SPECIAL REPORT
Chorus builds for national referendum on next constitution
Kris Bhromsuthi
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Politicians and academics are calling for a public referendum to gauge whether voters support the new constitution once it is drafted.

They say that by holding a referendum, the junta would allow people to have the final say on whether they approve of the proposals of the National Reform Council (NRC).

Pornson Liengboonlertchai, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University, said a national plebiscite on the new charter was critical to ending the political conflict.

"Not only would the referendum make sure of people's approval, but it would also indirectly ask conflicting parties if they accept the proposal. This is a very important measure to ensure there will be no further conflict or resistance," he said.

A constitution is like society's structure - the reason it was torn up so many times in the past is because people rejected society's structure, he said.

The 11 selection committees for the 250 NRC members were unveiled on Wednesday night with the junta's key advisers and associates heading each of them, prompting reservations over the council's representative balance and credibility.

Some key political groups including the Pheu Thai, Democrat and Chart Thai Pattana parties have said they will not nominate candidates for the NRC.

That also raised doubts about whether those excluded from the process will accept the charter approved by the NRC.

The NRC's mandate is to propose a framework for the Constitution Drafting Committee.

Chaiyan Chaiyaporn, another Chulalongkorn political scientist, suggested a "supra-majority" rule requiring three-quarters of votes to pass the constitution. This means a charter must gain overwhelming public support.

The idea of using a referendum as the final judgement on a new charter was welcomed by former Democrat MPs Wirat Kalayasiri and Chavanond Intarakomalyasut. Politicians are representatives of the people, so they should recognise the charter passed by the people through a referendum, they said.

Utain Shartpinyo, leader of the Khon Thai Party, rejected the notion that a referendum could be an accurate yardstick of public endorsement.

"People might not be ready to make a rational decision because they lack access to complete information, or the ability to analyse critically and reflect on such information. Therefore, they are easily intimidated," he said.

The boycott by the three key political parties raised concerns that the reform plan and the charter may not end the political conflict if opposing sides were not brought to compromise.

However, some scholars said the exclusion of political rivals might be unavoidable for peace to prevail.

History shows that attempts to solve political stalemates by involving all conflicting parties have been futile, said Attasit Pankaew, a political scientist at Thammasat University. The 2007 Constitution was the product of compromise between the conflicting groups and it didn't last, he said.

An "alternative approach" to the problem would be from the outside in rather than inside out, meaning letting more "outsiders" participate in national reform, Attasit said.

Thai politics has a problem with social participation. It is difficult for ordinary people to participate in national politics, he said.

People with access to power belong to a closed circle, so existing political groups cannot represent the view of the whole population, which is needed to end political polarisation.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Chorus-builds-for-national-referendum-on-next-cons-30240991.html

[thenation]2014-08-15[/thenation]

Excellent proposal  ...  bypass the old politicians and let the people decide instead !

Why would the army want the view of the people?

let's see the Thais stumble, bumble and bluster through explaining all the complexities that they've incorporated in to this "so called" constitution. This attempt at putting a constitution together is merely a document that the military dictatorship can refer to in the future as an extension of its own self imposed marshal law.

This was proposed by Abhisit , Suthep, most of TV  and was opposed by PTP ,(there was a valid reason) from the beginning , this all started out with the pre-tense of reform , now the Military has railroaded the agenda of reform , are stage managing a reform for themselves, there won't be any referendum from the people, which is the way to go, after all without being alarmist the coup wasn't ever intended for reforms, that was convenient,  it was for the ruling elite to claw back lost ground , which under lese majeste law, I am not liberty to discuss why , so much for Democracy, this should raise some eyebrows.

"Not only would the referendum make sure of people's approval, but it would also indirectly ask conflicting parties if they accept the proposal. This is a very important measure to ensure there will be no further conflict or resistance," he said.

Democracy!, we need democracy! you cry, then you reject a referendum, the most direct form of democracy. I suppose it will make you happy when Thais are back on the streets killing each other.

"Not only would the referendum make sure of people's approval, but it would also indirectly ask conflicting parties if they accept the proposal. This is a very important measure to ensure there will be no further conflict or resistance," he said.

Democracy!, we need democracy! you cry, then you reject a referendum, the most direct form of democracy. I suppose it will make you happy when Thais are back on the streets killing each other.

So according to you if they dont pass the referendum they are rejecting democracy. A referendum is democracy you mo@@n - either rejected or passed - the will of the people has spoken - thats democracy. 

Bypass the referendum and simply go straight to free and fair elections with the "new" constitution as the main part of each parties manifesto.

let's see the Thais stumble, bumble and bluster through explaining all the complexities that they've incorporated in to this "so called" constitution. This attempt at putting a constitution together is merely a document that the military dictatorship can refer to in the future as an extension of its own self imposed marshal law.

 

More negative propaganda.  have you a problem with everything after PTP fell.??

It truly amazes me that so few people in Thailand seem to understand that a country's Constitution should actually encapsulate the character of that country's citizens and, most importantly, be "owned" by them - ergo, if it is not enacted by popular consent (ie a substantial majority referendum) it is bound to fail and, as sure as sh*t, the whole sorry cycle will begin once more.   

let's see the Thais stumble, bumble and bluster through explaining all the complexities that they've incorporated in to this "so called" constitution. This attempt at putting a constitution together is merely a document that the military dictatorship can refer to in the future as an extension of its own self imposed marshal law.

 

The bitterness of the Thaksin fan boys is never ending....

 

let's see the Thais stumble, bumble and bluster through explaining all the complexities that they've incorporated in to this "so called" constitution. This attempt at putting a constitution together is merely a document that the military dictatorship can refer to in the future as an extension of its own self imposed marshal law.

 

The bitterness of the Thaksin fan boys is never ending....

 

 

Those who have reservations regarding the motives of a certain group are being called 'fanboys' of any (now defunct) opposition. As another poster pointed out, there are many on this forum who are mentally incapable of anything beyond binary choices.

Excellent proposal  ...  bypass the old politicians and let the people decide instead !

 

Isn't it the fact that the majority of the electorate are not capable of choosing Thailand's best direction, the very reason we really shouldn't put important things in their hands?

 

Look at the past 12 years or so. Most of them can't read properly, let alone decipher the complex wording of a constitution draft.

 

Maybe a reforendum of academics of a bachelor's degree and above should be able to vote. People that can not be easily manipulated. People who will raise valid and intelligent questions.
 

Excellent proposal  ...  bypass the old politicians and let the people decide instead !

 
Isn't it the fact that the majority of the electorate are not capable of choosing Thailand's best direction, the very reason we really shouldn't put important things in their hands?
 
Look at the past 12 years or so. Most of them can't read properly, let alone decipher the complex wording of a constitution draft.
 
Maybe a reforendum of academics of a bachelor's degree and above should be able to vote. People that can not be easily manipulated. People who will raise valid and intelligent questions.
 

A troll post if ever I saw one!

It truly amazes me that so few people in Thailand seem to understand that a country's Constitution should actually encapsulate the character of that country's citizens and, most importantly, be "owned" by them - ergo, if it is not enacted by popular consent (ie a substantial majority referendum) it is bound to fail and, as sure as sh*t, the whole sorry cycle will begin once more.   

 

well most constitutions worldwide didn't get a referendum.

 

The 2007 constitution got a referendum and was called undemocratic

The 1997 constitution didn't had a referendum and was called "the peoples constitution"

 

It seems for the propaganda it doesn't make any difference.

 

Excellent proposal  ...  bypass the old politicians and let the people decide instead !

 

Isn't it the fact that the majority of the electorate are not capable of choosing Thailand's best direction, the very reason we really shouldn't put important things in their hands?

 

Look at the past 12 years or so. Most of them can't read properly, let alone decipher the complex wording of a constitution draft.

 

Maybe a reforendum of academics of a bachelor's degree and above should be able to vote. People that can not be easily manipulated. People who will raise valid and intelligent questions.
 

 

 

Go, on, say it,

 

The Right people. 

Given the very restrictive rules the new dictatorship declared,

 

I wonder if the media will be allowed to highlight the possible disadvantages of the new constitution and if political groups and movements will be allowed to campaign against it (without being put in jail). 

 

Also would the referendum be honest and valid if only the pro-camp would be allowed to speak?

 

I don't believe Thailand will become a democracy soon. If it will become a democracy, it will be one like in the DPRK - DEMOCARATIC people's republic  of (North-)Korea. In the new constitution "the people" will be represented by the elite (whether they like it or not).

The new constitution will be pushed through and those against it will be kept silent.  If that's good or bad for Thailand, that's another question.

Edited August 15, 201411 yr by kriswillems

 

It truly amazes me that so few people in Thailand seem to understand that a country's Constitution should actually encapsulate the character of that country's citizens and, most importantly, be "owned" by them - ergo, if it is not enacted by popular consent (ie a substantial majority referendum) it is bound to fail and, as sure as sh*t, the whole sorry cycle will begin once more.   

 

well most constitutions worldwide didn't get a referendum.

 

The 2007 constitution got a referendum and was called undemocratic

The 1997 constitution didn't had a referendum and was called "the peoples constitution"

 

It seems for the propaganda it doesn't make any difference.

 

 

The 1997 constitution was written by an elected Constitution Drafting Agency, the first Thai Constitution to be so (76 directly from each of  the provinces and 23 shortlisted from academia etc by parliament), hence the title, The People's Constitution.

 

This constitution was repealed by the military in September 2006 and replaced by an interim constitution written by a military junta appointed panel in October 2006. The military junta then appointed the National Legislative Authority who then appointed the members of the drafting committee that drew up the 2007 Constitution.

 

 A controversial referendum was held (whilst large areas of the country was still under martial law) that "endorsed" the constitution.

 

 

Now perhaps you can tell me and others on the forum why you seem to think that a process that wholly relies on people appointed by a military junta, is superior to one where the populace gets to vote (with no military coercion or restrictions) on that process?

Edited August 15, 201411 yr by fab4

 

Excellent proposal  ...  bypass the old politicians and let the people decide instead !

 

Isn't it the fact that the majority of the electorate are not capable of choosing Thailand's best direction, the very reason we really shouldn't put important things in their hands?

 

Look at the past 12 years or so. Most of them can't read properly, let alone decipher the complex wording of a constitution draft.

 

Maybe a reforendum of academics of a bachelor's degree and above should be able to vote. People that can not be easily manipulated. People who will raise valid and intelligent questions.
 

 

Do you mean like the academic who came up with the earth shattering idea that drivers should stop at pedestrian crossings ?

Bypass the referendum and simply go straight to free and fair elections with the "new" constitution as the main part of each parties manifesto.

 

One would assume then that in theory if the people wanted to reject the constitution, they would need to reject all the main parties in a general election? As it is an intrinsic part of each party's manifesto. Right? 

Bypass the referendum and simply go straight to free and fair elections with the "new" constitution as the main part of each parties manifesto.

 
One would assume then that in theory if the people wanted to reject the constitution, they would need to reject all the main parties in a general election? As it is an intrinsic part of each party's manifesto. Right? 

Depends whether the parties are for or against in their manifesto.

Anyway, no chance of options being offered under the current situation.

 

"Not only would the referendum make sure of people's approval, but it would also indirectly ask conflicting parties if they accept the proposal. This is a very important measure to ensure there will be no further conflict or resistance," he said.

Democracy!, we need democracy! you cry, then you reject a referendum, the most direct form of democracy. I suppose it will make you happy when Thais are back on the streets killing each other.

So according to you if they dont pass the referendum they are rejecting democracy. A referendum is democracy you mo@@n - either rejected or passed - the will of the people has spoken - thats democracy. 

 

I was referring to the possibility that the referendum might be rejected, not the result....you mo@@n.

I suppose you missed the section of my post that read a referendum is the most direct form of democracy.

Edited August 15, 201411 yr by ramrod711

Given the very restrictive rules the new dictatorship declared,

 

I wonder if the media will be allowed to highlight the possible disadvantages of the new constitution and if political groups and movements will be allowed to campaign against it (without being put in jail). 

 

Also would the referendum be honest and valid if only the pro-camp would be allowed to speak?

 

I don't believe Thailand will become a democracy soon. If it will become a democracy, it will be one like in the DPRK - DEMOCARATIC people's republic  of (North-)Korea. In the new constitution "the people" will be represented by the elite (whether they like it or not).

The new constitution will be pushed through and those against it will be kept silent.  If that's good or bad for Thailand, that's another question.

 

The problem will be that Thaksins people will run around and offer 500-1000 Baht for a no vote....

 

 

It truly amazes me that so few people in Thailand seem to understand that a country's Constitution should actually encapsulate the character of that country's citizens and, most importantly, be "owned" by them - ergo, if it is not enacted by popular consent (ie a substantial majority referendum) it is bound to fail and, as sure as sh*t, the whole sorry cycle will begin once more.   

 

well most constitutions worldwide didn't get a referendum.

 

The 2007 constitution got a referendum and was called undemocratic

The 1997 constitution didn't had a referendum and was called "the peoples constitution"

 

It seems for the propaganda it doesn't make any difference.

 

 

The 1997 constitution was written by an elected Constitution Drafting Agency, the first Thai Constitution to be so (76 directly from each of  the provinces and 23 shortlisted from academia etc by parliament), hence the title, The People's Constitution.

 

This constitution was repealed by the military in September 2006 and replaced by an interim constitution written by a military junta appointed panel in October 2006. The military junta then appointed the National Legislative Authority who then appointed the members of the drafting committee that drew up the 2007 Constitution.

 

 A controversial referendum was held (whilst large areas of the country was still under martial law) that "endorsed" the constitution.

 

 

Now perhaps you can tell me and others on the forum why you seem to think that a process that wholly relies on people appointed by a military junta, is superior to one where the populace gets to vote (with no military coercion or restrictions) on that process?

 

 

I am not getting your point: 1997 constitution: politician write themself their rights into the constitution and don't let the people decide in a referendum: very good in your opinion

The military makes a constitution which isn't much different from the 1997, only there are more checks and control against abuse of power. People agree to it in a referendum which was controversial for some red shirts.

 

I didn't like the 2007 constitution much, but a referendum is always better. But on the other hand it doesn't matter much, as people who don't agree with it won't agree after a referendum as well.

Another example of the Junta being more democratic than the PTP ever were. Listening to the voice of the people. What a novel, democratic idea. 

 

The sincerity of the Junta was reflected when they implemented this "necessary" coup. Not after the 1st death by red shirt terrorists, not after the 10th death by red shirt terrorists and not even after the 28th death by red shirt terrorists. They only engaged this platform that will lead to true democracy only after all political sides sat in a room and stubbornly refused to compromise thus ensuring if the General left the room and left "democracy" to continue any further blood shed from the red shirt terrorists would be on his hands. He owed to to the people to stop it. The people have thanked him.

 

This sincerity is further reflected here, but of course like the 2007 constitution that the majority overwhelmingly embraced this will be rejected or described as controversial if it does not suit the PTP agenda. Conspiracies will flourish, excuses will be born and then "evolve" and the imagination of red apologists will be working harder than a one armed brick layer in Baghdad. 

 

I for one cherish their sincerity as does the majority of Thai's (of course that majority was rejected too because it does not suit the PTP agenda) and look forward to the people of Thailand choosing their own future. One that will ensure through this constitution will hold undemocratic types to account. One were Deputy PM's are civil and mature and qualified and reflect the country admerably and are not allowed to make promises more akin to Iraqi fundamentalist terrorist leaders on youtube (promise to behead me). A constitution where the peoples voices are heard (after elections) thus not allowing a regime to be in discord with the very people that brought them to power through an amnesty for one man that brought the country onto the brink of civil war. A constitution that will makes coups redundent.

 

If one hates coups and cherishes democracy then even Ray Charles could see this constitution is a step in a right and democratic direction to allow coups to cease. Of course we still have the other 7% fanatic minority terrorist loving bunch that criticize the coup irrespective of the direction they take even when it brings peace to Thailand. 

 

That 7% should not be hated. Should not be demonized. They deserve our pity. I would love to help them. I would love to set up a red shirt apologist shelter in Isaan where they can come to gather and lift that blanket of hatred and fog war they so embrace. In fact the Junta have set up initiatives like this, bless their peace loving hearts.

 

Good luck Junta. You are showing through your actions that you do not hold the people in contempt which has not been seen in the last 3 years.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 201411 yr by djjamie

 

 

 

It truly amazes me that so few people in Thailand seem to understand that a country's Constitution should actually encapsulate the character of that country's citizens and, most importantly, be "owned" by them - ergo, if it is not enacted by popular consent (ie a substantial majority referendum) it is bound to fail and, as sure as sh*t, the whole sorry cycle will begin once more.   

 

well most constitutions worldwide didn't get a referendum.

 

The 2007 constitution got a referendum and was called undemocratic

The 1997 constitution didn't had a referendum and was called "the peoples constitution"

 

It seems for the propaganda it doesn't make any difference.

 

 

The 1997 constitution was written by an elected Constitution Drafting Agency, the first Thai Constitution to be so (76 directly from each of  the provinces and 23 shortlisted from academia etc by parliament), hence the title, The People's Constitution.

 

This constitution was repealed by the military in September 2006 and replaced by an interim constitution written by a military junta appointed panel in October 2006. The military junta then appointed the National Legislative Authority who then appointed the members of the drafting committee that drew up the 2007 Constitution.

 

 A controversial referendum was held (whilst large areas of the country was still under martial law) that "endorsed" the constitution.

 

 

Now perhaps you can tell me and others on the forum why you seem to think that a process that wholly relies on people appointed by a military junta, is superior to one where the populace gets to vote (with no military coercion or restrictions) on that process?

 

 

I am not getting your point: 1997 constitution: politician write themself their rights into the constitution and don't let the people decide in a referendum: very good in your opinion

The military makes a constitution which isn't much different from the 1997, only there are more checks and control against abuse of power. People agree to it in a referendum which was controversial for some red shirts.

 

I didn't like the 2007 constitution much, but a referendum is always better. But on the other hand it doesn't matter much, as people who don't agree with it won't agree after a referendum as well.

 

 

It is the PTP agenda speaking my friend.

 

Just wait and see if the PTP or Shin friendly govt lose the next election. Just like all the other results that go against them they will warp it, makes excuses or simply deny the results and call foul. They will mention controversial, use inverted comma's when describing "votes" and suggest the Junta rigged the election so the "Right" people can be in power.

 

As sure as night follows day this will be their reaction. They will not accept it and just like your argument that validates that democracy was not only strengthened in the 2007 constitution it was also more democratically brought into law. Simply because it is more democratic one can be assured that like a rabbit rounding the last bend on the race track the PTP grey hound is close behind to try to derail and devour it. Why? They hate checks and balances. They simply hate most of the principles of democracy. So when these supporters defend the 1997 constitution and denounce the 2007 constitution it is not because THEY think it is undemocratic. It is because the PTP do and the PTP do their thinking for them.

Edited August 15, 201411 yr by djjamie

Excellent proposal  ...  bypass the old politicians and let the people decide instead !

 
Isn't it the fact that the majority of the electorate are not capable of choosing Thailand's best direction, the very reason we really shouldn't put important things in their hands?
 
Look at the past 12 years or so. Most of them can't read properly, let alone decipher the complex wording of a constitution draft.
 
Maybe a reforendum of academics of a bachelor's degree and above should be able to vote. People that can not be easily manipulated. People who will raise valid and intelligent questions.
 

Ginjag actually endorsed this post with a like.

I remember a previous comment of his suggesting the uneducated should not be able to vote. We can see the true colors being shown here. Amazing!

 

Excellent proposal  ...  bypass the old politicians and let the people decide instead !

 

Isn't it the fact that the majority of the electorate are not capable of choosing Thailand's best direction, the very reason we really shouldn't put important things in their hands?

 

Look at the past 12 years or so. Most of them can't read properly, let alone decipher the complex wording of a constitution draft.

 

Maybe a reforendum of academics of a bachelor's degree and above should be able to vote. People that can not be easily manipulated. People who will raise valid and intelligent questions.
 

 

Call me old-fashioned, but I like the principle of one-man one-vote, although there have to be some limits.

 

For example, should the under-18s or women get the vote, should only those who own property or who pay income-tax or reach a certain level of education be enfranchised, perhaps voters need to have done national-service or raised a family or avoided going-to-jail or contributed to their country in some other way ?

 

But that is a different topic.

 

The basic principle is surely that power & legitimacy comes from the people upwards, rather than the poo-yais or elite politicians downwards, hence a national referendum is more sound than a vote (perhaps at 4am with many absentees ?) from a gaggle of self-interested ratbag rabble-rousers (of whatever political colour).

 

The military respected that in 2007, and appear to want to do so again now, I think they're on the right track.

 

Poo-yais & political-elites & rabble-rousers are welcome to disagree, and probably will, for their own murky reasons.
 

 

 

 

It truly amazes me that so few people in Thailand seem to understand that a country's Constitution should actually encapsulate the character of that country's citizens and, most importantly, be "owned" by them - ergo, if it is not enacted by popular consent (ie a substantial majority referendum) it is bound to fail and, as sure as sh*t, the whole sorry cycle will begin once more.   

 

well most constitutions worldwide didn't get a referendum.

 

The 2007 constitution got a referendum and was called undemocratic

The 1997 constitution didn't had a referendum and was called "the peoples constitution"

 

It seems for the propaganda it doesn't make any difference.

 

 

The 1997 constitution was written by an elected Constitution Drafting Agency, the first Thai Constitution to be so (76 directly from each of  the provinces and 23 shortlisted from academia etc by parliament), hence the title, The People's Constitution.

 

This constitution was repealed by the military in September 2006 and replaced by an interim constitution written by a military junta appointed panel in October 2006. The military junta then appointed the National Legislative Authority who then appointed the members of the drafting committee that drew up the 2007 Constitution.

 

 A controversial referendum was held (whilst large areas of the country was still under martial law) that "endorsed" the constitution.

 

 

Now perhaps you can tell me and others on the forum why you seem to think that a process that wholly relies on people appointed by a military junta, is superior to one where the populace gets to vote (with no military coercion or restrictions) on that process?

 

 

I am not getting your point: 1997 constitution: politician write themself their rights into the constitution and don't let the people decide in a referendum: very good in your opinion

The military makes a constitution which isn't much different from the 1997, only there are more checks and control against abuse of power. People agree to it in a referendum which was controversial for some red shirts.

 

I didn't like the 2007 constitution much, but a referendum is always better. But on the other hand it doesn't matter much, as people who don't agree with it won't agree after a referendum as well.

 

 

OK I'll humour you. The point is that you are saying that the 2007 constitution is democratic. How can that be when the entire constitution was written by people appointed by the military junta to do so and in the process overriding a constitution which was written by people elected by other citizens to do so?

 

Essentially you are saying that the process of appointing people to do a task is more democratic than having people elected. 

 

That is my point.

Edited August 15, 201411 yr by fab4

 

 

Excellent proposal  ...  bypass the old politicians and let the people decide instead !

 
Isn't it the fact that the majority of the electorate are not capable of choosing Thailand's best direction, the very reason we really shouldn't put important things in their hands?
 
Look at the past 12 years or so. Most of them can't read properly, let alone decipher the complex wording of a constitution draft.
 
Maybe a reforendum of academics of a bachelor's degree and above should be able to vote. People that can not be easily manipulated. People who will raise valid and intelligent questions.
 

Ginjag actually endorsed this post with a like.

I remember a previous comment of his suggesting the uneducated should not be able to vote. We can see the true colors being shown here. Amazing!

 

 

Speak to me not behind my back--have some manners.   rules TVF,     second line,  paste that exactly as you just posted I want to see--no little clips or corner cutting for your propaganda agenda.   coward/ sneak, this type of post is of very poor quality if your talking behind the back of somebody-to someone else trying to collect brownie points.   Don't bother with me again. PLEASE, old fashioned UK women used to speak like that over the garden wall.