Prayuth declines to commit himself that he will not stage coup

[ManofReason]

All senators should be elected by the people as per the 97 constitution, not 1/2 elected as per the 07 constitution. It works the world over.

It is very clear that you don't believe democracy, you are in fact against it, so what do you believe in?

I see you didn't reply to the question before so I'll ask again, If senators aren't to be elected, how should they be chosen and by whom shall they be chosen by? Suthep? You? Me?

What magical system have you come up with the rest of the world is unaware of?

How are the "chosen" senators going to be held in check? Who do they answer to? Who can be a senator?

I do believe in democracy thank you very much but the democracy i believe in, doesn't begin and end at the ballot box. If you believe in that, what you believe in is something that isn't actually democracy at all.

As for what the solution is regarding the senate, from the start of this discussion, it has been you, not me, claiming to have the magical system that will solve the issue of judicial independence. Although you have in subsequent posts gone on to contradict that claim but admitting that PTP would most likely end up controlling the judiciary and may well make bad and corrupt decisions with regards it, but in your book that's all ok because after four years of a government controlled judiciary, there would be elections and the electorate would no doubt be enraged by judicial injustice and vote them out. Or maybe they wouldn't, maybe the Thai electorate would vote for whoever offers the biggest handout (and no, not because the Thai electorate is stupid, but because a large percentage of the Thai electorate might not have the luxury of voting on ethics what with hungry mouths to feed and bills to pay) and another four years of non-independent, government controlled judiciary would follow.

I don't have the solution, but what i do know is, yours isn't a good one, at least not until there is the sort of accountability and transparency at parliamentary level that exists in a democracy like the one in the US, in which the senate is voted for, but doesn't end up simply as a tool of the government.

And finally, as has already been pointed out, in spite of your claims that the rest of the world is unaware of a system that doesn't involve voting for the senate, the system in the UK, the system on which Thai democracy was modeled, has managed without it for a very long time.

So you are against the current system without knowing what you want to replace it with - how Suthep wishes the country was full of people like you.

Again you repeat that the Thai voters can't be trusted, not because they're stupid but because they're too hungry (first time I've ever heard this silliness). I am actually quite glad you said this though because it actually supports my position. Just think with a few more years of "populist" policies a great many of the poor will move into the middle classes where they'll then have enough money to not be too hungry to be able to vote without adult supervision. The fact is the system has been rigged against the poor for so long resulting in an enormous disparity between living standards within the country that Thailand and its elites are just going to have to accept the political pendulum swinging back a little excessively in the other direction for a while before it settles back somewhere towards the middle and Thailand finally becomes an open and free, first world country. Only once Thailand has reached this point will it be able to have success in reducing the excessive corruption. Note I said reducing as no nation on earth is corruption free. What the Yellow scum are doing, with their constant coups is retarding Thailands growth towards maturity - every time they kneecap democracy they are setting the country back a good 10 years, which is a shame because all they are doing is delaying the inevitable out of their own greed and heartlessness.

As for the UK - The "House of Lords" may technically be the Upper House of the UK parliament, but unlike most countries with Upper and Lower houses it has no voting powers and no powers to pass laws in any way and merely takes on an advisory role to the House of Commons. So, if you would like an unelected house that's fine - as long as they have no power.

No the House of Lords is required to sign off on every single law/Act - they have a veto (this does not remove the bill, but sends it make to the Commons - they can do this indefinitely in most cases, but not cases of bills that were voted on by the public, such as referendums and election manifesto promises - some bills they do have the full right to bin the bill, usually with regard to the Monarchy or the House itself) and they can make amendments. They are NOT and advisory to the Commons, nor were they ever such. They are called the Upper House, because they used to be the house that created the laws and governed the country, under the monarch (who was also a member of the House of Lords) and Commons was for the common people and their chance to raise issue (without veto) - that was changed a long time ago. No idea what you mean by "voting powers". Until recently, under the last Government, the HoL included the Wool-pack, the highest court of the land, but they were the legal advisors to the crown and to both houses - the leader of which was appointed (Lord Chief Justice) - that was changed and they were removed from the HoL (they never took part in the vote in the House anyway - they were a-political as a group) and formed the Supreme Court. They were the only advisory part of the HoL and no longer are. By the way, the HoL is complex in its make up: out of 763 sitting members (there are almost 50 non-sitting members that are barred from sitting for some reason or are ill, infirm or just do not sit): 92 are Peers and claim a seat by birth right (this used to be the majority of the house), 26 are Church of England Bishops (called the Lords Spiritual) and the rest are either Life Peers (made a Peer by the Monarch, QE II, on the advice of Government or House of Lords Appointment Committee).

I agree the system was rigged against the poor and always has been - but it still is too - and the present Government has made no attempt to change that fact either. Indeed, with propaganda, lies and false promises, and the rhetoric, with the enforcement of biased information and stopping other parties with opposing views even the ability to canvass in their strong hold areas, it is the very opposite of trying to get out of that particular rut. The Reds are not the answer to the poor - they are using the poor. The Yellows likewise are not the answer, as they just ignore the poor. There is no answer whilst corruption rules the roost and politicians and their families rape the country to the tune of trillions of baht every year - making themselves fortunes to the people's detriment.

An elected Senate (like an elected House of Lords) has a problem - the members are politically affiliated en-masse. This takes away the very point of having a second house - and makes it just a bigger first house. There are only two ways to lessen that effect: Appoint the members, a maximum percentage allowed per sitting government (so the house can not simply be replaced) from non-political positions (experts/academics/business/laymen/clerics/etc); or disallow affiliation between Senatorial political parties and Primary political parties (of course they may well be similar outlooks, but arms in both houses should never be allowed). In both cases, siblings and immediate family members should not be on the list of appointees - or on the Senatorial party lists - of sitting members of the primary house.

The latter was pretty much how the bill for Senatorial Reform was written, it was PTP that tacked on to allow siblings and family members of sitting members of parliament, it was the reason the bill was suddenly an anathema.

I note the quote in your signature - “A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool”. With that in mind, I respond to thee....

1. “the HoL has a veto” and “they are NOT an advisory to the Commons, nor were they ever such”

“...the power of the House of Lords was such that any bill passed in the House of Commons could be defeated and therefore rejected in the House of Lords. This meant that on occasions the Commons had to adjust a bill so that it was acceptable to the Lords and would therefore be passed. However, with society rapidly changing at the start of the Twentieth Century, it was only a matter of time before a clash occurred between both Houses.This clash came in 1909. The Lords refused to pass the budget prepared by David Lloyd George, Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer. This so-called ‘People’s Budget’ had been touted as a mainstay of what was to become the Welfare State. There were many in the Liberal Party – who had won an overwhelming victory in the 1906 General Election – who saw the Lords as peers who simply abused their power and privilege. Over the next two years a campaign was started to reduce the power of the Lords. This culminated with the 1911 Parliament Act. The Lords still had the right to scrutinize bills passed by the Commons but they could no longer kill off a bill. The Lords could only reject a bill three times within one year. After this it became law. The 1949 Parliament Act ended the right of the Lords to stop any ‘money bills’.

If, after reading the above, you plan on continuing your line of argument I suggest that you first pay a visit to the official UK government website, absorb some facts and then take a moment to rethink your position before letting your fingers hit the keyboard.

1. “I agree the system was rigged against the poor and always has been - but it still is too”.

The 1997 Thai constitution had a fully elected senate - the unelected post-coup government forced upon the citizenry a revised constitution that amongst other things altered the senate to a half elected, half appointed chamber (i.e. diluted democracy). Yinglucks’ elected government (2011, 53% of the vote) did in fact attempt to change the rigged system, they began the (legal) process of amending the constitution, aiming to return the nations’ upper house to a democratic footing but they were illegally prevented from doing so by the (Yellow) Thai enemies of democracy.

1. “...propaganda, lies and false promises and rhetoric.....out of that particular rut”.

The Reds have the support of 15-16 million voters and the Democrats about 11-12 million. What you’ve done here is parrot a list of unproven allegations and slander by the “majority hating” Yellow movement in an irrational attempt to deny the will of the people in elections. A free and fair election held in present day Thailand would be easily won by the Reds - even the Democrat leadership (Abhisit, Korn et al.) acknowledge this fact - so should you as anything else is but to live in denial.

1. “The Reds are not the answer to the poor...”.

That may very well be your belief or opinion, but what right do you have to force it on the poor. They can decide for themselves who best serves their interests and they in fact do so by repeatedly voting into power Red governments. Until the Democrats modernize and put together a decent set of policies that helps improve the standard of living of the poor the fact is that the Reds will continue to be the choice of the poor.

1. “An elected senate (like an elected HoL) has a problem”.

There has been and continues to be reforms being undertaken in the UK to in fact change the HoL into an elected chamber. In a series of votes as to what the new make up of the HoL should be, ranging from 0% elected to 100% elected the strongest support in the House of Commons (337 for - 224 against) was for the HoL to be fully elected. It is inevitable that the unelected nature of the HoL’s days are numbered. It is generally agreed the world over that a bicameral system with both chambers being fully elected is the most democratic form of government mankind has come up with - anything less is a denial of a peoples right to sovereignty over their own nation.

[Thai at Heart]

My dear, dear Rixalex,

I don't think you quite understand this post.

If you did you probably wouldn't have "liked" it.

"The country is forced to (in the words of our PDRC friends) suffer the tyranny of the majority.

This is exactly what you have been arguing against. You don't want the Reds to be able hold this kind of power which is why you are against a fully elected senate.

yours,

a truly bewildered corespondent

What works in one country doesn't necessarily work in another. In the UK, the upper house isn't elected and might not in reality have a lot of power, but it has enough sway to deter the government of the day from doing anything stupid. In short, the system works for the most part, pretty well, not least because jobs are taken seriously. Well some of them anyway...

As I say, I don't have the magical answer to what system would work in Thailand, or what would make for a more independent judiciary, I just don't believe the idea you support to be the solution you say that it is.

Well, that isn't entirely true at all, and I hold up the poll tax as a perfect example. A terribly controversial piece of legislation, that led to riots, where people were killed, was not interfered with, since it was the majority will of the House of Commons. In Thailand, the senate would never stand by and allow this type of thing to occur because they believe that they have the obligation to intervene, to somehow save the country from itself.

TheUK system works perfectly well in terms of delivering strong clear government and enforceable legislation. As for the judiciary, well, Thailand has somehow got to the point that the courts are delivering largely aribtrary and nonsense verdicts on different days of the week.

[Thai at Heart]

My dear, dear Rixalex,

I don't think you quite understand this post.

If you did you probably wouldn't have "liked" it.

"The country is forced to (in the words of our PDRC friends) suffer the tyranny of the majority.

This is exactly what you have been arguing against. You don't want the Reds to be able hold this kind of power which is why you are against a fully elected senate.

yours,

a truly bewildered corespondent

What works in one country doesn't necessarily work in another. In the UK, the upper house isn't elected and might not in reality have a lot of power, but it has enough sway to deter the government of the day from doing anything stupid. In short, the system works for the most part, pretty well, not least because jobs are taken seriously. Well some of them anyway...

As I say, I don't have the magical answer to what system would work in Thailand, or what would make for a more independent judiciary, I just don't believe the idea you support to be the solution you say that it is.

You see, this is the suck it and see approach, when magically, there are myriad examples all over the world of changes that can be implemented to solve these sorts of issues. Instead of suspending democracy to go about some fantasy search for a rejig of the system, they could have through the existing framework have suggested 100s of possible models that could have implemented and modified to create a better system.

But no, Thailand steadfastly refuses to do this. They seem set in the character of only allowing academics to be the people to come up with systems and the people must interpret what is given to them and decide. There are changes that can be made to the parliamentary system that could very quickly increase representation, increase particiapation, reduce corruption, and the list goes on. Why haven't the Democrats been banging on about these issues for years? But no, now the precedent has been set that even the government can't modify the constitution. Only academics and the army are allowed to intervene into the constitution. Great.

Because they don't want to be in a situation where the people can have a truly big stake in the daily running of the country. Whilst we moan that the West is corrupt, ALL sides of hte pollitical game are in someones pocket here, and rarely are the funds coming from unions, or the poor. The democrats aren't interested in land reform for the poor, social reform for the poor, tax reform for the poor, minimum wage for the poor, eductaion for the poor. Why?

Because they are for oligopoly business. They have always been for the BIG GUY.

So they don't care about allowing reform of the system that will ever allow a true representation for the people, because it will piss on their own bonfire. So the only way out, is to suspend everything and appoint people because NO ONE trusts the democrats to deliver. Instead of finding a way to get more democracy, and more equality, bizarrely , the stupid supposedly educated middle class Thais are going to allow the democrats and their cronies to SUSPEND democracy. You cant make this stuff up. The Democrats aren't interested in building a more robust, more democratic, more reliable, more representatitve system that enables the country to go forward and be strong. Whats the point in that? How can you get paid, if youre out of a job.

[rixalex]

The 1997 Thai constitution had a fully elected senate - the unelected post-coup government forced upon the citizenry a revised constitution that amongst other things altered the senate to a half elected, half appointed chamber (i.e. diluted democracy).

Forced upon the citizenry? For such a keen advocate of voting, the post coup revised constitution should get some of your blessing, being that the people did get a say in it, unlike the 1997 constitution.

This is no doubt the point where you highlight all the flaws of that referendum. And out of the other side of your mouth, you'll no doubt be defending all of the flaws involved in Thaksin's parties' election successes, and arguing that those flaws had no bearing on the outcome.

Must get hard keeping track of all your double backing and twisting.

[rixalex]

Well, that isn't entirely true at all,

What isn't?

[Thai at Heart]

Well, that isn't entirely true at all,

What isn't?

That the House of Lords can sway the House of Commons from controversial legislation, and I sited the Poll tax as an example.

[ManofReason]

The 1997 Thai constitution had a fully elected senate - the unelected post-coup government forced upon the citizenry a revised constitution that amongst other things altered the senate to a half elected, half appointed chamber (i.e. diluted democracy).

Forced upon the citizenry? For such a keen advocate of voting, the post coup revised constitution should get some of your blessing, being that the people did get a say in it, unlike the 1997 constitution.

This is no doubt the point where you highlight all the flaws of that referendum. And out of the other side of your mouth, you'll no doubt be defending all of the flaws involved in Thaksin's parties' election successes, and arguing that those flaws had no bearing on the outcome.

Must get hard keeping track of all your double backing and twisting.

Any sort of rational discussion or debate can only occur if both sides acknowledge and accept facts.

It is a fact, a non debatable fact, that the 2007 constitution referendum was neither free nor fair.

Continued refusal to acknowledge and accept facts renders debate and discussion pointless.

"The result of a national referendum held on August 19 on Thailand’s new constitution was far from a resounding vote of confidence in the country’s military leaders. While the constitution was formally passed, the turnout was low and the vote inconclusive, despite aggressive campaigning by the junta and threats to postpone new elections if the referendum were rejected.

Only 57.6 percent of enrolled voters cast a vote, compared with 70 percent in the past two national elections. The vote in favour was just 58 percent, as against 42 percent who voted no. In other words, less than one third of those eligible voted for the new constitution.

The vote was sharply polarised. In the capital Bangkok, the central plains and the southern provinces, where opposition to Thaksin was strong in 2006, the “yes” vote was as high as 88 percent. In the northern rural areas where ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his Thai Rak Thai (TRT) had a strong base of support, the vote went the other way. In the north east, the “no” vote was 62 percent. In the north as a whole, the vote was evenly split.

An editorial in the Japan Times commented: “Critics are right to charge that Thai democracy is being managed. In fact, it is fair to say Sunday’s vote was not so much a referendum on the proposed constitution as a plea for a return to democratic politics.” Had the referendum been rejected the junta would have been able to choose one of the previous 17 constitutions with amendments at its discretion."

Edited March 6, 2014 by ManofReason

[rixalex]

Well, that isn't entirely true at all,

What isn't?

That the House of Lords can sway the House of Commons from controversial legislation, and I sited the Poll tax as an example.

I said that it could sway it from doing anything stupid and that generally the system worked well. Don't think the Poll tax particularly contradicts that statement. I'm not arguing the system is perfect. Far from it. Just that for the most part, it works well enough.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ XA using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Thai at Heart]

Well, that isn't entirely true at all,

What isn't?

That the House of Lords can sway the House of Commons from controversial legislation, and I sited the Poll tax as an example.

I said that it could sway it from doing anything stupid and that generally the system worked well. Don't think the Poll tax particularly contradicts that statement. I'm not arguing the system is perfect. Far from it. Just that for the most part, it works well enough.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ XA using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Define stupid. Well, fortunately, we don't have essentially STUPID politicians. Well, Gordon Brown aside. It might have been nice to have a slightly more interventionary HOL to have stopped him basically bending the country over so that the banks could royally screw it. But that's for another time.

I think the British system is approaching as good as any. It produces decisive leadership, it has a system to impose the rule of law, it has a system to respect the rule of the majority. Maybe PR might improve it, but I am not sure. But it requires people to be willing to play an important but subordinate role to others over issues. And in Thailand, watching pooyais jockeying for position really is a sight to behold. The senate should be subordinate to the parliament. But they don't seem to see it that way.

[rixalex]

It is a fact, a non debatable fact, that the 2007 constitution referendum was neither free nor fair. [/font][/size]

Continued refusal to acknowledge and accept facts renders debate and discussion pointless.

The referendum wasn't totally free and fair, but at least there was one. And how many elections in Thailand are free and fair? At least with the referendum, each voter's choice wasn't helped determined by whether or not they wanted a free tablet for their child, or by which politician handed them the most generous bribe.

You can't have it both ways. Either Thai elections are accepted with acknowledgment of their flaws, or they are not. You can't cherry pick the ones you accept just because you like their outcomes.

[Thai at Heart]

It is a fact, a non debatable fact, that the 2007 constitution referendum was neither free nor fair. [/font][/size]

Continued refusal to acknowledge and accept facts renders debate and discussion pointless.

The referendum wasn't totally free and fair, but at least there was one. And how many elections in Thailand are free and fair? At least with the referendum, each voter's choice wasn't helped determined by whether or not they wanted a free tablet for their child, or by which politician handed them the most generous bribe.

You can't have it both ways. Either Thai elections are accepted with acknowledgment of their flaws, or they are not. You can't cherry pick the ones you accept just because you like their outcomes.

Well there are degrees of coercion.

Taking bribes is punishable under the law, but there is no prevention of dissemination of information, nor state coerced information about which way to vote in a normal election.

People are free to decide which way they go.

The 2007 vote was posed as yes or no. No meant no progress back to democracy. So it was not a contest of equals. It was a straight choice.

It was thus vitally important that the document be freely debated but it wasn't.

Canvassing for a no vote, campaigning for a no vote was essentially prohibited and thus it is fair to say that the was possible coercion and deliberate effort to ill inform the citizenry. This was a referendum not an election.

A general election is a very different best.

[ManofReason]

Well, that isn't entirely true at all,

What isn't?

That the House of Lords can sway the House of Commons from controversial legislation, and I sited the Poll tax as an example.

I said that it could sway it from doing anything stupid and that generally the system worked well. Don't think the Poll tax particularly contradicts that statement. I'm not arguing the system is perfect. Far from it. Just that for the most part, it works well enough.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ XA using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

So why are the Poms changing it?

[ManofReason]

It is a fact, a non debatable fact, that the 2007 constitution referendum was neither free nor fair. [/font][/size]

Continued refusal to acknowledge and accept facts renders debate and discussion pointless.

The referendum wasn't totally free and fair, but at least there was one. And how many elections in Thailand are free and fair? At least with the referendum, each voter's choice wasn't helped determined by whether or not they wanted a free tablet for their child, or by which politician handed them the most generous bribe.

You can't have it both ways. Either Thai elections are accepted with acknowledgment of their flaws, or they are not. You can't cherry pick the ones you accept just because you like their outcomes.

The past 5 (soon to be 6) Red victories in general elections were achieved in generally free and fair elections. That is to say that anything that took place outside the rules (by either side) was not significant enough to have altered the outcome - this fact is unanimously accepted by the international community.

The 2007 referendum was a farce.

Elections and Yellows clearly don't mix.

They are a minority movement who, for the past decade, have had one single unequivocal aim - to deny democracy in Thailand.

[ManofReason]

Again you repeat that the Thai voters can't be trusted, not because they're stupid but because they're too hungry (first time I've ever heard this silliness).

I didn't say I didn't trust them. What I said was that maybe if you are relatively poor, ethics might not be the deciding factor of what swings you to vote for one party over another... and so, your solution to the problem of the government controlling the judiciary and making it one sided against opposition, being that the people will vote them out if they do that, might not work at all. And then what?

But I get it. In your book, that's all well and good, because you can call it a non independent judiciary that is the will of the people, and that makes it all ok. Everything is ok by you if you can contrive it to have been by "the will of the people". Exactly the same argument we saw following the appalling war on drugs. Hundreds of innocent lives lost, but that's ok, "the people were happy with it".

You seemed to have avoided responding to the majority of the content my last post - I wonder why that would be.

Try and spin it however you want - you support a system whereby (for whatever reason you wish to give) Thai voters cannot choose their own government. If that is the system you want then you should follow the British example of their upper house - unelected politicians are just advisers and are to hold no powers.

Doesn't matter how many times you say it, it does not make it true. Why state things that are completely incorrect over and over, your lack of knowledge makes you look foolish and impresses no one but yourself and those equally unknowing. The HoL has much the same powers as Senate, with Representatives being similar to the Commons. Other than the fact that the Senate also does a lot of hiring and firing of judges and other federal positions, their roles are very similar - it is the Common that creates Bills just as it is Commons that does in the UK.

Please refer to the previous response re: the powerlessness of the HoL.

Humble pie on the menu today.

[rixalex]

It is a fact, a non debatable fact, that the 2007 constitution referendum was neither free nor fair. [/font][/size]

Continued refusal to acknowledge and accept facts renders debate and discussion pointless.

The referendum wasn't totally free and fair, but at least there was one. And how many elections in Thailand are free and fair? At least with the referendum, each voter's choice wasn't helped determined by whether or not they wanted a free tablet for their child, or by which politician handed them the most generous bribe.

You can't have it both ways. Either Thai elections are accepted with acknowledgment of their flaws, or they are not. You can't cherry pick the ones you accept just because you like their outcomes.

Well there are degrees of coercion.

Taking bribes is punishable under the law, but there is no prevention of dissemination of information, nor state coerced information about which way to vote in a normal election.

People are free to decide which way they go.

The 2007 vote was posed as yes or no. No meant no progress back to democracy. So it was not a contest of equals. It was a straight choice.

It was thus vitally important that the document be freely debated but it wasn't.

Canvassing for a no vote, campaigning for a no vote was essentially prohibited and thus it is fair to say that the was possible coercion and deliberate effort to ill inform the citizenry. This was a referendum not an election.

A general election is a very different best.

It's funny this. On the one hand we have the 1997 constitution for which it was deemed that the public need not have any say in whatsoever, and in the other, we have the post coup constitution for which the public did have a say. And yet there are those who like to decry the post coup constitution as being somehow undemocratic, whilst happily hailing the 1997 one as the most democratic thing since sliced bread.

As i have said, there is no question that the post coupe referendum didn't follow all the rules that it ideally should have, but at least the public did have some sort of a chance to reject it. Can't help feeling that were the situations reversed, were the 1997 constitution voted in by a referendum, albeit it somewhat flawed referendum, and were the post coup constitution initiated without any referendum whatsoever, the same people now dismissing a referendum, would be lauding it as having at least given the public some sort of input.

As for coercion, i was actually here during the referendum, and whilst it is true to say that there wasn't enough understanding or education of what the new constitution entailed, it is quite wrong to say that both sides of the argument weren't well represented. The no vote argument was put forward loudly and clearly by the Shinawatra side, perhaps not in on the ground events and speeches as it should have, but certainly throughout a great number of media outlets, and everyone was clearly told that if they wanted to reject the coup, voting no is what they should do. Your assertion that a vote no was a vote no back to democracy is quite wrong. People like to paint what was told would happen should the constitution have been rejected, as something really dark and sinister, as if the generals said they would go on and hold on to power indefinitely or something. That wasn't what they said at all. What they actually said was that if the constitution was rejected, a revised version would be written and elections would follow. The idea that people were somehow terrified of that prospect and it scared them into voting yes is plain silly.

Of course, had people voted no, we would be having quite a different discussion now. The Shinawatra side would have held the vote up and waved it about victoriously as evidence of the lack of popularity for the coup and for the constitution, and they and their followers would still be doing it now. As it was, the majority of people didn't vote no, and so the Shinawatra side were left with having to rubbish the vote as being unfair. How convenient.... not to mention how two faced, considering their own history with unethical and downright corrupt tactics when it comes to ballot boxes.

Bribes are punishable by law you say. And what good does that do? Bit like prostitution being illegal that one. How does it being illegal change the fact that vote buying is rampant and widespread? It doesn't at all. The only argument that can be made in terms of playing down vote buying during general elections, is that all the parties partake in it. Well that's great. And we are just supposed to take it as a given that all the vote buying that goes on equals itself out? The fact is that until the day in which we have an election in which vote buying isn't rampant, we can only speculate as to what effects it has, and to whether it affects outcomes or not. We just don't know. And neither does the international community... and speaking of which, funny to see how people think they can speak for the entire international community, as if the international community has one big get-together after Thai elections, and comes to a united consensus on what their stand is, and goes public with it. I don't claim to speak for the entire international community, but were i to hazard a guess, i would imagine that it would have pretty much as many reservations and concerns with all of the recent general elections, as it would have with the referendum. None of them can be held up as models of free and fair elections, so we are left with either accepting them all whilst being aware of their flaws, or dismissing them all.

[Thai at Heart]

It is a fact, a non debatable fact, that the 2007 constitution referendum was neither free nor fair. [/font][/size]

Continued refusal to acknowledge and accept facts renders debate and discussion pointless.

The referendum wasn't totally free and fair, but at least there was one. And how many elections in Thailand are free and fair? At least with the referendum, each voter's choice wasn't helped determined by whether or not they wanted a free tablet for their child, or by which politician handed them the most generous bribe.

You can't have it both ways. Either Thai elections are accepted with acknowledgment of their flaws, or they are not. You can't cherry pick the ones you accept just because you like their outcomes.

Well there are degrees of coercion.

Taking bribes is punishable under the law, but there is no prevention of dissemination of information, nor state coerced information about which way to vote in a normal election.

People are free to decide which way they go.

The 2007 vote was posed as yes or no. No meant no progress back to democracy. So it was not a contest of equals. It was a straight choice.

It was thus vitally important that the document be freely debated but it wasn't.

Canvassing for a no vote, campaigning for a no vote was essentially prohibited and thus it is fair to say that the was possible coercion and deliberate effort to ill inform the citizenry. This was a referendum not an election.

A general election is a very different best.

It's funny this. On the one hand we have the 1997 constitution for which it was deemed that the public need not have any say in whatsoever, and in the other, we have the post coup constitution for which the public did have a say. And yet there are those who like to decry the post coup constitution as being somehow undemocratic, whilst happily hailing the 1997 one as the most democratic thing since sliced bread.

As i have said, there is no question that the post coupe referendum didn't follow all the rules that it ideally should have, but at least the public did have some sort of a chance to reject it. Can't help feeling that were the situations reversed, were the 1997 constitution voted in by a referendum, albeit it somewhat flawed referendum, and were the post coup constitution initiated without any referendum whatsoever, the same people now dismissing a referendum, would be lauding it as having at least given the public some sort of input.

As for coercion, i was actually here during the referendum, and whilst it is true to say that there wasn't enough understanding or education of what the new constitution entailed, it is quite wrong to say that both sides of the argument weren't well represented. The no vote argument was put forward loudly and clearly by the Shinawatra side, perhaps not in on the ground events and speeches as it should have, but certainly throughout a great number of media outlets, and everyone was clearly told that if they wanted to reject the coup, voting no is what they should do. Your assertion that a vote no was a vote no back to democracy is quite wrong. People like to paint what was told would happen should the constitution have been rejected, as something really dark and sinister, as if the generals said they would go on and hold on to power indefinitely or something. That wasn't what they said at all. What they actually said was that if the constitution was rejected, a revised version would be written and elections would follow. The idea that people were somehow terrified of that prospect and it scared them into voting yes is plain silly.

Of course, had people voted no, we would be having quite a different discussion now. The Shinawatra side would have held the vote up and waved it about victoriously as evidence of the lack of popularity for the coup and for the constitution, and they and their followers would still be doing it now. As it was, the majority of people didn't vote no, and so the Shinawatra side were left with having to rubbish the vote as being unfair. How convenient.... not to mention how two faced, considering their own history with unethical and downright corrupt tactics when it comes to ballot boxes.

Bribes are punishable by law you say. And what good does that do? Bit like prostitution being illegal that one. How does it being illegal change the fact that vote buying is rampant and widespread? It doesn't at all. The only argument that can be made in terms of playing down vote buying during general elections, is that all the parties partake in it. Well that's great. And we are just supposed to take it as a given that all the vote buying that goes on equals itself out? The fact is that until the day in which we have an election in which vote buying isn't rampant, we can only speculate as to what effects it has, and to whether it affects outcomes or not. We just don't know. And neither does the international community... and speaking of which, funny to see how people think they can speak for the entire international community, as if the international community has one big get-together after Thai elections, and comes to a united consensus on what their stand is, and goes public with it. I don't claim to speak for the entire international community, but were i to hazard a guess, i would imagine that it would have pretty much as many reservations and concerns with all of the recent general elections, as it would have with the referendum. None of them can be held up as models of free and fair elections, so we are left with either accepting them all whilst being aware of their flaws, or dismissing them all.

What do you mean, "what does that do?"

Part of the issue of how it is punished is that an entire party can be disbanded if the exectuive is found to have been involved in vote buying. How much more draconian can it get? PTP/TRT has hundreds of its MPs banned. Yes all parties partake, and it is discussed as to whether it is a really effetive bribe anyway. But no one prevents anyone from saying anything, there are dozens of parties on the ballots and you are free to vote for whoever you like.

I was here in the referendum, deep in red country. My wife voted. I presume she voted for it. But was there any particular effort on anyone to describe what was in the constitution? I don't remember it being so.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[rixalex]

What do you mean, "what does that do?"

Part of the issue of how it is punished is that an entire party can be disbanded if the exectuive is found to have been involved in vote buying. How much more draconian can it get? PTP/TRT has hundreds of its MPs banned. Yes all parties partake, and it is discussed as to whether it is a really effetive bribe anyway. But no one prevents anyone from saying anything, there are dozens of parties on the ballots and you are free to vote for whoever you like.

I was here in the referendum, deep in red country. My wife voted. I presume she voted for it. But was there any particular effort on anyone to describe what was in the constitution? I don't remember it being so.

Not really sure what point you are driving at here but it seems to be along the lines of, vote buying is somehow less of a scourge on general elections than the prevention of a full and complete discussion was a scourge on the referendum.

If that is what you are saying, I disagree.

Furthermore, whilst public canvassing may not have been allowed, it wasn't as if there was a media blackout. In the run up to the referendum, if you hadn't been exposed to the no vote argument as put forward by Thaksin and his chums amongst a few others, you really must have been living under a rock.

And people were free to vote yes or no. Don't know how anyone can suggest otherwise if they were here.

P.S. In my neighbourhood, a copy of the new proposed constitution was sent to every home. How many people took the time and trouble to sit down and read it of course is a different matter, but the contents and the changes put forward were hardly a secret.

Edited March 7, 2014 by rixalex