Debate begins on the pros and cons of a referendum on the new charter

[Lite Beer]

Debate begins on the pros and cons of a referendum on the new charter
KRIS BHROMSUTHI
THE SUNDAY NATION

MANY proponents of the proposed charter agree that they won't have a lot of choice when the time comes for the referendum on the constitution, which is expected to be held late next year, if the junta gives it the go ahead.

The question is whether those who disapprove of the newly drafted charter will have any real alternatives offered to them by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).

It has been reported that voters will be able to choose either "yes" or "no" to the new charter.

If charter proponents vote "no", that would effectively mean the military junta would stay in power for a few more years while the whole drafting process would continue. If they vote "yes", the country could finally reinstall an elected government; however, the constitution may have clauses that people consider problematic.

It could therefore be concluded that the current political climate may "force" voters to approve the proposed charter referendum, regardless of their actual opinion.

At the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand last week, Phongthep Thepkanchana, a former minister and Pheu Thai MP, also wondered if people would be given genuine choices and if the charter referendum has any true meaning.

He suggested that people should be given a choice between the newly drafted charter and "the people's charter" of 1997, which was abolished by the coup-makers in 2006.

He expressed concern about the 2007 charter referendum and argued that the Council for National Security (CNS) told the people if they vote "no" to the proposed charter, the CNS would then have the authority to pick a previous charter and implement it, saying it gave people little option but to approve the charter.

Some of the tactics employed by the CNS during the 2007 charter referendum were criticised; for example, the CNS warned that a "no" vote could lead to continued instability and possibly violence, while the charter's proponents were given limited media slots and were monitored by the military junta.

However, Wirat Kalayasiri, a legal adviser to the Democrat Party, believed the issue wouldn't became a concern because the charter only has a few controversial issues, such as "outsider PM" and the "all appointed Senate". If those provisions were amended, he said, the people should approve the charter.

"The proposal that the people should be given a choice between the 1997 charter and this new charter is impractical because the referendum is about this charter [not the 1997 one], with some amendments, people should have no problems with this charter," Wirat said.

However, he stressed the importance of freedom of speech, and the fact significant time is needed for both supporters and proponents of the newly drafted charter to communicate to the people, and both be given equal media opportunity to freely present their views.

"Before voting, people must be fully informed and well rounded, they must be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of this constitution," Wirat said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Debate-begins-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-a-referendum-30256510.html

-- The Nation 2015-03-22

[Mango Bob]

It is the Thai people referendum and must be approved by the people. Also Martial law must be rescinded prior to any referendum vote takes place.

[greenchair]

Why would the government need to stay in power for a few more years, if the charter is not approved? This charter is written in 1 year, so a redo should take another 1 year.

Why would a referendum be held late next year ? It could be held late this year, since it is almost finished.

This is like the airport scam.

"Vote us in, or we will hold the country to ransom closing down its source of income "

"Vote this charter in,or there will be no elections for many years to come "

[Warpath]

The referendum should be a simple choice between the 1997 (peoples) constitution and the 2015 (military) constitution.

Who could argue against the above?

Whatever the result, whichever constitution the people choose, elections can proceed on schedule and the country can move forward under a legitimate charter.

Can anyone here come up with a valid and logical argument as to why the people shouldn't be offered a choice between the above two constitutions?

I bet not.

[smedly]

The referendum should be a simple choice between the 1997 (peoples) constitution and the 2015 (military) constitution.

Who could argue against the above?

Whatever the result, whichever constitution the people choose, elections can proceed on schedule and the country can move forward under a legitimate charter.

Can anyone here come up with a valid and logical argument as to why the people shouldn't be offered a choice between the above two constitutions?

I bet not.

absolute rubbish - falling back on a charter that obviously didn't work before is not going to change anything going forward - history doesn't lie - 20 coups later doesn't lie - getting out of this cycle of political implosion every couple of years because of faulty administrations abusing power needs to stop - more recently Thaksin has been clearly responsible for all of it - you want to know the single biggest step to stabilising Thailand ? - getting this thieving criminal terrorist removed from interference in Thailand for good - you robbed the people - you made your money now ... (deleted) off for good you evil (deleted)..

[heybruce]

The referendum should be a simple choice between the 1997 (peoples) constitution and the 2015 (military) constitution.

Who could argue against the above?

Whatever the result, whichever constitution the people choose, elections can proceed on schedule and the country can move forward under a legitimate charter.

Can anyone here come up with a valid and logical argument as to why the people shouldn't be offered a choice between the above two constitutions?

I bet not.

absolute rubbish - falling back on a charter that obviously didn't work before is not going to change anything going forward - history doesn't lie - 20 coups later doesn't lie - getting out of this cycle of political implosion every couple of years because of faulty administrations abusing power needs to stop - more recently Thaksin has been clearly responsible for all of it - you want to know the single biggest step to stabilising Thailand ? - getting this thieving criminal terrorist removed from interference in Thailand for good - you robbed the people - you made your money now ... (deleted) off for good you evil (deleted)..

20 coups and you blame Thaksin, not the military?

[heybruce]

A good article, explaining why any referendum will be a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" choice.

[thunderstick]

The referendum should be a simple choice between the 1997 (peoples) constitution and the 2015 (military) constitution.

Who could argue against the above?

Whatever the result, whichever constitution the people choose, elections can proceed on schedule and the country can move forward under a legitimate charter.

Can anyone here come up with a valid and logical argument as to why the people shouldn't be offered a choice between the above two constitutions?

I bet not.

absolute rubbish - falling back on a charter that obviously didn't work before is not going to change anything going forward - history doesn't lie - 20 coups later doesn't lie - getting out of this cycle of political implosion every couple of years because of faulty administrations abusing power needs to stop - more recently Thaksin has been clearly responsible for all of it - you want to know the single biggest step to stabilising Thailand ? - getting this thieving criminal terrorist removed from interference in Thailand for good - you robbed the people - you made your money now ... (deleted) off for good you evil (deleted)..

I have no desire to get into any petty arguments, mostly I'm just happy to lurk but I do disagree with your absolute rubbish comment and your reasoning doesn't seem to support what you state. To my way of thinking the 1997 constitution is exactly what Thailand needs, let me explain. Thailand became a Constitutional Monarchy in 1932 but before democracy had the chance to take hold the military snatch back power and then held it in one form or another for the next 65 years occasionally resorting to shooting at its own citizens in order to retain power. Then came the 1998 financial crises that just about bought the whole system crashing down. The elites, in their moment of maximum weakness and fear, realised that the world had changed, it had become very complicated and that they must release their grip on power if the country was to survive in the modern era. What happened next is the following:

The 1997 Constitution was the first constitution to be drafted by popularly-elected Constitutional Drafting Assembly, hence was popularly called the "People's Constitution". The 1997 Constitution created a bicameral legislature. For the first time in Thai history, both houses were directly elected. Many human rights are explicitly acknowledged, and measures were established to increase the stability of elected governments.

Now note the main difference as to how the 1997 constitution was written compared to how the current constitution is being written - "popularly elected Constitutional Drafting Assembly" and the main difference in the aims of the 1997 constitution compared to the current draft constitution - "both house directly elected", "human rights acknowledged" and "increased stability of governments"

The reason Thailand has had so many constitutions is that all bar one have been developed by small military orientated groups and then forced on the rest of the people. These military constitutions always aimed to keep power either in the hands of the military or with extremely weak coalitions that could be easily controlled or thrown out. These were not constitutions that were written for longevity, they were constitutions written to serve the needs of the elites of that particular period. This is the type of constitution the CDC have just drafted - its failure is inevitable.

The main difference with the 1997 constitution is that it worked too well as far as making Thailand truly democratic and the only ones who had a problem with this development were the elites who lost many of their privileges with the advent of Thaksin.

To sum up, 18 of the 20 coups you mention occurred before the Thaksin era so it is quite obvious that Thaksin is not the cause of Thailand's political troubles. The cause is badly written constitutions that serve special interest groups for short periods of time and not the people as a whole over the long term. You are completely wrong to think getting rid of Thaksin changes this fact.

So give Thais a clear choice There has been about 19 military constitutions, pick one and hold a referendum against the only "peoples" constitution and let the people decide what they want.

Notice the other difference - the 1997 constitution allowed for a referendum

The draft was approved by the National Assembly with 518 votes for, 16 against, and 17 abstentions. A referendum, called for if the draft was rejected by the National Assembly, was not necessary.

Military constitutions, the absence of constitutional referendums and the military's ability to conduct coups with impunity are the cause of all Thailands woes.

[emilymat]

The referendum should be a simple choice between the 1997 (peoples) constitution and the 2015 (military) constitution.

Who could argue against the above?

Whatever the result, whichever constitution the people choose, elections can proceed on schedule and the country can move forward under a legitimate charter.

Can anyone here come up with a valid and logical argument as to why the people shouldn't be offered a choice between the above two constitutions?

I bet not.

No logical 'argument' certainly, but a number of 'reasons', the main one being the General will not allow such a choice

[Srikcir]

Why would the government need to stay in power for a few more years, if the charter is not approved?

UK has never had a constitution. Israel, New Zealnd, Hong Kong do not have a formal constitution.* The US Constitution is the longest-lived federal constitution that has been virtually unchanged since 1785! The draft 2015 Thai constitution will be more complex and longer than most of the democratic constitutions in the world.

The Thai major political parties find a mixture of previous passed constitutions to be satisfactory for quick incorporation into a new draft constitution. But the military is adamant not to allow any political endorsements (not the same as "suggestions") in the draft process that could have substituted as a referendum process. The NCPO instead insists it is the sole authority for allowing any referendum and for the content of the constitution.

How can there ever be a "con" for a public referendum on a constitution?

If it's the threat of a continued military-led government, then the draft constitution is already defeated. And the Prayut-government no longer has any legitimacy for continued existence. As it stands, the military robbed the Thai the people of their soverneignty, holds itself as the final arbitrator of their future, and refuses to relinguish its armed force for any change it does not permit.

* Constitutions Around the World, Institute of Developing Economies: http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Download/Dp/pdf/164.pdf