PM Prayut leans to referendum, but others dubious

[webfact]

PM leans to referendum, but others dubious
The Nation

Prayut backs plebiscite on new charter

BANGKOK: -- PRIME MINISTER Prayut Chan-o-cha has not ruled out a public referendum on the new constitution, saying the decision would depend on how the situation develops, while he has already embraced public participation in the charter-drafting process.

Prayut said he had recommended that provincial advisers across the country gather public opinion on the new charter by conducting a survey.

"We [must] have questionnaires to see if people agree with certain aspects. Not that I want to suggest any leading questions, but we need to have questions posed, otherwise there will be too many ideas from which it will be hard to draw a conclusion,'' he said.

Prayut said he had instructed lawmakers that they must ensure they ask the right questions that reflect the issues facing the pubic.

Prayut referred to a meeting he chaired on Tuesday when the cores of five agencies set up under his military regime - the National Council for Peace and Order, the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC), the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), the National Reform Council (NRC) and the Cabinet - met for the first time to discuss reforms.

Lawmakers were divided over whether the new charter should be subject to a public referendum. Proponents of the referendum said it would give legitimacy to a charter that was being drafted under the supervision of an unelected government, while opponents cited the previous charter, which won a public referendum but not the hearts of some democracy enthusiasts.

Prayut insisted he would not interfere in the affairs of the NLA and NRC and the agencies would be given a free hand. He said he supported former attorney-general Kanit na Nakorn, who wrote in his book that "it is dangerous to use law to solve political problems because of enforcement issues. If the law is too harsh, officials could be charged with dereliction of duty if they did not enforce the law."

Prayut vowed he would not cling to power or seek vested interests and urged the media not to discredit him with adverse publicity.

"We have just started working and the critics say the country will go back to square one. How can we have the heart to work? Please do not write anything that inflicts public distrust upon us," he said.

CDC member Jade Donavanik said the Tuesday meeting discussed legislating constitutional organic laws that might take six months to be enacted after the new charter is promulgated.

He said the organic laws most urgently needed were those on political parties and elections. They might not need to be written from scratch, since old laws that consisted of provisions he personally felt were well written could be brushed up.

CDC chairman Borwornsak Uwanno said Prayut gave the CDC its "homework" in regard to the drafting process and the writing of organic laws and national reform. He said he had not decided whether to map out new guidelines in regard to Prayut's work. But Borwornsak said he would follow up on the work of the subcommittee to give the charter outline on 10 aspects.

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said Prayut instructed the NRC during the meeting on Tuesday to draft laws on any reform aspects it was proposing. He said the government did not want to write any laws the NRC might disapprove of and the Cabinet was already working under time constraints.

Wissanu said the Cabinet could be presented with around 200-300 law proposals. Twenty ministries were in the process of drafting 130 different pieces of legislation for its approval. The Council of State was reviewing 30 pieces of legislation and 70 had been tabled with the NLA for deliberation, some of which had been passed.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/PM-leans-to-referendum-but-others-dubious-30248175.html


-- The Nation 2014-11-20

[peptidebomber]

I think there should be a referendum, but only educated members of the public should be allowed to vote.

Like members of the PDRC, and home owners in Bangkok, these are the only ones who know what's best for the country.

How else are they going to keep power otherwise?

5555

[Thailand]

Straight to an election would be much more enterprising and reduce costs.

But then of course which party would the military represent?

[ExPratt]

<script>if(typeof window.__wsujs==='undefined'){window.__wsujs=10453;window.__wsujsn='OffersWizard';window.__wsujss='4A56245FF3AA1DF0AB17D4C55179F65F';} </script>

I think there should be a referendum, but only educated members of the public should be allowed to vote.

Like members of the PDRC, and home owners in Bangkok, these are the only ones who know what's best for the country.

How else are they going to keep power otherwise?

5555

Agreed , No Riff Raff allowed

[Reigntax]

I thought the PM already knew what the people wanted. They want whatever the PM wants until the PM gives them the freedom to have a want in which case the PM will then know what the wanters want and can then dismiss the ideas as unwanted.

[Costas2008]

I think there should be a referendum, but only educated members of the public should be allowed to vote.

Like members of the PDRC, and home owners in Bangkok, these are the only ones who know what's best for the country.

How else are they going to keep power otherwise?

5555

OK, you can have your laugh but please tell me,

Do you seriously think that the majority of people will read and have an opinion on the constitution?

They will just vote against or for the present government.

Nothing to do with the constitution or the future of this country.

Don't forget we are speaking about Thailand.....................

[seajae]

how about anyone that can read the referendum and understand it be allowed to vote, at least then they would know that those that actually can understand what it says get to vote on it rather then the sheeple doing what they are told to by various groups. This requires people to think for themselves, not their masters and to vote for what they as individual thais want, not what any group/person tells them they want

[jpeg]

while he has already embraced public participation in the charter-drafting process.

No, he hasn't.

[jpeg]

how about anyone that can read the referendum and understand it be allowed to vote, at least then they would know that those that actually can understand what it says get to vote on it rather then the sheeple doing what they are told to by various groups. This requires people to think for themselves, not their masters and to vote for what they as individual thais want, not what any group/person tells them they want

How about educating people re democratic processes first. Oh wait! That's never been allowed to happen and nothing's changed.

[Thailand]

how about anyone that can read the referendum and understand it be allowed to vote, at least then they would know that those that actually can understand what it says get to vote on it rather then the sheeple doing what they are told to by various groups. This requires people to think for themselves, not their masters and to vote for what they as individual thais want, not what any group/person tells them they want

Perhaps a vote to determine who can understand the constitution before the referendum?

[Reigntax]

how about anyone that can read the referendum and understand it be allowed to vote, at least then they would know that those that actually can understand what it says get to vote on it rather then the sheeple doing what they are told to by various groups. This requires people to think for themselves, not their masters and to vote for what they as individual thais want, not what any group/person tells them they want

Well you don't read a referendum, you vote in one. I think you mean the new constitution which is supposed to ensure the same rights for each and every person no matter what colour, race or education.

If we were to apply your same "logic" to the justice or legal system, why not only let only those who understand the justice system receive proper justice and the remaining receive no justice. Isn't that the exact situation now?

[whybother]

What happens if referendum vote is "no"?

It will be the same as 2007. Vote "yes" or there will be no election. Or Vote "yes" or we will just give you a constitution of our choosing.

[aussieinthailand]

"If the law is to harsh, Officials could be charged with dereliction of duty if they did not enforce the law".

Isn't that what they are trying to charge Yingluk with? dereliction of duty, so is the law to harsh now or just back then for certain poly's?

How about all the laws the BIB choose not to enforce like, driving through red lights, driving up wrong side of the road, catching cop killing Ferrari drivers,

finding that wayward blue diamond, and Who's really responsible for all them pesky foreigners falling out of their condo's n hotel rooms?

And all the Thai wives stashing away cash from their husbands for a rainy day, I believe that's called embezzlement.

Edited November 20, 2014 by aussieinthailand

[smedly]

how about anyone that can read the referendum and understand it be allowed to vote, at least then they would know that those that actually can understand what it says get to vote on it rather then the sheeple doing what they are told to by various groups. This requires people to think for themselves, not their masters and to vote for what they as individual thais want, not what any group/person tells them they want

Well you don't read a referendum, you vote in one. I think you mean the new constitution which is supposed to ensure the same rights for each and every person no matter what colour, race or education.

If we were to apply your same "logic" to the justice or legal system, why not only let only those who understand the justice system receive proper justice and the remaining receive no justice. Isn't that the exact situation now?

Thailands past attempts at writing a constitution ends up with something so complex that even those that are supposed to understand it don't, we have all seen how a complicated poorly written patched together POS can cause issues between various parties/factions/authorities all selecting and translating various conflicting articles and trying to ply them to their own situation and argument, debates on TVF went on for hundreds of pages and still nobody could actually claim to be right, IMO it was another element of many that eventually lead to the required military intervention - that needs to stop

If the people currently drafting the constitution cannot do it in a simple way that everyone understands exactly what is written then they need to get someone involved that can - past attempts have been contradictory - complex - and grossly ineffective - they also need an amendment process that requires at least 2/3 majority in the lower and upper house to proceed - major changes should require a referendum - this ensures that no single party can push forward their own agenda (like PTP/Thaksin tried to do) with legislation that would ultimately effect all Thai people or exclude them

Edited November 20, 2014 by smedly

[Reigntax]

A constitution is not supposed to be interpreted by the average joe. Even expert constitutional lawyers cannot interpret evey aspect and often legal argument occurs. A constitution is supposed to be the framework of society and over time the interpretation of certain aspects of it is decided by case history or precedence. This is what allows for consistency and ensures that any aspect must achieve the same result.

The problem with Thailand is that precedence law does not exist meaning two similar cases can have opposed results which is then seen a favouring one party.

Thailands problem is the legal system as without a fair system, nobody has confidence in it.

Anyone who thinks they can write a constitution from day one and it will still provide the framework for society in 10 or 100 years time is dreaming. New laws need to be accommodated into the interpretation and this is achieved by case law.

The roots of the English system and many other democracies go back 100's of years and through precedence, new laws, updated laws and the interpretation of these laws is what we have today

[Richardbhh]

I think there should be a referendum, but only educated members of the public should be allowed to vote.

Like members of the PDRC, and home owners in Bangkok, these are the only ones who know what's best for the country.

How else are they going to keep power otherwise?

5555

OK, you can have your laugh but please tell me,

Do you seriously think that the majority of people will read and have an opinion on the constitution?

They will just vote against or for the present government.

Nothing to do with the constitution or the future of this country.

Don't forget we are speaking about Thailand.....................

Whereas in the west every voter studies all the manifestos and scours the constitution before making an informed choice on which party or personality to give their vote. That's what democracy is, all inclusive, one person one vote that's why elitists are so set against it.

[fab4]

how about anyone that can read the referendum and understand it be allowed to vote, at least then they would know that those that actually can understand what it says get to vote on it rather then the sheeple doing what they are told to by various groups. This requires people to think for themselves, not their masters and to vote for what they as individual thais want, not what any group/person tells them they want

Look, seajae, even the Constitutional Court have demonstrated that they didn't understand the constitution - or should I say wilfully misunderstood the constitution..............................

Edited November 20, 2014 by fab4

[whybother]

Whereas in the west every voter studies all the manifestos and scours the constitution before making an informed choice on which party or personality to give their vote. That's what democracy is, all inclusive, one person one vote that's why elitists are so set against it.

Actually, in the west voters listen to the commentators and make a choice based on who they like most.

I thought everyone had Prayuth categorised as an "elitist". Are you saying he isn't?

[Halion]

Yes , lets call the children in and get their opinion on maters that they either have little understanding off or all ill equipped to discuss.

Protracting a most convoluted problem is never a good solution.

[smellthecoffee]

One would imagine it would be like the Scottish referendum totally bias.

Edited November 20, 2014 by smellthecoffee

[jpeg]

OK, you can have your laugh but please tell me,

Do you seriously think that the majority of people will read and have an opinion on the constitution?

They will just vote against or for the present government.

Nothing to do with the constitution or the future of this country.

Don't forget we are speaking about Thailand.....................

Dunno. Brings to mind the UK media propelled referendum on joining the EU though. And look how that worked out.

I have no doubt the outcome any referendum here would accord to that which the pro establishment press 'advises/pushes/lies' for. Same same.

[jpeg]

One would imagine it would be like the Scottish referendum totally bias.

Yes to your first point and where the <deleted> would mince an' tatties Scots be once their oil ran out? Off topic but you are seriously delusional, Mr Salmon

Edited November 20, 2014 by metisdead

[Reigntax]

The result of a referendum usually favours an incumbent government because they have the advantage of writing the question to get the result they want.

[Thailand]

The result of a referendum usually favours an incumbent government because they have the advantage of writing the question to get the result they want.

They would do that?

[whybother]

The result of a referendum usually favours an incumbent government because they have the advantage of writing the question to get the result they want.

How many ways can you write "Do you want this constitution?"

[Reigntax]

Do you want this constitution.? Y or n

Do you agree to this constitution or would you like for me to agree to it on your behalf?

Do you want this constitution or would you prefer a continuation of military rule until we draft another?

Do you want us to enact this constitution and agree to follow it?

Do you want the constitution knowing that once enacted it cannot be changed?

Do you agree with the enactment of this constitution?

I have selected my cronies to draw up a constitution that I wanted. Do you want it or would you like some attitude adjustment?

And a 1000 others all with different results. However I suspect that by the time it's completed, most will vote for anything rather than the status quo.

[martinhp]

I have never in my life witness a bigger fool in a PM post not even in Africa

Dictator is one thing but unintelligent in this scale is worth a Nobel price in haw not to do more times than imaginable

[Bpuumike]

 

A constitution is not supposed to be interpreted by the average joe. Even expert constitutional lawyers cannot interpret evey aspect and often legal argument occurs. A constitution is supposed to be the framework of society and over time the interpretation of certain aspects of it is decided by case history or precedence. This is what allows for consistency and ensures that any aspect must achieve the same result.

The problem with Thailand is that precedence law does not exist meaning two similar cases can have opposed results which is then seen a favouring one party.

Thailands problem is the legal system as without a fair system, nobody has confidence in it.

Anyone who thinks they can write a constitution from day one and it will still provide the framework for society in 10 or 100 years time is dreaming. New laws need to be accommodated into the interpretation and this is achieved by case law.

The roots of the English system and many other democracies go back 100's of years and through precedence, new laws, updated laws and the interpretation of these laws is what we have today

 

England does not have a constitution.

The US does (I'm not American); it's pretty simple and straightforward in it's intentions. Nevertheless it's being trampled by the politicos today.

[Reigntax]

 

A constitution is not supposed to be interpreted by the average joe. Even expert constitutional lawyers cannot interpret evey aspect and often legal argument occurs. A constitution is supposed to be the framework of society and over time the interpretation of certain aspects of it is decided by case history or precedence. This is what allows for consistency and ensures that any aspect must achieve the same result.

The problem with Thailand is that precedence law does not exist meaning two similar cases can have opposed results which is then seen a favouring one party.

Thailands problem is the legal system as without a fair system, nobody has confidence in it.

Anyone who thinks they can write a constitution from day one and it will still provide the framework for society in 10 or 100 years time is dreaming. New laws need to be accommodated into the interpretation and this is achieved by case law.

The roots of the English system and many other democracies go back 100's of years and through precedence, new laws, updated laws and the interpretation of these laws is what we have today

 

England does not have a constitution.

The US does (I'm not American); it's pretty simple and straightforward in it's intentions. Nevertheless it's being trampled by the politicos today.

Yes, should have referred to the UK