Charter Referendum Should Require Two-Thirds Support: Academic

[Lite Beer]

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

Charter referendum should require two-thirds support: academic

The Nation on Sunday

BANGKOK:-- Chulalongkorn University political scientist Chaiyan Chaiyaporn has proposed that a national referendum on the Constitution should require the backing of two-thirds of voters before the charter can be adopted.

In an exclusive interview with Nation News Agency reporter Khanittha Thepphajorn, Chaiyan said the two-thirds minimum requirement is not easy to achieve. The Pheu Thai and government coalition did not get that many votes in the 2011 election. They will have to campaign more to get approval for the new charter while the opposition might campaign for people to oppose or abstain.

Meanwhile, Thammasat University law lecturer Pornson Liengboon-lertchai said at a seminar yesterday that a study should be undertaken on the disadvantages of the Constitution before drafting any changes.

Other panel speakers at the seminar on "Constitutional Amendment: Exit for Thailand?" at Thammasat University yesterday included Chulalongkorn University law lecturer Nuntawat Boramanand, Pheu Thai MP and a member of the Parliament's ad-hoc committee on charter amendment Peerapan Palusuk, appointed Senator Kamnoon Sitthisaman, former member of Assets Examination Committee Kaewsan Atibodhi and Pornson.

Nuntawat said Thailand's problems included the problems with the charter itself, related laws and the people who used the laws. The problems occurred when the charter users interpret the laws in a way that would benefit themselves, not the country. He raised the cases of corruption hidden in the policies and the changing of court judges in the case related to the Preah Vihear controversy as examples.

Peerapan said the charter amendment was only one of the exits for Thailand. However, the current Constitution, issued in 2007, was not a charter that could be used for the whole country, is problematic for power allocation and also constrains the work of the government.

Little progress so far

Nevertheless, his committee had done little work on the changes to the Constitution and could not find any solution. Meanwhile, a former charter drafter had asked him to increase the number of academics among charter drafters.

Peerapan's committee is working on changing Article 291, which states the way in which the Constitution can be changed. While the latest proposal, passed by Parliament, agreed on setting up the Constitution Drafting Assembly, the committee must propose the suitable number and qualifications of the charter drafters.

Kamnoon said the charter revamp would not solve the problem as long as the real problem, political conflicts among Thais, remains.

Kamnoon, a former key member of the anti-Thaksin Shinawatra People's Alliance for Democracy, said making any change to the charter without a clear framework or guideline for change would only cause more conflicts and might stir up rallies as people would want to campaign for what they want.

At the moment, key members of political parties have hinted they wanted to completely change the power structure of the country so that they can get rid of opponents. Proposals such as a revamp of the courts and independent organisations meant the elimination of a checks-and-balances system that examines elected politicians.

"The exit route for the country is to resolve the conflicts. Everybody should be open-minded and accept that problems occurred both before and after the September 19 coup in 2006. How can we join hands to solve the problems and look at the overall picture of the country to eradicate the weakness that was the cause of the coup?" Kamnoon said.

Meanwhile, Kaewsan said it was important to find out the truth and call for people's consciousness. However, the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand, led by Kanit na Nakhon, did not do that job, resulting in the rush to change the charter.

He said that as a former AEC member, he found a problem in the charter: it guaranteed return on political investment for capitalists.

Pornson said he wanted to urge the government to campaign and be open to the opinions of both sides - those who agreed with and those who opposed charter change.

-- The Nation 2012-03-25

[lungmi]

I don't know this academic. But what I know is that a stable constitution needs 2/3 of upper and lower house (in Thailand may be the underground house included).

I decided to fard away all the discussions about what is running now for constitution etc. Thailand needs International help, sandbox fighting is out of time.

[bigbamboo]

Never seen Yingy in specs before.

[hellodolly]

I don't know this academic. But what I know is that a stable constitution needs 2/3 of upper and lower house (in Thailand may be the underground house included).

I decided to fard away all the discussions about what is running now for constitution etc. Thailand needs International help, sandbox fighting is out of time.

Agreed

Two Thirds would go a long way toward reconciliation.

[tlansford]

I guess it is a good thing the Military Junta didn't use the same guideline, because if that had happened, ....

Yes : 56.69%

No : 41.37%

we would still have the Junta.

I think we should use the same rules as last time : no criticism of the charter, no campaigning against the charter, no debating of the charter, ...

Junta Campaigning

...

Media used included all television, cable and radio stations, websites, print media outlets, government agencies, education institutions, billboards and places where crowds gather. All state-run schools and universities were involved in the campaign. Spots were aired from 6 am until 10 pm with the message "Approve: New Constitution, close to the people".

...

Gen Sonthi has also ordered the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) to use its 700,000 nationwide staff to "promote proper understanding of the constitution" among rural people. ISOC spokesman Colonel Thanathip Sawangsaeng said provincial ISOC chiefs will use door-to-door tactics in their campaign to "educate" people so they will not be "tricked" into rejecting the draft. It was also revealed that the ISOC started their draft constitution "education" campaign in February, even before the draft constitution had been completed

...

The junta also announced that it would transport people to voting stations on the date of the referendum. Interior Minister Aree Wongaraya insisted that it was not illegal for the Ministry to do so, adding that Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont has given his consent. In elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Election Act states that it is a criminal offence to provide free transport for voters.

...

The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act.

...

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

...

Make it an open and fair campaign and a straight up/down vote.

An innocent little suggestion of 2/3 majority to pass a new charter is just a tactic to support those wishing to keep the status quo.

[OzMick]

And a 50.5/49.5 result will do wonders for reconciliation. Wotsamatta Tom, don't think redthought is as ubiquitous as you would have us believe?

[tlansford]

And a 50.5/49.5 result will do wonders for reconciliation. Wotsamatta Tom, don't think redthought is as ubiquitous as you would have us believe?

nottinisdamatta Ozmick

And I don't try to "have you believe" anything about red thought.

Charter changes are not about reconciliation, either. Or if you believe that, then point out changes that would be specifically about reconciliation, please.

[animatic]

2/3 is the benchmark, not 50/50 which is too easily manipulated.

What's happened in the past is irrelevant. Strawman argument.

To have a stable charter is not a thing of the past, but one of the future.

Edited March 26, 2012 by animatic

[gregb]

2/3 is the benchmark, not 50/50 which is too easily manipulated.

What's happened in the past is irrelevant. Strawman argument.

To have a stable charter is not a thing of the past, but one of the future.

Agreed. The question is not about what mistakes were made in the past and how we can repeat them in a different color, but rather how we can avoid repeating them.

If reconciliation is truly what anyone desires, then a supermajority is an absolutely critical component of that reconciliation. On the other hand, if everyone continues demanding a simple majority because they know they can not reach an acceptable compromise that would achieve a supermajority, then what they are saying is they do not want reconciliation. They want tyranny of the majority and to hold the rest of the country in contempt.

Only approval by a supermajority will avoid bloodshed. Otherwise, it is just another step on the road to civil war, which is the ultimate solution to this conflict.

Be partisan all you like, but you can not doubt the reality of the statement. Just because you have 51% of the vote doesn't give you the authority to change the laws to oppress and marginalize the other 49%. Unless you have broad support for the rule of law, you have no rule of law.

Continue on the current vein of unending conflict, or change to a real democracy. The choice is up to everyone with a stake in this, but the choice of a true democracy demands supermajority support of the highest law of the land. And citing failures in the past as an excuse to continue failing shows what your true motives are.

Edited March 26, 2012 by gregb

[tlansford]

2/3 is the benchmark, not 50/50 which is too easily manipulated.

What's happened in the past is irrelevant. Strawman argument.

To have a stable charter is not a thing of the past, but one of the future.

anything you say Mr 70%

[tlansford]

2/3 is the benchmark, not 50/50 which is too easily manipulated.

What's happened in the past is irrelevant. Strawman argument.

To have a stable charter is not a thing of the past, but one of the future.

Agreed. The question is not about what mistakes were made in the past and how we can repeat them in a different color, but rather how we can avoid repeating them.

If reconciliation is truly what anyone desires, then a supermajority is an absolutely critical component of that reconciliation. On the other hand, if everyone continues demanding a simple majority because they know they can not reach an acceptable compromise that would achieve a supermajority, then what they are saying is they do not want reconciliation. They want tyranny of the majority and to hold the rest of the country in contempt.

Only approval by a supermajority will avoid bloodshed. Otherwise, it is just another step on the road to civil war, which is the ultimate solution to this conflict.

Be partisan all you like, but you can not doubt the reality of the statement. Just because you have 51% of the vote doesn't give you the authority to change the laws to oppress and marginalize the other 49%. Unless you have broad support for the rule of law, you have no rule of law.

Continue on the current vein of unending conflict, or change to a real democracy. The choice is up to everyone with a stake in this, but the choice of a true democracy demands supermajority support of the highest law of the land. And citing failures in the past as an excuse to continue failing shows what your true motives are.

The current constitution was effectively written by the Junta and pushed through by the Junta.

The Thai people can make the changes that they want to make, that is up to them. But this line about a 2/3 vote to pass is not even a poorly disguised argument to stop charter changes altogether. It is not a positive argument to lead the country forward, it is just an obstacle to prevent taking the next step.

[CalgaryII]

"Meanwhile, Thammasat University law lecturer Pornson Liengboon-lertchai said at a seminar yesterday that a study should be undertaken on the disadvantages of the Constitution before drafting any changes"

I wonder how the current constitution would be viewed by all parties, if it was not rooted in a coupist administration.

[tlansford]

"Meanwhile, Thammasat University law lecturer Pornson Liengboon-lertchai said at a seminar yesterday that a study should be undertaken on the disadvantages of the Constitution before drafting any changes"

I wonder how the current constitution would be viewed by all parties, if it was not rooted in a coupist administration.

That is a really good point.

To be honest, I would like to spend more time on the 2007/1997 constitutions and comparing the changes, and how each impacted Thai society after their implementation. That is the most interesting aspect of this constitutional reform.

In any case, such a perspective as you suggest forces an analysis of the merits of the constitution and its impact.

[OzMick]

And a 50.5/49.5 result will do wonders for reconciliation. Wotsamatta Tom, don't think redthought is as ubiquitous as you would have us believe?

nottinisdamatta Ozmick

And I don't try to "have you believe" anything about red thought.

Charter changes are not about reconciliation, either. Or if you believe that, then point out changes that would be specifically about reconciliation, please.

Of course the charter changes aren't about reconciliation - they're about bringing back Thaksin in "his full glory" and doing away with those annoying checks on his venality. BUT reconciliation is a stated aim of the government. I find it hard to reconcile the two (somebody's lying).

[bigbamboo]

2/3 is the benchmark, not 50/50 which is too easily manipulated.

What's happened in the past is irrelevant. Strawman argument.

To have a stable charter is not a thing of the past, but one of the future.

Agreed. The question is not about what mistakes were made in the past and how we can repeat them in a different color, but rather how we can avoid repeating them.

If reconciliation is truly what anyone desires, then a supermajority is an absolutely critical component of that reconciliation. On the other hand, if everyone continues demanding a simple majority because they know they can not reach an acceptable compromise that would achieve a supermajority, then what they are saying is they do not want reconciliation. They want tyranny of the majority and to hold the rest of the country in contempt.

Only approval by a supermajority will avoid bloodshed. Otherwise, it is just another step on the road to civil war, which is the ultimate solution to this conflict.

Be partisan all you like, but you can not doubt the reality of the statement. Just because you have 51% of the vote doesn't give you the authority to change the laws to oppress and marginalize the other 49%. Unless you have broad support for the rule of law, you have no rule of law.

Continue on the current vein of unending conflict, or change to a real democracy. The choice is up to everyone with a stake in this, but the choice of a true democracy demands supermajority support of the highest law of the land. And citing failures in the past as an excuse to continue failing shows what your true motives are.

The current constitution was effectively written by the Junta and pushed through by the Junta.

The Thai people can make the changes that they want to make, that is up to them. But this line about a 2/3 vote to pass is not even a poorly disguised argument to stop charter changes altogether. It is not a positive argument to lead the country forward, it is just an obstacle to prevent taking the next step.

The current constitution was also voted for by the Thai people in a referendum.

But why set a two thirds majority. It should be a simple vote, with at least 50 per cent of those eligible to vote (not turn out) agreeing to it.

Edited March 26, 2012 by bigbamboo

[lungmi]

"An innocent little suggestion of 2/3 majority to pass a new charter is just a tactic to support those wishing to keep the status quo"

Tlansford, you uncloak yourself by this comment. (PR manager on a payroll, Amsterdam connections?)

A stable constitution is an international standard for democratic countries worldwide.

A stable constitution is a landmark for international companies (joint ventures etc) to give the control to

International Economic Courts.

The model works already (Scandinavian countries)

This model is modern science....

and fits with P.A. Payutto's Buddhist Economies.

[tlansford]

"An innocent little suggestion of 2/3 majority to pass a new charter is just a tactic to support those wishing to keep the status quo"

Tlansford, you uncloak yourself by this comment. (PR manager on a payroll, Amsterdam connections?)

A stable constitution is an international standard for democratic countries worldwide.

A stable constitution is a landmark for international companies (joint ventures etc) to give the control to

International Economic Courts.

The model works already (Scandinavian countries)

This model is modern science....

and fits with P.A. Payutto's Buddhist Economies.

Hardly uncloaked.

With the suggestion coming from the camp opposed to any charter changes, it seems like an accurate statement. It is a tactic to make the hurdle of agreement too high to change a charter that was imposed on the Thai society.

On the other hand, as it looks today, the selection of the CDA and the work to examine and determine the shape of a new charter is going to be a very public and democratic affair. If there is the level of broad input into the charter that is expected (it is already happening), then a 2/3 majority requirement - for something that does not need a public referendum in the first place - is nothing more than a tactic to keep the status quo.

BTW, how does this fit with Payutto?

[animatic]

2/3 is the benchmark, not 50/50 which is too easily manipulated.

What's happened in the past is irrelevant. Strawman argument.

To have a stable charter is not a thing of the past, but one of the future.

anything you say Mr 70%

You are wrong in implying I was every behind the PAD 70% elected idea.

Which was nothing more than ONE IDEA thrown out by them in a speach,

and never a PAD position. More a discussion point on how to possibly fix the problems.

Addendum: you

tlansford Member Since 2010-02-14

Were not a member of TVF back when all this was part of the disscussion,

So what was your old handle then? Are you banned and now returned?

Certainly you can only be misremembering to atribute this 70% jibe to me from that time,

Or any time.

[animatic]

2/3 is the benchmark, not 50/50 which is too easily manipulated.

What's happened in the past is irrelevant. Strawman argument.

To have a stable charter is not a thing of the past, but one of the future.

Agreed. The question is not about what mistakes were made in the past and how we can repeat them in a different color, but rather how we can avoid repeating them.

If reconciliation is truly what anyone desires, then a supermajority is an absolutely critical component of that reconciliation. On the other hand, if everyone continues demanding a simple majority because they know they can not reach an acceptable compromise that would achieve a supermajority, then what they are saying is they do not want reconciliation. They want tyranny of the majority and to hold the rest of the country in contempt.

Only approval by a supermajority will avoid bloodshed. Otherwise, it is just another step on the road to civil war, which is the ultimate solution to this conflict.

Be partisan all you like, but you can not doubt the reality of the statement. Just because you have 51% of the vote doesn't give you the authority to change the laws to oppress and marginalize the other 49%. Unless you have broad support for the rule of law, you have no rule of law.

Continue on the current vein of unending conflict, or change to a real democracy. The choice is up to everyone with a stake in this, but the choice of a true democracy demands supermajority support of the highest law of the land. And citing failures in the past as an excuse to continue failing shows what your true motives are.

The current constitution was effectively written by the Junta and pushed through by the Junta.

The Thai people can make the changes that they want to make, that is up to them. But this line about a 2/3 vote to pass is not even a poorly disguised argument to stop charter changes altogether. It is not a positive argument to lead the country forward, it is just an obstacle to prevent taking the next step.

But was and IS better than the loophole filled 1997 constitution.

We now see and effort to reinsert loopholes that help one side suppress another.

AND enshrining tyranny by the rich and greedy in an even more insidious form.

Edited March 26, 2012 by animatic

[rubl]

2/3 is the benchmark, not 50/50 which is too easily manipulated.

What's happened in the past is irrelevant. Strawman argument.

To have a stable charter is not a thing of the past, but one of the future.

Agreed. The question is not about what mistakes were made in the past and how we can repeat them in a different color, but rather how we can avoid repeating them.

If reconciliation is truly what anyone desires, then a supermajority is an absolutely critical component of that reconciliation. On the other hand, if everyone continues demanding a simple majority because they know they can not reach an acceptable compromise that would achieve a supermajority, then what they are saying is they do not want reconciliation. They want tyranny of the majority and to hold the rest of the country in contempt.

Only approval by a supermajority will avoid bloodshed. Otherwise, it is just another step on the road to civil war, which is the ultimate solution to this conflict.

Be partisan all you like, but you can not doubt the reality of the statement. Just because you have 51% of the vote doesn't give you the authority to change the laws to oppress and marginalize the other 49%. Unless you have broad support for the rule of law, you have no rule of law.

Continue on the current vein of unending conflict, or change to a real democracy. The choice is up to everyone with a stake in this, but the choice of a true democracy demands supermajority support of the highest law of the land. And citing failures in the past as an excuse to continue failing shows what your true motives are.

The current constitution was effectively written by the Junta and pushed through by the Junta.

The Thai people can make the changes that they want to make, that is up to them. But this line about a 2/3 vote to pass is not even a poorly disguised argument to stop charter changes altogether. It is not a positive argument to lead the country forward, it is just an obstacle to prevent taking the next step.

The coup and the junta following together with a 'pushed-through' new constitution are deemed so utterly undemocratic, especially with the constitution accepted with hardly more than 50% of votes.

To suggest "this line about a 2/3 vote to pass is not even a poorly disguised argument to stop charter changes altogether" seems in contradiction to a return to democratic values. Lots of countries have a 2/3rd requirement for constitutional changes. How can asking for a democratic approach be an obstacle to preventing taking the next step in taking this country forward?

[gregb]

2/3 is the benchmark, not 50/50 which is too easily manipulated.

What's happened in the past is irrelevant. Strawman argument.

To have a stable charter is not a thing of the past, but one of the future.

Agreed. The question is not about what mistakes were made in the past and how we can repeat them in a different color, but rather how we can avoid repeating them.

If reconciliation is truly what anyone desires, then a supermajority is an absolutely critical component of that reconciliation. On the other hand, if everyone continues demanding a simple majority because they know they can not reach an acceptable compromise that would achieve a supermajority, then what they are saying is they do not want reconciliation. They want tyranny of the majority and to hold the rest of the country in contempt.

Only approval by a supermajority will avoid bloodshed. Otherwise, it is just another step on the road to civil war, which is the ultimate solution to this conflict.

Be partisan all you like, but you can not doubt the reality of the statement. Just because you have 51% of the vote doesn't give you the authority to change the laws to oppress and marginalize the other 49%. Unless you have broad support for the rule of law, you have no rule of law.

Continue on the current vein of unending conflict, or change to a real democracy. The choice is up to everyone with a stake in this, but the choice of a true democracy demands supermajority support of the highest law of the land. And citing failures in the past as an excuse to continue failing shows what your true motives are.

The current constitution was effectively written by the Junta and pushed through by the Junta.

The Thai people can make the changes that they want to make, that is up to them. But this line about a 2/3 vote to pass is not even a poorly disguised argument to stop charter changes altogether. It is not a positive argument to lead the country forward, it is just an obstacle to prevent taking the next step.

The next step on the road to civil war is not a step we need to take. I understand the Thaksin supporters don't care about the rest of the country and don't want reconciliation. They simply want to change the constitution and oppress the opposition. That is simply reality.

If you want reconciliation, it means coming up with a charter that everyone can agree on. Otherwise, if only the Thaksin supporters agree, we stay in the same pattern of changing the constitution every few years and we remain solidly on the path to destruction.

A constitution with broad supermajority support would provide the basis for moving forward with a real democracy under the rule of law. Anything else is just a continuation of the status quo and inching ever closer towards civil war.

The charter changes are not what is relevant here. The relevant argument is true reconciliation vs. death and war. Those in favor of supermajority support are looking for reconciliation. Those who aren't, are favoring war. It's up to everyone with a stake in this to decide what it is going to be. Personally, I don't think anyone really wants reconciliation. The fact that anyone is arguing this point proves it.

If you are a Thaksin supporter, enjoy your feeling of being in power while it lasts, because the next flare up in the cycle will likely see bullets flying and could result in everything changing again. If anyone wants reconciliation, perhaps it is time to stop trying to win at all costs and start trying to find a real way out. Supermajority support is that way. However hard it might be to find, it is the only real way forward.

[tlansford]

2/3 is the benchmark, not 50/50 which is too easily manipulated.

What's happened in the past is irrelevant. Strawman argument.

To have a stable charter is not a thing of the past, but one of the future.

anything you say Mr 70%

You are wrong in implying I was every behind the PAD 70% elected idea.

Which was nothing more than ONE IDEA thrown out by them in a speach,

and never a PAD position. More a discussion point on how to possibly fix the problems.

Addendum: you

tlansford Member Since 2010-02-14

Were not a member of TVF back when all this was part of the disscussion,

So what was your old handle then? Are you banned and now returned?

Certainly you can only be misremembering to atribute this 70% jibe to me from that time,

Or any time.

The 70% reference is not that old, but you did repeat it rather often until recently..., eg: 4 weeks ago.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/535692-red-shirts-and-multicolored-shirts-to-rally-for-and-against-charter-change/page__view__findpost__p__5084525

[phiphidon]

"Meanwhile, Thammasat University law lecturer Pornson Liengboon-lertchai said at a seminar yesterday that a study should be undertaken on the disadvantages of the Constitution before drafting any changes"

I wonder how the current constitution would be viewed by all parties, if it was not rooted in a coupist administration.

That is a really good point.

To be honest, I would like to spend more time on the 2007/1997 constitutions and comparing the changes, and how each impacted Thai society after their implementation. That is the most interesting aspect of this constitutional reform.

In any case, such a perspective as you suggest forces an analysis of the merits of the constitution and its impact.

A major difference is the way it handed too much power to the judiciary. Who watches the watchmen. A very interesting document,

Thailand's Elusive Quest for a Workable Constitution, 1997 - 2007 by Bjoern Dressel can be found here

http://anu.academia.edu/BjoernDressel/Papers/1133595/Thailands_Elusive_Quest_for_a_Workable_Constitution_1997_2007.

Read his comments about the formation of the CDA under Junta control, guess which way it was skewed. One of the CDA writers a former Judge called Wicha Mahakhun defended the decision to appoint Senators by saying "We all know that elections are evil". And theres more where that come from.

[maidu]

Charter referendum is a giant waste of time. PT's main objective is to find any way possible to bring back their guru. The opposition, in turn, is compelled to focus on trying to keep PT and the Reds from twisting the Charter to serve their personal agenda. Meanwhile, the mass of Thai people who could use some assistance from gov't aren't getting much, because gov't is too busy playing power trips which don't do anyone any good, except possibly Mr. T, if PT gets it's desired loopholes written in to the charter.

[lungmi]

"An innocent little suggestion of 2/3 majority to pass a new charter is just a tactic to support those wishing to keep the status quo"

Tlansford, you uncloak yourself by this comment. (PR manager on a payroll, Amsterdam connections?)

A stable constitution is an international standard for democratic countries worldwide.

A stable constitution is a landmark for international companies (joint ventures etc) to give the control to

International Economic Courts.

The model works already (Scandinavian countries)

This model is modern science....

and fits with P.A. Payutto's Buddhist Economies.

Hardly uncloaked.

With the suggestion coming from the camp opposed to any charter changes, it seems like an accurate statement. It is a tactic to make the hurdle of agreement too high to change a charter that was imposed on the Thai society.

On the other hand, as it looks today, the selection of the CDA and the work to examine and determine the shape of a new charter is going to be a very public and democratic affair. If there is the level of broad input into the charter that is expected (it is already happening), then a 2/3 majority requirement - for something that does not need a public referendum in the first place - is nothing more than a tactic to keep the status quo.

BTW, how does this fit with Payutto?

You avoid the basic problem. A stable constitution needs a 2/3 majority. Reconciliation in Thailand isn't possible without this.

Some homework for you concerning P.A. Payutto.

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/payutto.htm

[phiphidon]

The coup and the junta following together with a 'pushed-through' new constitution are deemed so utterly undemocratic, especially with the constitution accepted with hardly more than 50% of votes.

To suggest "this line about a 2/3 vote to pass is not even a poorly disguised argument to stop charter changes altogether" seems in contradiction to a return to democratic values. Lots of countries have a 2/3rd requirement for constitutional changes. How can asking for a democratic approach be an obstacle to preventing taking the next step in taking this country forward?

Possibly because even with all the bases loaded for a Yes vote for the new Junta written constitution, just 33% of eligible voters actually endorsed the constitution and they still pushed it through. Someone wants to make sure this is a lot harder than getting the last one through.

Seems only fair to me if you get rid of a previous constitution with a majority vote (and nobody complained then) why should the rules change for the next variant?

Although 57% voted in favor of the new constitution, because of the relatively low turnout that figure means that just 33% of eligible voters actually endorsed the new constitution, with the other two-thirds either voting no or not bothering to vote at all.

http://asiafoundatio...nal-referendum/

The turnout was approximately 57%.

[lungmi]

Another homework for tlansford

http://pareto.uab.es/sbarbera/SB-MJ%20CHOOSE%20Quarterly.pdf

[tlansford]

"An innocent little suggestion of 2/3 majority to pass a new charter is just a tactic to support those wishing to keep the status quo"

Tlansford, you uncloak yourself by this comment. (PR manager on a payroll, Amsterdam connections?)

A stable constitution is an international standard for democratic countries worldwide.

A stable constitution is a landmark for international companies (joint ventures etc) to give the control to

International Economic Courts.

The model works already (Scandinavian countries)

This model is modern science....

and fits with P.A. Payutto's Buddhist Economies.

Hardly uncloaked.

With the suggestion coming from the camp opposed to any charter changes, it seems like an accurate statement. It is a tactic to make the hurdle of agreement too high to change a charter that was imposed on the Thai society.

On the other hand, as it looks today, the selection of the CDA and the work to examine and determine the shape of a new charter is going to be a very public and democratic affair. If there is the level of broad input into the charter that is expected (it is already happening), then a 2/3 majority requirement - for something that does not need a public referendum in the first place - is nothing more than a tactic to keep the status quo.

BTW, how does this fit with Payutto?

You avoid the basic problem. A stable constitution needs a 2/3 majority. Reconciliation in Thailand isn't possible without this.

Some homework for you concerning P.A. Payutto.

http://www.buddhanet...dsg/payutto.htm

Then you are saying that the 2007 constitution is not stable, nor that the 1997 constitution was not stable.

And the constitution is not about reconciliation. Reconciliation is about working together, or as another interview put it recently, tolerate differences, reject violence.

The constitution is about having a (democratic) framework.

I have and I've read Payutto. Not the book referenced, however I am familiar with his ideas. I am wondering how you see a 2/3 majority vote for a constitution fitting his Buddhist Economics. A point of reference would make it easier to discuss.

[rubl]

The coup and the junta following together with a 'pushed-through' new constitution are deemed so utterly undemocratic, especially with the constitution accepted with hardly more than 50% of votes.

To suggest "this line about a 2/3 vote to pass is not even a poorly disguised argument to stop charter changes altogether" seems in contradiction to a return to democratic values. Lots of countries have a 2/3rd requirement for constitutional changes. How can asking for a democratic approach be an obstacle to preventing taking the next step in taking this country forward?

Possibly because even with all the bases loaded for a Yes vote for the new Junta written constitution, just 33% of eligible voters actually endorsed the constitution and they still pushed it through. Someone wants to make sure this is a lot harder than getting the last one through.

Seems only fair to me if you get rid of a previous constitution with a majority vote (and nobody complained then) why should the rules change for the next variant?

Although 57% voted in favor of the new constitution, because of the relatively low turnout that figure means that just 33% of eligible voters actually endorsed the new constitution, with the other two-thirds either voting no or not bothering to vote at all.

http://asiafoundatio...nal-referendum/

The turnout was approximately 57%.

"why should the rules change for the next variant"

You mean two wrongs make a right?

[phiphidon]

The coup and the junta following together with a 'pushed-through' new constitution are deemed so utterly undemocratic, especially with the constitution accepted with hardly more than 50% of votes.

To suggest "this line about a 2/3 vote to pass is not even a poorly disguised argument to stop charter changes altogether" seems in contradiction to a return to democratic values. Lots of countries have a 2/3rd requirement for constitutional changes. How can asking for a democratic approach be an obstacle to preventing taking the next step in taking this country forward?

Possibly because even with all the bases loaded for a Yes vote for the new Junta written constitution, just 33% of eligible voters actually endorsed the constitution and they still pushed it through. Someone wants to make sure this is a lot harder than getting the last one through.

Seems only fair to me if you get rid of a previous constitution with a majority vote (and nobody complained then) why should the rules change for the next variant?

Although 57% voted in favor of the new constitution, because of the relatively low turnout that figure means that just 33% of eligible voters actually endorsed the new constitution, with the other two-thirds either voting no or not bothering to vote at all.

http://asiafoundatio...nal-referendum/

The turnout was approximately 57%.

"why should the rules change for the next variant"

You mean two wrongs make a right?

That would mean something if I had expressed an opinion on whether the percentage used in deciding the last referendum was right or wrong. I haven't. I have expressed an opinion on the method of presenting the referendum for vote but that has no bearing on the percentage used to decide Yes or No.

Again, to my mind if you are expecting to hold a referendum on a change to the constitution it should be carried out under the same percentage voting rules. If there had of been a "democratic" 2/3rds majority back in 2006/7 there would not have been a 2007 constitution and the situation would have been entirely differerent. Sonthi for example would at the very least be in jail and not heading up the reconciliation effort.