Referendum would allow 'needed public debate on charter'

[Lite Beer]

Referendum would allow 'needed public debate on charter'
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- A REFERENDUM ON the new constitution is necessary because it would allow the public the chance to study and debate its provisions so they become familiarised with its content, Election Commission member Somchai Srisutthiyakorn says.

He said that by law, a charter referendum must take place 90 days after the plebiscite is announced.

He added that he was worried about the time frame allowed for the public to study the proposed charter, noting that some countries allowed their citizens up to a year to examine a constitution fully before voting on it.

It is crucial that the public get the chance to examine and fully debate the charter before heading to the ballot box, otherwise the referendum could merely be a political game played by certain interest groups in which people were gathered to vote in order to legitimise their agenda, he said.

"When one group of people draft a charter, they might think it could solve all future problems - some other groups of people, however, may believe the drafted charter will cause even more problems in the future," he said.

"Nevertheless, no one can predict the future, hence people should be given the opportunity to participate in the drafting process."

He said the referendum should be the last process in the drafting of the charter.

It would be a good opportunity for people to study a constitution that had been drafted by a small group of people.

Meanwhile, National Legislative Assembly president Pornpetch Wichitcholchai dismissed a suggestion that Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha should use his power derived from Article 44 of the provisional charter to order a referendum. Pornpetch said it could not be done that way.

He said a referendum could only take place after there was an amendment of Article 46 of the 2014 interim constitution to legitimise such a poll. He said only the military's ruling National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) and the Cabinet could propose such an amendment to the NLA.

However, they must have clear information in regards to when and how the referendum would be held.

"I feel sorry for the prime minister when he is asked about using Article 44 to authorise a referendum. He needs more rounded information before making a decision," Pornpetch said.

He said the so-called five rivers of power - the NCPO, Cabinet, the NLA, the National Reform Council, and the Constitution Drafting Committee - would deliberate on whether to hold a referendum when the final version of the charter draft was completed.

NLA vice president Surachai Liengboonlertchai said members of the assembly were scheduled to have a closed-door meeting in the middle of this month to discuss the proposals they would make to charter drafters on amendments to the document.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Referendum-would-allow-needed-public-debate-on-cha-30259194.html

-- The Nation 2015-05-02

[wowfactor10]

I agree with this article.

Again it went wrong from the start.

The new charter in my opinion will never work cause it been drafted by one side only.

All sides should have been involved in the process.

Problem is they cant work together cause sadly there is no trust.

[greenchair]

An equal share of members from all of the 74 parties should have been involved for discussion about a new charter. Then the people should be able to decide if they want to be governed by such a charter. This charter is far more important to the people of Thailand than the narrow mindedness of 2 parties.

[rayw]

Indeed the main two political parties involved will never willingly agree to it as it will quite correctly end the days of minority elected Governments and their wrongfully taking full control of power. Any Government in ANY democracy should always have a proportion of seats in Government that is as near as possible related to the percentage votes of the the electorate. One party should only ever be able to take full control power if they have more than 50% of the electorate voting for them, and even so a for example a 51% majority vote should only give a very marginal Government that would have to moderate its more extreme policies to garner some other party support to survive. This after all would be how the people voted and PR does indeed take all of that into account and ends up very close to total and fair proportional accurately if it is implemented correctly.

What is being proposed for the new constitution here in Thailand seems eminently and encouragingly fair and democratic and should and I believe will have the support of all democratically minded fair thinking Thai folk, in other words the vast majority. It is basically what in the west we know as proportional representation and is proven to be factually the most accurate form of democracy that is known, and is used in one form or another in a few countries these days, Germany for a good example.

The First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system as used in the UK, and many other places too including similarly in Thailand in the past, is truly far from democratic and usually results in landslide full total power Governments with often less than 40% of the electorate's support !! Thus clearly democracy is most definitely raped with say 60% saying no yet having to endure being ruled by and subjected to such a minority undemocratically elected Government. Democracy ? No of course that is clearly not.

Thatcher for example in the UK who ruled in the 80's with an very well documented aggressive uncaring iron fist, only ever got around 40% of the popular vote in her "victories" and yet unrightfully totally ruled over the 60% of folk who did not vote for her and understandably objected to her and her far right policies. Blair had one Government in 1997 that got a tiny fraction of over 50% of the electorate votes, first time this was the case as I can remember in my adult lifetime (though I stand to be corrected on that point !), But that tiny majority of votes should NEVER have earned him a landslide victory either of course. Subsequent Blair UK Governments were voted in again on more like Thatcher's mere 40% of the electorate's support and completely IMHO yet again just a rape of democracy. It is similar I believe in the USA where a system of FPTP exists too.

Yes I agree once the charter has been completed the proposals should democratically be put to the electorate with sufficient time for people to be taught in simple easy terms to be able to fully understand the proposals and give time for needed discussions. But please clearly we can never expect the Democrats or PTP parties and the likes to accept it, as it will be against their interests of ever again obtaining a minority backed power from a deeply flawed unfair FPTP system.

Remember a strong Government that does not represent the people is a bad and undemocratic Government, always much better is a maybe weaker Government that does truly overall democratically represent the peoples' wishes. Of the two evils surely a good weaker Government is ALWAYS preferable to a bad strong Government, well that is clearly true IMHO.

Oh and to answer an earlier comment this charter has NOT been drafted by one side and not the other. It has been drafted by NEITHER side and is IMHO an honest and well meaning approach to putting right Thailand's future and I hope successful democratic system. This charter if implemented will never again give absolute total Government control to any political party without a clear significant majority of the peoples' honestly obtained votes. So tell me what fair minded true democracy supporting person could actually object to that hmm ??.

Edited May 2, 2015 by rayw

[tbthailand]

red herring, ... no amount of discussing and no referendum will change the fact that Thailand will have an absolutely anti-democratic constitution shoved down it's throat. Period.

[rubl]

red herring, ... no amount of discussing and no referendum will change the fact that Thailand will have an absolutely anti-democratic constitution shoved down it's throat. Period.

Agree, a referendum is no discussion.

As I wrote many months ago if only the Thai population would have overwhelmed the CDC and NRC in volunteering to cooperate, offering input, etc., we might have had a much more 'democratic' draft charter.

Which reminds me, anyone out there with a preferably English translation of a near as possible 'final' draft of the new charter?

[GringoJoe]

Zugzwang!

Any move the Junta makes here is a losing move.

A referendum means the charter gets rejected by the people.

No referendum means the charter is illegitimate and thus it will be rejected by the people.

And, using the rejection of the charter as justification to start whole process all over again only leads to accusations that this was the plan all along.

Very, very soon.....checkmate.

[smutcakes]

red herring, ... no amount of discussing and no referendum will change the fact that Thailand will have an absolutely anti-democratic constitution shoved down it's throat. Period.

Agree, a referendum is no discussion.

As I wrote many months ago if only the Thai population would have overwhelmed the CDC and NRC in volunteering to cooperate, offering input, etc., we might have had a much more 'democratic' draft charter.

Which reminds me, anyone out there with a preferably English translation of a near as possible 'final' draft of the new charter?

There is a complete draft available, which was downloadable from the BP website since the 20th April. I think it was linked on here as wel

[JAG]

"Referendum would allow needed public debate on charter''

Now could that be why a referendum is somewhat unlikely?

[tbthailand]

current draft in English

[smutcakes]

current draft in English

Very interesting provision in Section 23 paragraph 2. Not sure if the part about the Princess is a new addition, or it was there under previous Constitutions?

I presume it may not be new given no one has mentioned it.

[djjamie]

Zugzwang!

Any move the Junta makes here is a losing move.

A referendum means the charter gets rejected by the people.

No referendum means the charter is illegitimate and thus it will be rejected by the people.

And, using the rejection of the charter as justification to start whole process all over again only leads to accusations that this was the plan all along.

Very, very soon.....checkmate.

Why a losing move my friend?

Why do you predict the referendum will be rejected?…The previous referendum was not rejected and in fact passed by the majority of Thai's, but predictably the voice of that majority were ignored because the majority did not suit the Shin agenda.

No referendum is agreed nor a conducive outcome for the opposing political parties and that has been echoed by the the RIght Honorable Abhisit and the terrorist leader Jatuporn.

I remember the words "checkmate" being used in 2010 when the Abhisit govt agreed to early elections..Checkmate never happened and politics went on.

"The end is neigh" is used by cults my friend and with the UDD being your cult of choice I must resign myself to the fact that to you "the end is always neigh". Why? It keeps the brainwashed on their tows and creates fear. Cults feed of fear.

Edited May 3, 2015 by djjamie

[rubl]

current draft in English

Thanks very much for that. First time I've seen anything near.

For those who don't want to look at the document it's identification is as below. That suggests a reasonable draft which we can use for better based discussions. Note the translation may not be 'legally' fine tuned, but I doubt that really matters much in our discussions.

N.B. As of April 17, 2015.

©2015 Pakorn Nilprapunt, Chintapun Dungsubutra, Vareerat Ratanaviboonsom and Natthanicha Aneksomboonphol, Office of the Council of State of Thailand <personal copyright>

Remark: This translation has been made within timely limit so as to portray the draft Constitution to foreigners. Any reference shall be made to Thai version.

Edited May 3, 2015 by rubl

[rubl]

current draft in English

Very interesting provision in Section 23 paragraph 2. Not sure if the part about the Princess is a new addition, or it was there under previous Constitutions?

I presume it may not be new given no one has mentioned it.

It would seem the 'patrilineal or agnatic succession' is being dropped. Mind you, already for a few weeks a new colour shirt could be noticed here in Bangkok.

[smutcakes]

current draft in English

Very interesting provision in Section 23 paragraph 2. Not sure if the part about the Princess is a new addition, or it was there under previous Constitutions?

I presume it may not be new given no one has mentioned it.

It would seem the 'patrilineal or agnatic succession' is being dropped. Mind you, already for a few weeks a new colour shirt could be noticed here in Bangkok.

Yes, previously it was always said that there was absolutely no Constitutional way that the Princess could succeed the King, but that has quite clearly been changed in this new draft.

And yes purple does seem very in vogue these days.

[GringoJoe]

Zugzwang!

Any move the Junta makes here is a losing move.

A referendum means the charter gets rejected by the people.

No referendum means the charter is illegitimate and thus it will be rejected by the people.

And, using the rejection of the charter as justification to start whole process all over again only leads to accusations that this was the plan all along.

Very, very soon.....checkmate.

Why a losing move my friend?

Why do you predict the referendum will be rejected?…The previous referendum was not rejected and in fact passed by the majority of Thai's, but predictably the voice of that majority were ignored because the majority did not suit the Shin agenda.

No referendum is agreed nor a conducive outcome for the opposing political parties and that has been echoed by the the RIght Honorable Abhisit and the terrorist leader Jatuporn.

I remember the words "checkmate" being used in 2010 when the Abhisit govt agreed to early elections..Checkmate never happened and politics went on.

"The end is neigh" is used by cults my friend and with the UDD being your cult of choice I must resign myself to the fact that to you "the end is always neigh". Why? It keeps the brainwashed on their tows and creates fear. Cults feed of fear.

The end is nigh, horses neigh.

[smutcakes]

Zugzwang!

Any move the Junta makes here is a losing move.

A referendum means the charter gets rejected by the people.

No referendum means the charter is illegitimate and thus it will be rejected by the people.

And, using the rejection of the charter as justification to start whole process all over again only leads to accusations that this was the plan all along.

Very, very soon.....checkmate.

Why a losing move my friend?

Why do you predict the referendum will be rejected?…The previous referendum was not rejected and in fact passed by the majority of Thai's, but predictably the voice of that majority were ignored because the majority did not suit the Shin agenda.

No referendum is agreed nor a conducive outcome for the opposing political parties and that has been echoed by the the RIght Honorable Abhisit and the terrorist leader Jatuporn.

I remember the words "checkmate" being used in 2010 when the Abhisit govt agreed to early elections..Checkmate never happened and politics went on.

"The end is neigh" is used by cults my friend and with the UDD being your cult of choice I must resign myself to the fact that to you "the end is always neigh". Why? It keeps the brainwashed on their tows and creates fear. Cults feed of fear.

The end is nigh, horses neigh.

And the brainwashed will be kept on their toes, tug boats tow.

[rubl]

current draft in English

Very interesting provision in Section 23 paragraph 2. Not sure if the part about the Princess is a new addition, or it was there under previous Constitutions?

I presume it may not be new given no one has mentioned it.

It would seem the 'patrilineal or agnatic succession' is being dropped. Mind you, already for a few weeks a new colour shirt could be noticed here in Bangkok.

Yes, previously it was always said that there was absolutely no Constitutional way that the Princess could succeed the King, but that has quite clearly been changed in this new draft.

And yes purple does seem very in vogue these days.

At least in this aspect the draft constitution seems to be more 'democratic', but I guess we should not (or cannot) discuss some of the reasoning behind it.

[rubl]

And yes purple does seem very in vogue these days.

A major improvement. I always felt a wee bit funny wearing pink

[tbthailand]

current draft in English

Very interesting provision in Section 23 paragraph 2. Not sure if the part about the Princess is a new addition, or it was there under previous Constitutions?

I presume it may not be new given no one has mentioned it.

my understanding is that it is not new, but of course paragraph 1 is already fulfilled, so under the current conditions, paragraph 2 is a mute point

[GringoJoe]

Zugzwang!

Any move the Junta makes here is a losing move.

A referendum means the charter gets rejected by the people.

No referendum means the charter is illegitimate and thus it will be rejected by the people.

And, using the rejection of the charter as justification to start whole process all over again only leads to accusations that this was the plan all along.

Very, very soon.....checkmate.

Why a losing move my friend?

Why do you predict the referendum will be rejected?…The previous referendum was not rejected and in fact passed by the majority of Thai's, but predictably the voice of that majority were ignored because the majority did not suit the Shin agenda.

No referendum is agreed nor a conducive outcome for the opposing political parties and that has been echoed by the the RIght Honorable Abhisit and the terrorist leader Jatuporn.

I remember the words "checkmate" being used in 2010 when the Abhisit govt agreed to early elections..Checkmate never happened and politics went on.

"The end is neigh" is used by cults my friend and with the UDD being your cult of choice I must resign myself to the fact that to you "the end is always neigh". Why? It keeps the brainwashed on their tows and creates fear. Cults feed of fear.

No referendum is agreed nor a conducive outcome for the opposing political parties and that has been echoed by the the RIght Honorable Abhisit and the terrorist leader Jatuporn.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense.

What are you trying to say?

My guess is that you are referring to the recent articles where both Democrat and PTP politicians agreed that the current charter is so bad that the country would be better off for the military to remain in power long enough to achieve their main "unmentionable" goal so that the nation can then have an acceptable democratic charter. If so, you're kind of arguing against yourself here my gifted friend.

(BTW - the 2007 referendum was gerrymandered, but nonetheless, that charter was enacted and the PTP played and won by its rules only to then be twice illegally tossed out of office by the other side who completely ignored their new charters rules. Worse, the anti democrats then went on to throw their own compromised, biased charter in the bin and slap the current military abomination of an interim charter down on the nation to buy themselves time to author an even worse charter which, having exhausted the gerrymandered referendum option they expect the nation to idly sit back and accept on good faith- how many steps backwards must these clowns take before your blinkers come off?)

[djjamie]

Zugzwang!

Any move the Junta makes here is a losing move.

A referendum means the charter gets rejected by the people.

No referendum means the charter is illegitimate and thus it will be rejected by the people.

And, using the rejection of the charter as justification to start whole process all over again only leads to accusations that this was the plan all along.

Very, very soon.....checkmate.

Why a losing move my friend?

Why do you predict the referendum will be rejected?…The previous referendum was not rejected and in fact passed by the majority of Thai's, but predictably the voice of that majority were ignored because the majority did not suit the Shin agenda.

No referendum is agreed nor a conducive outcome for the opposing political parties and that has been echoed by the the RIght Honorable Abhisit and the terrorist leader Jatuporn.

I remember the words "checkmate" being used in 2010 when the Abhisit govt agreed to early elections..Checkmate never happened and politics went on.

"The end is neigh" is used by cults my friend and with the UDD being your cult of choice I must resign myself to the fact that to you "the end is always neigh". Why? It keeps the brainwashed on their tows and creates fear. Cults feed of fear.

No referendum is agreed nor a conducive outcome for the opposing political parties and that has been echoed by the the RIght Honorable Abhisit and the terrorist leader Jatuporn.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense.

What are you trying to say?

My guess is that you are referring to the recent articles where both Democrat and PTP politicians agreed that the current charter is so bad that the country would be better off for the military to remain in power long enough to achieve their main "unmentionable" goal so that the nation can then have an acceptable democratic charter. If so, you're kind of arguing against yourself here my gifted friend.

(BTW - the 2007 referendum was gerrymandered, but nonetheless, that charter was enacted and the PTP played and won by its rules only to then be twice illegally tossed out of office by the other side who completely ignored their new charters rules. Worse, the anti democrats then went on to throw their own compromised, biased charter in the bin and slap the current military abomination of an interim charter down on the nation to buy themselves time to author an even worse charter which, having exhausted the gerrymandered referendum option they expect the nation to idly sit back and accept on good faith- how many steps backwards must these clowns take before your blinkers come off?)

To reiterate;

Why do you predict the referendum will be rejected? I then went on to say "The previous referendum was not rejected and in fact passed by the majority of Thai's, but predictably the voice of that majority were ignored because the majority did not suit the Shin agenda." That is a fact my friend. It was voted in by the majority. FACT, not beliefs or "gut feelings" That referendum was predicted to be rejected by the shin supporters just as you predict this one would be if it went to referendum.

No referendum is agreed nor a conducive outcome for the opposing political parties and that has been echoed by the the RIght Honorable Abhisit and the terrorist leader Jatuporn. So to extrapolate the opposing political parties may well disagree, but does it mean it will be rejected by the majority? Of course not. the Junta through facts (not gut feelings) have shown they are popular. Why wouldn't they be they brought peace and stability to Thailand while stopping terrorism without a single bullet fired. It is a no brainer they people support them. Human Rights Watch which is funded and supported by the UDD and Shins have even admitted it.

The end is neigh. The world is coming to an end. The sky is falling. This is the narrative the UDD want us to believe. Fear and chaos is what they thrive on. Death and despair keep them relevant.

The future is bright my friend and the bitter and twisted views need to be left in the bloody shadows of the past.

Edited May 3, 2015 by djjamie

[baboon]

Zugzwang!

Any move the Junta makes here is a losing move.

A referendum means the charter gets rejected by the people.

No referendum means the charter is illegitimate and thus it will be rejected by the people.

And, using the rejection of the charter as justification to start whole process all over again only leads to accusations that this was the plan all along.

Very, very soon.....checkmate.

Why a losing move my friend?

Why do you predict the referendum will be rejected?The previous referendum was not rejected and in fact passed by the majority of Thai's, but predictably the voice of that majority were ignored because the majority did not suit the Shin agenda.

No referendum is agreed nor a conducive outcome for the opposing political parties and that has been echoed by the the RIght Honorable Abhisit and the terrorist leader Jatuporn.

I remember the words "checkmate" being used in 2010 when the Abhisit govt agreed to early elections..Checkmate never happened and politics went on.

"The end is neigh" is used by cults my friend and with the UDD being your cult of choice I must resign myself to the fact that to you "the end is always neigh". Why? It keeps the brainwashed on their tows and creates fear. Cults feed of fear.

No referendum is agreed nor a conducive outcome for the opposing political parties and that has been echoed by the the RIght Honorable Abhisit and the terrorist leader Jatuporn.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense.

What are you trying to say?

He isn't saying anything. His posts are in the main unattributed copy and pastes. How he is allowed to get away with it I don't know, but such is life..

[phoenixdoglover]

Well, I'm up to Section 77 of the draft Charter.

I need to take a break.

The sections on "rights" are particularly troublesome. Most of the basic rights are undermined by rote exceptions that are highly subjective. The word "moral" appears way too often.

There are also a bunch of other rights, relating to health care, education, employment, the environment, etc. These are all undermined as well, by qualifiers, which in effect say "You have this right, as more or less provided under the law."

Overall, I get the impression of a Charter wildly fluctuating between generalization and micro-management. It needs a good editor.

Read it if you dare.