Vast Majority Of Thais Have Never Read Constitution: Poll

[kurnell]

Since most Thais don't read, then this is obvious. Perhaps they could make it into a comic book?

Total adult literacy rate is about 94%, 2005-2010

http://www.unicef.or...statistics.html

What has literacy got to do with the desire to read??

If you meant "desire to read" you should have written that. "Don't read" can encompass both ability and inclination. If the statistic offends, please ignore it. If you have evidence for your assertion, then please justify it... with evidence. Cheers, RM.

No, you should learn to read

[Scott]

Please stay on topic. The topic is not about literacy rates in Thailand.

[Moruya]

Please stay on topic. The topic is not about literacy rates in Thailand.

It shouldn't be about the literacy rate.

It should be about reading quality material after leaving education.

[Reasonableman]

Please stay on topic. The topic is not about literacy rates in Thailand.

It shouldn't be about the literacy rate.

It should be about reading quality material after leaving education.

It should be about reading the constitution, specifically, not Thais' general reading habits and propensities.

[Noistar]

Although we may be suffering the lies, damned lies and statistics syndrome, I found this section interesting:

(is it ok to add line-breaks?)

"

Over 91 per cent believed public participation was needed in the charter amendment

and

8 per cent believed the matter should rest with Parliament;

64 per cent did not see the benefit of charter change and believed only politicians would gain from changes;

35 per cent said they saw how people would benefit from the charter amendment;

68 per cent believed the charter amendment would result in violence and conflict;

32 per cent did not believe so;

77 per cent did not think that reconciliation bills would bring about reconciliation.

"

So, basing my comments on the article, the ruling party's assertions about a mandate seem to be

challenged by:

1 - public participation

2 - No benefit (I assume to their country) of charter change

3 - Charter change would (not might) result in violence and conflict

4 - Reconciliation bill would not bring about reconciliation.

Accepting the survey results as reported, the Thai people would appear to be at odds with the ruling party's intentions.

We can discuss the basis for the article ad-infinitum, but I believe that is what we are being shown

Edited August 6, 2012 by Noistar

[noitom]

The absence of books and news reading is critical to Thainess. One cannot relate, be part of, or understand "Thainess" if one reads.

[jerrysteve]

It would have been much easy for the Thais to read in basic CARTON FORMAT

Far more would be able to read and comprehend it.

[hellodolly]

Since most Thais don't read, then this is obvious. Perhaps they could make it into a comic book?

Just another use less pole.Some day they are going to have real pole but not in the foreseeable future.

[gk10002000]

Of course they haven't. A constitution is supposed to be a charter instrument. Something that is basic and core. Thailand has thrown out its constitution several times. In the USA, the US Constitution really is the foundation. There are laws that govern ammending and changing it. Throwing it out is not part of that process.

[DrTuner]

Constitution ? They mean the thing that's changed by the time you reach the end ?

[waza]

I wonder what percent of ex-pats have read it.

[waza]

Although we may be suffering the lies, damned lies and statistics syndrome, I found this section interesting:

(is it ok to add line-breaks?)

"

Over 91 per cent believed public participation was needed in the charter amendment

and

8 per cent believed the matter should rest with Parliament;

64 per cent did not see the benefit of charter change and believed only politicians would gain from changes;

35 per cent said they saw how people would benefit from the charter amendment;

68 per cent believed the charter amendment would result in violence and conflict;

32 per cent did not believe so;

77 per cent did not think that reconciliation bills would bring about reconciliation.

"

So, basing my comments on the article, the ruling party's assertions about a mandate seem to be

challenged by:

1 - public participation

2 - No benefit (I assume to their country) of charter change

3 - Charter change would (not might) result in violence and conflict

4 - Reconciliation bill would not bring about reconciliation.

Accepting the survey results as reported, the Thai people would appear to be at odds with the ruling party's intentions.

We can discuss the basis for the article ad-infinitum, but I believe that is what we are being shown

Excellent informative post.

[Roadman]

I think the most significant information is the 91% who said that the public should be participating in charter amendment and the over 50% rates in charter amendments only satisfying the thievies in power and the violence and conflict that would come with it. The convicted fugitive criminal and his pack of thievies have had it pointed out to them by the public that a winning election vote is not a mandate to do what they want. Well done the Dems for taking ot to the CC.

"Well done the Dems for taking ot to the CC."

Even though it was found that they had no grounds to do so, which, if only they had read the constitution, they would have known?

Agreed. While we would probably agree on the outcome of Thailand, and for mine that is a stable democracy, it is the means of getting there is the issue. The Thai Constitution is taking time to evolve just like all do. For me that means if by a peaceful (key word that with comparison to Thaksin unleashing his thugs on Bangkok in 2010) but agreed possibly unlawful means that the Thai population could be informed of Thaksins attempts to putting him and his thugs above any law then well done. As oppossed to Thaksins attack which left 91 dead the Dems and not only them but for the other caring learned people who also petitioned the CC well done for mission accomplished with the mission death toll being zero.

It may also suprise you but if you care to look at the Army you will also see a General as with his immediate predessor who is not interested in coups (even Jataporn has ceased his chicken little stuns) as long as from what I can see, they have some new toys and full bellies, then they are not interfering with the elected (vote buying aside) government to getting on with attempting to run the country. I bet they are happy with this outcome as well being that the thai public are starting to voice their disapproval for allowing Thaksin amnesty and putting his UDD and Reds thugs, and all MP's above above all law, which means the only reason to coup right now and that is Thaksin via Pheua Thai trying to move the senior judicary anointments away from His Royal HIghness on behalf of the people, is being resolved and as you point out probably unlawfully but as I see bloodlessly, by Thai public opinion. Democracy at work and not with an AK-47 and petrol bombs.

[MaprangHolmes]

I wonder what percent of ex-pats have read it.

Why would any ex pat want to read it?

[Noistar]

I think the most significant information is the 91% who said that the public should be participating in charter amendment and the over 50% rates in charter amendments only satisfying the thievies in power and the violence and conflict that would come with it. The convicted fugitive criminal and his pack of thievies have had it pointed out to them by the public that a winning election vote is not a mandate to do what they want. Well done the Dems for taking ot to the CC.

It does seem to challenge the frequent chant of 'we have a democratic mandate'.

My earlier comment stands about electoral policies being a package, rather than an emphasis on a policy which may not be understood, or may not even be noticed. - obviously I believe this is true of any political party in any Democracy.

The problem seems to be the over-zealous way the ruling party are pursuing Charter change.

There are other policies in their mandate which are perhaps more relevant to improving Thailand and its people now. Perhaps the ruling party could stand back and compare their duty to Thailand with the reasons for their current priorities.

Assuming i can use the 'poll topic' to support my assumption that - "Whatever the deficiencies in the origin/content of the current Constitution, the poll seems to indicate that Thais are not overly concerned about it, and appear to be able to live with it in its current form."

Edited August 7, 2012 by Noistar

[nurofiend]

has anyone here read their country's full constitution where it wasn't something you had to do for whatever reason?

be honest now!

Edited August 7, 2012 by nurofiend

[gk10002000]

I don't follow it that closely except always managing to be in the country when there is a problem, (one week after Thaksin coup), Yellow shirt Airport closur, Red Shirt occupation in Bangkok). But weren't the general population given a "vote" on the constitution after the Thaksin coup, but it was "rigged" in the sense that the choices they were given were very limited? I don't even know if that "document' or whatever form it is in is available or unchanged? Are the Thai laws documented in any way comparable to the US statutes? Congressional Record etc?

[Noistar]

I don't follow it that closely except always managing to be in the country when there is a problem, (one week after Thaksin coup), Yellow shirt Airport closur, Red Shirt occupation in Bangkok). But weren't the general population given a "vote" on the constitution after the Thaksin coup, but it was "rigged" in the sense that the choices they were given were very limited? I don't even know if that "document' or whatever form it is in is available or unchanged? Are the Thai laws documented in any way comparable to the US statutes? Congressional Record etc?

Good point

Even if the average Thai wanted to become aware of the contents, how easy would it be to achieve that?

IMHO, they would probably accept a definition of the content from a respected person

You would need to be pretty motivated to gain your own, educated, understanding/perspective

[whybother]

Most expats haven't read their home country's constitution, but there is not a large group of people saying it should be changed either.

In Thailand, there is a large group of people that want it changed, but very few of them have read it or know what they want changed.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[Noistar]

Most expats haven't read their home country's constitution, but there is not a large group of people saying it should be changed either.

In Thailand, there is a large group of people that want it changed, but very few of them have read it or know what they want changed.

Sent from my HTC phone.

And probably the electorate of other Democracies might want to ensure that they were convinced the change was justified.

In Thailand they have the added problem of Constitutions coming and going. Possibly they think 'whatever', there's more to life than politics

(and they might be right......)

[cup-O-coffee]

Since most Thais don't read, then this is obvious. Perhaps they could make it into a comic book?

Must be a slow news day....

In comparision, how many British citizens have read the Magna Carta, or American's the declaration of indendence ?

People in power dont want their citizens to read or understand documents like this as this under mines their power base

I understand what you are saying, but I differ in opinion. The power base has nothing to do with the constitution. This is all my opinion, of course. The power base is what it is regardless of the constitution. That document merely serves two purposes, much like religious books serve two purposes; to use as a means to control the masses through fear and crisis and as an opiate for the masses; "We have a constitution. We have order".

Do you really believe that high government and religious figures actually believe the crap they write for the masses? The only reason constitutions and religious texts are written is so high officials can use them as a veil to hide their sordid ways; what actually goes on.

In this case, the illiteracy is making it easier on these officials to some extent, because the people must rely on the radio and what they hear; hence the syntax (the rule of the order of things) getting all twisted and convoluted due to illiterate gossip and "face" getting the upper hand in conversation. On the other hand, what issue suggests that even though these people could read that they would be able to do anything practical with that information contained within the constitutional texts; from a mentally developed point of view? They couldn't. The closer you get to the truth, the hotter the flames get fanned. Too much information to an undeveloped mind simply clutters the road to progress.

It simply does not matter. The governments have a "This is good enough for you so don't ask too much" attitude. The officials know that, "If you make them think they are thinking, then they will love you. But if you really make them think, then they will hate you." Illiteracy is good for corruption and bad for enlightenment. So let's act like we are promoting the death of illiteracy, but redirect the funding and action into other more lucrative channels. Ignorant people don't know, because they don't know. Government and religion work hand in hand. Government keeps 'em ignorant, and religion tells 'em that that ignorance is good faith; something to accept as good merit to pay for their past evil deeds.

[Docno]

Most expats haven't read their home country's constitution, but there is not a large group of people saying it should be changed either.

In Thailand, there is a large group of people that want it changed, but very few of them have read it or know what they want changed.

Sent from my HTC phone.

The 'problem' is that most people rely on their political leaders to tell them what's in the constitution, the implications of such, and what "needs" to be changed. But there's nothing unusual about Thailand in this regard.

And don't forget... Constitutions are not drafted with readability for the masses in mind but instead to provide a solid legal framework for governance.

[Thai at Heart]

Most expats haven't read their home country's constitution, but there is not a large group of people saying it should be changed either.

In Thailand, there is a large group of people that want it changed, but very few of them have read it or know what they want changed.

Sent from my HTC phone.

The 'problem' is that most people rely on their political leaders to tell them what's in the constitution, the implications of such, and what "needs" to be changed. But there's nothing unusual about Thailand in this regard.

And don't forget... Constitutions are not drafted with readability for the masses in mind but instead to provide a solid legal framework for governance.

It would seem that "providing a solid legal framework" is not something that Thai constitutions think to be too important. Every legal issue seems to come with a disclaimer in the small print.

[Noistar]

Most expats haven't read their home country's constitution, but there is not a large group of people saying it should be changed either.

In Thailand, there is a large group of people that want it changed, but very few of them have read it or know what they want changed.

Sent from my HTC phone.

The 'problem' is that most people rely on their political leaders to tell them what's in the constitution,

the implications of such, and what "needs" to be changed. But there's nothing unusual about Thailand in this regard.

And don't forget... Constitutions are not drafted with readability for the masses in mind but instead to provide a solid legal framework for governance.

In mature Democracies there would be a lively for & against argument going on. Never ending TV debates to support one's cause, and more of a chance for the 'middle ground' to gain an understanding they are each happy with.

Obviously the die-hards won't be influenced, but it's the 'undecideds' who will decide.

I think the point of your last statement probably only needs:

"Constitutions are not drafted with readability for the masses in mind"

[Bagwan]

Since most Thais don't read, then this is obvious. Perhaps they could make it into a comic book?

Must be a slow news day....

In comparision, how many British citizens have read the Magna Carta, or American's the declaration of indendence ?

People in power dont want their citizens to read or understand documents like this as this under mines their power base

Why would Brits want to read a 900 year old document written in Latin? BTW the Magna Carta was more about greater freedoms for the nobility than the serfs. Most of the clauses in it have now been scrapped. We seem to get along just fine without a written Constitution or a Bill of Rights with amendments. We've never had a 5th Republic or a 3rd Reich either. Maybe we're a bit brighter than most?

[hellodolly]

Since most Thais don't read, then this is obvious. Perhaps they could make it into a comic book?

Must be a slow news day....

In comparision, how many British citizens have read the Magna Carta, or American's the declaration of indendence ?

People in power dont want their citizens to read or understand documents like this as this under mines their power base

I understand what you are saying, but I differ in opinion. The power base has nothing to do with the constitution. This is all my opinion, of course. The power base is what it is regardless of the constitution. That document merely serves two purposes, much like religious books serve two purposes; to use as a means to control the masses through fear and crisis and as an opiate for the masses; "We have a constitution. We have order".

Do you really believe that high government and religious figures actually believe the crap they write for the masses? The only reason constitutions and religious texts are written is so high officials can use them as a veil to hide their sordid ways; what actually goes on.

In this case, the illiteracy is making it easier on these officials to some extent, because the people must rely on the radio and what they hear; hence the syntax (the rule of the order of things) getting all twisted and convoluted due to illiterate gossip and "face" getting the upper hand in conversation. On the other hand, what issue suggests that even though these people could read that they would be able to do anything practical with that information contained within the constitutional texts; from a mentally developed point of view? They couldn't. The closer you get to the truth, the hotter the flames get fanned. Too much information to an undeveloped mind simply clutters the road to progress.

It simply does not matter. The governments have a "This is good enough for you so don't ask too much" attitude. The officials know that, "If you make them think they are thinking, then they will love you. But if you really make them think, then they will hate you." Illiteracy is good for corruption and bad for enlightenment. So let's act like we are promoting the death of illiteracy, but redirect the funding and action into other more lucrative channels. Ignorant people don't know, because they don't know. Government and religion work hand in hand. Government keeps 'em ignorant, and religion tells 'em that that ignorance is good faith; something to accept as good merit to pay for their past evil deeds.

Well I agree with you and I disagree with you. The American constitution was written for the time. Every one had a musket in case of a real invasion such as they had in the war of 1812 and most people needed it to supply food. It was not intended for every body having guns capable of mass destruction in a time where it is not needed. Stop and think about it. If every one owned a oozie and the city was bombed which it would be in a war how long would the citizens be able to hold off the trained and well supplied army from the invaders.

Or take the freedom of the press or speech. It was not written so people could spread hatred, bigotry or insurrection. It was written when their were very few papers and news generally traveled very slow mostly orally. Paul Revere did not send a email the British are coming the British are coming or by a news paper he rode a horse and personally delivered the message.

Now a days we have the means and they are used by many to spread hatred of others.

The Bible was a book written for people of it's time and circumstances. It has no bearing on life today other than offer some good morals.

[Orac]

Since most Thais don't read, then this is obvious. Perhaps they could make it into a comic book?

Must be a slow news day....

In comparision, how many British citizens have read the Magna Carta, or American's the declaration of indendence ?

People in power dont want their citizens to read or understand documents like this as this under mines their power base

Why would Brits want to read a 900 year old document written in Latin? BTW the Magna Carta was more about greater freedoms for the nobility than the serfs. Most of the clauses in it have now been scrapped. We seem to get along just fine without a written Constitution or a Bill of Rights with amendments. We've never had a 5th Republic or a 3rd Reich either. Maybe we're a bit brighter than most?

The advantage the British legal system has specifically over the Thai system, in my opinion, is the rule of precedence. Where the UK has a huge body of legal judgements which can be refered back to and applied to new cases. Judges are given far more leeway in Thailand and do not have to take previous judgements in to account.

[jerrysteve]

The Powers that be need to publish it in comic book format.

Then the vast majority will be able to read it.

[philw]

The Powers that be need to publish it in comic book format.

Then the vast majority will be able to read it.

The powers that be did actually do more or less that.

Every house in the country received a copy of the constitution, or at least every registered voter.

"Vote for this and if you don't, we will do what we want anyway, and you lot ( the electorate ) will just have to accept what we decide is best."

So much for the legitimacy of the referendum and it's approval...........

[kimamey]

I think the most significant information is the 91% who said that the public should be participating in charter amendment and the over 50% rates in charter amendments only satisfying the thievies in power and the violence and conflict that would come with it. The convicted fugitive criminal and his pack of thievies have had it pointed out to them by the public that a winning election vote is not a mandate to do what they want. Well done the Dems for taking ot to the CC.

"Well done the Dems for taking ot to the CC."

Even though it was found that they had no grounds to do so, which, if only they had read the constitution, they would have known?

I'm not sure that's quite right.

It's true the CC found that there was no threat to the position of Thailand as a democracy with the monarch as the head of state. I always thought that was just a means of getting attention and slowing things down. Using the monarchy in this way seems to be quite common and to my western, UK eyes feels disrespectful. But then I'm not Thai so I suppose it doesn't matter.

I thought that it was found that the constitution could not be completely rewritten in one go but had to be tackled on individual sections. There was also the question of a referendum but I'm not sure if the government were going to do this anyway.

The fact is the court came to its judgement which is what it's supposed to do rather than the government just saying we think this is OK. The government's view on the question of the threat to the status of Thailand and its democracy and monarchy has been shown to be correct which wouldn't have happened if the attorney general had had his way and the court never had the opportunity to judge on the case.