Public referendum for Thai charter draft to be held

[Fat Haggis]

So there was no relatives and family appointed by members of the NLA/NCPO into personal assistant type roles, which caused an uproar and the PM had to step in?

Bose microphone deal?

The PM didn't handpick his team, instead they were all chosen for their expertise in areas like tourism, finance, agriculture?

They have given themselves an amnesty for the crime of overthrowing the previous government, despite it actually being against the Thai Law, and they will have the same thing that's been written into the new constitution. ( many here cite the amnesty bill as the catalyst for the downfall of the Yingluck administration)

You are another one who doesn't want to think that this Junta will not repeat the same offences of graft and power abuse, despite it having occurred in pretty much every single previous administration... oh wait, you believe this one is different?

How can you be so sure it's any different to any previous Government, in that they're whiter than white.

Have you ever heard of the expression,when something is too good to be true, it normally isn't?

You make wee comments about people laying off the yoghurt, but don't seem to be able to refrain from guzzling it down yourself at times

In the BP the other day, documents, including bank statements were found in the South implicating a very senior Army officer in the trafficking cases, of course, this has been denied by the Junta, after all, it could NEVER happen, the Armed Forces are above such things... oh wait, yeah apart from the expose done a few years back about the Royal Thai Navy.

I'm sure you like another member will downplay the Bose microphone malarky as a one off, it still happened, and what would have happened if a diligent member of the public start asking questions?

Every act of corruption begins with small instance, and it's my belief and opinion that for every act of corruption caught, there's a dozen more that have not.

I cannot believe you are so naive to believe that corruption and graft would just NEVER happen with this Junta.

[Anthony5]

Interesting. A while ago the junta was 'universally' condemned (on TVF that is) to refuse arranging a referendum. Now it's about the procedure, the draft constitution was already torn to pieces. What's next?

Could it be because they attach conditions to the referendum that never can be met?

When was the last time that an election in Thailand had a 80% turn out?

Let me answer the question for you. It has never happened in the history of Thailand.

http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=TH

Edited May 20, 2015 by Anthony5

[rubl]

Interesting. A while ago the junta was 'universally' condemned (on TVF that is) to refuse arranging a referendum. Now it's about the procedure, the draft constitution was already torn to pieces. What's next?

Could it be because they attach conditions to the referendum that never can be met?

When was the last time that an election in Thailand had a 80% turn out?

Let me answer the question for you. It has never happened in the history of Thailand.

http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=TH

... but I'm told all Thai want a say on the charter to be proposed! ALL THAI!

When it's that important, and again people here keep telling me, it should be no problem at all.

BTW in 1950 the UK had a 83% turnout in the general elections, Thailand came close with 78.51% in 2007. For more countries and years check here:

http://www.idea.int/vt/

[Fat Haggis]

“The will of the nation" is one of those expressions which have been most profusely abused by the wily and the despotic of every age.”

“Now I know of only two methods of establishing equality in the political world; every citizen must be put in possession of his rights, or rights must be granted to no one.”

“It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle.”

I love this guys quotes, as a lot of them can be related to politics in Thailand.

There will never be reconciliation in the true sense, unless the Thai elctorate are all treated as equals, and the PM hasn't exactly been bringing the country together has he?

What needs to happen is a massive change in how the poor and less educated are perceived by the Rich and Highly educated, and vice versa, realistically, does anyone see this happening?

[Anthony5]

Interesting. A while ago the junta was 'universally' condemned (on TVF that is) to refuse arranging a referendum. Now it's about the procedure, the draft constitution was already torn to pieces. What's next?

Could it be because they attach conditions to the referendum that never can be met?

When was the last time that an election in Thailand had a 80% turn out?

Let me answer the question for you. It has never happened in the history of Thailand.

http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=TH

... but I'm told all Thai want a say on the charter to be proposed! ALL THAI!

When it's that important, and again people here keep telling me, it should be no problem at all.

BTW in 1950 the UK had a 83% turnout in the general elections, Thailand came close with 78.51% in 2007. For more countries and years check here:

http://www.idea.int/vt/

Sorry my friend, but we're not in the UK, so the voter turn out there 65 years ago isn't really relevant.

And of course all Thais want a say in the referendum, same as they want a say in the general elections, but history has shown that the requirement set by the desperate PM has never been realised in the history of this country.

Do you think Prayuth wasn't aware of that when he set that ridiculous requirement?

I'll give you the answer yet again. Yes he was aware, he only wants to avoid that the charter has a chance to get rejected.

And why he wants to avoid that?

Because 90.79% doesn't want a non mp as PM, and he refuses to scrap that clause, as it would mean the end of his superman tenure.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/826199-thailand-live-tuesday-19-may-2015/?p=9421429

Edited May 20, 2015 by Anthony5

[rubl]

Interesting. A while ago the junta was 'universally' condemned (on TVF that is) to refuse arranging a referendum. Now it's about the procedure, the draft constitution was already torn to pieces. What's next?

Could it be because they attach conditions to the referendum that never can be met?

When was the last time that an election in Thailand had a 80% turn out?

Let me answer the question for you. It has never happened in the history of Thailand.

http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=TH

... but I'm told all Thai want a say on the charter to be proposed! ALL THAI!

When it's that important, and again people here keep telling me, it should be no problem at all.

BTW in 1950 the UK had a 83% turnout in the general elections, Thailand came close with 78.51% in 2007. For more countries and years check here:

http://www.idea.int/vt/

Sorry my friend, but we're not in the UK, so the voter turn out there 65 years ago isn't really relevant.

And of course all Thais want a say in the referendum, same as they want a say in the general elections, but history has shown that the requirement set by the desperate PM has never been realised in the history of this country.

Do you think Prayuth wasn't aware of that when he set that ridiculous requirement?

I'll give you the answer yet again. Yes he was aware, he only wants to avoid that the charter has a chance to get rejected.

And why he wants to avoid that?

Because 90.79% doesn't want a non mp as PM, and he refuses to scrap that clause, as it would mean the end of his superman tenure.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/826199-thailand-live-tuesday-19-may-2015/?p=9421429

So you don't think Thai can be bothered to turn up? Not important enough. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Make me wonder who would read the printed version of the constitution proposed anyway. Who, but lots of people here of course.

[Anthony5]

Could it be because they attach conditions to the referendum that never can be met?

When was the last time that an election in Thailand had a 80% turn out?

Let me answer the question for you. It has never happened in the history of Thailand.

http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=TH

... but I'm told all Thai want a say on the charter to be proposed! ALL THAI!

When it's that important, and again people here keep telling me, it should be no problem at all.

BTW in 1950 the UK had a 83% turnout in the general elections, Thailand came close with 78.51% in 2007. For more countries and years check here:

http://www.idea.int/vt/

Sorry my friend, but we're not in the UK, so the voter turn out there 65 years ago isn't really relevant.

And of course all Thais want a say in the referendum, same as they want a say in the general elections, but history has shown that the requirement set by the desperate PM has never been realised in the history of this country.

Do you think Prayuth wasn't aware of that when he set that ridiculous requirement?

I'll give you the answer yet again. Yes he was aware, he only wants to avoid that the charter has a chance to get rejected.

And why he wants to avoid that?

Because 90.79% doesn't want a non mp as PM, and he refuses to scrap that clause, as it would mean the end of his superman tenure.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/826199-thailand-live-tuesday-19-may-2015/?p=9421429

So you don't think Thai can be bothered to turn up? Not important enough. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Make me wonder who would read the printed version of the constitution proposed anyway. Who, but lots of people here of course.

Looks as if we have a new Prayuth fanboy on the forum.

Now instead of continue trolling, you know that the opinion of the tv members doesn't come in play for the referendum, just answer one question.

Do you think it is realistic to require a 80% minimum voter turn out to make an election valid, in a country that never in history has reached that quota?

[smedly]

In all honesty I'm uncertain about the current government, their intentions will only be revealed going forward, if they keep to their word, nobody here can answer that 100%

But on the other hand I am 100% certain the intentions of Thaksin his cronies and paid up terrorists, they have a lot to lose as there is big money involved

Either way I would rather settle for the current government continuing what they are doing unless radical reforms are put in place and the political landscape in Thailand changes for the good of the people and not for a few pockets - History doesn't lie

and Haggis - that was a pretty lame attempt to justify your comments - I trust you could list all the stuff PTP and Thaksin has done ? now that would be a very long post indeed

[smedly]

In some countries a referendum is mandatory - lets wait and see the details closer to the time

[Anthony5]

In all honesty I'm uncertain about the current government, their intentions will only be revealed going forward, if they keep to their word, nobody here can answer that 100%

But on the other hand I am 100% certain the intentions of Thaksin his cronies and paid up terrorists, they have a lot to lose as there is big money involved

Either way I would rather settle for the current government continuing what they are doing unless radical reforms are put in place and the political landscape in Thailand changes for the good of the people and not for a few pockets - History doesn't lie

and Haggis - that was a pretty lame attempt to justify your comments - I trust you could list all the stuff PTP and Thaksin has done ? now that would be a very long post indeed

History doesn't lie

You're right about that. History tells me that there have been as many coups, and even much more coup attempts, as there have been legally elected governments in the past 100 years.

I'm not sure if Thaksin was already involved in the 1946 elections though.

[rubl]

So you don't think Thai can be bothered to turn up? Not important enough. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Make me wonder who would read the printed version of the constitution proposed anyway. Who, but lots of people here of course.

Looks as if we have a new Prayuth fanboy on the forum.

Now instead of continue trolling, you know that the opinion of the tv members doesn't come in play for the referendum, just answer one question.

Do you think it is realistic to require a 80% minimum voter turn out to make an election valid, in a country that never in history has reached that quota?

Snide remarks aside, the 80% threshold is set for the referendum on the new charter only, not on elections.

Over the last months we've had people 'demand' a referendum, telling us that that was what THE THAI PEOPLE demanded. Now you want to tell me I can't seriously expect the Thai people to come and vote in the referendum?

BTW would you be more happy with a minimum voter turnout requirement of 75% or 66.66% ? Do you think there should be no minimum requirement on something as important as a referendum on the future of Thailand?

Edited May 20, 2015 by rubl

[Anthony5]

So you don't think Thai can be bothered to turn up? Not important enough. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Make me wonder who would read the printed version of the constitution proposed anyway. Who, but lots of people here of course.

Looks as if we have a new Prayuth fanboy on the forum.

Now instead of continue trolling, you know that the opinion of the tv members doesn't come in play for the referendum, just answer one question.

Do you think it is realistic to require a 80% minimum voter turn out to make an election valid, in a country that never in history has reached that quota?

Snide remarks aside, the 80% threshold is set for the referendum on the new charter only, not on elections.

Over the last months we've had people 'demand' a referendum, telling us that that was what THE THAI PEOPLE demanded. Now you want to tell me I can't seriously expect the Thai people to come and vote in the referendum?

BTW would you be more happy with a minimum voter turnout requirement of 75% or 66.66% ? Do you think there should be no minimum requirement on something as important as a referendum on the future of Thailand?

Why don't you answer the question? What I or somebody else thinks is of no importance.

The very simple question was

Do you think it is realistic to require a 80% minimum voter turn out to make an election valid, in a country that never in history has reached that quota?

[heybruce]

Ordinarily I support the idea of a referendum but I don't believe it will work in this case, this new charter is radical in the sense that it is designed to stamp out corruption and power abuse, it will also hold MP's and government highly responsible for their actions and ultimately transparent to the public, powerful systems and independent institutions will be put in place to maintain checks and balances all of which I agree 100%, influential people will not want it as it will put an end to their pocket lining aspirations which were so easy in the past.

The problem is that there will be many losers mostly those that have been creaming and thieving from the Thai public for years so there will be huge opposition to it ever passing a referendum, but for those that will oppose it the alternative is also just as bad as the current administration will be in office for another extended period which means many of them could become the focus of further investigation prosecution and conviction for their past wrong doings as we can clearly see going on currently.

Designed to stamp out corruption and power abuse? No, it moves power from elected officials to unelected officials who are not accountable to the voters.

Ultimately transparent to the public? Help me out, how is this charter transparent? Where does it mandate that government meetings minutes and attendees be made public, government spending be done through open competitive bidding on contracts, and the government be periodically audited and results published?

Many people think accountability is all that is needed to stamp out corruption. They're wrong. Accountability is necessary, but far from sufficient. If you leave a stack of cash unguarded and easily accessible someone is going to steal it no matter how stiff the penalties against theft. Similarly if government deals are negotiated and spending commitments made behind closed doors, people will cut deals that benefit themselves, not the country.

The military exhibits this more than any other component of government. Military contracts are negotiated behind closed doors and generals get rich. The fact that there is no accountability, since no government dares investigate or audit this coup prone military, makes the problem worse. Under the junta this is being extended to all of the government. In all the stories about big government spending plans, has the phrase "awarded through open, competitive bidding" been mentioned? Yet some people expect this self-serving military to lead the way in eliminating corruption. Fat chance.

you are welcome to your opinion but I disagree , no democratic government in the world is given a mandate to do as they please, they all have to work within a framework of law and rules, up to now Thailands elected governments have been able to pretty much do as they please or try too which is exactly why the people rise up and take to the streets or the military has to step in, that is exactly were previous constitutions have failed by allowing such abuse

Not saying the charter is or isn't transparent but future Governments will be/need to be, they will no longer be able to lie to the people as was seen many times during PTP time in office

The most recent revelations of corruption in government and public office is shocking to say the least and it must be stopped one way or the other

As for the military - for now a necessary evil until the political system no longer requires intervention which is why it is so important this charter is right and puts an end to this endless cycle of abuse most recently by Thaksin

No democratic government has a mandate to do as it pleases, so you prefer a military government with no mandate and unchecked power. The logic of that eludes me.

How will future governments provide transparency against the will of a military that doesn't want it? How is weakening democratic institutions to the point of irrelevance and transferring power to unelected bureaucrats and appointed "good people" going to prevent corruption? What makes you think that future governments won't be able to lie to the people? What part of the charter, written at the direction of a man who said there would be no coup, prevent lies?

As I posted earlier, laws with harsh penalties don't prevent corruption. Laws that mandate transparency prevent corruption. If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?

[rubl]

So you don't think Thai can be bothered to turn up? Not important enough. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Make me wonder who would read the printed version of the constitution proposed anyway. Who, but lots of people here of course.

Looks as if we have a new Prayuth fanboy on the forum.

Now instead of continue trolling, you know that the opinion of the tv members doesn't come in play for the referendum, just answer one question.

Do you think it is realistic to require a 80% minimum voter turn out to make an election valid, in a country that never in history has reached that quota?

Snide remarks aside, the 80% threshold is set for the referendum on the new charter only, not on elections.

Over the last months we've had people 'demand' a referendum, telling us that that was what THE THAI PEOPLE demanded. Now you want to tell me I can't seriously expect the Thai people to come and vote in the referendum?

BTW would you be more happy with a minimum voter turnout requirement of 75% or 66.66% ? Do you think there should be no minimum requirement on something as important as a referendum on the future of Thailand?

Why don't you answer the question? What I or somebody else thinks is of no importance.

The very simple question was

Do you think it is realistic to require a 80% minimum voter turn out to make an election valid, in a country that never in history has reached that quota?

The topic is the referendum. It has been stated

"The referendum could be held in January of next year. A minimum turnout of 80 per cent will be needed to legitimatise the result."

Requiring a 80% voter turnout on a very important referendum doesn't seem too absurd or even unrealistic as 'all' Thai wanted a referendum.

Your question regarding applying the same minimum turnout required on elections seems not relevant to the topic, so why should I answer it, or even why should you get annoyed that I don't answer it?

[Anthony5]

Looks as if we have a new Prayuth fanboy on the forum.

Now instead of continue trolling, you know that the opinion of the tv members doesn't come in play for the referendum, just answer one question.

Do you think it is realistic to require a 80% minimum voter turn out to make an election valid, in a country that never in history has reached that quota?

Snide remarks aside, the 80% threshold is set for the referendum on the new charter only, not on elections.

Over the last months we've had people 'demand' a referendum, telling us that that was what THE THAI PEOPLE demanded. Now you want to tell me I can't seriously expect the Thai people to come and vote in the referendum?

BTW would you be more happy with a minimum voter turnout requirement of 75% or 66.66% ? Do you think there should be no minimum requirement on something as important as a referendum on the future of Thailand?

Why don't you answer the question? What I or somebody else thinks is of no importance.

The very simple question was

Do you think it is realistic to require a 80% minimum voter turn out to make an election valid, in a country that never in history has reached that quota?

The topic is the referendum. It has been stated

"The referendum could be held in January of next year. A minimum turnout of 80 per cent will be needed to legitimatise the result."

Requiring a 80% voter turnout on a very important referendum doesn't seem too absurd or even unrealistic as 'all' Thai wanted a referendum.

Your question regarding applying the same minimum turnout required on elections seems not relevant to the topic, so why should I answer it, or even why should you get annoyed that I don't answer it?

I never asked about applying the 80% to a general election. A referendum is also an election.

Since you are clearly switching words to avoid giving an answer, don't bother anymore, as I will not see your posts anymore.

Have a nice day.

[rubl]

Ordinarily I support the idea of a referendum but I don't believe it will work in this case, this new charter is radical in the sense that it is designed to stamp out corruption and power abuse, it will also hold MP's and government highly responsible for their actions and ultimately transparent to the public, powerful systems and independent institutions will be put in place to maintain checks and balances all of which I agree 100%, influential people will not want it as it will put an end to their pocket lining aspirations which were so easy in the past.

The problem is that there will be many losers mostly those that have been creaming and thieving from the Thai public for years so there will be huge opposition to it ever passing a referendum, but for those that will oppose it the alternative is also just as bad as the current administration will be in office for another extended period which means many of them could become the focus of further investigation prosecution and conviction for their past wrong doings as we can clearly see going on currently.

Designed to stamp out corruption and power abuse? No, it moves power from elected officials to unelected officials who are not accountable to the voters.

Ultimately transparent to the public? Help me out, how is this charter transparent? Where does it mandate that government meetings minutes and attendees be made public, government spending be done through open competitive bidding on contracts, and the government be periodically audited and results published?

Many people think accountability is all that is needed to stamp out corruption. They're wrong. Accountability is necessary, but far from sufficient. If you leave a stack of cash unguarded and easily accessible someone is going to steal it no matter how stiff the penalties against theft. Similarly if government deals are negotiated and spending commitments made behind closed doors, people will cut deals that benefit themselves, not the country.

The military exhibits this more than any other component of government. Military contracts are negotiated behind closed doors and generals get rich. The fact that there is no accountability, since no government dares investigate or audit this coup prone military, makes the problem worse. Under the junta this is being extended to all of the government. In all the stories about big government spending plans, has the phrase "awarded through open, competitive bidding" been mentioned? Yet some people expect this self-serving military to lead the way in eliminating corruption. Fat chance.

you are welcome to your opinion but I disagree , no democratic government in the world is given a mandate to do as they please, they all have to work within a framework of law and rules, up to now Thailands elected governments have been able to pretty much do as they please or try too which is exactly why the people rise up and take to the streets or the military has to step in, that is exactly were previous constitutions have failed by allowing such abuse

Not saying the charter is or isn't transparent but future Governments will be/need to be, they will no longer be able to lie to the people as was seen many times during PTP time in office

The most recent revelations of corruption in government and public office is shocking to say the least and it must be stopped one way or the other

As for the military - for now a necessary evil until the political system no longer requires intervention which is why it is so important this charter is right and puts an end to this endless cycle of abuse most recently by Thaksin

No democratic government has a mandate to do as it pleases, so you prefer a military government with no mandate and unchecked power. The logic of that eludes me.

How will future governments provide transparency against the will of a military that doesn't want it? How is weakening democratic institutions to the point of irrelevance and transferring power to unelected bureaucrats and appointed "good people" going to prevent corruption? What makes you think that future governments won't be able to lie to the people? What part of the charter, written at the direction of a man who said there would be no coup, prevent lies?

As I posted earlier, laws with harsh penalties don't prevent corruption. Laws that mandate transparency prevent corruption. If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?

"then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written", "these transparency requirements" ?

Pray tell what rules on transparency and how specific would you like to have them in a charter and how much should be covered in detail in organic laws ? How much of how the government works on a daily base should be in the charter? Almost nothing I think, that's for the organic law on government operation.

Would an article "The government will ensure transparency in all it's proceeding" help make a country governable? Maybe another independent watchdog organisation required?

Edited May 21, 2015 by rubl

[rubl]

Why don't you answer the question? What I or somebody else thinks is of no importance.

The very simple question was

Do you think it is realistic to require a 80% minimum voter turn out to make an election valid, in a country that never in history has reached that quota?

The topic is the referendum. It has been stated

"The referendum could be held in January of next year. A minimum turnout of 80 per cent will be needed to legitimatise the result."

Requiring a 80% voter turnout on a very important referendum doesn't seem too absurd or even unrealistic as 'all' Thai wanted a referendum.

Your question regarding applying the same minimum turnout required on elections seems not relevant to the topic, so why should I answer it, or even why should you get annoyed that I don't answer it?

I never asked about applying the 80% to a general election. A referendum is also an election.

Since you are clearly switching words to avoid giving an answer, don't bother anymore, as I will not see your posts anymore.

Have a nice day.

For those who are interesting in knowing the difference between elections and referenda:

"Election and Referendum are two terms that are often taken in one and the same sense. Strictly speaking there is difference between the two terms. Election is a formal decision making process by which members of the population choose an individual to hold public office.

A referendum on the other hand is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal. Thus there is a difference in the definitions of the two terms, namely election and referendum."

http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-election-and-vs-referendum/

"Election and referendum are different parts of governance. A referendum can be called a plebiscite or ballot question in which the electorate is given the choice of accepting or rejecting a certain proposal. Amendments to the Constitution, adopting a new Constitution, recalling elected persons, and more like this are examples of a referendum. Referendums can be called direct democracy where the society has a direct role in the particular proposals."

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/difference-between-election-and-referendum/

[heybruce]

Designed to stamp out corruption and power abuse? No, it moves power from elected officials to unelected officials who are not accountable to the voters.

Ultimately transparent to the public? Help me out, how is this charter transparent? Where does it mandate that government meetings minutes and attendees be made public, government spending be done through open competitive bidding on contracts, and the government be periodically audited and results published?

Many people think accountability is all that is needed to stamp out corruption. They're wrong. Accountability is necessary, but far from sufficient. If you leave a stack of cash unguarded and easily accessible someone is going to steal it no matter how stiff the penalties against theft. Similarly if government deals are negotiated and spending commitments made behind closed doors, people will cut deals that benefit themselves, not the country.

The military exhibits this more than any other component of government. Military contracts are negotiated behind closed doors and generals get rich. The fact that there is no accountability, since no government dares investigate or audit this coup prone military, makes the problem worse. Under the junta this is being extended to all of the government. In all the stories about big government spending plans, has the phrase "awarded through open, competitive bidding" been mentioned? Yet some people expect this self-serving military to lead the way in eliminating corruption. Fat chance.

you are welcome to your opinion but I disagree , no democratic government in the world is given a mandate to do as they please, they all have to work within a framework of law and rules, up to now Thailands elected governments have been able to pretty much do as they please or try too which is exactly why the people rise up and take to the streets or the military has to step in, that is exactly were previous constitutions have failed by allowing such abuse

Not saying the charter is or isn't transparent but future Governments will be/need to be, they will no longer be able to lie to the people as was seen many times during PTP time in office

The most recent revelations of corruption in government and public office is shocking to say the least and it must be stopped one way or the other

As for the military - for now a necessary evil until the political system no longer requires intervention which is why it is so important this charter is right and puts an end to this endless cycle of abuse most recently by Thaksin

No democratic government has a mandate to do as it pleases, so you prefer a military government with no mandate and unchecked power. The logic of that eludes me.

How will future governments provide transparency against the will of a military that doesn't want it? How is weakening democratic institutions to the point of irrelevance and transferring power to unelected bureaucrats and appointed "good people" going to prevent corruption? What makes you think that future governments won't be able to lie to the people? What part of the charter, written at the direction of a man who said there would be no coup, prevent lies?

As I posted earlier, laws with harsh penalties don't prevent corruption. Laws that mandate transparency prevent corruption. If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?

"then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written", "these transparency requirements" ?

Pray tell what rules on transparency and how specific would you like to have them in a charter and how much should be covered in detail in organic laws ? How much of how the government works on a daily base should be in the charter? Almost nothing I think, that's for the organic law on government operation.

Would an article "The government will ensure transparency in all it's proceeding" help make a country governable? Maybe another independent watchdog organisation required?

The draft charter already has over three hundred provisions, and a CDC member that believes the constitution should be as comprehensive as possible http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/824648-cdc-satisfied-with-charter-suggestions-to-propose-referendum-on-election-timeframe/?hl=%2Bcharter, so why not mandate transparency in the constitution?

Of course if the junta wanted transparency it could have mandated it under martial law or mandate it now under Article 44. But, as stated, the junta doesn't want transparency. The generals certainly don't want people looking into the military's accounts and operations.

Transparency allows corruption to be identified and dealt with, so yes, I think mandating it will make the country more governable. Do you disagree?

[candide]

"About 47 million copies of the draft charter need be printed and distributed nationwide". It looks like a joke: so the "average" Thai will read the charter project, analyse it, and then vote!

One of the reason there is a system of electing representative is just to avoid such problems. Citizen delegate power to representative to deal with complex issues. The problem here is that there is no elected constitutional assembly, only an appointed one, so there is no "ex-ante" democracy legitimacy (before designing the charter). Now in order to get a kind of "ex-post" democratic legitimacy, they need to organise a referendum after designing the charter. The result is this totally messed up issue...

[meltingpot2015]

"About 47 million copies of the draft charter need be printed and distributed nationwide". It looks like a joke: so the "average" Thai will read the charter project, analyse it, and then vote!

One of the reason there is a system of electing representative is just to avoid such problems. Citizen delegate power to representative to deal with complex issues. The problem here is that there is no elected constitutional assembly, only an appointed one, so there is no "ex-ante" democracy legitimacy (before designing the charter). Now in order to get a kind of "ex-post" democratic legitimacy, they need to organise a referendum after designing the charter. The result is this totally messed up issue...

Citizen delegate power to representative to deal with complex issues.

Do they really?

Representatives are trustees. They are not mouthpieces of (or for) their constituents.

[rubl]

you are welcome to your opinion but I disagree , no democratic government in the world is given a mandate to do as they please, they all have to work within a framework of law and rules, up to now Thailands elected governments have been able to pretty much do as they please or try too which is exactly why the people rise up and take to the streets or the military has to step in, that is exactly were previous constitutions have failed by allowing such abuse

Not saying the charter is or isn't transparent but future Governments will be/need to be, they will no longer be able to lie to the people as was seen many times during PTP time in office

The most recent revelations of corruption in government and public office is shocking to say the least and it must be stopped one way or the other

As for the military - for now a necessary evil until the political system no longer requires intervention which is why it is so important this charter is right and puts an end to this endless cycle of abuse most recently by Thaksin

No democratic government has a mandate to do as it pleases, so you prefer a military government with no mandate and unchecked power. The logic of that eludes me.

How will future governments provide transparency against the will of a military that doesn't want it? How is weakening democratic institutions to the point of irrelevance and transferring power to unelected bureaucrats and appointed "good people" going to prevent corruption? What makes you think that future governments won't be able to lie to the people? What part of the charter, written at the direction of a man who said there would be no coup, prevent lies?

As I posted earlier, laws with harsh penalties don't prevent corruption. Laws that mandate transparency prevent corruption. If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?

"then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written", "these transparency requirements" ?

Pray tell what rules on transparency and how specific would you like to have them in a charter and how much should be covered in detail in organic laws ? How much of how the government works on a daily base should be in the charter? Almost nothing I think, that's for the organic law on government operation.

Would an article "The government will ensure transparency in all it's proceeding" help make a country governable? Maybe another independent watchdog organisation required?

The draft charter already has over three hundred provisions, and a CDC member that believes the constitution should be as comprehensive as possible http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/824648-cdc-satisfied-with-charter-suggestions-to-propose-referendum-on-election-timeframe/?hl=%2Bcharter, so why not mandate transparency in the constitution?

Of course if the junta wanted transparency it could have mandated it under martial law or mandate it now under Article 44. But, as stated, the junta doesn't want transparency. The generals certainly don't want people looking into the military's accounts and operations.

Transparency allows corruption to be identified and dealt with, so yes, I think mandating it will make the country more governable. Do you disagree?

You still juggle with "transparency' without any indication how such item could be incorporated meaningfully in a charter. Can't you dig up some examples of democratic charters with 'transparency' build in in a meaningful way?

Anyway, it looks like we'll get a referendum, that is assuming that now that the NCPO conceded, people are also willing to agree on conditions.

[rubl]

"About 47 million copies of the draft charter need be printed and distributed nationwide". It looks like a joke: so the "average" Thai will read the charter project, analyse it, and then vote!

One of the reason there is a system of electing representative is just to avoid such problems. Citizen delegate power to representative to deal with complex issues. The problem here is that there is no elected constitutional assembly, only an appointed one, so there is no "ex-ante" democracy legitimacy (before designing the charter). Now in order to get a kind of "ex-post" democratic legitimacy, they need to organise a referendum after designing the charter. The result is this totally messed up issue...

Well, some here kept telling that all Thai wanted a referendum to have a direct say, to accept or reject the new charter proposed. That suggest an interest, a desire to read and analyse and judge the proposal for themselves.

Now printing may seem a bit overdone, but not everyone has a speedy enough Internet connection and I'm not sure it would be humane to force people to read the constitution from their mobile device. Some may still have a working tablet which would be a bit better. So 47 million copies, pity about the trees, but even in slightly more advanced countries (like those in Europe) the government has the obligation to distribute information via old and new channels.

[smedly]

I actually think there should be no referendum, how many people that vote actually understand what they are voting for, it should be implemented and have done with it, Thailand needs some special treatment and extreme measure to progress it out of conflict and if that means radical reform then so be it

An alternative could be to implement the charter and write legislation to hold a referendum 2 years after the election, that way the people can see how it is working and vote then whether to keep it or not

[candide]

"About 47 million copies of the draft charter need be printed and distributed nationwide". It looks like a joke: so the "average" Thai will read the charter project, analyse it, and then vote!

One of the reason there is a system of electing representative is just to avoid such problems. Citizen delegate power to representative to deal with complex issues. The problem here is that there is no elected constitutional assembly, only an appointed one, so there is no "ex-ante" democracy legitimacy (before designing the charter). Now in order to get a kind of "ex-post" democratic legitimacy, they need to organise a referendum after designing the charter. The result is this totally messed up issue...

Well, some here kept telling that all Thai wanted a referendum to have a direct say, to accept or reject the new charter proposed. That suggest an interest, a desire to read and analyse and judge the proposal for themselves.

Now printing may seem a bit overdone, but not everyone has a speedy enough Internet connection and I'm not sure it would be humane to force people to read the constitution from their mobile device. Some may still have a working tablet which would be a bit better. So 47 million copies, pity about the trees, but even in slightly more advanced countries (like those in Europe) the government has the obligation to distribute information via old and new channels.

An elected constitutional assembly would have made possible to avoid this problem. Since an appointed assembly has no democratic legitimity, I also agree with a referendum as last solution. It's worst than the case in which a charter is designed by an elected constitutional assembly and better than no democratic legitimation at all.

Edited May 21, 2015 by candide

[heybruce]

No democratic government has a mandate to do as it pleases, so you prefer a military government with no mandate and unchecked power. The logic of that eludes me.

How will future governments provide transparency against the will of a military that doesn't want it? How is weakening democratic institutions to the point of irrelevance and transferring power to unelected bureaucrats and appointed "good people" going to prevent corruption? What makes you think that future governments won't be able to lie to the people? What part of the charter, written at the direction of a man who said there would be no coup, prevent lies?

As I posted earlier, laws with harsh penalties don't prevent corruption. Laws that mandate transparency prevent corruption. If the junta were serious about eliminating corruption then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written into the proposed charter. Has anyone found these transparency requirements in the draft charter?

"then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written", "these transparency requirements" ?

Pray tell what rules on transparency and how specific would you like to have them in a charter and how much should be covered in detail in organic laws ? How much of how the government works on a daily base should be in the charter? Almost nothing I think, that's for the organic law on government operation.

Would an article "The government will ensure transparency in all it's proceeding" help make a country governable? Maybe another independent watchdog organisation required?

The draft charter already has over three hundred provisions, and a CDC member that believes the constitution should be as comprehensive as possible http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/824648-cdc-satisfied-with-charter-suggestions-to-propose-referendum-on-election-timeframe/?hl=%2Bcharter, so why not mandate transparency in the constitution?

Of course if the junta wanted transparency it could have mandated it under martial law or mandate it now under Article 44. But, as stated, the junta doesn't want transparency. The generals certainly don't want people looking into the military's accounts and operations.

Transparency allows corruption to be identified and dealt with, so yes, I think mandating it will make the country more governable. Do you disagree?

You still juggle with "transparency' without any indication how such item could be incorporated meaningfully in a charter. Can't you dig up some examples of democratic charters with 'transparency' build in in a meaningful way?

Anyway, it looks like we'll get a referendum, that is assuming that now that the NCPO conceded, people are also willing to agree on conditions.

"Can't you dig up some examples of democratic charters with 'transparency' build in in a meaningful way?"

No, but I also can't dig up examples of functional constitutions with over 300 provisions and written at the direction of the military. Can you?

The subject of transparency came up after smedly posted: "this new charter is radical in the sense that it is designed to stamp out corruption and power abuse". I pointed out that neither the charter nor the junta did anything meaningful to tackle corruption. The ultimate weapon against corruption is transparency. The junta is doing nothing to increase transparency in government, it is doing the opposite.

Anyway, if there is a referendum, it will certainly be in the form of "Accept this charter or you'll get something worse."

[smedly]

when society breaks down as it did in Thailand last year then democracy got suspended - that is what happened so get over it, the military stepped in to put an end to the madness that would have prevailed if they hadn't

This now is not democracy - I think we are all clear about that

What we have is a none elected government trying to put in place something that might work here as everything up to now has failed

Should there be a referendum - well normally I would support that but in this instance I don't, time to take the bull by the horns and just implement it.

Like I said already - have an election and see how it goes for the next 2 years under the new charter then hold a referendum when the people can actually see how it has performed

There is no easy solution here, there are too many people that are thieving off the people and want it to continue, the abuse and the abusers are rampant, it's a prime example of how greed overcomes values and morals

Lets get the new charter implemented and get the elections going then have a review in 2 years

or

Just dump the idea of elections for now and let the current government continue cleansing

[rubl]

"then rules mandating transparency would be clearly written", "these transparency requirements" ?

Pray tell what rules on transparency and how specific would you like to have them in a charter and how much should be covered in detail in organic laws ? How much of how the government works on a daily base should be in the charter? Almost nothing I think, that's for the organic law on government operation.

Would an article "The government will ensure transparency in all it's proceeding" help make a country governable? Maybe another independent watchdog organisation required?

The draft charter already has over three hundred provisions, and a CDC member that believes the constitution should be as comprehensive as possible http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/824648-cdc-satisfied-with-charter-suggestions-to-propose-referendum-on-election-timeframe/?hl=%2Bcharter, so why not mandate transparency in the constitution?

Of course if the junta wanted transparency it could have mandated it under martial law or mandate it now under Article 44. But, as stated, the junta doesn't want transparency. The generals certainly don't want people looking into the military's accounts and operations.

Transparency allows corruption to be identified and dealt with, so yes, I think mandating it will make the country more governable. Do you disagree?

You still juggle with "transparency' without any indication how such item could be incorporated meaningfully in a charter. Can't you dig up some examples of democratic charters with 'transparency' build in in a meaningful way?

Anyway, it looks like we'll get a referendum, that is assuming that now that the NCPO conceded, people are also willing to agree on conditions.

"Can't you dig up some examples of democratic charters with 'transparency' build in in a meaningful way?"

No, but I also can't dig up examples of functional constitutions with over 300 provisions and written at the direction of the military. Can you?

The subject of transparency came up after smedly posted: "this new charter is radical in the sense that it is designed to stamp out corruption and power abuse". I pointed out that neither the charter nor the junta did anything meaningful to tackle corruption. The ultimate weapon against corruption is transparency. The junta is doing nothing to increase transparency in government, it is doing the opposite.

Anyway, if there is a referendum, it will certainly be in the form of "Accept this charter or you'll get something worse."

Ah, so you don't know what you talk about asking for "transparency requirements" in the charter. No problem.

[rubl]

"About 47 million copies of the draft charter need be printed and distributed nationwide". It looks like a joke: so the "average" Thai will read the charter project, analyse it, and then vote!

One of the reason there is a system of electing representative is just to avoid such problems. Citizen delegate power to representative to deal with complex issues. The problem here is that there is no elected constitutional assembly, only an appointed one, so there is no "ex-ante" democracy legitimacy (before designing the charter). Now in order to get a kind of "ex-post" democratic legitimacy, they need to organise a referendum after designing the charter. The result is this totally messed up issue...

Well, some here kept telling that all Thai wanted a referendum to have a direct say, to accept or reject the new charter proposed. That suggest an interest, a desire to read and analyse and judge the proposal for themselves.

Now printing may seem a bit overdone, but not everyone has a speedy enough Internet connection and I'm not sure it would be humane to force people to read the constitution from their mobile device. Some may still have a working tablet which would be a bit better. So 47 million copies, pity about the trees, but even in slightly more advanced countries (like those in Europe) the government has the obligation to distribute information via old and new channels.

An elected constitutional assembly would have made possible to avoid this problem. Since an appointed assembly has no democratic legitimity, I also agree with a referendum as last solution. It's worst than the case in which a charter is designed by an elected constitutional assembly and better than no democratic legitimation at all.

An elected constitutional government misusing it's parliamentary majority to push through some amendments doesn't really sound democratic. Remember

"Referendums can be called direct democracy where the society has a direct role in the particular proposals."

[heybruce]

The draft charter already has over three hundred provisions, and a CDC member that believes the constitution should be as comprehensive as possible http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/824648-cdc-satisfied-with-charter-suggestions-to-propose-referendum-on-election-timeframe/?hl=%2Bcharter, so why not mandate transparency in the constitution?

Of course if the junta wanted transparency it could have mandated it under martial law or mandate it now under Article 44. But, as stated, the junta doesn't want transparency. The generals certainly don't want people looking into the military's accounts and operations.

Transparency allows corruption to be identified and dealt with, so yes, I think mandating it will make the country more governable. Do you disagree?

You still juggle with "transparency' without any indication how such item could be incorporated meaningfully in a charter. Can't you dig up some examples of democratic charters with 'transparency' build in in a meaningful way?

Anyway, it looks like we'll get a referendum, that is assuming that now that the NCPO conceded, people are also willing to agree on conditions.

"Can't you dig up some examples of democratic charters with 'transparency' build in in a meaningful way?"

No, but I also can't dig up examples of functional constitutions with over 300 provisions and written at the direction of the military. Can you?

The subject of transparency came up after smedly posted: "this new charter is radical in the sense that it is designed to stamp out corruption and power abuse". I pointed out that neither the charter nor the junta did anything meaningful to tackle corruption. The ultimate weapon against corruption is transparency. The junta is doing nothing to increase transparency in government, it is doing the opposite.

Anyway, if there is a referendum, it will certainly be in the form of "Accept this charter or you'll get something worse."

Ah, so you don't know what you talk about asking for "transparency requirements" in the charter. No problem.

Ah, so you don't think transparency should be required of the junta or their joke of a charter.

Come to think of it, you seem to consistently oppose any suggestions that corruption in the military or junta be tackled. I wonder why.

[heybruce]

when society breaks down as it did in Thailand last year then democracy got suspended - that is what happened so get over it, the military stepped in to put an end to the madness that would have prevailed if they hadn't

This now is not democracy - I think we are all clear about that

What we have is a none elected government trying to put in place something that might work here as everything up to now has failed

Should there be a referendum - well normally I would support that but in this instance I don't, time to take the bull by the horns and just implement it.

Like I said already - have an election and see how it goes for the next 2 years under the new charter then hold a referendum when the people can actually see how it has performed

There is no easy solution here, there are too many people that are thieving off the people and want it to continue, the abuse and the abusers are rampant, it's a prime example of how greed overcomes values and morals

Lets get the new charter implemented and get the elections going then have a review in 2 years

or

Just dump the idea of elections for now and let the current government continue cleansing

Society did not break down. Outside of a few parts of Bangkok society functioned normally during the protests. The protests and anti-democrats could have been dealt with using measures far short of a coup, but that would have resulted in elections and a new government with new democratic legitimacy. The military did not want that.

Now we have a blatantly undemocratic constitution written at the direction of a military with no desire to have majority rule in Thailand. Also keep in mind that the military has ruled Thailand many times in the past and never made things better for anyone except the military.

In spite of all this, some people love the temporary stability of military rule and repression and hope it will go on indefinitely.