Political Hypocrisy?

[jumnien]

I can understand people not liking Thaksin, but the greater loss is that now *ANY* elected government has to keep looking over its shoulder, including those future ones that you WOULD actually like.

Wasn't the problem with Thaksin that he no one looking over his shoulder?

Obviously, someone was looking over Thaksin's shoulder and didn't like what they saw. 14 tanks from the same organization that slaughtered Thais mercilessly in 1976 and 1992 rode into town and took over as they've done many times before. This organization then went on to support the Democrat party and honestly thought the Thai people would take their suggestion more seriously.

[jumnien]

Yeah, Sri Racha. And there's been a lot of coup d'etat / pro-dictatorship / (so-called) "democrat" apologists posting as well.

What many people did favour though was the ousting of a corrupt and selfish individual who through meddling and interference had gained a vice like grip on power that he was intent on keeping, no matter what consequences, even bloodshed, which was what we were on the verge of in Bangkok.

Good summary of the Sondhi-led military junta. It is a nice feeling that his vice like grip on power as you put it so well has subsided. Thailand can move on now, hopefully!

I was of course refering to Thaksin... but you knew that.

If we accept your theory that Sondhi is the one with the vice like grip on power, how do you explain that it has subsided as you put it? Just how vice like could it have been for it to subside?

Sondhi has been slapped in the face by the Thai people and the vice grip has temporarily weakened though he and his organization do run the show by virtue of the ridiculous constitution they rammed down the throats of the Thai people during their terrible reign. As for the vice grip, many think another coup will occur if the PPP impedes their relentless feeding at the trough.

[Lilawadee]

saves on re-typing to quote the exact same conversation...

Indeed it does, thanks for that. In your quote it appears that you yourself wrote posted:

Thaksin is eliminated from Forbes Asia billionaires list

Chaleo Yoovidhya, Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi and Dhanin Chearavanont are the only dollar billionaires in Thailand in the latest rankings by Forbes Asia of the country's wealthiest individuals. Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, ranked fourth in last year's poll, saw his ranking drop to 14th with a net wealth of $300 million. Forbes noted that the Assets Scrutiny Committee last month froze $1.84 billion held by Mr Thaksin and his family. The latest rankings show that the number of billionaires in Thailand has fallen to three from 10 a decade ago. The 40 richest Thais are worth $19 billion, down from $20 billion last year. Minimum net worth on the list has risen to $109 million from $50 million last year. The Thailand 40 Richest List will appear in the July 23 issue of Forbes Asia.

So that's different from what you just claimed in this topic, that Thaksin is "the richest of the richest of the absolute richest in Thailand."

Not that it truly matters of course, Thaksin was, and is, quite wealthy enough, as are a number of other major players in the Thai arena. And of course when it comes to influencing the public you don't HAVE to be super rich, because if you got the guns/power then you can just use the public's own tax money to use on campaigns, such as what the junta did to push their constitution.

[rixalex]

the ridiculous constitution they rammed down the throats of the Thai people during their terrible reign

By rammed down the throats do you mean voted in favour of in a referendum?

Terrible reign? Were they responsible for killing thousands of people? I know someone was.

[chevykanteve]

Yeah, Sri Racha. And there's been a lot of coup d'etat / pro-dictatorship / (so-called) "democrat" apologists posting as well.

What many people did favour though was the ousting of a corrupt and selfish individual who through meddling and interference had gained a vice like grip on power that he was intent on keeping, no matter what consequences, even bloodshed, which was what we were on the verge of in Bangkok.

Good summary of the Sondhi-led military junta. It is a nice feeling that his vice like grip on power as you put it so well has subsided. Thailand can move on now, hopefully!

I was of course refering to Thaksin... but you knew that.

If we accept your theory that Sondhi is the one with the vice like grip on power, how do you explain that it has subsided as you put it? Just how vice like could it have been for it to subside?

Sondhi has been slapped in the face by the Thai people and the vice grip has temporarily weakened though he and his organization do run the show by virtue of the ridiculous constitution they rammed down the throats of the Thai people during their terrible reign. As for the vice grip, many think another coup will occur if the PPP impedes their relentless feeding at the trough.

Yes, he (Sondhi) has been slapped in the face and --indeed-- LOST FACE[/b\ If he and the other (._ _. .. _ _. ...) continue to hunger for the trough, they might consider...... What?.... Gosh, well... Ask a man who knows everything.... ask Surayud: he'll have an answer.... he always does.

Edited January 26, 2008 by chevykanteve

[Lilawadee]

the ridiculous constitution they rammed down the throats of the Thai people during their terrible reign

By rammed down the throats do you mean voted in favour of in a referendum?

Ok, what do you call it when a junta leader actually says "You can vote for this constitution in front of me, or you can vote against it but then you will get the other constitution that I hold behind my back." ?

Terrible reign? Were they responsible for killing thousands of people? I know someone was.

After previous massacres at the hands of the Thai military I think everyone knew very well to sit very still while one is getting a shave.

[Siripon]

An important factor to remember is elections cost a lot of money in Thailand, the Democrats had little money when Thaksin called the snap election after just over a year in office.

And likewise now, Chart Thai and Pua Paen Din spent a lot the last few months and there's no way they want another election in the near future- one reason for joining the government- make it more stable, and more chance to recoup funds of course.

The Democrats, being supported by the most elite of the elite, the richest of the richest in Thailand, have no problems when it comes to raising money. Convincing Thai people to vote for them given their abysmal and elitest history, is the problem.

Please give some evidence of financial support for the Democrats from the elite,I've known one of their top MPs for years and money has often been an issue, especially after Thaksin's first win when big business deserted them seeing little hope of return for their investment.

Regarding 'abysmal' history, I suggest you read your history in more detail and you'll see the Democrats consistently opposed dictatorship and proposed democratic constitutions. For 'abysmal' you should really be looking at the record of the present PPP leader post October 1976 .A man now supported by the October remnants such as Surapong and Chaturon.

lol

It wasn't hard to get people to vote for the Democrats in the last election. In the proportionate representation vote they nearly equalled the PPP, a sign that nearly every educated voter in Thailand chose them as a party.

[chevykanteve]

the ridiculous constitution they rammed down the throats of the Thai people during their terrible reign

By rammed down the throats do you mean voted in favour of in a referendum?

Terrible reign? Were they responsible for killing thousands of people? I know someone was.

The courts aquitted 'them' for lack of evidence. Do you have evidence to re-open these cases?

[Ricardo]

the ridiculous constitution they rammed down the throats of the Thai people during their terrible reign

By rammed down the throats do you mean voted in favour of in a referendum?

Terrible reign? Were they responsible for killing thousands of people? I know someone was.

The courts aquitted 'them' for lack of evidence. Do you have evidence to re-open these cases?

Perhaps you are seriously proposing, that all the deaths (innocent or guilty) during Thaksin's 'war on drugs', were not executions by the police ? I don't think many people would agree with you. Although if you were to blame the Democrats & the military, it would be consistent, and might find a couple of supporters.

[JacknDanny]

An important factor to remember is elections cost a lot of money in Thailand, the Democrats had little money when Thaksin called the snap election after just over a year in office.

And likewise now, Chart Thai and Pua Paen Din spent a lot the last few months and there's no way they want another election in the near future- one reason for joining the government- make it more stable, and more chance to recoup funds of course.

The Democrats, being supported by the most elite of the elite, the richest of the richest in Thailand, have no problems when it comes to raising money. Convincing Thai people to vote for them given their abysmal and elitest history, is the problem.

Please give some evidence of financial support for the Democrats from the elite,I've known one of their top MPs for years and money has often been an issue, especially after Thaksin's first win when big business deserted them seeing little hope of return for their investment.

Regarding 'abysmal' history, I suggest you read your history in more detail and you'll see the Democrats consistently opposed dictatorship and proposed democratic constitutions. For 'abysmal' you should really be looking at the record of the present PPP leader post October 1976 .A man now supported by the October remnants such as Surapong and Chaturon.

lol

It wasn't hard to get people to vote for the Democrats in the last election. In the proportionate representation vote they nearly equalled the PPP, a sign that nearly every educated voter in Thailand chose them as a party.

Excellent post,Siripon, though I fear wasted on some of the contributors to this forum

Edited January 26, 2008 by JacknDanny

[Lilawadee]

I suggest you read your history in more detail and you'll see the Democrats consistently opposed dictatorship and proposed democratic constitutions.

Absolutely. Which I guess is why I've been even more disappointed in the actions of the Democrat party during the last two years or so. I really wish they can regain the moral high ground regarding 'democracy'.

It wasn't hard to get people to vote for the Democrats in the last election. In the proportionate representation vote they nearly equalled the PPP, a sign that nearly every educated voter in Thailand chose them as a party.

Oh dear, there's that nugget again. "Only illiterate peasants vote for Thaksin/PPP".. Sorry, but I think that people arguing along those lines doesn't fully appreciate democracy, and that all votes count equal, never mind if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and spent your youth getting a cool Oxford education, or have slaved on a farm for 40 years. Look, if you're slaved on a farm for 40 years and finally a politician comes along who doesn't only throws nice parties & money around during election time but actually makes good on promises on getting roads built, offering loans to improve that farm and offer affordable health-care, then I say that person is informed enough to reflect his appreciation for those things in his vote. That's how it works the world over by the way, there's parties catering to the 'haves' (tax cuts, come & get 'em!) and the have-nots (social security, healthcare, come & get 'em!) and this weighs in heavily in the way people vote.

[samran]

I suggest you read your history in more detail and you'll see the Democrats consistently opposed dictatorship and proposed democratic constitutions.

Absolutely. Which I guess is why I've been even more disappointed in the actions of the Democrat party during the last two years or so. I really wish they can regain the moral high ground regarding 'democracy'.

It wasn't hard to get people to vote for the Democrats in the last election. In the proportionate representation vote they nearly equalled the PPP, a sign that nearly every educated voter in Thailand chose them as a party.

Oh dear, there's that nugget again. "Only illiterate peasants vote for Thaksin/PPP".. Sorry, but I think that people arguing along those lines doesn't fully appreciate democracy, and that all votes count equal, never mind if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and spent your youth getting a cool Oxford education, or have slaved on a farm for 40 years. Look, if you're slaved on a farm for 40 years and finally a politician comes along who doesn't only throws nice parties & money around during election time but actually makes good on promises on getting roads built, offering loans to improve that farm and offer affordable health-care, then I say that person is informed enough to reflect his appreciation for those things in his vote. That's how it works the world over by the way, there's parties catering to the 'haves' (tax cuts, come & get 'em!) and the have-nots (social security, healthcare, come & get 'em!) and this weighs in heavily in the way people vote.

nice bleating about democracy though when none of the PPP guys actually beleive in the concept, or rule of law, or due process. Love the fact that our next interior minister is a father to rampaging sons who hid one of them after he allegedly murdered a police officer in a night club. Mysteriously didn't know where his son was until the witnesses mysteriously forgot that they saw his son 'alegedly' shoot said policeman.

This is a man I am relying on to countersign my wifes Thai citizneship application later this year! I guess, if it happens, I won't have to bother him for an autograph.

[Lilawadee]

nice bleating about democracy though when none of the PPP guys actually beleive in the concept, or rule of law, or due process. Love the fact that our next interior minister is a father to rampaging sons who hid one of them after he allegedly murdered a police officer in a night club. Mysteriously didn't know where his son was until the witnesses mysteriously forgot that they saw his son 'alegedly' shoot said policeman.

I can't argue otherwise on that. It's indeed a sad state of affairs.

While I've been very active in this topic, I don't share the feeling of gloating about the current state of affairs as per the original post. There's really only losers at the moment, and nothing more so than democracy in Thailand.

In this light I think The Economist summed it up very well. It makes interesting reading especially for people who get the usual angle from The Nation and the like.

(The Economist: Good Riddance)

Edited January 26, 2008 by Lilawadee

[rixalex]

the ridiculous constitution they rammed down the throats of the Thai people during their terrible reign

By rammed down the throats do you mean voted in favour of in a referendum?

Terrible reign? Were they responsible for killing thousands of people? I know someone was.

The courts aquitted 'them' for lack of evidence. Do you have evidence to re-open these cases?

Oh my word! Just how deeply buried is that head of yours?

[MiG16]

boycotts - The reason for the boycott was that Thaksin called a snap election with little more than a month's notice. ........the other parties protested that they only party capable (financially) of organizing an nationwide election campaign was the TRT.

Ive seen this happen in other countries....most political parties in government would try to make use of the advantage they have. its done in malaysia all the time. I dont see the opposition boycotting it for that reason. plus...the Dec 23 election, how much time did parties have to campaign? not much over a month either.

Collaborating with the Military - I never heard any statement........this is just hot air. I seem to recall Aphisit being quite vocal in condemning the coup, at the time.

perhaps no statement....but from personal encounter....wouldnt call it hot air either. was at a lunch table with a staff from democrat party and guy from the Economist...who asked democrat staff about the 'rumour'. no comment to refute the 'rumour' was made. dont know how most political-minded people work, BUT if it were me, and my party is accused of such grave anti-democratic rumour....even when off the record...but by one of the most influential news magazine...Id go out of my way to set the record straight. but well...thats just me

Supporting an obviously flawed and non-democratic constitution - the Thai people voted for it in a referendum

one -- majority thais did not vote (rightly or wrongly...thats another issue..but which re-empahisise my later point about political awareness by the population)

two -- there was a lot of misleading info/almost threats given by military...how if this new draft did not pass, they could choose ANY previous constitution to be adopted.

third and most important -- as a political party, I expect them to REPRESENT my political opinion...but it is also their responsibility to educate/share info/disclosure on the political implications of things happening in the country -- because they are the specialist (have special knowledge compared to a layperson). for instance why did the democrats not team up with other political bodies to pressure the military to a) focus on ONLY facilitating new elections and argue /insist that the new constitution should only be drafted/amended by an ELECTED government. OR...why did they not quell the misunderstanding planted in people's minds that new elections cannot be held if the draft constitution were not adopted. (contrary to the truth...but again...something most laypeople would not realise...but I didnt hear one word from any of the democrats, certainly not the charismatic Abhisit share such info with the people.

all these points also tells me....he did NOT vocally oppose the military and its action. I do recall Chuan Leekpai made some comments of some sort (cant remember exactly what) but that showed he was saying the military should not interfere with politics. no such words from Abhisit...and certainly not before the verdict was given that absolved the democrat party by the military appointed constitution court.

Throughout the whole coup and this subsequent election, Aphisit has looked and acted the like a leader. He answers questions thoughtfully and respectfully, he doesn't lose his temper, and he is well thought out and articulate in his vision for the country. This would be in direct contrast to your post, which possesses none of those qualities. Maybe you should try again?

do I want a leader who can control his anger? sure would be nice to have someone represent the country who is articulate and tactful. but if i had to choose between someone who is polite and diplomatic, but has absolutely no ideas (all his election manifesto campaigns/policy...are exact copycats of Thaksin policies...with different name/lable) and doesnt take any action... vs a loudmouth who gets the job done? i know who I will /did vote for

[rixalex]

do I want a leader who can control his anger? sure would be nice to have someone represent the country who is articulate and tactful. but if i had to choose between someone who is polite and diplomatic, but has absolutely no ideas (all his election manifesto campaigns/policy...are exact copycats of Thaksin policies...with different name/lable) and doesnt take any action... vs a loudmouth who gets the job done? i know who I will /did vote for

If you believe your choice is between someone who is polite and diplomatic, but clueless, and another who is a rude loudmouth (and a lot more besides if you take a brief look into the history books), but who gets the job done (we'll wait and see on that one), i would suggest you and all like minded Thai voters consider raising the bar.

Many Thais i've met seem to have far too easily resigned themselves to accepting politicians who are quite simply bad people. Of course politicians the world over are not always renowned as being shining pillars of the community, but nevertheless, there should be a line drawn somewhere.

That there are still people who support Thaksin says something very sad and depressing. All, save for a few fanaticals who have been totally brain-washed, have to accept that Thaksin was responsible for an awful lot of wrong-doing in his tenure, and yet the attitude is that he might be bad, but others are worse. It's this way of thinking that perpetuates the vicious circle Thai politics is stuck in. How about standing up and saying "no, we won't accept a leader who cheats, lies and steals, even if he does throw a few sweeteners our way".

What can i say... i'm a dreamer.

[Siripon]

But you're not the only one, they say some day .....

[yorkman]

I hope someday you'll join us

[jumnien]

Actually, I think we are all really living as one already. We all agree on many issues. I don't think any of us are fond of Samak, for instance. Really, are there any full on Samak enthusiasts on the forum? Stand up and be counted! Sure, many like how the PPP and the Thai people slapped the face of the junta. Much the same for Thaksin. The junta martyred him and most folks with a conscience won't support military coups; but really most of us could take him or leave him if the military and their supporters would stay out of Thai politics.

The only one we disagree on is Sonthi; some love the guy and his methods and some don't

[sriracha john]

boycotts - The reason for the boycott was that Thaksin called a snap election with little more than a month's notice. ........the other parties protested that they only party capable (financially) of organizing an nationwide election campaign was the TRT.

Ive seen this happen in other countries....most political parties in government would try to make use of the advantage they have. its done in malaysia all the time. I dont see the opposition boycotting it for that reason. plus...the Dec 23 election, how much time did parties have to campaign? not much over a month either.

Not sure why I bother... but when misrepresentations of reality are made, I somehow feel obligated...

Fortunately, a depository of factual information is readily available right within Thaivisa... for anyone that is so inclined to look...

The December election was alluded to 14 months before it occured and was officially announced nearly 3 months prior.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=89431&hl=

and

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...=145984&hl=

Supporting an obviously flawed and non-democratic constitution - the Thai people voted for it in a referendum

one -- majority thais did not vote (rightly or wrongly...thats another issue..but which re-empahisise my later point about political awareness by the population)

ONE: The majority of Thais DID vote in the constitutional referendum...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...hl=constitution

Edited January 27, 2008 by sriracha john

[MiG16]

If you believe your choice is between someone who is polite and diplomatic, but clueless, and another who is a rude loudmouth (and a lot more besides if you take a brief look into the history books), but who gets the job done (we'll wait and see on that one), i would suggest you and all like minded Thai voters consider raising the bar.

That there are still people who support Thaksin says something very sad and depressing.

"no, we won't accept a leader who cheats, lies and steals, even if he does throw a few sweeteners our way".

What can i say... i'm a dreamer.

rixalex -- its not about an ideal world...I wish i could have my ideal politician. but we have to be realistic. why do you think phrases like choosing the lesser of 2 evils are coined?

why are there people that support Thaksin? again....one has to be pragmatic. name one thai government that hasnt been corrupt in the 60 years of 'democracy'. not saying its right....not saying i support violation of rule of law and other good governance principles....trust me I work dam_n hard to support these basic fundamentals to a democratic society...but one key element that we need to keep in mind...is the political awareness of the citizens. thailand and thai citizens still have a long way to go in that aspect. its a process that will take time....and one crucial aspect that we as citizens will need to learn/realise is that democracy is NOT about choosing a 'good' person (as was propagated by the privy council) ....it may be good-to-have ingredient, BUT that is not and SHOULD NOT be taken as the ultimate goal of the democratic process (electing a 'good' person to office). as citizens..... educated/informed citizens (and im not talking about formal classroom education...but the civic education/awareness) we have to continue to monitor the performance of the government. and yes the democrats do have a role.....an important one...to act as a credible opposition....to provide the check on the government. (hence why im more mad at them for boycotting the april 2006 election....cos that was when for the first time in 5 years I felt they had a good chance to get a lot of votes...not enough to form government...but definitely enough to form a better opposition than they had since 2001. ofcourse they werent keen to remain in opposition but knew they wouldnt make it to government....and hence the boycott)

its politics...ofcourse everybody plays games. and yes, definitely....we, voters, also have to join in the game....and play our cards. again....im being realistic. its the way the world works, its the way of humans.....we each will do things that are in our own interest. can you blame the rural poor for voting for the man/party that caters to their needs? will you care what names the party and its populist strategies get labelled, if he is the guy that save you your job? or your family's life, or let you have chance to send your kids to school?

[MiG16]

SJ

a 57% yes vote from a 56% turnout is hardly what I would call majority of thais. im sure your maths is better than mine...so will let you work out the number.

and we were talking about campaign time....political activities were banned for most of that military rule. so essentially...the parties had just over a month to campaign before the election. the point i was making is that a campaign CAN be organised (and has been...in thailand and elsewhere in the world).

i re-state my "OPINION" that if the democrats had stood that april 2006 election, they would have won /gained more seats in parliament. (it was at the time when support for Thaksin was waning..probably at its lowest...so the democrats had a lot of chance to gain from the shift in opinion...but as said above...wouldnt be that big a shift to have given the democrats a majority). they obviously thought of it....weighted their options....and felt they werent satisfied to remain in opposition anymore.

[sriracha john]

one -- majority thais did not vote (rightly or wrongly...thats another issue..but which re-empahisise my later point about political awareness by the population)

SJ

a 57% yes vote from a 56% turnout is hardly what I would call majority of thais. im sure your maths is better than mine...so will let you work out the number.

You didn't say the yes vote earlier, simply the majority did not vote, but either way... both numbers are a majority

dictionary.com

ma·jor·i·ty [muh-jawr-i-tee, -jor-]

–noun 1. the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total

and we were talking about campaign time....political activities were banned for most of that military rule. so essentially...the parties had just over a month to campaign before the election. the point i was making is that a campaign CAN be organised (and has been...in thailand and elsewhere in the world).

i re-state my "OPINION" that if the democrats had stood that april 2006 election, they would have won /gained more seats in parliament. (it was at the time when support for Thaksin was waning..probably at its lowest...so the democrats had a lot of chance to gain from the shift in opinion...but as said above...wouldnt be that big a shift to have given the democrats a majority). they obviously thought of it....weighted their options....and felt they werent satisfied to remain in opposition anymore.

October 4 to December 23 is significantly more than "just over a month"

It was a masterfully strategic and LEGAL option for the Democrats to avoid the tainted and annuled as illegal election of April 2006.

[Lilawadee]

[boycotting the election] was a masterfully strategic and LEGAL option for the Democrats to avoid the tainted and annuled as illegal election of April 2006.

But after picking myself up from the floor: if it was so masterful, why aren't they smiling and forming a government? Why is the current political situation such a mess, with ancient has-beens with a very checkered history now going to lead the country once again?

I'd say it was a colossal mistake, that allowed some of the darkest shadows from the past to once again show Thailand and the world beyond any doubt what actually is the state of democracy is in Thailand.

[sriracha john]

The Democrats have more MP's than ever before.

Thaksin is not the PM.

TRT is no more.

None of those things would have happened without abstaining from the April election.

[Lilawadee]

I'm happy to see we reached agreement! We're still on different sides, but your last two posts at least indicate that we at least are on the same page as to what happened.

You consider the Democrat's election boycott a 'masterfully strategic and LEGAL option' that resulted in 'the Democrats having more MP's than ever before. Thaksin is not the PM. TRT is no more.'

This is basically the same as what I have been arguing all along. The only major difference really is that I see 'a military coup' as the greatest of evils that you can possibly do to an emerging democratic system, which is why my qualification of the "Democrat" boycott is 'a derailment of a democratic process that set the stage for a military coup'. I also basically agree with The Economist article I linked to earlier, describing the disastrous military government, the harm it inflicted on Thailand, and the end result being the complete mess Thailand is in now, with a squad of derelict dinosaurs once again going to pretend to run the country.

So perhaps we agree on the current situation as well then, because I can't imagine you appreciate the upcoming government that's end result of the "Democrats" masterfully strategic ploy. But then again perhaps your hatred of Dr. Thaksin is so overwhelming that any end justifies the means. (And you're not alone on that one either, of course.)

Edited January 28, 2008 by Lilawadee

[MiG16]

You didn't say the yes vote earlier, simply the majority did not vote, but either way... both numbers are a majority

dictionary.com

ma·jor·i·ty [muh-jawr-i-tee, -jor-]

–noun 1. the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total

amazing how you need to resort to that condescending holier than thou approach. i may not be a native english speaker, but yes i do know the meaning of majority.

when you work out the proportion (56% yes vote out of a total of 57% turn out....of eligible voters.....you get a certain percentage......those are the numbers that voted in support of the new constitution. dont have a calculator....and well my maths aint good enough to work the numbers in my head either...anyhow...whatever that number you get....should be roughly in the vicinity of 27 to 30%?

but anyhow....the main point is not about how many did or did not accept the constitution....but the big question mark for me would be why the democrats as the longest political party (supposed representatives of the people) did not do all they can to make sure people are aware of the implications of changing the constitution? or that an entire new constitution (or even amendments to it by a group of non-elected bureaucrats) are not necessary in order for the country to move on and a fair election to be conducted.

[chownah]

I think an important thing to remember about the voter acceptance of the existing constitution is that many voters voted for the constitution not because they liked it but because they knew that if it was not accepted there was a big likelihood that Sonthi would simply declare a new constitution without even consulting the people or that a new constitution would have to be formulated and that would delay the end of the military dictatorship which was running the country.

I don't think that the acceptance of the constitution should be seen as an unqualified endorsement by the voters.

Chownah