Thai Charter referendum will delay election: CDC official

[Anthony5]

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

You have any doubts about who's gonna be the next PM, IF there are any elections in the forseeable future?

[Anthony5]

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

I recall it was made clear by happy chappy in power about 4-5 months ago that there will be no referendum.

I think it is also clear from all the news that has come out so far about the content of the draft, that it will make no chance to be approved in a referendum.

So why not bully the population a bit, as we are used to see since 22 may 2014, to make sure they don't demand a referendum.

Anyone who belives that this country will be removed from military control in this lifetime needs his head checked.

[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.

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?

This may surprise you but till now the only discussion about referendum or not seems to imply the choice of 'yes' or 'no' vote for the new referendum (only). You offered a second possibility (the CDC constitution or an 'acceptable' alternative) without really defining what an 'acceptable' alternative would be.

Of course this just shows that till now the NCPO didn't give the referendum much thoughts. As you correctly say, if the constitution offered is rejected how will we proceed?

Another item would be to describe how to calculate 'majority' for accept or reject. 50% + 1 of valid votes, 50% + 1 of all votes, 2/3 of valid votes? If I remember correctly it was the first and I guess that means it still is.

[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

I recall it was made clear by happy chappy in power about 4-5 months ago that there will be no referendum.

I think it is also clear from all the news that has come out so far about the content of the draft, that it will make no chance to be approved in a referendum.

So why not bully the population a bit, as we are used to see since 22 may 2014, to make sure they don't demand a referendum.

Anyone who belives that this country will be removed from military control in this lifetime needs his head checked.

I think you could have been more to the point in your last sentence. Anyone who thinks Thailand will finally be a real democracy in this century must be an eternal optimist.

[rubl]

For those interesting in the debate on pro and con of a referendum and possible choices, move to the newer topic.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/810759-debate-begins-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-a-referendum-on-the-new-charter/