Debate On Referendum Is Hotting Up: Thailand

[webfact]

Debate on referendum hotting up

The Nation

Disagreement over whether public opinion should be sought before or after draft amendments

The Yingluck government's plan to amend or overhaul the Constitution needs to overcome its first obstacle, the highly

contentious question of whether and/or when a public referendum on the issue should take place.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra on Saturday expressed ambiguous support for a referendum, without spelling out when it should be held. The Election Commission and the red-shirt movement have adopted clearer, opposing stands on the timing of the referendum. The opposition Democrats, meanwhile, are keeping their options open.

Pheu Thai MP Natthawut Saikua yesterday ruled out a referendum before amending the charter, saying the people should be consulted only after draft amendments are completed.

"Pheu Thai is very clear about charter amendment, therefore it has the mandate to rewrite the charter based on the July 3 voting outcome," he said.

Natthawut said the main coalition party and red-shirt movement would push to amend Article 291 of the Constitution, paving the way for

formation of the Constitution Drafting Assembly to take charge of the rewriting process.

"The CDA will be responsible for the rewriting and the referendum vote on the draft," he said in reference to a non-partisan approach.

He said voters installed Pheu Thai in power with an understanding that the party would bring about charter change, hence he deemed it inappropriate to hold the referendum before activating the rewriting process.

He said the charter rewrite would not fuel political conflict because the CDA was free to get the job done without involvement of the government.

Opponents were trying to fault the drafting process because they had an ulterior motive to try to bring down the government, he said.

He voiced optimism that the charter amendment process would be activated early next year.

He dismissed speculation that the charter would be amended to

"rescue" fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, saying past charters had never been written to serve any individuals.

Regarding the proposal to amend the lese-majeste law, he said there was no link between the charter rewrite and the criminal provision on royal insults.

"Pheu Thai has no policy to amend Article 112 of the Criminal Code related to offending the monarchy," he said.

Election Commission member Sodsri Satayathum said the referendum on charter amendment could be done if the Cabinet, in consultation with the speakers of the House and the Senate, deemed it necessary to do so.

A referendum vote could be done from 90 to 120 days, Sodsri said.

The EC would be tasked with organising the referendum, including holding a series of public hearings allowing proponents and opponents of the issue to air their views to enable voters to form a decision, she said.

She said in her personal opinion, the referendum should be held before the CDA formation to clarify whether or not the charter should be amended.

She said the voting outcome for the July 3 general election should not be construed as a mandate to amend the charter. Although 15 million voters chose the Pheu Thai, their numbers might increase or decrease if asked a specific question about charter amendment.

Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva pointed out that the government's stand on constitutional reform remained vague, so his party would not jump to form conclusions about what to do.

"We wouldn't mind supporting changes that could improve the system, but we won't back any move that could lead to greater national conflict or benefit only certain groups of people," Abhisit said.

Regarding the referendum, Abhisit said that since the current Constitution virtually was "approved" by the Thai public, changes to this charter should also be put before Thai voters. Abhisit, however, was not specific about when a referendum should take place.

-- The Nation 2011-12-26

[beammeup]

Are they serious. What is the point of a referendum for amendments you don't know about.

[jonclark]

Are they serious. What is the point of a referendum for amendments you don't know about.

I suppose it's because they want a referendum to support the principle of amendments without having to explain the detail, giving the government free reign to then make the changes leaving their opponents without a hope of challenging them. Although the government line is probably somewhere along the lines of it being a money saving excercise.

Completely ridiculous

Edited December 26, 2011 by jonclark

[geriatrickid]

Are they serious. What is the point of a referendum for amendments you don't know about.

I suppose it's because they want a referendum to support the principle of amendments without having to explain the detail, giving the government free reign to then make the changes leaving their opponents without a hope of challenging them. Although the government line is probably somewhere along the lines of it being a money saving excercise.

Completely ridiculous

What is ridiculous is that you have made a conclusion that is not supported by the PTP statements;

Pheu Thai MP Natthawut Saikua yesterday ruled out a referendum before amending the charter, saying the people should be consulted only after draft amendments are completed.

If there are draft amendments and these are brought to the people for their vote, it means that there would be discussion and analysis. The PTP position is logical in that it says there is no point in having a referendum unless the proposed changes are made public an discussed first.

Unlike the past groupthat brought forward amendments, the PTP has a mandate to do so as it was part of its election platform.

[jonclark]

Are they serious. What is the point of a referendum for amendments you don't know about.

I suppose it's because they want a referendum to support the principle of amendments without having to explain the detail, giving the government free reign to then make the changes leaving their opponents without a hope of challenging them. Although the government line is probably somewhere along the lines of it being a money saving excercise.

Completely ridiculous

What is ridiculous is that you have made a conclusion that is not supported by the PTP statements;

Pheu Thai MP Natthawut Saikua yesterday ruled out a referendum before amending the charter, saying the people should be consulted only after draft amendments are completed.

If there are draft amendments and these are brought to the people for their vote, it means that there would be discussion and analysis. The PTP position is logical in that it says there is no point in having a referendum unless the proposed changes are made public an discussed first.

Unlike the past groupthat brought forward amendments, the PTP has a mandate to do so as it was part of its election platform.

Apologies was reading the same article in a different paper where the EC commissioner wants the referendum before the changes - I stand corrected.

[Crushdepth]

Are they serious. What is the point of a referendum for amendments you don't know about.

I suppose it's because they want a referendum to support the principle of amendments without having to explain the detail, giving the government free reign to then make the changes leaving their opponents without a hope of challenging them. Although the government line is probably somewhere along the lines of it being a money saving excercise.

Completely ridiculous

What is ridiculous is that you have made a conclusion that is not supported by the PTP statements;

Pheu Thai MP Natthawut Saikua yesterday ruled out a referendum before amending the charter, saying the people should be consulted only after draft amendments are completed.

If there are draft amendments and these are brought to the people for their vote, it means that there would be discussion and analysis. The PTP position is logical in that it says there is no point in having a referendum unless the proposed changes are made public an discussed first.

Unlike the past groupthat brought forward amendments, the PTP has a mandate to do so as it was part of its election platform.

Ridiculous is imagining that governments have a mandate for every policy in their election platform. People dont get to pick and choose policies, they only get to vote for one package or another. Hence the standard practice of strapping large piles of sugar to the stinkers, and then claiming that it was the stinkers that people actually wanted. Its spin, not fact.

The government will find out if it has a mandate for changing the charter when the public votes on the amendments.

[OzMick]

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra on Saturday expressed ambiguous support for a referendum,..........."

Just for once I would like to hear a clear, definitive and truthful statement from this perjuring puppet.

[geriatrickid]

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra on Saturday expressed ambiguous support for a referendum,..........."

Just for once I would like to hear a clear, definitive and truthful statement from this perjuring puppet.

You make the claim of perjury. Substantiate or retract the statement.

If one is incapable of understanding Thai or unable to understand what is said because the statements are beyond his/her ability to comprehend, this does not mean that the speaker has not made a clear, definitive and truthful statement.

[TAWP]

I wish the government and the opposition (and the gov. apologists here) saw the light and understood that the only proper way to do this is to allow each specific change to be voted for. No package-voting of any kind.

Anything else is bound to contain one supposed main issue and then lots of less highlighted amendments that severely alters the playing-field, often without the voters having a clear understanding about this fact.

Edited December 26, 2011 by TAWP

[OzMick]

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra on Saturday expressed ambiguous support for a referendum,..........."

Just for once I would like to hear a clear, definitive and truthful statement from this perjuring puppet.

You make the claim of perjury. Substantiate or retract the statement.

If one is incapable of understanding Thai or unable to understand what is said because the statements are beyond his/her ability to comprehend, this does not mean that the speaker has not made a clear, definitive and truthful statement.

She said "These assets are mine." The court said that they belonged to her brother and this a tax evasion rort. That sir, is perjury, for which the DSI was preparing a case before the change of government. The fact that the case has not proceeded does NOT indicate that the charge was unfounded.

Are you capable of grasping that?

[geriatrickid]

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra on Saturday expressed ambiguous support for a referendum,..........."

Just for once I would like to hear a clear, definitive and truthful statement from this perjuring puppet.

You make the claim of perjury. Substantiate or retract the statement.

If one is incapable of understanding Thai or unable to understand what is said because the statements are beyond his/her ability to comprehend, this does not mean that the speaker has not made a clear, definitive and truthful statement.

She said "These assets are mine." The court said that they belonged to her brother and this a tax evasion rort. That sir, is perjury, for which the DSI was preparing a case before the change of government. The fact that the case has not proceeded does NOT indicate that the charge was unfounded.

Are you capable of grasping that?

Until such time as a verdict of perjury is rendered, it is inappropriate for you to claim perjury. It is defamation, an act of libel.

A charge has not even been brought. If the Democrats thought they could make a case, I can assure you they would be demanding charges be brought. Take the hint.

[geriatrickid]

I wish the government and the opposition (and the gov. apologists here) saw the light and understood that the only proper way to do this is to allow each specific change to be voted for. No package-voting of any kind.

Anything else is bound to contain one supposed main issue and then lots of less highlighted amendments that severely alters the playing-field, often without the voters having a clear understanding about this fact.

Unfortunately, that is not how the legislative process works in most democracies. If it was, there wouldn't be weird earmarks and appendices attached to US congressional bills, nor would Bills in the Australian and Canadian parliaments often feature attachments to the original bill etc.

[Crushdepth]

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra on Saturday expressed ambiguous support for a referendum,..........."

Just for once I would like to hear a clear, definitive and truthful statement from this perjuring puppet.

u

You make the claim of perjury. Substantiate or retract the statement.

If one is incapable of understanding Thai or unable to understand what is said because the statements are beyond his/her ability to comprehend, this does not mean that the speaker has not made a clear, definitive and truthful statement.

She said "These assets are mine." The court said that they belonged to her brother and this a tax evasion rort. That sir, is perjury, for which the DSI was preparing a case before the change of government. The fact that the case has not proceeded does NOT indicate that the charge was unfounded.

Are you capable of grasping that?

Until such time as a verdict of perjury is rendered, it is inappropriate for you to claim perjury. It is defamation, an act of libel.

A charge has not even been brought. If the Democrats thought they could make a case, I can assure you they would be demanding charges be brought. Take the hint.

Telling people what they can or cannot say again? Heaven forbid that anyone should criticise the government in a democracy.

[SAffer]

Is the Constitution of Thailand worth the paper it's written on?

How many Constitutions have they had??

[ianf]

Off course, Thaksin remains an arch-manipulator of the masses (as well as some rather short-sighted farangs) and therefore the result of any referendum that his government proposes will, in my eyes, ring as hollow as the result of the last election. When your main opponents are denied the right to campaign in large swathes of the country, when the red constituents are fed misleading propaganda on such a huge scale, when fear and corruption surrounds the electoral process, then the result certainly has to be questioned. Thaksin will know exactly what to do with any referendum to get the result he wants. One day, off course, people like this come a cropper. But by then the damage to Thailand's democracy will have been long and deep.

[whybother]

Until such time as a verdict of perjury is rendered, it is inappropriate for you to claim perjury. It is defamation, an act of libel.

A charge has not even been brought. If the Democrats thought they could make a case, I can assure you they would be demanding charges be brought. Take the hint.

She lied. She may not have committed perjury.

[Siam Simon]

I wish the government and the opposition (and the gov. apologists here) saw the light and understood that the only proper way to do this is to allow each specific change to be voted for. No package-voting of any kind.

Anything else is bound to contain one supposed main issue and then lots of less highlighted amendments that severely alters the playing-field, often without the voters having a clear understanding about this fact.

" often without the voters having a clear understanding about this fact."

Here we go again with 'the voters are stupid'. What an utterly lame debating tactic.

Pheu Thai's election platform was as plain as daylight. What they aren't delivering on should be the big concern for this discussion forum.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Siam Simon

[whybother]

I wish the government and the opposition (and the gov. apologists here) saw the light and understood that the only proper way to do this is to allow each specific change to be voted for. No package-voting of any kind.

Anything else is bound to contain one supposed main issue and then lots of less highlighted amendments that severely alters the playing-field, often without the voters having a clear understanding about this fact.

" often without the voters having a clear understanding about this fact."

Here we go again with 'the voters are stupid'. What an utterly lame debating tactic.

Without actually saying the the voters are stupid, you can't really argue with the fact that many of them do not have an understanding of what's in the constitution - even the "educated" ones.

Having an "Accept All the changes or None of them" referendum would mean that people don't really get to decide or think about individual issues.

[Crushdepth]

Having a referendum on amending the charter before publishing the amendments - you'd have to be a fuc_kwit to fall for that.

[animatic]

The proposed referendum is to decide on

'IF a change is wanted by the public'.

Not to say yeah or nay about what the changes might be, blindly.

A referendum BEFORE they write up the changes they want would basically:

Disconnect the issue from candidates looking to get / keep their jobs.

and the money they spend to do it.

Minimize partisan support for SPECIFIC clauses,

because those clauses are not so far written,

and need NOT be of The People say

'we are fine, stand pat do nothing'.

Leave it the average people, their less biased

or manipulated thoughts on changing the constitution.

No one not up for election would spend near as much

to just DECIDE ON whether a constitution change or NOT,

should or should not happen.

So inherently less biased.

Edited December 26, 2011 by animatic

[TAWP]

I wish the government and the opposition (and the gov. apologists here) saw the light and understood that the only proper way to do this is to allow each specific change to be voted for. No package-voting of any kind.

Anything else is bound to contain one supposed main issue and then lots of less highlighted amendments that severely alters the playing-field, often without the voters having a clear understanding about this fact.

Unfortunately, that is not how the legislative process works in most democracies. If it was, there wouldn't be weird earmarks and appendices attached to US congressional bills, nor would Bills in the Australian and Canadian parliaments often feature attachments to the original bill etc.

US isn't 'most democracies' and not a lot of motions is handled in such an extreme way as some bills in the US. Luckely.

But that is clearly besides the point. If you think that we should aim for the worst example, not the best, when it comes to voting through changes for the constitution, well...

I fail to see how anyone can disagree that having a point-by-point election for the changes proposed is the best way and anything else is grades of worse...

[Orac]

A referendum BEFORE they write up the changes they want would basically:

Disconnect the issue from candidates looking to get / keep their jobs.

and the money they spend to do it.

Any partisan support for SPECIFIC clauses, because those clauses are not so far written,

and need NOT be of The People say 'we are fine, stand pat'.

Leave it the actual people their a less biased

or manipulated thoughts on changing the constitution

by other issues, (like money thrown at them)

Noone not up for election would spend near as much

to just DECIDE ON whether a constitution change or NOT,

should or should not happen.

So inherently less biased.

I'm not sure about a referendum without details would be less biased. Without the details of what might be in it then anyone opposing change could say what they liked about what it might contain and nobody would be able to dispute the claim.

[TAWP]

I wish the government and the opposition (and the gov. apologists here) saw the light and understood that the only proper way to do this is to allow each specific change to be voted for. No package-voting of any kind.

Anything else is bound to contain one supposed main issue and then lots of less highlighted amendments that severely alters the playing-field, often without the voters having a clear understanding about this fact.

" often without the voters having a clear understanding about this fact."

Here we go again with 'the voters are stupid'. What an utterly lame debating tactic.

Pheu Thai's election platform was as plain as daylight. What they aren't delivering on should be the big concern for this discussion forum.

If both government and opposition were to bring about 'less highlighted' changes to the proposal, while publicly only focusing on a very few colorful but perhaps superficial issues, ofcourse the population will lack the understanding of what the changes, in full, are nor what their implication are.

What is an lame debate tactic is to use strawman-attacks against a proposal that would empower the voter, that would force each issue to be highlighted and require information/explanations from proponents and opponents of them.

Some debaters really need to soul-search into what it is they want. Unless their supposed support for democracy and voters is all a sham.

[Crushdepth]

I wish the government and the opposition (and the gov. apologists here) saw the light and understood that the only proper way to do this is to allow each specific change to be voted for. No package-voting of any kind.

Anything else is bound to contain one supposed main issue and then lots of less highlighted amendments that severely alters the playing-field, often without the voters having a clear understanding about this fact.

" often without the voters having a clear understanding about this fact."

Here we go again with 'the voters are stupid'. What an utterly lame debating tactic.

Pheu Thai's election platform was as plain as daylight. What they aren't delivering on should be the big concern for this discussion forum.

You mean the election promises they broke in the first 2 weeks of office? Or are you referring to the Democratic Fascist Republic of Shingapore? That takes time. After all, one only has so many relatives to fill key government posts with. But downsizing the management team to say one post should help.

[lannarebirth]

It seems to me if this become an issue at all, two public referendums need to be held. One beforehand to ask the public if they even want the constitution changed. Then afterwards, if the public gave the go ahead for change, to vote individually on each of the proposed changes. Given that this affects the constitution and not a zoning law, I'd make both votes require supermajorities. Though I'm not sure that's constitutional.

[Siam Simon]

I wish the government and the opposition (and the gov. apologists here) saw the light and understood that the only proper way to do this is to allow each specific change to be voted for. No package-voting of any kind.

Anything else is bound to contain one supposed main issue and then lots of less highlighted amendments that severely alters the playing-field, often without the voters having a clear understanding about this fact.

" often without the voters having a clear understanding about this fact."

Here we go again with 'the voters are stupid'. What an utterly lame debating tactic.

Pheu Thai's election platform was as plain as daylight. What they aren't delivering on should be the big concern for this discussion forum.

You mean the election promises they broke in the first 2 weeks of office? Or are you referring to the Democratic Fascist Republic of Shingapore? That takes time. After all, one only has so many relatives to fill key government posts with. But downsizing the management team to say one post should help.

I'm referring to ALL the election promises they've backtracked on so far. The current government should be judged on their merits, and they are not doing awfully well at the moment. The seemingly endless vitriolic propaganda rants on this forum are just plain tiresome. Just who do you guys (and you all know who you are) think you're impressing with your boring rants?

[Buchholz]

You make the claim of perjury. Substantiate or retract the statement.

If one is incapable of understanding Thai or unable to understand what is said because the statements are beyond his/her ability to comprehend, this does not mean that the speaker has not made a clear, definitive and truthful statement.

She said "These assets are mine." The court said that they belonged to her brother and this a tax evasion rort. That sir, is perjury, for which the DSI was preparing a case before the change of government. The fact that the case has not proceeded does NOT indicate that the charge was unfounded.

Are you capable of grasping that?

Until such time as a verdict of perjury is rendered, it is inappropriate for you to claim perjury. It is defamation, an act of libel.

A charge has not even been brought. If the Democrats thought they could make a case, I can assure you they would be demanding charges be brought. Take the hint.

Telling people what they can or cannot say again? Heaven forbid that anyone should criticise the government in a democracy.

Zappa referred to his position as the Central Scrutinizer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJH5Pzi8spg

[animatic]

A referendum BEFORE they write up the changes they want would basically:

Disconnect the issue from candidates looking to get / keep their jobs.

and the money they spend to do it.

Any removes partisan support for SPECIFIC clauses, because those clauses are not so far written, and need NOT be if The People say 'we are fine, stand pat'.

Leave it the actual people, their a less biased

or manipulated thoughts on changing the constitution

by other issues, (like money thrown at them)

No one not up for election would spend near as much

to just DECIDE ON whether a constitution change or NOT,

should or should not happen.

So inherently less biased.

I'm not sure about a referendum without details would be less biased. Without the details of what might be in it then anyone opposing change could say what they liked about what it might contain and nobody would be able to dispute the claim.

The only truly necessary detail is the basic concept.

'To change the charter or not to.'

Of no then full stop and life goes on, the people have spoken.

Other wise it's more obfuscation of details.

Not seeing the forest for the trees.

This is an opportunity to STOP the incessant political attempts

vying for power via serial changes of the constitution to gain advantage.

This concept alone has done massive damage to Thailand.

Edited December 26, 2011 by animatic

[JAG]

I wish the government and the opposition (and the gov. apologists here) saw the light and understood that the only proper way to do this is to allow each specific change to be voted for. No package-voting of any kind.

Anything else is bound to contain one supposed main issue and then lots of less highlighted amendments that severely alters the playing-field, often without the voters having a clear understanding about this fact.

" often without the voters having a clear understanding about this fact."

Here we go again with 'the voters are stupid'. What an utterly lame debating tactic.

Pheu Thai's election platform was as plain as daylight. What they aren't delivering on should be the big concern for this discussion forum.

You mean the election promises they broke in the first 2 weeks of office? Or are you referring to the Democratic Fascist Republic of Shingapore? That takes time. After all, one only has so many relatives to fill key government posts with. But downsizing the management team to say one post should help.

I'm referring to ALL the election promises they've backtracked on so far. The current government should be judged on their merits, and they are not doing awfully well at the moment. The seemingly endless vitriolic propaganda rants on this forum are just plain tiresome. Just who do you guys (and you all know who you are) think you're impressing with your boring rants?

each other! No other bugger takes the blindest bit of notice. Least of all the Thai electorate.

Edited December 26, 2011 by JAG

[Siam Simon]

each other! No other bugger takes the blindest bit of notice. Least of all the Thai electorate.

I think you're quite right, jag. It's just a silly rant-fest at times. But it's bloody annoying because there are a lot of quality posters on this forum. The ones who refuse to join the rant-fest are trolled to hell (the treatment of Nick Nostitz by some on here is truly astonishing). Other posters who clearly have insight seem to get dragged into the ranting. Why can't we just have sensible, good-natured debate?