No decision yet on referendum to endorse Thai Constitution

[webfact]

PROVISIONAL CHARTER
No decision yet on referendum to endorse Constitution
PRAVIT ROJANAPHRUK
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- IT WILL be decided at a later stage whether the permanent charter to be drafted by the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) will be put to a national referendum.

Wissanu Krea-Ngam, a legal adviser to the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), told a press conference yesterday that nowhere in the provisional charter was there any mention of a plebiscite one way or another, so the matter would be left to a later time.

However, holding one would likely add four to six months to the process of promulgating a charter, and that means the unelected government might have to hang on longer, he said.

Pornpetch Wichitcholchai, another legal adviser for the NCPO who was at the same press conference, praised the provisional charter, saying it marked Thailand's return to the "rule of law" and provided the country with a clear path towards restoring democracy.

The NCPO, which will co-exist with the interim cabinet, will be allowed to have no more than 15 members, he said.

Wissanu said it was clear now that Thailand was entering Phase 2 of the NCPO's roadmap. The provisional charter will be in effect for about a year or so until a permanent version is introduced and a general election held.

The CDA will have four months to prepare the permanent charter under a time frame fixed by the junta.

"It's believed that within this one-year period, many problems should be solved. At least to a certain level," he said.

However, this explains why there is a need for "special powers" to remain in the hands of the junta leader under Article 44 of the provisional constitution, which states that the junta's orders are binding and effectively equal to laws.

The unelected National Legislative Assembly would function as both the upper and lower houses of Parliament, with 220 members representing all provinces and many professional circles in society. The NCPO will have the final say in picking them.

The NLA will scrutinise the work of the government but it cannot launch a censure debate against it.

The cabinet will also be given a special mandate to foster national reconciliation.

As for the National Reform Council, individuals cannot nominate themselves. They must be the candidates of associations, organisations or even Buddhist temples or other religious organisations. The NCPO will select the 250 members to sit on the council.

The CDA will have 36 members, with its chairman appointed by the NCPO.

No agreement has been reached on when martial will be lifted. That decision should be made jointly by the government and the NCPO, Wissanu said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/No-decision-yet-on-referendum-to-endorse-Constitut-30239306.html


-- The Nation 2014-07-24

[lostsoul49]

I don't see the sense in bothering the Thai populous with something so complex that 90% won't have a clue about what exactly they are voting for.

I think it should be limited to politicians from all sides and all academics of a certain minimal level of qualification. Doctors, teachers, political scientists, leading civil servants etc.....

It will be cheaper, quicker but most importantly implemented by the better informed.

[jonclark]

Problem as I see it is if the constitution is imposed -i.e. not approved by a referendum, is that at a later date it will simply be amended /changed /replaced as political parties will be able to state the constitution, never having been approved by the populace, is undemocratic and as part of returning democracy to the people they will amend chosen sections/ re-write it and put an alternative constitution to a referendum once they are elected to power.

A constitution implemented and written by a selected board will not survive. A constitution is a living document for the people - so they must show their public acceptance of it, through a referendum.

Of course if they were to reject the constitution through a referendum, then that causes serious headaches for the Junta. It's a very public slap down.

Junta may be finding democracy is harder than they thought.

[citizen33]

Some would say that, in terms of legitimacy, the 1997 constitution is still the operative legal framework. I suppose in the real world it is a case of 'to the victor the spoils.'

[noitom]

Average ordinary working Thais have absolutely no say or representation in the Thai military dictatorship.

[Thanet]

Constitutions, just like elections, in Thailand are utterly pointless. The military have proven time and again that they are unwilling to submit to constitutional control, and they tear up constitutions whenever they get tired of not being in charge.

This is all a waste of everyone's time, really.

[Thanet]

I don't see the sense in bothering the Thai populous with something so complex that 90% won't have a clue about what exactly they are voting for.

I think it should be limited to politicians from all sides and all academics of a certain minimal level of qualification. Doctors, teachers, political scientists, leading civil servants etc.....

It will be cheaper, quicker but most importantly implemented by the better informed.

Would you feel the same way if you were judged as a second class citizen and refused your right of suffrage in your own county? Simply because you were not a doctor, teacher, political scientist, leading civil servant etc.....

Easy to make these recommendations when it's someone else's country, and they don't apply to you, right?

Edited July 24, 2014 by Thanet

[Thailand]

I don't see the sense in bothering the Thai populous with something so complex that 90% won't have a clue about what exactly they are voting for.

I think it should be limited to politicians from all sides and all academics of a certain minimal level of qualification. Doctors, teachers, political scientists, leading civil servants etc.....

It will be cheaper, quicker but most importantly implemented by the better informed.

Would you feel the same way if you were judged as a second class citizen and refused your right of suffrage in your own county? Simply because you were not a doctor, teacher, political scientist, leading civil servant etc.....

Easy to make these recommendations when it's someone else's country, and they don't apply to you, right?

This is how the military and their elitist masters view the majority of the populace, uneducated, incapable of making their own decisions.

This is why Thaksin's policies went down well with that group as he gave them a chance to be heard. And that is why the same thing will happen again when the military lose their grip, or give up by default.

[Ricardo]

Odd that the EC can arrange an election in two or three months, yet that when it comes to a referendum, "holding one would likely add four to six months to the process of promulgating a charter," ?

[chotthee]

Referendum is expensive and unnecessary. Why waste billions when all Thai people love and belief in the ability of the great supreme leader Gen Prayuth in giving Thai people happiness and the perfect democracy.

It is like North Korea having a Presidential election. A complete wast of money when all the North Korea wanted is their supreme leader Kim to lead them.

[rickirs]

No military organization in the world, whether it be in a democratic, olioarchy, or totalitarian society, is a democratic institution by its own nature. The military is organized around a very strict chain-of-command locked into a precise and unalterable set of rules and procedures. The military institution is a rigid organzation that resists societal changes. There is no place for chaos or unabated dissension in the military.

When the military establishes itself with absolute power over the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of a civilian government with an attendant unalterable charter or constitution, why is it a suprise that the same military will create a government that does not provide for a real democratic society except in name only? Even Democrat Party chairman Abhisit Vejjajiva warns against unchecked NCPO power. One might as well be honest about military intentions and draft the entire population into the military. And for the sake of maintaining democratic appearances, change the name of Thailand to the Democratic People's Republic of Thailand, similar to that other asian "democratic" society (hint: North Korea).

For the military to have a legitimate place in a democratic society, it cannot hold the civilian population ransome to its absolute authority. It must allow for an inviolate constitution but one that reflects both the rule of the majority and the protection of the minority without dictatoral and arbitrary interference. The best commitment the military can make to re-establishing a legitimate and durable democratic Thai society is to voluntarily disable its ability to unilaterally overthrow that society and submit to the same checks and balances applied to the civilian government.

[h90]

Problem as I see it is if the constitution is imposed -i.e. not approved by a referendum, is that at a later date it will simply be amended /changed /replaced as political parties will be able to state the constitution, never having been approved by the populace, is undemocratic and as part of returning democracy to the people they will amend chosen sections/ re-write it and put an alternative constitution to a referendum once they are elected to power.

A constitution implemented and written by a selected board will not survive. A constitution is a living document for the people - so they must show their public acceptance of it, through a referendum.

Of course if they were to reject the constitution through a referendum, then that causes serious headaches for the Junta. It's a very public slap down.

Junta may be finding democracy is harder than they thought.

Well if it is approved by a referendum political parties will still try to amend/change/replace them and say it is not democratic because the junta forced the people to vote for it. PTP did that on the last constitution.

Solution: you can only change minor things with a 2/3 or 3/4 majority in parliament and major changes with additional a referendum.

[sae57]

A few notes. The 2007 constitution (i.e. post 2006 coup) is the only one ever to have been submitted to popular referendum--approved by only 57%.

The 1997 constitution was drafted by a popularly elected convention (the only such) and approved by parliament.

Both were torn up and tossed with little fuss and little (not none!) real opposition. As has been the custom every 10 years or so since 1932.

Custom is stronger than any document--no matter how many holidays and monuments are dedicated to it. The UK, for example, runs by custom--it has no constitution. Custom here is that the military is the final arbiter, and no constitution is going to have more than provisional, temporary, authority. There seems to be some stability of the judicial system, and the courts may, over time steer things in a more democratic direction. Moreover, there is a growing taste for a more open democratic society (as opposed to being privates in the generals' extended army or employees in Thaksin's extended corporation), so things may evolve.

If Thailand wants a constitution, it should be framed by an elected convention (a la 1997) over a minimum period of five years, with massive public education efforts--"education" going both ways. Freedom of expression to maximize discourse. Consultation from international experts--what a constitution is and isn't, what it can and can't do. Detailed checking to ensure that the provisions are clear and consistent with each other (inconsistency and forseeable but unforseen consequences were major problems with 1997 and 2007, and partly to blame for the failure of the process to resolve real conflict). Then it should be subject to a referendum, requiring a supermajority (say, 75%) to come into effect. Note that Canada does not yet have a proper constitution as a single document--but a collection of acts and traditions (many previously imposed by the Brits); attempts over many years to approve one by referendum have failed.

One point is that there is no quick fix, whoever is running the operation.

--S

Also: any constitution should be very difficult to amend!

Edited July 24, 2014 by sae57

[heybruce]

A few notes. The 2007 constitution (i.e. post 2006 coup) is the only one ever to have been submitted to popular referendum--approved by only 57%.

The 1997 constitution was drafted by a popularly elected convention (the only such) and approved by parliament.

Both were torn up and tossed with little fuss and little (not none!) real opposition. As has been the custom every 10 years or so since 1932.

Custom is stronger than any document--no matter how many holidays and monuments are dedicated to it. The UK, for example, runs by custom--it has no constitution. Custom here is that the military is the final arbiter, and no constitution is going to have more than provisional, temporary, authority. There seems to be some stability of the judicial system, and the courts may, over time steer things in a more democratic direction. Moreover, there is a growing taste for a more open democratic society (as opposed to being privates in the generals' extended army or employees in Thaksin's extended corporation), so things may evolve.

If Thailand wants a constitution, it should be framed by an elected convention (a la 1997) over a minimum period of five years, with massive public education efforts--"education" going both ways. Freedom of expression to maximize discourse. Consultation from international experts--what a constitution is and isn't, what it can and can't do. Detailed checking to ensure that the provisions are clear and consistent with each other (inconsistency and forseeable but unforseen consequences were major problems with 1997 and 2007, and partly to blame for the failure of the process to resolve real conflict). Then it should be subject to a referendum, requiring a supermajority (say, 75%) to come into effect. Note that Canada does not yet have a proper constitution as a single document--but a collection of acts and traditions (many previously imposed by the Brits); attempts over many years to approve one by referendum have failed.

One point is that there is no quick fix, whoever is running the operation.

--S

Also: any constitution should be very difficult to amend!

"The 2007 constitution (i.e. post 2006 coup) is the only one ever to have been submitted to popular referendum--approved by only 57%."

The 2007 constitution was approved in a referendum in which the choices were to approve the constitution or continue to live under military rule. The military also made it illegal to criticize the draft constitution. Did you not know this?

[h90]

A few notes. The 2007 constitution (i.e. post 2006 coup) is the only one ever to have been submitted to popular referendum--approved by only 57%.

The 1997 constitution was drafted by a popularly elected convention (the only such) and approved by parliament.

Both were torn up and tossed with little fuss and little (not none!) real opposition. As has been the custom every 10 years or so since 1932.

Custom is stronger than any document--no matter how many holidays and monuments are dedicated to it. The UK, for example, runs by custom--it has no constitution. Custom here is that the military is the final arbiter, and no constitution is going to have more than provisional, temporary, authority. There seems to be some stability of the judicial system, and the courts may, over time steer things in a more democratic direction. Moreover, there is a growing taste for a more open democratic society (as opposed to being privates in the generals' extended army or employees in Thaksin's extended corporation), so things may evolve.

If Thailand wants a constitution, it should be framed by an elected convention (a la 1997) over a minimum period of five years, with massive public education efforts--"education" going both ways. Freedom of expression to maximize discourse. Consultation from international experts--what a constitution is and isn't, what it can and can't do. Detailed checking to ensure that the provisions are clear and consistent with each other (inconsistency and forseeable but unforseen consequences were major problems with 1997 and 2007, and partly to blame for the failure of the process to resolve real conflict). Then it should be subject to a referendum, requiring a supermajority (say, 75%) to come into effect. Note that Canada does not yet have a proper constitution as a single document--but a collection of acts and traditions (many previously imposed by the Brits); attempts over many years to approve one by referendum have failed.

One point is that there is no quick fix, whoever is running the operation.

--S

Also: any constitution should be very difficult to amend!

"The 2007 constitution (i.e. post 2006 coup) is the only one ever to have been submitted to popular referendum--approved by only 57%."

The 2007 constitution was approved in a referendum in which the choices were to approve the constitution or continue to live under military rule. The military also made it illegal to criticize the draft constitution. Did you not know this?

No this is wrong. The military told if the 2007 constitution is rejected they will use the 1997 constitution with minor adjustments and hold elections. And that was repeated a 1000 times in TV.

Never any word about continue under military rule ....that is pure red propaganda.

There was a lot discussion about the constitution and up country the people were more or less urged to vote against it, while the military promoted it. I don't know if it was illegal to criticize it, but for sure if it was, it wasn't enforced.

[citizen33]

Not my recollection. If the 1997 Constitution had been allowed to stand then those who broke the law would have faced punishment.

"The 2007 constitution (i.e. post 2006 coup) is the only one ever to have been submitted to popular referendum--approved by only 57%."

The 2007 constitution was approved in a referendum in which the choices were to approve the constitution or continue to live under military rule. The military also made it illegal to criticize the draft constitution. Did you not know this?

No this is wrong. The military told if the 2007 constitution is rejected they will use the 1997 constitution with minor adjustments and hold elections. And that was repeated a 1000 times in TV.

Never any word about continue under military rule ....that is pure red propaganda.

There was a lot discussion about the constitution and up country the people were more or less urged to vote against it, while the military promoted it. I don't know if it was illegal to criticize it, but for sure if it was, it wasn't enforced.

Edited July 24, 2014 by citizen33

[sae57]

h90:

"The military told if the 2007 constitution is rejected they will use the 1997 constitution with minor adjustments and hold elections. And that was repeated a 1000 times in TV.

Never any word about continue under military rule ....that is pure red propaganda.

There was a lot discussion about the constitution and up country the people were more or less urged to vote against it, while the military promoted it. I don't know if it was illegal to criticize it, but for sure if it was, it wasn't enforced."

----------

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm pretty sure it wasn't illegal to criticize it. There was indeed open, public criticism (e.g. monks protesting that it wouldn't make Buddhism the national religion).

One of the major objections up here in Isan was that it didn't set a guaranteed price for rice. That highlights what I mean about understanding what a constitution is and what it can do.

--S

Edit:

In any case, my point is that a referendum in itself doesn't confer felt legitimacy--that depends on custiom, and custom takes a long time to build up. The strong legitimacy enjoyed by the US constitution is due the custom of treating it with near-relgious reverance. Repeated coups however justified and repeated new constitutions however well drafted erode any chance of building up legitimacy.

Edited July 24, 2014 by sae57

[heybruce]

A few notes. The 2007 constitution (i.e. post 2006 coup) is the only one ever to have been submitted to popular referendum--approved by only 57%.

The 1997 constitution was drafted by a popularly elected convention (the only such) and approved by parliament.

Both were torn up and tossed with little fuss and little (not none!) real opposition. As has been the custom every 10 years or so since 1932.

Custom is stronger than any document--no matter how many holidays and monuments are dedicated to it. The UK, for example, runs by custom--it has no constitution. Custom here is that the military is the final arbiter, and no constitution is going to have more than provisional, temporary, authority. There seems to be some stability of the judicial system, and the courts may, over time steer things in a more democratic direction. Moreover, there is a growing taste for a more open democratic society (as opposed to being privates in the generals' extended army or employees in Thaksin's extended corporation), so things may evolve.

If Thailand wants a constitution, it should be framed by an elected convention (a la 1997) over a minimum period of five years, with massive public education efforts--"education" going both ways. Freedom of expression to maximize discourse. Consultation from international experts--what a constitution is and isn't, what it can and can't do. Detailed checking to ensure that the provisions are clear and consistent with each other (inconsistency and forseeable but unforseen consequences were major problems with 1997 and 2007, and partly to blame for the failure of the process to resolve real conflict). Then it should be subject to a referendum, requiring a supermajority (say, 75%) to come into effect. Note that Canada does not yet have a proper constitution as a single document--but a collection of acts and traditions (many previously imposed by the Brits); attempts over many years to approve one by referendum have failed.

One point is that there is no quick fix, whoever is running the operation.

--S

Also: any constitution should be very difficult to amend!

"The 2007 constitution (i.e. post 2006 coup) is the only one ever to have been submitted to popular referendum--approved by only 57%."

The 2007 constitution was approved in a referendum in which the choices were to approve the constitution or continue to live under military rule. The military also made it illegal to criticize the draft constitution. Did you not know this?

No this is wrong. The military told if the 2007 constitution is rejected they will use the 1997 constitution with minor adjustments and hold elections. And that was repeated a 1000 times in TV.

Never any word about continue under military rule ....that is pure red propaganda.

There was a lot discussion about the constitution and up country the people were more or less urged to vote against it, while the military promoted it. I don't know if it was illegal to criticize it, but for sure if it was, it wasn't enforced.

You are partially correct. I should have written that the choices were to approve the draft constitution or to have imposed on them any constitution that the military chose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_constitutional_referendum,_2007:

"Had the draft been rejected, the military government would have had the freedom to choose any previous constitution to adapt and promulgate instead.^[2]"

But even this was a bit vague. From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Constitution_of_Thailand#Referendum:

"Defense Minister Boonrawd Somtas told reporters that an election "can take place only if the new constitution passes the referendum," implying that a "No" would result in indefinite military rule.^[59]"

Regarding the legality of criticism, from the same source:

"The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.^[58]"

There may have been under-the-radar campaigns to discourage people from voting for the constitution, but there was also a massive propaganda campaign urging people to vote for the constitution:

"The Committee on Information and Public Dissemination of the CC led an advertising campaign to persuade voters to favour the draft constitution. 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". Billboards saying, "Love the King. Care about the King. Vote in a referendum. Accept the 2007 draft charter." were placed throughout the Northeast.^[48][49]"

[sae57]

Hey heybruce, I can only guess that you were not here and/or don't speak and read Thai. The wiki article (and at least some of the sources it cites) are quite biased--the actual experience wasrather different. There were "vote no" posters everywhere in spite of laws banning campaigning against (you're right about that). Even people supporting the new constitution were saying that the alternative was to go back to the 1997 one (whose flaws had been brought into high relief by TS shennagans and the failure of the 2006 election). Personally, I never trusted the military to do anything reasonable if the referendum failed, and yes they tilted everything in their favor as much as they could--and still got only 57%, hardly enough to approve a constitution!

The point is that you don't get legitimacy through referendums or from elected constitutional writers alone.

[heybruce]

Hey heybruce, I can only guess that you were not here and/or don't speak and read Thai. The wiki article (and at least some of the sources it cites) are quite biased--the actual experience wasrather different. There were "vote no" posters everywhere in spite of laws banning campaigning against (you're right about that). Even people supporting the new constitution were saying that the alternative was to go back to the 1997 one (whose flaws had been brought into high relief by TS shennagans and the failure of the 2006 election). Personally, I never trusted the military to do anything reasonable if the referendum failed, and yes they tilted everything in their favor as much as they could--and still got only 57%, hardly enough to approve a constitution!

The point is that you don't get legitimacy through referendums or from elected constitutional writers alone.

I was here in 2007 but I didn't speak Thai and I still don't read Thai very well. Then and now I relied on outside news sources since I was unimpressed by the Bangkok Post and the Nation even when they operated without censorship and the constraints of martial law. However I think that referring to the results of the 2007 referendum without noting the circumstances is another way to bias information.

I do agree with your last point, I don't think the 2007 referendum conveyed any legitimacy to the constitution, I think it was for show. I also have little faith in the legitimacy or the next constitution, or for any constitution written at the direction of any military in any country.

[JAG]

I don't see the sense in bothering the Thai populous with something so complex that 90% won't have a clue about what exactly they are voting for.

I think it should be limited to politicians from all sides and all academics of a certain minimal level of qualification. Doctors, teachers, political scientists, leading civil servants etc.....

It will be cheaper, quicker but most importantly implemented by the better informed.

You do have a high opinion of the people amongst you live don't you?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[rubl]

Hey heybruce, I can only guess that you were not here and/or don't speak and read Thai. The wiki article (and at least some of the sources it cites) are quite biased--the actual experience wasrather different. There were "vote no" posters everywhere in spite of laws banning campaigning against (you're right about that). Even people supporting the new constitution were saying that the alternative was to go back to the 1997 one (whose flaws had been brought into high relief by TS shennagans and the failure of the 2006 election). Personally, I never trusted the military to do anything reasonable if the referendum failed, and yes they tilted everything in their favor as much as they could--and still got only 57%, hardly enough to approve a constitution!

The point is that you don't get legitimacy through referendums or from elected constitutional writers alone.

I was here in 2007 but I didn't speak Thai and I still don't read Thai very well. Then and now I relied on outside news sources since I was unimpressed by the Bangkok Post and the Nation even when they operated without censorship and the constraints of martial law. However I think that referring to the results of the 2007 referendum without noting the circumstances is another way to bias information.

I do agree with your last point, I don't think the 2007 referendum conveyed any legitimacy to the constitution, I think it was for show. I also have little faith in the legitimacy or the next constitution, or for any constitution written at the direction of any military in any country.

Well, if what you believe is true (i.e. I don't think the 2007 referendum conveyed any legitimacy to the constitution) The Thai have only had illegitimate governments since 2007. Even Pres. Obama was fooled when he was entertained by 'not legitimate' PM Yingluck.

On the other hand, it may be that your opinion has little real value regarding the status of the Thai constitution , it's elected MP's, it's elected governments. Who knows, who will (or can) tell

Anyway, the topic is on 'no decision yet on referendum to endorse Thai constitution'. Tricky subject. If the NCPO manages to get sufficient input from all layers of the Thai society and incorporates the input, a referendum may be superfluous. If certain groups refuse to cooperate, those groups lose the moral right to say much, because they didn't want to cooperate and provide info. Of course there will be those who will complain anyway if they do not get what they want.

[heybruce]

Hey heybruce, I can only guess that you were not here and/or don't speak and read Thai. The wiki article (and at least some of the sources it cites) are quite biased--the actual experience wasrather different. There were "vote no" posters everywhere in spite of laws banning campaigning against (you're right about that). Even people supporting the new constitution were saying that the alternative was to go back to the 1997 one (whose flaws had been brought into high relief by TS shennagans and the failure of the 2006 election). Personally, I never trusted the military to do anything reasonable if the referendum failed, and yes they tilted everything in their favor as much as they could--and still got only 57%, hardly enough to approve a constitution!

The point is that you don't get legitimacy through referendums or from elected constitutional writers alone.

I was here in 2007 but I didn't speak Thai and I still don't read Thai very well. Then and now I relied on outside news sources since I was unimpressed by the Bangkok Post and the Nation even when they operated without censorship and the constraints of martial law. However I think that referring to the results of the 2007 referendum without noting the circumstances is another way to bias information.

I do agree with your last point, I don't think the 2007 referendum conveyed any legitimacy to the constitution, I think it was for show. I also have little faith in the legitimacy or the next constitution, or for any constitution written at the direction of any military in any country.

Well, if what you believe is true (i.e. I don't think the 2007 referendum conveyed any legitimacy to the constitution) The Thai have only had illegitimate governments since 2007. Even Pres. Obama was fooled when he was entertained by 'not legitimate' PM Yingluck.

On the other hand, it may be that your opinion has little real value regarding the status of the Thai constitution , it's elected MP's, it's elected governments. Who knows, who will (or can) tell

Anyway, the topic is on 'no decision yet on referendum to endorse Thai constitution'. Tricky subject. If the NCPO manages to get sufficient input from all layers of the Thai society and incorporates the input, a referendum may be superfluous. If certain groups refuse to cooperate, those groups lose the moral right to say much, because they didn't want to cooperate and provide info. Of course there will be those who will complain anyway if they do not get what they want.

Don't worry rubl, elections, especially monitored elections deemed legitimate, confer legitimacy. So even though I think the 2007 constitution was "approved" in a 'take this or be stuck with worse' referendum, Yingluck was the legitimate PM.

Regarding "If the NCPO manages to get sufficient input from all layers of the Thai society and incorporates the input, a referendum may be superfluous.", you clearly have much more faith in the wisdom and benign intentions of the NCPO than I have.

[rubl]

I was here in 2007 but I didn't speak Thai and I still don't read Thai very well. Then and now I relied on outside news sources since I was unimpressed by the Bangkok Post and the Nation even when they operated without censorship and the constraints of martial law. However I think that referring to the results of the 2007 referendum without noting the circumstances is another way to bias information.

I do agree with your last point, I don't think the 2007 referendum conveyed any legitimacy to the constitution, I think it was for show. I also have little faith in the legitimacy or the next constitution, or for any constitution written at the direction of any military in any country.

Well, if what you believe is true (i.e. I don't think the 2007 referendum conveyed any legitimacy to the constitution) The Thai have only had illegitimate governments since 2007. Even Pres. Obama was fooled when he was entertained by 'not legitimate' PM Yingluck.

On the other hand, it may be that your opinion has little real value regarding the status of the Thai constitution , it's elected MP's, it's elected governments. Who knows, who will (or can) tell

Anyway, the topic is on 'no decision yet on referendum to endorse Thai constitution'. Tricky subject. If the NCPO manages to get sufficient input from all layers of the Thai society and incorporates the input, a referendum may be superfluous. If certain groups refuse to cooperate, those groups lose the moral right to say much, because they didn't want to cooperate and provide info. Of course there will be those who will complain anyway if they do not get what they want.

Don't worry rubl, elections, especially monitored elections deemed legitimate, confer legitimacy. So even though I think the 2007 constitution was "approved" in a 'take this or be stuck with worse' referendum, Yingluck was the legitimate PM.

Regarding "If the NCPO manages to get sufficient input from all layers of the Thai society and incorporates the input, a referendum may be superfluous.", you clearly have much more faith in the wisdom and benign intentions of the NCPO than I have.

terribly sorry and excuses for late reply. Somehow this seems to have slipped of my agenda, could have been related to your answer.

Monitored elections can only be deemed legitimate when based on a constitution seen as legitimate. If the constitution is illegitimate, the elections as setup and controlled by the Election Commission ruled by the Organic Law on the EC as stated in section 138 of the 2007 constitution would be equally illegitimate.

The fact that the 2007 elections were monitored doesn't change anything in the base of the elections.

So, either the 2007 constitution was legitimate and consequently all elections following and all governments setup by elected parties/MPs, or the 2007 constitution was illegitimate and anything based on it as well. The last would include making the Yingluck administration illegitimate as well.

With constitutions there is no such thing as being partially legitimate as far as the parts we like are concerned.