consitution referendum.

On the one hand you could just look at the constitution, decide that it sucks and vote 'no'.

However voting at all would be legitimizing the whole thing.

But then not voting might mean the thing gets accepted or the government would point to a big/larger 'yes' vote.

What to do?

In my view the question is not about the constitution, but about giving the coup and increased role of the military legitimacy or not.

Not voting at all means acceptance either way, the 'Yes' vote will show ones support, and the 'No' vote will show disagreement with the role of the military.

A constitution will anyhow come, and it will be one the military approves. The 'No' vote is the only option not to give popular legitimacy to the military. But given the "policy corruption" and "vote buying" of the military regarding the referendum (free bus rides, holiday, etc.) combined with intimidation tactics against opponents (stopping people from attending demonstrations, arresting leaders of demonstrations under flimsy excuses, especially the case of Sombat Boon-ngamanong, etc.) - even a 'Yes' result will be disputed in the end, and the problems of legitimacy crises in Thailand will continue for the foreseeable future.

In the mean time there will be the little matter of taking the PUYAI with vested self rewarding interest who started all present situations off.

The way Thai politics have evovled in the past there are 2 considerations

Do you want more of the same or do you want to at least try and lay a foundation for real change and put a line under all the exploitation and minipulating of the last constitution were it belongs......

Then progress from there and hopefully continue with good intentions and real progress in mind as and when the election is concluded.

Thank god many have an option to decide their childrens futures and i count myself among them.

On the other hand isn,t it a tragic situation for all those not able to choose as applicable to most of my Thai friends in Issan, should the PUYAI with their greedy, dishonest, self interest be allowed to continue to prosper.

The foul aroma of S**T is over powering when these @#$@#$ are around.

There,s a strong smell drifting all the way from the U.K. that certainly needs neutralising and permanently capping.

marshbags

The political crises of Thailand was not started by Thaksin. If you care to read books you will learn that Thaksin was nothing than a product of a dysfunctional system that started long before he was even born, and what we see now is part of a logical evolution of the old semi feudal patron client system, and not "foundations for real change".

What great difference is in the new constitution other than going back to semi appointed senate with powers to dismiss politicians, a greater role of military and bureaucracy, weakening of powers of elected politicians. Nothing we didn't have already, only that already 20 to 30 years ago this same system led to nothing but injustice.

What you are quoting is " history "

Thaksin isn,t just yet.

The whole point of having a new constitution is surely about the " FUTURE " and the way forward not live in the past.

By the way C.P.

Just for the record and for your referrence when appearing to say otherwise, i am well versed and informed on the mis use of power and self enrichment by the minority of the country who were elected to a priviliged and trusted position.

When are individuals going to stop using history as the rebut to pertinent observations on the best way forward for the good of Thailand and all it,s citizens while seemingly lessening their actions and thereby implying it,s o.k. then and acceptable.

IT IS NOT

Thaksin is in the present and a league of his own.

What is happening now is down to him, along with his puppets and his infamous years in power and abuse that brought it all about and let,s therefore give dis-credit were it is due and stop taking it away from him as the P. Master

After all he has rightly earned the dis-credit of bringing us to this present chaos that has and is unfolding from his years in office and CEO

marshbags

Edited August 12, 2007 by marshbags

[chownah]

Trying to pursuade people to not vote is against the law and ThaiVisa has a strong policy stating that we can not encourage law breaking in our posts. I haven't read the entire thread so excuse me if this has been mentioned before.

Edited August 12, 2007 by chownah

[Mid]

As for changing of this constitution, I thought everyone took it for granted that when the elections occur and a new PM and Parliament are in place, that an entirely new constitution will be written... or short of that, that wholesale changes will be made to the one being voted on.

long way out on that limb SJ .

[ColPyat]

What you are quoting is " history "

marshbags

History is an ongoing process, it doesn't just stop when you say so, or when it is convenient for you. Thakin was a problem, the renewed grab for power by the military is an even bigger problem, both resulting from yet unresolved conflicts in contemporary Thai history.

Read up on it, please.

[sriracha john]

Perhaps... but perhaps not, as any constitution here has a short shelf-life.

Around Mother's Day supper get-together this evening, the family counts 9 voters, all who have decided to vote "Yes" on the referendum. To the person they had tired of the lack of permanent government dating back to the dissolving Parliament and felt this was the best way forward.

To slimdog: Thank you for your clarification on the differences in voting obligations.

[ColPyat]

Trying to pursuade people to not vote is against the law and ThaiVisa has a strong policy stating that we can not encourage law breaking in our posts. I haven't read the entire thread so excuse me if this has been mentioned before.

I don't think anybody here has yet made that mistake.

Unfortunately though now people who exercise their right of advocating a "No" vote in the referendum are also now under serious "legal" threat, as several arrests of activists have already shown.

[duratanium]

Apart from the fact Thais are supposed to vote by law (as I understand it), surely to abstain from voting means you have no right to criticise in the future if things do not go as you hope they will.

Voting NO / Yes at least means you have voiced your opinion.

[PeaceBlondie]

Reviewing this thread quickly, I don't see that anybody has advocated not voting. To answer the question in the topic title, "Vote NO.:"

[Sanpatong]

Previously she voted Democrat as the lesser of the evils, but since the Democrats issued the boycott, and turned into military apologists, she will not vote for them anymore.

Hear hear... EXACTLY the same overhere.

[ColPyat]

Giles Ungpakorn has issued an interesting statement on the referendum. I hope posting it here does not break any boardrules, if so, please delete:

---------------------------------------------------------

The 19th August Constitutional Referendum Process is Undemocratic

It is now obvious that the military junta have no intention of conducting a clean and democratic referendum on their new constitution. While the government is shamelessly spending millions of the public's baht on propaganda urging the population to vote "yes" and accept the constitution, those who are opposed to it are prevented from campaigning properly by arrests, threats and a total lack of access in the media. The referendum cannot therefore be regarded as democratic, according to any international or Thai standards. Regardless of the outcome of this dirty referendum, the Peoples Movement must continue to campaign for real political reform, social justice and the building of a welfare state from progressive taxation.

It is necessary to remind ourselves that those in the Peoples Alliance for Democracy (P.A.D.) and those intellectuals and academics who welcomed the coup as the "only way to get rid of Thaksin's authoritarianism", used the excuse of a "dirty election" on the 2nd April 2007 to justify the coup and to justify collaborating with the junta. The present referendum is infinitely more dirty and undemocratic compared to the 2 nd of April election, which was a kind of referendum on the Thaksin government. At that time we and many others were able to campaign openly for a "no" vote against Thaksin without any threats or hindrance. The press carried the views of those who opposed the government. Yet we hear no protests from the ex-members of the P.A.D. or from the pro-coup intellectuals about the way the junta's referendum is being conducted.

We would really prefer to boycott this undemocratic referendum. Yet, the current to boycott among the millions who oppose the junta's constitution is very small. Therefore we shall stand with the majority and urge people to vote "No". Never the less, if the referendum results in a "yes" majority, the outcome can have little legitimacy.

There are many reasons for voting against the junta's constitution apart from the fact that the whole drafting process was undemocratic, resulting from a coup and lacking any public participation. Despite the lies by junta supporters, the constitution decreases the democratic space while increasing the power of the unelected military, judiciary and bureaucracy. There has been no significant progress over the 1997 constitution on issues related to gender rights, community and ethnic rights, trade union rights and the issue of a free media. The constitution is even more neo-liberal and pro-market, increasing the role of big business, privatisation and forcing governments to cut public welfare spending, while increasing the military budget. Where it mentions welfare or health, the clauses are more backward than the existing system. Finally, there is no road to peace and justice for the South built into the constitution. None of this is surprising. The junta's drafters and their supporters are in no way interested in true political reform, democracy and social justice. There sole aim is to block the re-election of Thai Rak Thai and to decrease the democratic space because they do not think that the poor should have the right to vote. This is why they have ignored all the important proposals for political reform which many of us in the Peoples Movement have been discussing from long before the time of the coup.

The struggle for democracy, social justice and peace must continue. A "No" vote is only an important part of this struggle against dictatorial powers and injustice in Thailand.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

On behalf of the Peoples Coalition Party

---------------------------------------------------------------