Thai Charter referendum will delay election: CDC official

[webfact]

Charter referendum will delay election: CDC official
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- CONSTITUTIONAL DRAFTING Committee (CDC) vice president Nareewan Chintakanond has said it will take an additional three to six months before a general election is held if there were a charter referendum.

According to the provisional provisions of the charter draft, the electoral-related organic laws - the final stage before an election can be held - will take three months.

But if the country held a referendum, Nareewan said it was expected that the general election would be pushed back to July next year or October next year because the public would need to be educated on the charter's details.

Without a referendum, an election is expected to take place early next year.

Nareewan said the drafting progress at the moment was at the reviewing stage, which was expected to be completed at the end of this month and shown to all CDC members for feedback.

The CDC would submit the completed draft to the National Reform Council, which would have a week to deliberate and vote on whether to approve it. During this period, NRC members could propose article-by-article amendments to the charter drafters.

The CDC's panel on public opinion and King's Prajadhipok's Institute yesterday held a joint seminar on the gathering of academic opinion for the drafting process that was attended by over 80 academics from public and private universities.

The chairwoman of the public opinion panel, Thawilwadee Bureekul, said the charter drafters wanted to hear the opinion of people from all parts of society.

She said the panel had held nine of a planned 10 seminars across the country and the response from people had been very positive.

CDC member Choochai Supawongse said the revision of the draft charter was 90 per cent completed with only 115 articles yet to be reviewed.

Choochai said he was convinced the drafting process would be completed on time.

He said CDC members were willing to compromise and make amendments in any section where there were many concerns, such as the section on the political system, politicians and political parties.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Charter-referendum-will-delay-election-CDC-officia-30256372.html


-- The Nation 2015-03-20

[kalbo123]

Good one, so no charter referendum so they can go straight to the elections where nothing to choose is after the new charter is implemented.

[In Town]

There must be referendum to allow people to reject this process.

[Thailand]

Wouldn't an election show if the charter was acceptable, why have a referendum?

BTW- Notice any similarities. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31957685

[In Town]

How would an election be a comment on the charter?

Yes, Thailand seems to be following the Myanmar plan, but weirdly military control in Myanmar, while not gone, is decreasing; while military control in Thailand is increasing. Thailand is just entering the governmental phase Myanmar entered in 1960, so I guess we can expect 50 more years of military government in Thailand.

[LuckyLew]

There must be referendum to allow people to reject this process.

and if they reject the process then they will say "we need another 6 months to do another rewrite

Better they just get to the election, cause IMO whoever wins the election will do a rewrite anyways

[In Town]

They should reject this one to get a better one, but perhaps you are right. If they have an election and PT win they can re-write the charter, except the military will not allow that (witness those politicians "impeached" for the dastardly crime of trying to change the last constitution).

[englishoak]

There must be referendum to allow people to reject this process.

and if they reject the process then they will say "we need another 6 months to do another rewrite

Better they just get to the election, cause IMO whoever wins the election will do a rewrite anyways

+1 this... heads they win delay as intended or.... tails they win i mean stay until everyones happy...

[Thailand]

How would an election be a comment on the charter?

Yes, Thailand seems to be following the Myanmar plan, but weirdly military control in Myanmar, while not gone, is decreasing; while military control in Thailand is increasing. Thailand is just entering the governmental phase Myanmar entered in 1960, so I guess we can expect 50 more years of military government in Thailand.

Not a huge difference between a referendum and an election? Wouldn't the same people vote? If the election is run on the platform of the charter wouldn't that kill two birds with one stone and be much cheaper?

All that said, I think we all know who will win the next "election".

BTW- just seen that martial law has been declared in some parts of Myanmar, just a beginning maybe?

[phoenixdoglover]

"CDC member Choochai Supawongse said the revision of the draft charter was 90 per cent completed with only 115 articles yet to be reviewed."

If there are 115 articles yet to be reviewed, and that is 10%, than the current draft Charter contains 1,150 articles.

[kotsak]

Wouldn't an election show if the charter was acceptable, why have a referendum?

BTW- Notice any similarities. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31957685

Watched it this morning on BBC, I thought exactly the same For a moment I thought I was listening to our dear leader.. :>

[Srikcir]

A legal constitution must precede elections because the constitution establishes how elections are conducted, how government agencies and organizations operate, and how those officials conduct government legislative business. The NCPO draft charter does not allow any amendments to the constitution solely by elected officials.

The military learned from the last coup that civilian politicians will immediately attempt to "re-democracize" the military drafted constitution and undo the all "reforms" instituted by the military. By avoiding a referendum the military need only to have the draft endorsed to become the law of the land. A subsequent election must abide with that law.

The threat that elections will be delayed six months or longer by a referendum is an empty one. It matters little to the Junta to delay elections as it will not allow any significant alteration to its draft. But it will begin to suffer from its continued subversion of Thai people's rights and freedoms.

[rubl]

So, to conclude

- a referendum is needed

- a referendum is not needed

- the electorate should be able to reject the constitution

- it doesn't matter

- general elections are better

- general elections will be controlled

- Martial Law

- bla, blabla and more blablabla

missing somehow

- the electorate should be able to accept the constitution

[rubl]

Wouldn't an election show if the charter was acceptable, why have a referendum?

BTW- Notice any similarities. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31957685

Watched it this morning on BBC, I thought exactly the same For a moment I thought I was listening to our dear leader.. :>

The interesting aspect is in Thailand in May, 2014 the 'unclear status' Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong was suggesting the Army raise the Martial Law to be able to hold elections. In 2007 the junta appointed government lifted Martial Law in the remaining provinces to be able to hold elections free from fear as demanded by NGOs and Human Rights groups.

What to do, oh, what to do

[h90]

How would an election be a comment on the charter?

Yes, Thailand seems to be following the Myanmar plan, but weirdly military control in Myanmar, while not gone, is decreasing; while military control in Thailand is increasing. Thailand is just entering the governmental phase Myanmar entered in 1960, so I guess we can expect 50 more years of military government in Thailand.

Not a huge difference between a referendum and an election? Wouldn't the same people vote? If the election is run on the platform of the charter wouldn't that kill two birds with one stone and be much cheaper?

All that said, I think we all know who will win the next "election".

BTW- just seen that martial law has been declared in some parts of Myanmar, just a beginning maybe?

No big difference! On an election all the local MPs pay for the vote buying in their area...so you have a full scale vote buying. + the parties also pay.

On a referendum some main player may still pay for votes, but even small amounts per person get very expensive if you have to pay it all over Thailand (and big side costs). Local MPs won't pay anything.

As always the party who has more money will win the election....but maybe not the referendum.

[In Town]

So, to conclude

- a referendum is needed

- a referendum is not needed

- the electorate should be able to reject the constitution

- it doesn't matter

- general elections are better

- general elections will be controlled

- Martial Law

- bla, blabla and more blablabla

missing somehow

- the electorate should be able to accept the constitution

Surely the electorate should be able to accept the constitution if the want to, and if there is a fair referendum. I doubt they would, based on their reaction to the last one, but maybe they will. Lets give it a try, and offer some real choice.

[heybruce]

Wouldn't an election show if the charter was acceptable, why have a referendum?

BTW- Notice any similarities. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31957685

Watched it this morning on BBC, I thought exactly the same For a moment I thought I was listening to our dear leader.. :>

The interesting aspect is in Thailand in May, 2014 the 'unclear status' Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong was suggesting the Army raise the Martial Law to be able to hold elections. In 2007 the junta appointed government lifted Martial Law in the remaining provinces to be able to hold elections free from fear as demanded by NGOs and Human Rights groups.

What to do, oh, what to do

You you need to proof-read rubl ("raise the Martial Law"?), and you're off-topic again. Surapong suggested, after the demonstrated inability of the police to maintain order and ensure a peaceful election in February, that martial law be considered to protect candidates, voters, and the overall election process in July. That would have been a very different kind of martial law from what we have now.

Back to the topic, it is a complicated issue, and probably of no real importance. If there is a referendum the junta will make sure it is in the form of "Choose this charter or you'll get something worse.", allowing the junta to claim the lesser of two evils "approval" gives the charter legitimacy. On the other hand, if the CDC knows their work will go to a referendum they may temper some of the more blatantly undemocratic elements of the charter. Either way the average Thai will have little say in the government imposed on them.

Edited March 20, 2015 by heybruce

[rubl]

Wouldn't an election show if the charter was acceptable, why have a referendum?

BTW- Notice any similarities. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31957685

Watched it this morning on BBC, I thought exactly the same For a moment I thought I was listening to our dear leader.. :>

The interesting aspect is in Thailand in May, 2014 the 'unclear status' Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong was suggesting the Army raise the Martial Law to be able to hold elections. In 2007 the junta appointed government lifted Martial Law in the remaining provinces to be able to hold elections free from fear as demanded by NGOs and Human Rights groups.

What to do, oh, what to do

You you need to proof-read rubl ("raise the Martial Law"?), and you're off-topic again. Surapong suggested, after the demonstrated inability of the police to maintain order and ensure a peaceful election in February, that martial law be considered to protect candidates, voters, and the overall election process in July. That would have been a very different kind of martial law from what we have now.

Back to the topic, it is a complicated issue, and probably of no real importance. If there is a referendum the junta will make sure it is in the form of "Choose this charter or you'll get something worse.", allowing the junta to claim the lesser of two evils "approval" gives the charter legitimacy. On the other hand, if the CDC knows their work will go to a referendum they may temper some of the more blatantly undemocratic elements of the charter. Either way the average Thai will have little say in the government imposed on them.

So, the reference to the BBC article was off topic? Off topic, but you use it to misrepresent what Surapong said? Well, excuses, but let me correct you first on that misrepresentation. For one, there is only ONE Martial Law. If it was different it would have to be formulated and approved first which a not-so-caretaking government cannot do.

""If martial law is declared, the military will run the operation to maintain security and the CAPO will not get involved. And I believe that if the martial law is declared nationwide, the election can be held.""

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Surapong-voices-support-for-martial-law-30233791.html

As for the topic, I'm surprised you state "complicated issue and probably off no real importance". Don't you feel a referendum might be a good idea? Don't you fear a referendum to be used to delay proceedings, including a new general election? The 'no importance' seems to be a result of your opinion that 'the junta will make sure'. The 'no importance' seems to conflict with 'CDC may temper some of the blatantly undemocratic elements', unless you don't really believe what you write yourself either.

Edited March 20, 2015 by rubl

[Homeropec]

There must be referendum to allow people to reject this process.

and if they reject the process then they will say "we need another 6 months to do another rewrite

Better they just get to the election, cause IMO whoever wins the election will do a rewrite anyways

They know that, if there is a referendum the charter will be rejected by landslide. so no referendum ahead...

[Homeropec]

"CDC member Choochai Supawongse said the revision of the draft charter was 90 per cent completed with only 115 articles yet to be reviewed."

If there are 115 articles yet to be reviewed, and that is 10%, than the current draft Charter contains 1,150 articles.

It seems it will contain more wise than the holly bible...

[rubl]

There must be referendum to allow people to reject this process.

and if they reject the process then they will say "we need another 6 months to do another rewrite

Better they just get to the election, cause IMO whoever wins the election will do a rewrite anyways

They know that, if there is a referendum the charter will be rejected by landslide. so no referendum ahead...

Well, well, and none of us has even seen an English near complete draft of the draft of what may or may not become the new constitution.

In IT we talk about RTFM in such cases.

Edited March 20, 2015 by rubl

[WhizBang]

There must be referendum to allow people to reject this process.

and if they reject the process then they will say "we need another 6 months to do another rewrite

Better they just get to the election, cause IMO whoever wins the election will do a rewrite anyways

Not likely. Remember that the military will be 'overseeing' the next government.

[EnglishJohn]

Wouldn't an election show if the charter was acceptable, why have a referendum?

BTW- Notice any similarities. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31957685

Wow. What bizarre logic. Reminds me of that spokesman for Pheu-Thai called poppadom or something who stated whatever it was they wanted to do this time then gave utter nonsense as the reason why.

I see how they got away with it now : their supporters can't actually work it out.

[Warpath]

Wouldn't an election show if the charter was acceptable, why have a referendum?

BTW- Notice any similarities. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31957685

An election would not show that the charter is acceptable, how on earth could you think it would.

[Warpath]

There must be referendum to allow people to reject this process.

and if they reject the process then they will say "we need another 6 months to do another rewrite

Better they just get to the election, cause IMO whoever wins the election will do a rewrite anyways

Wrong!

They have made it all but impossible to change the charter once it is in effect. If the people allow the Junta to push ahead with elections held under this abhorrent charter then it would take nothing short of revolution to overturn it. This charter sets democracy back to Thailand circa 1932 - the people should have the opportunity to decide if that is what they want.

The only way to avoid future chaos is to hold a referendum.

[heybruce]

The interesting aspect is in Thailand in May, 2014 the 'unclear status' Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong was suggesting the Army raise the Martial Law to be able to hold elections. In 2007 the junta appointed government lifted Martial Law in the remaining provinces to be able to hold elections free from fear as demanded by NGOs and Human Rights groups.

What to do, oh, what to do

You you need to proof-read rubl ("raise the Martial Law"?), and you're off-topic again. Surapong suggested, after the demonstrated inability of the police to maintain order and ensure a peaceful election in February, that martial law be considered to protect candidates, voters, and the overall election process in July. That would have been a very different kind of martial law from what we have now.

Back to the topic, it is a complicated issue, and probably of no real importance. If there is a referendum the junta will make sure it is in the form of "Choose this charter or you'll get something worse.", allowing the junta to claim the lesser of two evils "approval" gives the charter legitimacy. On the other hand, if the CDC knows their work will go to a referendum they may temper some of the more blatantly undemocratic elements of the charter. Either way the average Thai will have little say in the government imposed on them.

So, the reference to the BBC article was off topic? Off topic, but you use it to misrepresent what Surapong said? Well, excuses, but let me correct you first on that misrepresentation. For one, there is only ONE Martial Law. If it was different it would have to be formulated and approved first which a not-so-caretaking government cannot do.

""If martial law is declared, the military will run the operation to maintain security and the CAPO will not get involved. And I believe that if the martial law is declared nationwide, the election can be held.""

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Surapong-voices-support-for-martial-law-30233791.html

As for the topic, I'm surprised you state "complicated issue and probably off no real importance". Don't you feel a referendum might be a good idea? Don't you fear a referendum to be used to delay proceedings, including a new general election? The 'no importance' seems to be a result of your opinion that 'the junta will make sure'. The 'no importance' seems to conflict with 'CDC may temper some of the blatantly undemocratic elements', unless you don't really believe what you write yourself either.

Yes, your martial law post was completely off-topic, but it is an off-topic irrelevancy you enjoy using to derail discussions, so I showed how ridiculous it is.

"...there is only ONE Martial Law."

Nonsense, there is an infinite continuum in how martial law can be implemented. The government, or in current circumstances the military, has a wide variety of tools to choose from that can be used in martial law and great discretion in how aggressively these tools can be implemented.

Martial law can and should be tailored to the needs of the situation. Martial law could have been used leading up to and during the scheduled July 2014 elections to ensure people could register as candidates and campaign peacefully, polling locations would be secure, people could vote safely, and all other aspects of the be held.

Martial law does not have to ban gatherings of five or more people and it doesn't have to include censorship that makes it illegal to criticize the government. That's the kind of martial law an insecure junta uses to stay in power, it's not the kind of martial law that would be used to ensure a peaceful election.

As for the topic, I clearly explained how the junta can make a referendum meaningless and misrepresent a meaningless result as an endorsement of the undemocratic constitution being produced. Did you not read that far or did you not understand it?

[rubl]

So, the reference to the BBC article was off topic? Off topic, but you use it to misrepresent what Surapong said? Well, excuses, but let me correct you first on that misrepresentation. For one, there is only ONE Martial Law. If it was different it would have to be formulated and approved first which a not-so-caretaking government cannot do.

""If martial law is declared, the military will run the operation to maintain security and the CAPO will not get involved. And I believe that if the martial law is declared nationwide, the election can be held.""

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Surapong-voices-support-for-martial-law-30233791.html

As for the topic, I'm surprised you state "complicated issue and probably off no real importance". Don't you feel a referendum might be a good idea? Don't you fear a referendum to be used to delay proceedings, including a new general election? The 'no importance' seems to be a result of your opinion that 'the junta will make sure'. The 'no importance' seems to conflict with 'CDC may temper some of the blatantly undemocratic elements', unless you don't really believe what you write yourself either.

Yes, your martial law post was completely off-topic, but it is an off-topic irrelevancy you enjoy using to derail discussions, so I showed how ridiculous it is.

"...there is only ONE Martial Law."

Nonsense, there is an infinite continuum in how martial law can be implemented. The government, or in current circumstances the military, has a wide variety of tools to choose from that can be used in martial law and great discretion in how aggressively these tools can be implemented.

Martial law can and should be tailored to the needs of the situation. Martial law could have been used leading up to and during the scheduled July 2014 elections to ensure people could register as candidates and campaign peacefully, polling locations would be secure, people could vote safely, and all other aspects of the be held.

Martial law does not have to ban gatherings of five or more people and it doesn't have to include censorship that makes it illegal to criticize the government. That's the kind of martial law an insecure junta uses to stay in power, it's not the kind of martial law that would be used to ensure a peaceful election.

As for the topic, I clearly explained how the junta can make a referendum meaningless and misrepresent a meaningless result as an endorsement of the undemocratic constitution being produced. Did you not read that far or did you not understand it?

The law is the law and we interpret it as we see fit. Such attitude doesn't really suprise me.

The last sentence, as being on topic, has you clearly explaining how the junta could ... ... So, that's a possibility with other possibilities being possible. Clearly so.

[heybruce]

So, the reference to the BBC article was off topic? Off topic, but you use it to misrepresent what Surapong said? Well, excuses, but let me correct you first on that misrepresentation. For one, there is only ONE Martial Law. If it was different it would have to be formulated and approved first which a not-so-caretaking government cannot do.

""If martial law is declared, the military will run the operation to maintain security and the CAPO will not get involved. And I believe that if the martial law is declared nationwide, the election can be held.""

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Surapong-voices-support-for-martial-law-30233791.html

As for the topic, I'm surprised you state "complicated issue and probably off no real importance". Don't you feel a referendum might be a good idea? Don't you fear a referendum to be used to delay proceedings, including a new general election? The 'no importance' seems to be a result of your opinion that 'the junta will make sure'. The 'no importance' seems to conflict with 'CDC may temper some of the blatantly undemocratic elements', unless you don't really believe what you write yourself either.

Yes, your martial law post was completely off-topic, but it is an off-topic irrelevancy you enjoy using to derail discussions, so I showed how ridiculous it is.

"...there is only ONE Martial Law."

Nonsense, there is an infinite continuum in how martial law can be implemented. The government, or in current circumstances the military, has a wide variety of tools to choose from that can be used in martial law and great discretion in how aggressively these tools can be implemented.

Martial law can and should be tailored to the needs of the situation. Martial law could have been used leading up to and during the scheduled July 2014 elections to ensure people could register as candidates and campaign peacefully, polling locations would be secure, people could vote safely, and all other aspects of the be held.

Martial law does not have to ban gatherings of five or more people and it doesn't have to include censorship that makes it illegal to criticize the government. That's the kind of martial law an insecure junta uses to stay in power, it's not the kind of martial law that would be used to ensure a peaceful election.

As for the topic, I clearly explained how the junta can make a referendum meaningless and misrepresent a meaningless result as an endorsement of the undemocratic constitution being produced. Did you not read that far or did you not understand it?

The law is the law and we interpret it as we see fit. Such attitude doesn't really suprise me.

The last sentence, as being on topic, has you clearly explaining how the junta could ... ... So, that's a possibility with other possibilities being possible. Clearly so.

From the ThaiLawForum, with words pertinent to this discussion underlined:

"Whenever there is necessity to preserve good order so as to be free from external or internal danger, a Royal Proclamation may be issued enforcing all or certain sections of the Martial Law or part of any section of it including the conditions under which such provision or provisions shall apply to the whole or any part of the Kingdom; and after the proclamation has been made at any time or in any area, all the provisions of any act or law which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Martial Law which is in force shall be suspended and replaced by the provisions of the Martial Law which is in force." http://www.thailawforum.com/laws/Martial%20Law.pdf

As I wrote earlier, the government has great flexibility in how martial law is implemented, it can be used to ensure a peaceful election, or it can be used to protect a military junta.

Regarding the referendum, was I remiss in not pointing out that the referendum on the 2007 constitution was presented in a "approve this or we'll stick you with whatever constitution we want to" form? Did you forget that? Do you think that if there is a referendum the people will be given meaningful choices? Perhaps a choice between the junta's constitution, the 1997 constitution, or constitutions written by political parties or legal scholars?

If there is a referendum, do you really think the junta will let it be between the constitution they want or some acceptable alternative? I don't.

Edited March 21, 2015 by heybruce

[rubl]

The law is the law and we interpret it as we see fit. Such attitude doesn't really suprise me.

The last sentence, as being on topic, has you clearly explaining how the junta could ... ... So, that's a possibility with other possibilities being possible. Clearly so.

From the ThaiLawForum, with words pertinent to this discussion underlined:

"Whenever there is necessity to preserve good order so as to be free from external or internal danger, a Royal Proclamation may be issued enforcing all or certain sections of the Martial Law or part of any section of it including the conditions under which such provision or provisions shall apply to the whole or any part of the Kingdom; and after the proclamation has been made at any time or in any area, all the provisions of any act or law which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Martial Law which is in force shall be suspended and replaced by the provisions of the Martial Law which is in force." http://www.thailawforum.com/laws/Martial%20Law.pdf

As I wrote earlier, the government has great flexibility in how martial law is implemented, it can be used to ensure a peaceful election, or it can be used to protect a military junta.

Regarding the referendum, was I remiss in not pointing out that the referendum on the 2007 constitution was presented in a "approve this or we'll stick you with whatever constitution we want to" form? Did you forget that? Do you think that if there is a referendum the people will be given meaningful choices? Perhaps a choice between the junta's constitution, the 1997 constitution, or constitutions written by political parties or legal scholars?

If there is a referendum, do you really think the junta will let it be between the constitution they want or some acceptable alternative? I don't.

Thanks for the explanation. Much more clear than you're before with some 'tools' rather than 'sections'.

As for the referendum, till now the discussion has been on a referendum for/against the prepared constitution. You seem the first to raise the possibility of choosing between the CDC prepared constitution and something else.

[heybruce]

The law is the law and we interpret it as we see fit. Such attitude doesn't really suprise me.

The last sentence, as being on topic, has you clearly explaining how the junta could ... ... So, that's a possibility with other possibilities being possible. Clearly so.

From the ThaiLawForum, with words pertinent to this discussion underlined:

"Whenever there is necessity to preserve good order so as to be free from external or internal danger, a Royal Proclamation may be issued enforcing all or certain sections of the Martial Law or part of any section of it including the conditions under which such provision or provisions shall apply to the whole or any part of the Kingdom; and after the proclamation has been made at any time or in any area, all the provisions of any act or law which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Martial Law which is in force shall be suspended and replaced by the provisions of the Martial Law which is in force." http://www.thailawforum.com/laws/Martial%20Law.pdf

As I wrote earlier, the government has great flexibility in how martial law is implemented, it can be used to ensure a peaceful election, or it can be used to protect a military junta.

Regarding the referendum, was I remiss in not pointing out that the referendum on the 2007 constitution was presented in a "approve this or we'll stick you with whatever constitution we want to" form? Did you forget that? Do you think that if there is a referendum the people will be given meaningful choices? Perhaps a choice between the junta's constitution, the 1997 constitution, or constitutions written by political parties or legal scholars?

If there is a referendum, do you really think the junta will let it be between the constitution they want or some acceptable alternative? I don't.

Thanks for the explanation. Much more clear than you're before with some 'tools' rather than 'sections'.

As for the referendum, till now the discussion has been on a referendum for/against the prepared constitution. You seem the first to raise the possibility of choosing between the CDC prepared constitution and something else.

Were you really confused by my use of the word 'tools' to describe actions the government can take under martial law?

Of course the referendum must present a choice. If the people reject the constitution then something must happen as a consequence. If there is a referendum the junta must present some kind of alternative to approval.

Or do you think the referendum will have only one choice; 'approve the constitution', with no alternative presented? Do you think the junta will be that blatant in letting the people know they have no choice in the matter?