Thai 'Reform Now Network' divided

[webfact]

REFERENDUM
Reform Now Network divided
Khanittha Thepphajorn
The Nation

Group discusses public input and setting up council

BANGKOK: -- Participants at the Reform Now Network (RNN) forum said they wanted the reform council to be a long-term and inclusive body. However, many were divided yesterday over whether reforms proposed by the yet-to-be set up council should be put to a public referendum.

Those who push for a referendum said it would ensure public participation in the reform process. However to cut costs of holding a nationwide referendum, they said it could be held by unconventional methods, such as allowing people to give feedback at convenience stores.

Those who oppose holding a referendum on the grounds of cost have pushed for other alternatives such as public hearings to give people a say in the reform process.

No referendum for new charter

The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) reportedly opposes a referendum on the new constitution because of fears it would create more public conflict.

Meanwhile, Gothom Arya, director of the Mahidol University Research Centre for Peace, has reservations over the NCPO proposal to select and appoint members of the Reform Council, saying the council should have people who are qualified, knowledgeable, mindful of the public and willing to work for the people.

He preferred the method of selecting a National Legislative Assembly in 1996, as it connected people. He suggested that the council allow people to apply to be assembly candidates at a provincial level and that 10 candidates be selected per province, who will then elect the final 77 candidates for the 77 provinces.

RNN member Buntoon Srethasirote presented five issues that most people believe need urgent reform. They are:

l Reforming politics in all areas, from political institutions, acquisition of power, checks and balances, the distribution of power to people's ability to exercise direct sovereign power and reform for political stability;

l Reforming the bureaucracy to boost good governance, increase immunity against political interference and set up mechanisms to support reform;

l Reforming the justice system in related sectors from the police, public prosecutors and courts;

l Economic reforms aimed at bridging wealth disparity and boosting competitiveness and efficiency;

l Combating corruption.

Gothom also proposed that the Reform Council, which will try to lay the foundation for a more sustainable democracy, should aim to achieve long-term reform objectives within a year.

The council should provide education on reform proposals that have been prioritised, to prompt debate and integrate proposals.

It should also provide public stages for people to exchange opinions in a wide scope and get public consensus on proposals via the media.

The council and concerned agencies should draw up a roadmap to ensure reforms are successful. The council should also be given the legal authority to sponsor legislation and propose charter amendments.

It should be made up of the following departments: academic, debate and meeting arrangements, plus a faction to carry out reform tasks.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Reform-Now-Network-divided-30237968.html


-- The Nation 2014-07-08

[anon467848]

I wonder what genius on the RNN came up with "Those who push for a referendum said it would ensure public participation in the reform process. However to cut costs of holding a nationwide referendum, they said it could be held by unconventional methods, such as allowing people to give feedback at convenience stores"

[rametindallas]

Just as any public project has a period of public input, let the public make suggestions, make ALL suggestions public, let people discuss them and put all the reasonable/enforceable suggestions up for a vote to be included in the new constitution. From the winning suggestions, make a new charter. Then the people would vote, again, up or down on the constitution. If it is voted down, make a new one, rinse, repeat until a draft constitution gets enough support to be sent to the King.

The problem for some powerful people is they believe their opinion should count more than some rubber/rice farmer's opinion. Democracy and respect for the new constitution demands the people have a say and get to vote. This is too important and long lasting in its importance for it not to be a 'people's constitution'. PTP was ready to waste untold sums on elections that would never be ratified. This is worthy of whatever expense to get the approval of those who will live under the rules of the new constitution.

[bkkgooner]

A new constitution without a referendum?

Just set him up as a dictator and be done with it, why do they bother to hide their true intentions?

[whybother]

A new constitution without a referendum?

Just set him up as a dictator and be done with it, why do they bother to hide their true intentions?

Why does it matter if they hide their intentions? "Everyone" seems to "know" what their "true intentions" are anyway. These people must be consulting their fortune tellers.

[tingtongteesood]

More red shirt naysayers. Think what you want, the army is doing a great job. If it is a choice between PTP so called 'democracy' or what we have today, I choose today every time without a moment of hesitation. Keep up the good work boys.

[wave]

More red shirt naysayers. Think what you want, the army is doing a great job. If it is a choice between PTP so called 'democracy' or what we have today, I choose today every time without a moment of hesitation. Keep up the good work boys.

Nothing to do with "red shirt naysayers" nor "junta appologists" but whether a new constitution has any legitimacy by removing the option of some sort of referendum.

A new constitution must have the broad support of the population to have any chance of longevity.

The only way to judge that support is to put it to the people.

Unbelievable that there are mumblings about the "cost" of a referendum (will the elections also be scrapped due to the "cost" of holding them)

The potential cost of forcing a constitution upon the people that has limited support is potentially much greater.

I suppose we could just wait till the whole country has had it's attitude adjusted and acceptance would be a "fait accompli"

[klauskunkel]

However to cut costs of holding a nationwide referendum, they said it could be held by unconventional methods, such as allowing people to give feedback at convenience stores.

Yay, 7/11 to the rescue, again...first, report a crime at 7/11, then book your flight at 7/11, now hold reform referendum at 7/11. Should have bought stock in that company years ago. It is surely by now classed as an essential and protected service, without which Thailand could not function...just like Facebook...

[HUAHIN62]

More red shirt naysayers. Think what you want, the army is doing a great job. If it is a choice between PTP so called 'democracy' or what we have today, I choose today every time without a moment of hesitation. Keep up the good work boys.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, we have only seen the recipe and have not tasted the pudding yet.

[monkeycountry]

There are several countries in the world that have spent centuries improving their constitutions and laws and who are now not only well functioning democracies but also more or less corruption free.

I think Thailand should completely ignore those countries and start from scratch.

[Acharn]

Just as any public project has a period of public input, let the public make suggestions, make ALL suggestions public, let people discuss them and put all the reasonable/enforceable suggestions up for a vote to be included in the new constitution. From the winning suggestions, make a new charter. Then the people would vote, again, up or down on the constitution. If it is voted down, make a new one, rinse, repeat until a draft constitution gets enough support to be sent to the King.

The problem for some powerful people is they believe their opinion should count more than some rubber/rice farmer's opinion. Democracy and respect for the new constitution demands the people have a say and get to vote. This is too important and long lasting in its importance for it not to be a 'people's constitution'. PTP was ready to waste untold sums on elections that would never be ratified. This is worthy of whatever expense to get the approval of those who will live under the rules of the new constitution.

I am reminded of a quotation (possibly apocryphal) from an unnamed bureaucrat in Singapore back in the days when Lee Guan Yew was Prime Minister: "The problem is that if you grant people freedom it is very hard to control them."

I don't think the idea of listening to suggestions from "the people" is an idea that is congenial to them.

[Acharn]

More red shirt naysayers. Think what you want, the army is doing a great job. If it is a choice between PTP so called 'democracy' or what we have today, I choose today every time without a moment of hesitation. Keep up the good work boys.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, we have only seen the recipe and have not tasted the pudding yet.

I don't think we've even seen the recipe yet. We've seen a few remarks about what will be included in the banquet. Pie in the sky in the great by and by. I admit that Gen. Prayuth, definitely not a great speaker, comes across as earnest and sincere. I seem to recall that Gen. Suchinda did, as well.