None Of 111 Banned Politicians Will Become Next PM, Says Chalerm

[Thai at Heart]

No, i wouldn't really call that coercion. There had to be a plan B, should the people have said no, and the plan B was to revise a previous constitution, and then put that to a referendum. Don't see why that would have been such a scary choice or one that terrified the people.

And don't forget, at the same time, we had Thaksin and his cronies urging people to vote no, and suggesting that if they didn't, there could well be trouble.

So, pressure of one sort or another came from both sides. Pretty much par for the course when a referendum is organised, and i guarantee you will be no different should this current government decide to have one.

Considering that there a SOE in many of the possibly opposing provinces, so political rallies against the constitution weren't allowed, plus it being suggested that campaigning "against' the 2007 constitution was effectively illegal, I would suggest that whilst there is always the possibility to revise history as you may want it, but to say this was a free and fair election is absolute hogwash.

The junta passed a law making it illegal to publicly criticize the draft.^[2] The junta also ran a successful promotion campaign leading up to the referendum, and threatened to not step down if the constitution is not accepted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Constitution_of_Thailand

It may not be the worst constitution ever written in Thailand, but the way it was put together, and by whom it was put together means that it doesn't stand any scrutiny as a democratically debated, created and voted upon document.

[tlansford]

'The Peoples Constitution' was no more handiwork of 'The People' than the 2007 one or the one before it. The political class and assorted 'intelectuals' did this taking into account the same overriding concerns, social Kow Tow, need to make Face through money and power, and dislike of change that always ruin a Thai constitutional redux.

The 2007 was put together by mostly civilians at the direction of the army to 'put a functional constitution together that can limit political graft more effectively'.

They put it to referendum, as a Yah or Nay vote, with limits on the absolute BS. that would have been thrown at it by those not wanting it. Because most clearly they want graft to get ahead in financial their social/political/personal plans. Granted; ' they don't know any better...'

All that did was limit the total lies, to less lies and false rumors of such, and more towards some form of balance. Many who lost perks in the process disagree loudly. Of course telling the people the exact meaning of the changes between '97 and the new constitution would not favor those political vested interests in the long or short run. So they muddied the water as much as they dared.

But the people had been given exact copies of the constitution to read and discuss, well before. And the news papers were filled with explanations of the constitution. So they were as informed as any Thai populace for that referendum, and likely better than many before them.

The only leg to stand on those that want it replaced have is,

that the army organized some the civilians to create it.

But that is seemingly enough for them to throw 2007 out, at least in the minds and schemes, and demand a return to one that CLEARLY DID NOT WORK counter acting their schemes. Peoples constitution, or not '97 was INEFFECTUAL at delivering what the people NEEDED.

And would be yet again of reinstated.

Yes send the choice to look at the 2007 to a referendum

and see how it fairs, but beyond that, stand pat.

No doubt Chalerm is positioning himself as Thaksins right hand at the controls.

An 'illness' can get Yingluck to resign early, and then a prearranged vote to move Chalerm up a rung, done before opposition can even protest loudly. And instantly the new cabinet filles to the brim with the 111 in fast rotations to make up for lost time. Each with the Liege Lord on speed dial on their provided encrypted phones.

.

As for selecting the "civilians" and the drafting...

In December, the 2,000-member junta-appointed National Assembly elected 200 of its members as candidates for the Constitution Drafting Assembly. The voting was fraught with irregularities. The candidate with the highest number of votes was Okas Tepalakul from Chachoengsao province, a virtually unknown car dealership owner who was a former classmate of junta-head Sonthi Boonyaratglin.

...

Of the 200 shortlisted nominees, 100 were approved by the junta to act as potential constitution drafters. The 100 included prominent anti-Thaksin critics like Chirmsak Pinthong, Karun Sai-ngarm, and Klanarong Chanthik.[19] Among those approved were several who had received the lowest number of votes from the CDA (7),

...

The junta directly appointed 10 drafters to join the Constitution Drafting Assembly. They included anti-Thaksin activist and former National Security Council head Prasong Soonsiri, ... Prasong Soonsiri was later chosen to lead the drafting group.

As for "limiting the BS..."

The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.

...

The ban against campaigning against the constitution was enforced. In July, 20 soldiers and 10 policemen raided the house of a politician and seized anti-charter t-shirts, banners, documents, and recorded speeches.[52] Police also raided the Duang Prateep Foundation of former Senator Prateep Ungsongtham Hata and confiscated 4,000 posters which carried the message “It’s not illegal to vote against the draft constitution.”

...

The junta also claimed to the public that general democratic elections would only occur if the draft were approved. Defense Minister Boonrawd Somtas told reporters that an election “can take place only if the new constitution passes the referendum,” implying that a a "No" would result in indefinite military rule.

...

Taxi-drivers were banned from putting anti-draft bumper stickers on their vehicles.[45] Interior minister Aree Wong-Arya has warned those campaigning against the draft by distributing leaflets to voters that they will be severely punished if there is proof against them.[53] On 11 August in Kamphaeng Phet province, military officers raided a shop printing leaflets that attacked the draft. Eight boxes of leaflets and the printing press were seized for investigation. The raid was conducted under a government Emergency Decree.[54]

At the time of the referendum, martial law was in place in 35 provinces, intimidating those who wished to campaign against the draft.[45]

So clearly the BS against the junta's civilian-drafted constitution was limited. Which of course meant that the the public was extremely well informed by the military, exactly as the military wanted, with martial law in place throughout most of the country...

All of that and a lot of public money poured into the campaign, and they got 56% "yes" votes... Putting that into perspective, with all the advantages, that's 3 more points than the % of seats won in the last election by the PTP.

[lannarebirth]

ame='tlansford' timestamp='1324739208' post='4933215'] Martial Law throughout most of the country? Were you here in 2007? If you were, you wouldn't know any day was different than the next. You need to learn a little more about Thai culture. Most Thais see soldiers as their children. And if they're doing something wrong they're not at all averse to telling them so. The coup was met with near universal approval, even appreciation. Thailand ain't Egypt.

Sorry for butchering the previous quotes but you screwed up somewhere on the quote /unquote thing and it was just too hard to sort out.

Edited December 24, 2011 by lannarebirth

[lannarebirth]

forum growing pains apparently

Edited December 24, 2011 by lannarebirth

[animatic]

No longer a fruit of a poisoned tree AFTER the people voted yeah by 70%.

[lannarebirth]

No longer a fruit of a poisoned tree AFTER the people voted yeah by 70%.

Funny thing is, I've used that "fruit of a poisoned tree" argument myself from time to time. You can only use it on people who are ignorant of its origins. It IS an argument of American evidentiaray law, but it doesn't have anything to do with anything else. Most people don't know that and that's why I tend to look so clever in their eyes. Despite my number of posts on this forum, I'm not one who feels you can ever change anyone's mind with our various scribblings. I think the forum's main function is to allow us to believe we are as great/wise/prescient/etc. as we believe ourselves to be.

edit: And of course to let others know they are an ass.

Edited December 24, 2011 by lannarebirth

[sparebox2]

No longer a fruit of a poisoned tree AFTER the people voted yeah by 70%.

Democracy at work.

[Siam Simon]

It might not be a terribly bad idea to get some of the 111 back, and soon. Most of the current bunch aren't exactly glowing in the dark.

[Roadman]

The 2007 Army sponsored constitution was voted on by 70% of the thai voteable populace, by way of a referendum for the thai people to decide.

This was on the back of the Army peacefully taking the governance away from a pack of thievies and thugs who were hell bent on abusing it and using it for their own gain and not that of the thai people. At that time the thai populace as a majority supported the Army action. That vote went in favour of the 2007 constitution by 57% accepting it. That is a clear majority and if Pheu Thai want to use the 2011 election vote as their thai populace authority on bringing back the non political convicted criminal and head thief then they are easily trumped by the 57% of the populace saying at that time that Thaksin was a thief and criminal who had failed in governing with democratic principles.

It does not suprise that these same thievies, thugs and criminals are back again and wanting to again ride rough shod over the thai populace 2007 constitution and change it to suit the one convicted criminal. This Pheu Thai governement along with all its previous forms back to Thai Rak Thai are a shame on Thailand and the thai people. What is even more shameful on this government (if the poor excuse for what they are can be called a government) is that the changes they will make will not go to a voters referendum. And that is where these thievies, thugs and criminals fail completely to be taken seriously. The sooner Thailand is rid of the Shinwatra's the better it will be to keep struggling its way towards democracy. This lot do not know the meaning of the word.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Roadman

[tlansford]

No longer a fruit of a poisoned tree AFTER the people voted yeah by 70%.

56.69% - see below... Animatic, come on, ... you are normally better on the numbers.

Votes %

Yes 14,727,306 56.69%

No 10,747,441 41.37%

Source: Election Commission of Thailand

[tlansford]

- double post / slow connection ...

Edited December 25, 2011 by tlansford

[tlansford]

No longer a fruit of a poisoned tree AFTER the people voted yeah by 70%.

56.69% - see below... Animatic, come on, ... you are normally better on the numbers.

Votes %

Yes 14,727,306 56.69%

No 10,747,441 41.37%

Source: Election Commission of Thailand

[rixalex]

<deleted>???? If I look at the last election results the PTP won a majority of the seats, 265 out of 500. That qualifies as a majority government. The PTP then reached out to other parties that were elected and offered them participation. This was an even stronger reinforcement of the majority position.

I remember the day when <deleted> was reserved for coming home finding you'd been burgled. These days anger and melodrama seem to be the way people are. Anyway, i digress.

Please point me in the direction of where i said anything in dispute of what you say above.

The Democrats most certainly backed the constitution. Other groups could not oppose the military junta's revised constitution effectively since criticism of the draft constitution was was banned.

On the one hand, you are saying that people were frozen in fear to dare speak out against the new constitution, and on the other you are saying that because the Dems didn't protest against it, that meant they were "sponsoring" it.

I seem to recall Chalerm, or at least one of Thaksin's cronies, at the time, confidently predicting that people would vote no and that when they did, that would vindicate support for Thaksin. When that didn't happen, the argument suddenly became, ah yes, but people didn't vote no because they feared to do so. I don't think there was any fear in the people. If there was fear, it was the generals who were feeling it. They knew that as much as they could urge people to vote a certain way, there was no way to force them to, once in the poll booth, and that if enough people did vote no, on the back of that, there could well of been an uprising - an uprising which if successful, would have put their necks directly on the chopping block. And i am sure now, having seen what Thaksin later ended up resorting to in 2009 and 2010, that that is precisely what would have happened. Thaksin was waiting for the signal from the people. I'm sure he expected it when the coup happened. That never materialised. He would then have rested his hopes on the referendum. Alas, that didn't materialise either. Had it, and had he launched and funded an uprising, as i feel history teaches us he would have done, it would i fear have been even bloodier than 2009 and 2010, because it would have been a direct attack on the military.

So, if people feared anything, it was this - Thaksin's reaction. It wasn't the thought of elections being delayed another six months or so, and nor was it the thought of the generals gripping on to power - that fear had been allayed shortly after the coup when Sondthi set up the military installed government - yes of course it wasn't democratic, and Surayud was a military man, but it showed that Sondthi was ready to step back.

If the new constitution has faults then those faults should be addressed. The weaknesses of the new constituion cannot be any worse than the previous version which stripped democracy from the senate allowing 1/2 the members to be appointed. More importantly, the 2007 constitution entrenched the powers of the very groups that have consistently attempted to thwart the work of elected governments of Thailand.

The current constitution did take a degree of power away from politicians, but the reason for this was, the way power was being abused by them. The 1997 constitution allowed for this abuse to happen. What is there to suggest that with the power returned, they won't simply abuse it again?

The current constitution is working fine, and the only reason for PTP wanting to meddle with it, is for their own interests, has nothing to do with the interests of the country as a whole, or the general populace. To think so is naive in the extreme.

[rixalex]

Considering that there a SOE in many of the possibly opposing provinces, so political rallies against the constitution weren't allowed, plus it being suggested that campaigning "against' the 2007 constitution was effectively illegal, I would suggest that whilst there is always the possibility to revise history as you may want it, but to say this was a free and fair election is absolute hogwash.

Who said it was a free and fair vote? There has yet to be one of those in Thailand i think you will find. What shall we do? Scrap and dismiss all of them, or just the ones we don't like the results of?

[Oberkommando]

Who said it was a free and fair vote? There has yet to be one of those in Thailand i think you will find. What shall we do? Scrap and dismiss all of them, or just the ones we don't like the results of?

How about just scrapping those conducted under a military junta's state of emergency?

You can bang on and on about how the 2007 constitution was 'voted in' but surely you realise how foolish you sound given the circumstances at the time?

BTW, it was widely acknowledged that the elections that gave Thaksin a landslide victory in 2001 and 2005 were the most open and free in Thai history.

[rixalex]

Who said it was a free and fair vote? There has yet to be one of those in Thailand i think you will find. What shall we do? Scrap and dismiss all of them, or just the ones we don't like the results of?

How about just scrapping those conducted under a military junta's state of emergency?

Yeah we could do that. And whilst we are at it, how about scrapping those conducted with banned politicians being allowed to blatantly figure-head and lead parties? No? Somehow, I didn't think so.

You can bang on and on about how the 2007 constitution was 'voted in' but surely you realise how foolish you sound given the circumstances at the time?

Seeing how smooth, peaceful and widely accepted the coup was, i think it is you who sounds the foolish one, trying to paint this picture of an atmosphere of fear that had the public capitulating to the military's every whim.

BTW, it was widely acknowledged that the elections that gave Thaksin a landslide victory in 2001 and 2005 were the most open and free in Thai history.

Putting aside the fact that no, Thaksin didn't win a landslide in 2001, i would be inclined to agree that both 2001 and 2005 were relatively speaking open and free. There is no doubt that Thaksin was genuinely popular and could have won without cheating - i don't doubt that. That's what makes it all the more daft that even on these occasions, cheating did occur. Can't stop themselves it seems.

[tlansford]

ame='tlansford' timestamp='1324739208' post='4933215'] Martial Law throughout most of the country? Were you here in 2007? If you were, you wouldn't know any day was different than the next. You need to learn a little more about Thai culture. Most Thais see soldiers as their children. And if they're doing something wrong they're not at all averse to telling them so. The coup was met with near universal approval, even appreciation. Thailand ain't Egypt.

Sorry for butchering the previous quotes but you screwed up somewhere on the quote /unquote thing and it was just too hard to sort out.

new forum S/W I guess.

The short interpretation of Animatic's post from my point of view is: The 2007 Constitution was done by civilians and the vote to approve it was done under the best conditions possible at the time.

I disagree strongly & point to readily available information that shows :

1) the drafters were hand-picked by the junta

2) the referendum was not open, free, nor fair.

[geriatrickid]

46 posts, and the one that statement that sums it up best;

I disagree strongly & point to readily available information that shows :

1) the drafters were hand-picked by the junta

2) the referendum was not open, free, nor fair.

An irrefutable succinct statement.

[rixalex]

46 posts, and the one that statement that sums it up best;

I disagree strongly & point to readily available information that shows :

1) the drafters were hand-picked by the junta

2) the referendum was not open, free, nor fair.

An irrefutable succinct statement.

1) Drafters have to be picked by somebody. Do you think that if PTP draft a new one, their hand-picked selection will be based on who is best qualified, or who will serve their interests best?

2) We have already established that open free and fair elections have never been staged in Thailand, nor are likely to be any time soon.

So what exactly will be gained by the country, spending all the time, money and resources, drafting up a new constitution, and organising a referendum, with all that involves? I don't think there will be any gain for the country. Just a gain for politicians playing a power game.

[animatic]

'The Peoples Constitution' was no more handiwork of 'The People' than the 2007 one or the one before it. The political class and assorted 'intelectuals' did this taking into account the same overriding concerns, social Kow Tow, need to make Face through money and power, and dislike of change that always ruin a Thai constitutional redux.

The 2007 was put together by mostly civilians at the direction of the army to 'put a functional constitution together that can limit political graft more effectively'.

They put it to referendum, as a Yah or Nay vote, with limits on the absolute BS. that would have been thrown at it by those not wanting it. Because most clearly they want graft to get ahead in financial their social/political/personal plans. Granted; ' they don't know any better...'

All that did was limit the total lies, to less lies and false rumors of such, and more towards some form of balance. Many who lost perks in the process disagree loudly. Of course telling the people the exact meaning of the changes between '97 and the new constitution would not favor those political vested interests in the long or short run. So they muddied the water as much as they dared.

But the people had been given exact copies of the constitution to read and discuss, well before. And the news papers were filled with explanations of the constitution. So they were as informed as any Thai populace for that referendum, and likely better than many before them.

The only leg to stand on those that want it replaced have is,

that the army organized some the civilians to create it.

But that is seemingly enough for them to throw 2007 out, at least in the minds and schemes, and demand a return to one that CLEARLY DID NOT WORK counter acting their schemes. Peoples constitution, or not '97 was INEFFECTUAL at delivering what the people NEEDED.

And would be yet again of reinstated.

Yes send the choice to look at the 2007 to a referendum

and see how it fairs, but beyond that, stand pat.

No doubt Chalerm is positioning himself as Thaksins right hand at the controls.

An 'illness' can get Yingluck to resign early, and then a prearranged vote to move Chalerm up a rung, done before opposition can even protest loudly. And instantly the new cabinet filles to the brim with the 111 in fast rotations to make up for lost time. Each with the Liege Lord on speed dial on their provided encrypted phones.

.

If Yingluck had to resign as PM would they not have to call a general election for a new one.

I know that is not how it works but what would be the difference between that and Abhist neither one would be voted in by the people.

Double standards.

Abhisit's predecessor from PPP, Somchai, was no more voted in by the people than he was.

But was none the less as legally installed by the rules of his day that Abhisit.

Edited December 25, 2011 by animatic

[tlansford]

46 posts, and the one that statement that sums it up best;

I disagree strongly & point to readily available information that shows :

1) the drafters were hand-picked by the junta

2) the referendum was not open, free, nor fair.

An irrefutable succinct statement.

1) Drafters have to be picked by somebody. Do you think that if PTP draft a new one, their hand-picked selection will be based on who is best qualified, or who will serve their interests best?

2) We have already established that open free and fair elections have never been staged in Thailand, nor are likely to be any time soon.

So what exactly will be gained by the country, spending all the time, money and resources, drafting up a new constitution, and organising a referendum, with all that involves? I don't think there will be any gain for the country. Just a gain for politicians playing a power game.

regarding point 2, I feel that is an exaggeration - just a little bit...

and for point 1, from what I have read, the selection process for the 1997 constitution was more sane than the 2007 charter, so it is indeed possible for a new CDA to be selected in a reasonably balanced fashion. Undoubtedly, there will be a lot of maneuvering regarding the selection, but it seems reasonable that the selection would be more transparent and less biased than in 2006/2007.

As for the last point, IF there is a new charter, it will be a choice to change it, and hence, some perceived benefit for Thais, don't you think?

[rixalex]

regarding point 2, I feel that is an exaggeration - just a little bit...

You think there have been free fair and open elections? Some have been freer than others, but none have been without cheating. None. No exaggeration.

[rixalex]

and for point 1, from what I have read, the selection process for the 1997 constitution was more sane than the 2007 charter, so it is indeed possible for a new CDA to be selected in a reasonably balanced fashion. Undoubtedly, there will be a lot of maneuvering regarding the selection, but it seems reasonable that the selection would be more transparent and less biased than in 2006/2007.

You are probably right. I mean, so far, this government has showed itself to be extremely transparent and not at all biased.

As for the last point, IF there is a new charter, it will be a choice to change it, and hence, some perceived benefit for Thais, don't you think?

Again please.

[tlansford]

regarding point 2, I feel that is an exaggeration - just a little bit...

You think there have been free fair and open elections? Some have been freer than others, but none have been without cheating. None. No exaggeration.

That is an argument you can make for almost any election.

In the USA too. Recently one side made robo-calls to registered voters of the other side urging them to vote in the special election, and reminding them that it was on a date that was, in fact, 2 days after the actual election. Sweet, huh? And with the current laws in the USA, our version of "vote-buying" is to allow unlimited, undisclosed money for campaign advertising / attack ads, something statistically proven to work.

The measure of fair in the sense of having the right to campaign, access to balloting, and a reasonable count of the results - I think there have been elections in Thailand (and in the USA, sometimes, too ) that meet those criteria.

[tlansford]

and for point 1, from what I have read, the selection process for the 1997 constitution was more sane than the 2007 charter, so it is indeed possible for a new CDA to be selected in a reasonably balanced fashion. Undoubtedly, there will be a lot of maneuvering regarding the selection, but it seems reasonable that the selection would be more transparent and less biased than in 2006/2007.

You are probably right. I mean, so far, this government has showed itself to be extremely transparent and not at all biased.

As for the last point, IF there is a new charter, it will be a choice to change it, and hence, some perceived benefit for Thais, don't you think?

Again please.

your jab at the current government is well understood, but they are not a military junta, they (probably!) won't impose martial law, nor make it illegal to criticize and campaign against a new charter should it ever get that far.

[rixalex]

The measure of fair in the sense of having the right to campaign, access to balloting, and a reasonable count of the results - I think there have been elections in Thailand (and in the USA, sometimes, too ) that meet those criteria.

The measure of fair isn't only about what you have the right to do, but as much about what you don't have the right to do.

I stand by my comment. Thailand has never had free fair and open elections - no exaggeration - so we either dismiss them all, or accept them all.. not cherry pick the ones we like.

[scorecard]

and for point 1, from what I have read, the selection process for the 1997 constitution was more sane than the 2007 charter, so it is indeed possible for a new CDA to be selected in a reasonably balanced fashion. Undoubtedly, there will be a lot of maneuvering regarding the selection, but it seems reasonable that the selection would be more transparent and less biased than in 2006/2007.

You are probably right. I mean, so far, this government has showed itself to be extremely transparent and not at all biased.

As for the last point, IF there is a new charter, it will be a choice to change it, and hence, some perceived benefit for Thais, don't you think?

Again please.

your jab at the current government is well understood, but they are not a military junta, they (probably!) won't impose martial law, nor make it illegal to criticize and campaign against a new charter should it ever get that far.

Ahh the rose tinted glasses. Reality is quite different to what you describe.

[scorecard]

The measure of fair in the sense of having the right to campaign, access to balloting, and a reasonable count of the results - I think there have been elections in Thailand (and in the USA, sometimes, too ) that meet those criteria.

The measure of fair isn't only about what you have the right to do, but as much about what you don't have the right to do.

I stand by my comment. Thailand has never had free fair and open elections - no exaggeration - so we either dismiss them all, or accept them all.. not cherry pick the ones we like.

so tlansford, you think: the right to campaign, access to balloting etc... (as you mention) are the prime criteria. I note you don't mention the right of the electorate to make up their own mind free of mass immoral manipulation. And what has the USA voting situation got to do with Thailand?

Edited December 25, 2011 by scorecard

[whybother]

No longer a fruit of a poisoned tree AFTER the people voted yeah by 70%.

That sounds like it was a "landslide".

[tlansford]

No longer a fruit of a poisoned tree AFTER the people voted yeah by 70%.

That sounds like it was a "landslide".

too bad it is not the truth.