Pm Insists Referendum Needed

[webfact]

CHARTER AMENDMENTS

PM insists referendum needed

By Piyanart Srivalo,

Satien Viriyapanpongsa

The Nation

Published on September 29, 2009

Abhisit wants to end prolonged conflicts; drafters oppose any and all

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva insisted yesterday a national referendum was necessary for Constitutional amendments, which should be completed within nine months. This is the first time the PM has openly voiced his opinions on charter changes.

"The best way is to have the public participate in the issue. A national referendum would clarify things so there is no opposition or else there will always be questions as to whether what we do in the Parliament is what people want," he explained.

The premier said he would meet and discuss the issue with parliamentarians starting with the government, opposition and Senate whips either tomorrow or on Thursday. With regard to opposition from Bhum Jai Thai, which says that charter amendments on international agreements and the election systems do not need a referendum, Abhisit said politicians should not be making decisions on the public's behalf.

With regard to criticism that holding a referendum would waste time and money, Abhisit said it would still be worth it.

Prolonged conflicts on changes to the law would not yield anything good for the country, he explained, before adding that a referendum would be needed once the changes had been drafted.

The referendum would be asking people whether they agree to the six charter changes as proposed by the parliamentary committee.

"The appropriate timeframe for Constitutional amendment, provided all parties jointly draft and consider it in Parliament, should be one or two months. After that, final touches and the referendum should take about two or three months. Once the referendum is completed and we have to change organic laws, provided there are not too many issues, that should take two or three months. In all I think it should take less than nine months," Abhisit said.

However, Senate Speaker Prasobsook Boondech said the referendum should be conducted before changes are made to the charter, because holding a referendum once the laws are passed is a waste of time. Plus, it could cause difficulties if the public disagreed.

Meanwhile, Chirmsak Pinthong, a former drafter of the 2007 Constitution, said people would not truly be participating despite the referendum because the proposed changes only benefit politicians.

"The politicians, both government and opposition, are misleading people by making them believe the charter needs to be changed and by forcing them to vote in a referendum. The six proposed issues, instead, come from stakeholders - people who either benefit or lose from the changes," he said.

He added that drafters of the 2007 Constitution would meet in Parliament next Tuesday to voice their opinions on amending the charter.

Though Abhisit admits worrying that amendments made to the Constitution would hit obstacles should people not be allowed to participate, he said lessons over the past two years should have taught politicians that nothing could be achieved without public participation.

Abhisit said charter change might not end all conflict, but it would at least end differences on charter changes as well as stop people from declaring the Constitution came about from a military coup.

If people continue to argue once the Constitution has been amended, it would mean these people are only causing political problems, Abhisit said.

The prime minister was speaking after opening a seminar on educational reform at the Royal River Hotel, Bangkok. Dozens of red-shirt protesters gathered at the site, holding up placards attacking the PM as well as Bhum Jai Thai's de facto leader Newin Chidchob and shaking foot-shaped clappers. The gathering dispersed peacefully after Abhisit left the venue.

-- The Nation 2009/09/29

[LawnGnome]

Which, of course, is why he is "in the pockets of the generals"... advocating that people have a voice in their constitution goes hand in hand with that.

People give our PM too little credit... Remember all the cries of "he won't last 6 months"! Well its coming up on a year, and looks like he'll be able to oversee these changes and get the 2007 charter a little more "clean" but encouraging public participation.

Lost in all the red/yellow rhetoric is that for the first time in several years - the Thai Parliament has been a working, functioning body. Passing laws, making policy, reviewing and implementing programs. I think they have done quite a lot to make Thailand a better place, and I think most voters will see it that way as well, when the charter is finished and the new elections are held. Remember that the democrats only fell short of the PTP vote total last time by less then a few percent. Now that people can see what a functioning government looks like, its safe to say that they will gain in the polls.

Look - a post that doesn't talk about Thaksin - oh dam_n, i just blew it....

[Plus]

Dems were well short in constituency seats, though, and that's unlikely to change.

[hardy1943]

Dems were well short in constituency seats, though, and that's unlikely to change.

Oh yah, do not sell the THE BOYS IN BKK short

[Thailand]

As opposed to a referendum why not an election to really show that they mean business and are confident that the current policies are acceptable to all the voting public.

Oops - there goes a flying pig.

[animatic]

The referendums should be

a ) is a re-write as a whole proper

b ) if so,

does this change #1 pass the people

does this change #2 pass the people

does this change #3 pass the people

does this change #4 pass the people

etc

Basically we get a vote on globally amending the constitution.

IF that is agreed,

then their votes on the 6 changes being talked of would then be applied.

If no on question one no re-write happens.

[Plus]

As opposed to a referendum why not an election to really show that they mean business and are confident that the current policies are acceptable to all the voting public.

What is wrong with asking people directly what they think of this particular issue instead? Why do we need new elections to start the process to hold another new elections ASAP and according to new and improved constitution?

[Yoshitaka]

Referendum to buy time.

[parryhandy]

Abhisit said politicians should not be making decisions on the public's behalf

Statement of the decade.

[Plus]

86% of people want a referendum.

Time wasting little gnats, aren't they?

[xminator]

Referendum to buy time.

Exactly. And when "asking the people", the first question that pops into my mind is "What people?". Its clearly that all 60 million thais wont have a say, so next question is "Who will select the people?".

[webfact]

Referendum to buy time.

Exactly. And when "asking the people", the first question that pops into my mind is "What people?". Its clearly that all 60 million thais wont have a say, so next question is "Who will select the people?".

Its clearly that all 60 million thais wont have a say

please elaborate on your allegation! Any source to proof it is welcome

[Plus]

Its clearly that all 60 million thais wont have a say, so next question is "Who will select the people?".

Anyone who is eligible to vote can participate in a referendum. Should be about 44 million.

[jonclark]

Abhisit said politicians should not be making decisions on the public's behalf

Statement of the decade.

Well spotted

[animatic]

Its clearly that all 60 million thais wont have a say, so next question is "Who will select the people?".

Anyone who is eligible to vote can participate in a referendum. Should be about 44 million.

Seems to me the last referendum got voters the right to say yes or no to a new constitution.

Yet to hear the Roid Shirts screaming that the people didn't get a vote on it.

We HAVE heard them scream they don't like 'WHAT' the people voted 'YES' on....

And they don't like 'who' put forward the constitution,

but that is moot because THE PEOPLE VOTED IT IN.

Another referendum on;

a ) modifying it,

b ) how to modify it,

is perfectly logical.

And gives the people the right to have a say.

To those saying vote first, just means to vote again after the changes.

making the 1st vote redundant. And only adds costs for the country.

Edited September 29, 2009 by animatic

[webfact]

Its clearly that all 60 million thais wont have a say, so next question is "Who will select the people?".

Anyone who is eligible to vote can participate in a referendum. Should be about 44 million.

Are you sure the poster wanted to point to that "error"...? I doubt it.

[newtronbom]

As opposed to a referendum why not an election to really show that they mean business and are confident that the current policies are acceptable to all the voting public.

What is wrong with asking people directly what they think of this particular issue instead? Why do we need new elections to start the process to hold another new elections ASAP and according to new and improved constitution?

I agree. New elections at this point are immature and would do more harm than good. Khun Abhisit and his government, have done an amazing amount of good for this country, in the short time he has been in office, despite the constant heckling and pathetic allegations of the "red shirt" crowd and others, who are only serving themselves and not the country. I think this government deserves more time to enact the many changes it has instituted - like getting at the endemic corruption in the country and show the people how real government for the people can work. I have been coming here since 1988 and this is the first real "working for the good of the people and serving the people" government I have seen that has come into power. Senate Speaker Prasobsook Boondech says that a referendum should not happen cause the laws have already been changed - that is nonsense, as the referendum is held to ask the public's opinion on the changes before they come into play. I don't see this as misleading the people. True many people may not understand what it's all about, but there is a huge sector of "well educated and I believe well intentioned" Thais, who will see this as a chance to enact some Constitutional amendments, that should do a lot of good for the country as a whole. Going on his present track record, I think Khun Abhisit should be given more support by the opposition and given more time from the people to put in place the changes he thinks will do some good. The "red-yellow shirt crowds" and Khun Abhisits' opposition, have cost this government a fortune in damages along with the huge bill for policing their protests and the loss of tourist income, which has shown these protesters up for the self serving anarchists that they really are. It is a major concern, that the government is running out of the necessary funds to run the country and concentrate on good projects like the "Sky train" which would benefit all of us. I personally think that Khun Abhisit should be given more of a chance. Perhaps he doesn't have the business acumen of a certain exiled person, but his integrity and obvious concern for this country by far out way this. Time will tell, if given the chance. Worth a bet, I say!

[hammered]

Of course there should be a referendum.

That a referendum doesnt fall in with the electoral plans of some group or other is utterly irrelevent.

Why not invovle the people in the drafting process too. The Asia Foundation found that a marjority wanted that. However, polticians wont want that. Asai Foundation also found only 33% of people thought their MP represented them which is another reason for public consultation and referendum.

[Plus]

I don't think setting up Charter Drafting Assembly for changing just six articles is justifiable. They will need to pass laws to create it first, spending about three months before it can even start.

And I don't think that CDA should be given a broader scope, effectively scrapping parliamentary committee's work and starting from the scratch. It

would certainly look good from public participation point of view, but, the truth is, the constitution is not a problem, the problem is politicians not following it.

Some 90% of people didn't bother to read the current Constitution when they voted, it just doesn't matter that much.

Let them form another committee to write down the wording for the six issues, take them to a referendum, and then change the constitution according to the results, issue by issue. That would be a lot faster.

Or dems might group all the articles together, if they are sure they will be defeated, then the constitution will remain unchanged and they won't need to call new elections.

[hammered]

I don't think setting up Charter Drafting Assembly for changing just six articles is justifiable. They will need to pass laws to create it first, spending about three months before it can even start.

And I don't think that CDA should be given a broader scope, effectively scrapping parliamentary committee's work and starting from the scratch. It

would certainly look good from public participation point of view, but, the truth is, the constitution is not a problem, the problem is politicians not following it.

Some 90% of people didn't bother to read the current Constitution when they voted, it just doesn't matter that much.

Let them form another committee to write down the wording for the six issues, take them to a referendum, and then change the constitution according to the results, issue by issue. That would be a lot faster.

Or dems might group all the articles together, if they are sure they will be defeated, then the constitution will remain unchanged and they won't need to call new elections.

Interesting points. Polticians do seem to be a problem when only 33% of people think their MPs represent them! At the end of the day the charter changes will be a political fix and they will end up in court. That is why there needs to be a referendum. Abhisit is right about that. If the people vote up or down the changes that is up to them but they shoudl get to say something on the political fix that will end up being a the lowest common denominator to get the required parlaimentary votes. I favour each article change being allowed a seprate vote as it gives people choice although the up and down votes will be manipulated by the usual power brokering and village headman advice. As you say the constitution doesnt really mena much to people and so that makes seeking advice even more likely before a vote. Oh plus there will be the incentives.

[Publicus]

Abhisit's initiative to conduct a referendum on changes to the consitution is a decided step forward that indicates a positive movement for Thailand and for his government. Abhisit is asserting and extending the principle and practice of participatory democracy as we have it in the popular referendum process in the US, the EU and in other stable democracies.

It's good to see Abhisit take a firm grip of such important matters as the proposed changes to the constitution. By extending his hand to place the outcome of the proposals in the hands of the voters, Abhisit is removing matters pertaining to the basic laws of the Kingdom from the hands of the elite few, which is a welcome advance to Thai democracy.

Abhisit himself as well as those on either side of the proposed changes can now get out and about among the voters themselves to present their arguments, interact with voters in their communities and to present themselves to the voters directly.

It's good to see signs and indications that a new phase of government and politics in Thailand could well be in the making and that the PM is beginning to take the initiative in ways we haven't seen before. Methinks Abhisit is fast out of a new starting gate, which would be a most welcome development.

[Publicus]

Abhisit still needs to get his initiative online and up and running so it's good to see him step up to assert a position and to take charge to lead in parliament in pursuit of his convictions ( a conviction of a different sort than that of his predecessor!).

[Plus]

I favour each article change being allowed a seprate vote..

Yes, but it also means that even if one issue gets approved, changes need to be made and elections need to be called. There could be a moment when Abhisit would rather have people vote all of this stuff down in one go and get on with governing. That's what a politician would do - keep everything under control and call all the shots himself.

[Chunkton]

Seems to me the last referendum got voters the right to say yes or no to a new constitution.

Yet to hear the Roid Shirts screaming that the people didn't get a vote on it.

We HAVE heard them scream they don't like 'WHAT' the people voted 'YES' on....

And they don't like 'who' put forward the constitution,

but that is moot because THE PEOPLE VOTED IT IN.

Excellent summation. Delighted to see you didn't get bogged down in the irrelevant points like the army stating that if their constitution wasn't passed there would be no elections and the military junta rule could continue indefinitely. Nothing worse than trivia complicating a rousing analysis. If anyone brings up the fact that there was a funded YES campaign only and there wasn't a NO campaign, then they are just whingers or sore losers any way.

Just wish the army back home would have the guts, honour and decency to throw out our elected government and enforce upon us a similar constitution with a nice well funded Internal Security Act and an appointed Senate. Could use a few more tanks, subs and planes while we are at it.

[LawnGnome]

Seems to me the last referendum got voters the right to say yes or no to a new constitution.

Yet to hear the Roid Shirts screaming that the people didn't get a vote on it.

We HAVE heard them scream they don't like 'WHAT' the people voted 'YES' on....

And they don't like 'who' put forward the constitution,

but that is moot because THE PEOPLE VOTED IT IN.

Excellent summation. Delighted to see you didn't get bogged down in the irrelevant points like the army stating that if their constitution wasn't passed there would be no elections and the military junta rule could continue indefinitely. Nothing worse than trivia complicating a rousing analysis. If anyone brings up the fact that there was a funded YES campaign only and there wasn't a NO campaign, then they are just whingers or sore losers any way.

Just wish the army back home would have the guts, honour and decency to throw out our elected government and enforce upon us a similar constitution with a nice well funded Internal Security Act and an appointed Senate. Could use a few more tanks, subs and planes while we are at it.

I think your recollection of history is a little off kilter - Perhaps you can provide some historical evidence to back up your assertions. Especially the one highlighted. I don't seem to recall that little tidbit.

[dre1247]

Abhisit said politicians should not be making decisions on the public's behalf

Statement of the decade.

Well spotted

About a new constitution of course

[monkfish]

Would a Swiss style constitution really work in Thailand?

who said Abhisit would not last 1 month? I have no doubt he will last till the next election after all he has the backing from the boys with guns.

Would be very interested to know exactly what good he has done apart from stamp out corruption in the swampy and put up Taxes.

May be the first vote should be if we have a GE or not.

[animatic]

School improvements, milk for kids.

[hammered]

I favour each article change being allowed a seprate vote..

Yes, but it also means that even if one issue gets approved, changes need to be made and elections need to be called. There could be a moment when Abhisit would rather have people vote all of this stuff down in one go and get on with governing. That's what a politician would do - keep everything under control and call all the shots himself.

You may well be right but I think if lumped together it will be voted through in a referendum whatever. That of course though depends on the nature of the mechaism of the referendum. Would it be a 50% of thsoe who voted as before or would it be 2/3 or 50% of total electorate or woudl uit require each region to vote it up. There areosany ways this could be set up although I expect the simplistic and low bar 50% of those who vote which is OK but creates future problems in that a standard for future ammendments would be created and ammendments could be done on very low turnouts with half of those voting. A 50% of electorate or 2/3 of those who voted may be a better standard. The more backing something has the harder it is to risk changing it from outside the system. Everyone said 1997 was the people's charter but it never had a referendum so in many ways it was a false claim. The consulstative process also was largely consulting bodies rather thanh people themselves which I do accept is moot as most dont care about it anyway, but to label something as "the people's" it really needs to be puit to the people especially a constitution that enshriens people's rights.

I wonder if the polticos will have the cojones to set a higher bar than just 50% of those who can be bothered to vote and really set i tin stone. The last constitution passed with 57% of those who voted and many on the red side were critical of it only getting this number and pointing out in one region it didnt pass. OK then lets see some political spirit and lets see the reds demand a 2/3 and every region. That would be standing for a point of principle. To call for no referendum or to conveniently forget previous criticisms over poltical expedience would further make the reds look like a bunch of poltical guns for hire who didnt really have a principle. Now that is a very interesting aside to this. Will the reds stick to principle or will they just invent soem reasons why it is different now? I dont expect the PAD to do any more than try to derail the whole thing in a slew of court cases etc, but on this I am looking to the reds to stick to what they said before and show they actually do care about democratic principle. I also think the politicos will just go for basic 50% of whoever bothers to vote.

We will see

[hansnl]

Why is it that constitutional changes always make me slightly mistrusting?

If a constitution needs to be rewritten all the time, I am afraid the grounds for that are......muddy? or maybe swampy?