Proposed Constitution Clears Referendum With Comfortable Margin

[Plus]

A couple of days ago NLA there had a public gathering (about thirty people) and then marched to their party headquarters. They were stopped and arrested on the way.

[marshbags]

A couple of days ago NLA there had a public gathering (about thirty people) and then marched to their party headquarters. They were stopped and arrested on the way.

There will also, sadly, be many others arrested who are judged to be connected in some minute way or another !!!!!!!!

Others will also fit into this catergory i am sad to say, who are not !!!!!

marshbags

Edited August 25, 2007 by marshbags

[jumnien]

Yes, I've spent time in Myanmar over the last 10 years but I'm certainly not the political expert on South East Asia that you consider yourself to be. In all modesty, I noticed many non colonial-english speaking people refer to the country in terms different from "Burma" with many variations and inflections. Many international observers do not consider Myanmar to be under the rule of a junta or a regime. Some astute among them think it a dictatorship primarily under the direction of one man rather than a true collective.

[Jai Dee]

Time for opposing result of referendum has ended

The Secretary-General of the Election Commission (EC) of Thailand, Dr. Sutthipol Thaweechaikarn (สุทธิพล ทวีชัยการ), says the time to oppose the result of the 2007 constitution referendum has ended.

In response to the People's Power Party (PPP) Secretary-General, Md. Surapong Suebwonglee (สุรพงษ์ สืบวงศ์ลี)’s plan to submit a document against the referendum, Dr.Sutthipol says the document must be handed within 24 hours following the referendum, and the time has passed.

As for the general election date, the EC considers December 23rd, 2007 as the most appropriate day. However, it also depends on the government’s discretion.

According to Mr. Chai-anan Samudavanija (ชัยอนันต์ สมุทรวณิช), an academic, he believes about 30 billion baht will be used for vote-buying activities.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 25 August 2007

[marshbags]

Yes, I've spent time in Myanmar over the last 10 years but I'm certainly not the political expert on South East Asia that you consider yourself to be. In all modesty, I noticed many non colonial-english speaking people refer to the country in terms different from "Burma" with many variations and inflections. Many international observers do not consider Myanmar to be under the rule of a junta or a regime. Some astute among them think it a dictatorship primarily under the direction of one man rather than a true collective.

If i may be allowed to respond as i think comparisons are relevant re " Junta " interpretations.

I am not an expert

I post my personal experiences relating to Myanmar from ordinary Burmese perspectives.

They are frightened, just go visit the markets or road side eating houses and ask about life in Burma.

You can see the fear in their eyes and when they talk to you about everyday life the ones who are willing to speak do so with great apprehension and in low voices and whispers.

Your experience is obviously different from mine and perhaps you do not mix with the ordinary low paid professionals, teachers and community workers ect.

The jails are full of them ( dissenters ) by the way and well you should know this.

In public everyone refers to the military terminology " Myanmar " so yes you will find references to the new name for the country.

You are not including Human Rights organisations and NGo,s in your " International Observers " nor come to that, the recent diplomatic observations of a U.K. group who are specifically investigating the finacial support for a rogue regime by un unethical sponsors and business.

One such high profile case that surprisingly comes of the tip of my tongue happens to be a certain SHIN CORP and the facilitating of a very favourable loan from the Thai financial institutions to pay for deal between them and the regime.

The CEO of Shin Corp being the same CEO of the government of the day and again surprise, surpirse, the owner of the company.

Please edit if it qualifies for a serious off topic offence, mods.

Now back on topic

How amazing that in a country were there is actual oppression BIG TIME it seemingly goes un noticed, while in Thailand were there is very little in the way of enforcement by comparison, all you hear is the opposite.

I have yet to witness any cruelty and military personel walking about the streets or riding about in open back trucks armed to the teeth and packed with soldiers who will arrest anyone and everyone for a multitude of pathetic reasons that they consider are non peaceful acts against them.

How many dissenters are being arrested and locked away apart from those who are commiting offences that incite, cause unrest and violence ??????

Thailand is in the main, being kept in a peaceful environment which is a fete in itself when you consider the dark influences doing their best to create havoc and turmoil to satisfy their selfish interests and agendas.

What regime / Junta type of behaviour warrants the unfair criticism that this has / is taking place in Thailand ???

Were are all the international outcries on cruelty, voilence and oppression, apart from in the initial stages of the coup when uncertainty regarding its objectives were being questioned.

The above reference to Shin Corp is an example and one of the reasons a new constitution has been written and will close lopholes that were exploited by a cunning unethical individual and was to the detriment of society and the country.

There is of course a list as long as your arm on reasons why this new constitution was / had to be written.

marshbags

Edited August 25, 2007 by marshbags

[jumnien]

Yes, you are probably right. The Thai army is deeply concerned about human rights in Myanmar and wants to make sure no Thai corporations assist the regime. Thus, the new constitution. What noble souls they are...

[B-BOY]

Came across this article in Economist and found it an excellent read. Would be interested reading your opinion:

Thailand's referendum

The long march back to the barracks

Aug 23rd 2007

From The Economist print edition

There may be such a thing as a good coup; Thailand's was certainly not one

FROM Pakistan to Fiji, from Bangladesh to Thailand, the men in green are finding what they should have known all along: that it is far easier for soldiers to topple an elected government than to manage their own exit from the front of the political stage. Many generals, however, never learn that lesson. What is surprising in Thailand, which on August 19th held a referendum designed to smooth their exit (see article), is that so many of the country's elite cheered them on when they staged their coup a year ago. Critics of the coup—such as this newspaper—were denounced for misunderstanding both the depth of the evil of Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister they deposed, and the wonders of Thailand itself.

We had no fondness for Mr Thaksin: the human-rights abuses perpetrated by the security forces on his watch were deplorable and some of his nationalist economic policies were loopy. But he had a mandate. His Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party won 375 of the 500 lower-house seats in the last valid election, in 2005. Democracy produces some nasty leaders. But that is no reason for ditching it. Even the best-intentioned coups leave an ugly mess, such as that now facing Thailand.

In the referendum voters approved the new constitution the generals want to foist on them. But it is difficult to see the vote as a ringing endorsement of the new charter itself, let alone as a vindication of last September's coup. Turnout was low; the winning majority even lower; and an unknown share of those who voted yes will have done so only to move the country on towards the elections promised for December, after which, it is hoped, the soldiers will quit politics.

The charter is designed to prevent the re-emergence of an elected strongman like Mr Thaksin. To this end, it contains some unobjectionable measures, such as reducing the number of parliamentarians needed to call a vote of no confidence in the prime minister and strengthening the powers of the national human-rights commission. Public criticism forced the army to drop some egregiously undemocratic clauses, such as the provision for a “national crisis council”, including army officers, to take charge in any future political conflict. However, some dubious bits remain: almost half of the Senate will be appointed by a panel of judges and bureaucrats; and the coupmakers themselves are granted a blanket amnesty.

Even with the “crisis council” expunged from the constitution, the spectre of the army whipping up a crisis to justify seizing power again has not quite gone away. Now that the constitution has passed, the generals may have another go at pushing through a draconian security law, giving the army sweeping new powers to override the elected government and make arrests, search homes without warrants and impose curfews and censorship. All this in the name of combating threats to “internal security”, defined so broadly that the army could treat pretty well any dissent as such.

Built-in weakness

In May a constitutional tribunal created by the junta found the TRT guilty of electoral fraud and dissolved it. But the charter-drafters wanted to make it harder for any other dominant majority party to emerge in future. For that reason, the new constitution tweaks the voting system in favour of smaller parties. This is ironic: the whole point of Thailand's last democratic constitution, passed in 1997, was to free the country from the cycle of weak and unstable coalitions and frequent coups. The danger is now that the charter will succeed too well and Thailand will be back to weak governments.

This would suit the military-royalist elite. They could go back to running the country from behind the scenes. But there is a risk of stagnation. Thailand's economy is already growing slower than its neighbours' in part because of the continuing political uncertainty. A fractious coalition government, or one run by bumbling generals, might make things worse.

The new constitution is Thailand's 18th since the end of absolute monarchy in 1932 and, sadly, may not be its last. The army may have doomed Thailand to further cycles of constitution, crisis and coup. The next flashpoint may not be far off. Hundreds of Mr Thaksin's former MPs have regrouped under the banner of the People's Power Party (PPP). Since Mr Thaksin and his populist policies retain wide support, the PPP may enter the election campaign as front-runner. But the generals will surely do their damnedest to thwart a Thaksinite restoration. If they fight dirty, the relatively small anti-junta protests seen so far could quickly swell. The road back to the barracks is, as ever, strewn with hazards.

Edited August 26, 2007 by B-BOY

[B-BOY]

agree with you chai88, looks like we were reading same story at same time...

[B-BOY]

here's one more interesting piece from this weekends economist:

Thailand

Not a vote for the generals

Aug 23rd 2007 | BANGKOK

From The Economist print edition

What will Thailand's generals do if Thaksin Shinawatra's supporters look like winning the coming election?

THAILAND'S army chiefs seem to have overestimated their popularity, as military dictators often do. They staged a massive propaganda effort to get people to turn out and vote in August 19th's referendum—the country's first ever—and to say yes to a new constitution written by a military-appointed panel. Yet the turnout was a tepid 58%. And though the constitution was approved, the yes vote was just 57%. Some of those voting yes will have done so only because the passing of the constitution paves the way for elections, promised for December. They were voting to hasten the end of the military dictatorship, not to express support for it.

The referendum showed that Thailand remains deeply divided: in the poor and populous north-east, a stronghold of Thaksin Shinawatra, the elected prime minister deposed in last September's coup, 62% voted to reject the charter. In the south, a stronghold of the Democrats, the main opposition in the last elected parliament, the yes vote was 88%. In recent months, graft-busting panels appointed by the military have begun to bring corruption cases against Mr Thaksin, who is exiled in Britain. In the week leading up to the referendum, the Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for him, for failing to appear at a hearing for alleged corruption over his wife's purchase of a chunk of prime state-owned land in Bangkok. But the high rejection rate for the generals' constitution in Mr Thaksin's heartlands suggests that his popularity has largely survived the efforts to discredit him.

After the referendum on August 19th, General Surayud Chulanont, the prime minister, insisted that elections would “definitely” be held in late December. But three days later General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, the army chief, felt obliged to deny rumours, which had caused a stockmarket slump, that some sort of further coup was in the works.

Mr Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party was dissolved in May by a Constitutional Tribunal set up by the junta, for misdeeds in a general election held in 2006 and subsequently annulled. He and over 100 of his cronies were barred from politics for five years. However, more than 200 former TRT parliamentarians subsequently joined the obscure People's Power Party (PPP). Their numbers comfortably exceed the 96 seats that the Democrats won in the last valid election, in 2005 (compared with TRT's 375). So the PPP may enter the coming election campaign as frontrunner.

The prospect of a reborn Thaksinite party leading the next government is surely not one the generals would relish. The plan, it is assumed, was that after TRT's demise Thailand would return to the weak and short-lived coalition governments that had preceded its rise to power in 2001. Several changes in the new constitution—such as the merging of single-seat constituencies into larger ones in which the second- and third-placed candidates would also win seats—seem designed to give lesser parties more of a chance and thus increase the likelihood of unstable multi-party coalitions.

If so, the royalist-military elite who staged the coup would be able to return to exerting influence behind the scenes, as they did in pre-Thaksin times. General Sonthi has even been flirting with the idea of standing for parliament himself, hoping to be invited, in the absence of an alternative leader, to be prime minister at the head of such a coalition government.

However, if the PPP won hundreds of seats and emerged as the mainstay of the next government, these hopes would be dashed. Even more alarming for the generals, the PPP has been courting Samak Sundaravej, a fiery right-winger and former governor of Bangkok, to be its leader. Mr Samak is a fierce critic of General Prem Tinsulanonda, a former prime minister who is chief adviser to King Bhumibol and, it is widely assumed, was the driving force behind the coup. By a convenient coincidence, this week the auditor-general's office suddenly announced plans to bring charges against Mr Samak over four-year-old corruption allegations.

In the generals' worst nightmares, the Thaksinites win control of the government and use their power to fix things so that Mr Thaksin gets off his corruption charges and his ban from politics is lifted. Then they amend the just-approved constitution to remove the amnesty that it grants to the coup-makers. It seems unlikely that the army will let this happen.

A compromise is still imaginable, for instance if a PPP-led coalition chooses a more emollient prime minister. One name being mentioned a lot in Bangkok is that of Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, an elderly former general who is said to have reasonably good relations with both Mr Thaksin and General Prem, and a strong desire to return to politics. Mr Chavalit, however, had a disastrous stint as prime minister ten years ago. His government badly mishandled Thailand's financial crisis, which soon spread to much of the rest of Asia.

Several more months, at least, of uncertainty lie ahead. By the time the election is held—assuming it goes ahead on schedule—Thailand's political agony will have dragged on for two years. This has taken a toll on the economy, which is expected to grow by only 4% this year, much less than the rest of South-East Asia. Even in this respect, the generals cannot boast that they have done better than the politicians.

[blaze]

here's one more interesting piece from this weekends economist:

Thailand

Not a vote for the generals

Aug 23rd 2007 | BANGKOK

From The Economist print edition

What will Thailand's generals do if Thaksin Shinawatra's supporters look like winning the coming election?

THAILAND'S army chiefs seem to have overestimated their popularity, as military dictators often do. They staged a massive propaganda effort to get people to turn out and vote in August 19th's referendum—the country's first ever—and to say yes to a new constitution written by a military-appointed panel. Yet the turnout was a tepid 58%. And though the constitution was approved, the yes vote was just 57%. Some of those voting yes will have done so only because the passing of the constitution paves the way for elections, promised for December. They were voting to hasten the end of the military dictatorship, not to express support for it.

The referendum showed that Thailand remains deeply divided: in the poor and populous north-east, a stronghold of Thaksin Shinawatra, the elected prime minister deposed in last September's coup, 62% voted to reject the charter. In the south, a stronghold of the Democrats, the main opposition in the last elected parliament, the yes vote was 88%. In recent months, graft-busting panels appointed by the military have begun to bring corruption cases against Mr Thaksin, who is exiled in Britain. In the week leading up to the referendum, the Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for him, for failing to appear at a hearing for alleged corruption over his wife's purchase of a chunk of prime state-owned land in Bangkok. But the high rejection rate for the generals' constitution in Mr Thaksin's heartlands suggests that his popularity has largely survived the efforts to discredit him.

After the referendum on August 19th, General Surayud Chulanont, the prime minister, insisted that elections would “definitely” be held in late December. But three days later General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, the army chief, felt obliged to deny rumours, which had caused a stockmarket slump, that some sort of further coup was in the works.

Mr Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party was dissolved in May by a Constitutional Tribunal set up by the junta, for misdeeds in a general election held in 2006 and subsequently annulled. He and over 100 of his cronies were barred from politics for five years. However, more than 200 former TRT parliamentarians subsequently joined the obscure People's Power Party (PPP). Their numbers comfortably exceed the 96 seats that the Democrats won in the last valid election, in 2005 (compared with TRT's 375). So the PPP may enter the coming election campaign as frontrunner.

The prospect of a reborn Thaksinite party leading the next government is surely not one the generals would relish. The plan, it is assumed, was that after TRT's demise Thailand would return to the weak and short-lived coalition governments that had preceded its rise to power in 2001. Several changes in the new constitution—such as the merging of single-seat constituencies into larger ones in which the second- and third-placed candidates would also win seats—seem designed to give lesser parties more of a chance and thus increase the likelihood of unstable multi-party coalitions.

If so, the royalist-military elite who staged the coup would be able to return to exerting influence behind the scenes, as they did in pre-Thaksin times. General Sonthi has even been flirting with the idea of standing for parliament himself, hoping to be invited, in the absence of an alternative leader, to be prime minister at the head of such a coalition government.

However, if the PPP won hundreds of seats and emerged as the mainstay of the next government, these hopes would be dashed. Even more alarming for the generals, the PPP has been courting Samak Sundaravej, a fiery right-winger and former governor of Bangkok, to be its leader. Mr Samak is a fierce critic of General Prem Tinsulanonda, a former prime minister who is chief adviser to King Bhumibol and, it is widely assumed, was the driving force behind the coup. By a convenient coincidence, this week the auditor-general's office suddenly announced plans to bring charges against Mr Samak over four-year-old corruption allegations.

In the generals' worst nightmares, the Thaksinites win control of the government and use their power to fix things so that Mr Thaksin gets off his corruption charges and his ban from politics is lifted. Then they amend the just-approved constitution to remove the amnesty that it grants to the coup-makers. It seems unlikely that the army will let this happen.

A compromise is still imaginable, for instance if a PPP-led coalition chooses a more emollient prime minister. One name being mentioned a lot in Bangkok is that of Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, an elderly former general who is said to have reasonably good relations with both Mr Thaksin and General Prem, and a strong desire to return to politics. Mr Chavalit, however, had a disastrous stint as prime minister ten years ago. His government badly mishandled Thailand's financial crisis, which soon spread to much of the rest of Asia.

Several more months, at least, of uncertainty lie ahead. By the time the election is held—assuming it goes ahead on schedule—Thailand's political agony will have dragged on for two years. This has taken a toll on the economy, which is expected to grow by only 4% this year, much less than the rest of South-East Asia. Even in this respect, the generals cannot boast that they have done better than the politicians.

Good articles. Thanks for posting BBOY and Chai88. While of course there will be those who say that the Economist has a hidden agenda or is in THaksin's pocket or simply doesn't understand the 'true' situation- these scenarios are not too far off from editorials which have been popping up in the Post and that Nation in the last few weeks.

[jumnien]

It's really interesting to see the how the times have changed so quickly since the OP described the margin as "comfortable".

[sriracha john]

Thanks for posting BBOY and Chai88.

I don't think you have to thank them individually....

but at least "they" learned on the second posting of the second article not to add on deletable comments...

good job, mods...

[Mid]

Attempt to censure Govt aborted

August 29, 2007 : Last updated 08:13 pm

An attempt to censure the interim government by some members of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) is aborted as NLA Speaker Meechai Ruchuphan insisted Wednesday the new constitution did not give such a way to cause trouble to the national administration.

"It is not possible to censure the government because the constitution does not give the legislators such authority," he said.

The NLA members [led by veteran Prasong Soonsiri] instead should concentrate on their legislative jobs as loads of work were pending, he said.

The Nation

[Siripon]

It's really interesting to see the how the times have changed so quickly since the OP described the margin as "comfortable".

You anti junta boys must be feeling good that Thaksin's nominee is a staunch right- wingist who burnt and banned many books as Interior Minister 30 years ago, a real freedom loving democrat.

Times haven't changed. All the political candidates are chomping on the bit, trying to get a piece of the action.

The only ones who have made a moral standpoint are the Democrats who have stated they'll not join Samak under any conditions.

The race has just begun, anything can happen betwen now and Christmas.

[ColPyat]

It's really interesting to see the how the times have changed so quickly since the OP described the margin as "comfortable".

You anti junta boys must be feeling good that Thaksin's nominee is a staunch right- wingist who burnt and banned many books as Interior Minister 30 years ago, a real freedom loving democrat.

Times haven't changed. All the political candidates are chomping on the bit, trying to get a piece of the action.

The only ones who have made a moral standpoint are the Democrats who have stated they'll not join Samak under any conditions.

The race has just begun, anything can happen betwen now and Christmas.

No moral standpoint, i am afraid - pure pragmatism.

There is one single reason why Samak was chosen to lead the rump TRT now PPP, and that has had nothing to do with him being an extreme right winger - but because he is seen as someone powerful enough to stand against Prem, a short term solution. Don't forget that their most capable politicians have been banned for 5 years.

And that is a conflict the Democrats are under no circumstances willing to engage in, especially not against Prem. Everybody knows what this is about, and morals it is not.

There are many anti junta people and democracy activists who will not support PPP, and especially not Samak.

But yes, anything can happen. The next event will be the retirement of Sonthi.

[hammered]

It's really interesting to see the how the times have changed so quickly since the OP described the margin as "comfortable".

You anti junta boys must be feeling good that Thaksin's nominee is a staunch right- wingist who burnt and banned many books as Interior Minister 30 years ago, a real freedom loving democrat.

Times haven't changed. All the political candidates are chomping on the bit, trying to get a piece of the action.

The only ones who have made a moral standpoint are the Democrats who have stated they'll not join Samak under any conditions.

The race has just begun, anything can happen betwen now and Christmas.

No moral standpoint, i am afraid - pure pragmatism.

There is one single reason why Samak was chosen to lead the rump TRT now PPP, and that has had nothing to do with him being an extreme right winger - but because he is seen as someone powerful enough to stand against Prem, a short term solution. Don't forget that their most capable politicians have been banned for 5 years.

And that is a conflict the Democrats are under no circumstances willing to engage in, especially not against Prem. Everybody knows what this is about, and morals it is not.

There are many anti junta people and democracy activists who will not support PPP, and especially not Samak.

But yes, anything can happen. The next event will be the retirement of Sonthi.

Nobody with any real principles will support the PPP with Samak as its head. That is a simple litmus test. Short term reality or whatever, one with principles will never sell them out by aligning with Samak. There is no justification for that at all. Either you have principles or you dont. Period.

It is nice to actually see some ex-TRT people now removing themselves from PPP with the book burning cheerleader of massacres as its head.

[Tony Clifton]

Here we go, only took about a week!

Govt to amend 2007 constitution

(BangkokPost.com) - All political parties agree that there are flaws in the 2007 constitution and welcome amendments, Prime Minister's Office Minister Chusak Sirinil said Wednesday.

Mr Chusak, assigned by Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej to amend the constitution drafted during the military-elected government, said he expects it will take a few months to study the charter thoroughly before any amendments can be proposed to Mr samak.

He insisted the amendments are not aimed at granting amnesty to any political groups

He added that the government will take into consideration the balancing of power of the three branches and the monitoring of the administrative branch.

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

All political parties? Of the country or parties of the coalition?