Coup 'wasted' if some draft charter articles are removed

[webfact]

Coup 'wasted' if some draft charter articles are removed
THE NATION

CDC MEMBER DEFENDS DIVISIVE PROPOSALS, INCLUDING PROVISION FOR UNELECTED PM

BANGKOK: -- CONSTITUTION Drafting Commit-tee (CDC) member Paiboon Nititawan yesterday singled out articles and new measures he said were creating controversy over the proposed charter.

He said many were merely designed to solve past and existing problems, and the junta's seizure of power its mission would go to waste if the same problems arose again in the future.

Paiboon was responding to calls for various provisions within the draft charter to be removed or amended.

For example, many critics objected to a provision that would allow political-interest groups to run for election, fearing they would weaken political parties, or become nominees of those parties. Paiboon said this provision was aimed at catering to citizens who wished to vote for independent candidates.

He also defended the provision that would allow an unelected "outsider" to become PM in time of crisis. The events that led up to May 22 coup last year demonstrated the need for flexibility in the rules of law to offer the country a "way out" of such a crisis, he claimed.

In order for the coup not to "go to waste", the new charter must be able to solve all the problems that occurred prior to the military's takeover from an elected government, he said.

Paiboon also defended the proposal to establish a "National Ethics Assembly" and a "Citizens Assembly". He said the underlying rationale was to give the people the official authority to regulate and examine the government; such a measure would also empower citizens - one of the main agendas of CDC members.

Establishing these people's assemblies, Paiboon argued, could effectively prevent the problem of mass street protests, because the people would be given official status to fight for their causes through these assemblies.

Meanwhile another CDC member, Lt-General Nawin Damrigan, said the committee was collecting proposals from various public organisations and putting them in order of urgency. Charter provisions that were strongly opposed would be deliberated on first.

The CDC would also consider bringing in representatives from the National Reform Council (NRC) and the Cabinet to deliberate on finding solutions, Nawin said.

Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, chairman of NRC's political reform panel and one of the most vocal critics of the draft charter, reiterated his proposal to trim down the document from 315 articles to 118. Many of the articles could be written in as by-laws, leaving the charter itself less detailed or rigid, he said.

Sombat said there were many highly controversial issues about which his panel had informed the CDC. However, he admitted that the final decision and the power to amend charter provisions rested with CDC members alone.

He said he believed the CDC would amend the charter, especially on issues where many people had expressed concerns.
Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan, who is also defence minister, admitted that the junta could stay in power longer than indicated in the military's "road map to democracy" if charter draft failed to survive a referendum or the NRC's vote on it.

He also said the prospect of a referendum was not certain - the Cabinet had merely decided to float the possibility of such a poll.

The National Council for Peace and Order may have to stay in office even longer if there were problems during the charter-drafting process, although he claimed that wasn't the junta's intention.

He said debate on whether there should be a charter referendum was still ongoing, and the fate of the new constitution still uncertain, despite the Cabinet consensus to amend the 2014 interim charter and legitimise the referendum.

He said the junta needed to communicate clearly with the public to establish an informed understanding of the national reform and charter-drafting process. This was a crucial period that might take longer than expected, but it was necessary.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Coup-wasted-if-some-draft-charter-articles-are-rem-30261093.html


-- The Nation 2015-05-28

[ExPratt]

It is probably impossible to keep both sides happy and have a "Fair" constitution that will lead to some kind of reconciliation. Thats why I think a referendum is a mistake and a bit of a gimmick . I doubt many will sit down and read the whole document and make an assessment. So the majority of people will listen to the objections that will be raised by Party cheerleaders and vote accordingly. It requires moderates on both sides to sit down and attempt to bring in something that is acceptable to both sides, easier said than done of course

[Solomon]

It is probably impossible to keep both sides happy and have a "Fair" constitution that will lead to some kind of reconciliation. Thats why I think a referendum is a mistake and a bit of a gimmick . I doubt many will sit down and read the whole document and make an assessment. So the majority of people will listen to the objections that will be raised by Party cheerleaders and vote accordingly. It requires moderates on both sides to sit down and attempt to bring in something that is acceptable to both sides, easier said than done of course

It's impossible to keep both side happy because one side does not want a fair constitution - they want a charter that perpetuates their control of the nations resources and wealth and maintains the subjugation of the majority.

The real benefit of a referendum is it will be the first poll conducted that will give an accurate reading of the peoples like or dislike for the Junta.

I'd be surprised if the yes vote for the draft charter managed to top 20%.

Whatever level of support the inane draft charter achieves (in what will most likely be at least a semi rigged referendum) we can safely assume that this is the true level of Junta support.

Should there be a resounding NO vote, then those who think unelected appointed military regimes are the solution to Thailands woes should take a bit of time out for introspection and have a good hard look at what it is they are really advocating and cheerleading for here

[canuckamuck]

In order for the coup not to "go to waste", the new charter must be able to solve all the problems that occurred prior to the military's takeover from an elected government, he said.

Now that's a tall order.

Of course by 'problems' they actually mean the various ways the majority can complicate the plans of the old money. Once they have a system in place that ensures compliance of the majority, it will be smooth sailing. There are political methods to accomplish this. The real trick is how to dress that pig to look like democracy

[rubl]

It is probably impossible to keep both sides happy and have a "Fair" constitution that will lead to some kind of reconciliation. Thats why I think a referendum is a mistake and a bit of a gimmick . I doubt many will sit down and read the whole document and make an assessment. So the majority of people will listen to the objections that will be raised by Party cheerleaders and vote accordingly. It requires moderates on both sides to sit down and attempt to bring in something that is acceptable to both sides, easier said than done of course

It's impossible to keep both side happy because one side does not want a fair constitution - they want a charter that perpetuates their control of the nations resources and wealth and maintains the subjugation of the majority.

The real benefit of a referendum is it will be the first poll conducted that will give an accurate reading of the peoples like or dislike for the Junta.

I'd be surprised if the yes vote for the draft charter managed to top 20%.

Whatever level of support the inane draft charter achieves (in what will most likely be at least a semi rigged referendum) we can safely assume that this is the true level of Junta support.

Should there be a resounding NO vote, then those who think unelected appointed military regimes are the solution to Thailands woes should take a bit of time out for introspection and have a good hard look at what it is they are really advocating and cheerleading for here

... and another side wants the new Elite to take over with some ex-MoFA already indicating to hand out passports to 'deserving' people.

[gk10002000]

As is common in life, fear can drive things. Fear of not having control. Fear of laws being enacted or enforced that don't benefit you. Well, welcome to the world of compromise. Every body can't have everything. The USA government is far from great, but their idea of the constitution and what it takes to legally change it, is a very good model. The constitution is the law, albeit sometimes interpreted in odd or disagreeable ways by the Supreme Court. Changes to the constitution have to be ratified by the states. Thailand should at least discuss how to represent people and provinces across the land. That was the idea behind the US House of Representatives. Representatives are created in proportion to populations in areas. Now add the Senate and you have a lot of checks and balances. Sure things can stale mate and be very hard to work with at times. But the system makes it hard for one group to hold complete sway over another group.

If Thailand keeps having coups or now possibly "agreeing" to having a non-elected PM, then they are not getting all the people involved. The people must at least agree on the type of government. Then vote and adjust as required.

[Bob12345]

It is probably impossible to keep both sides happy and have a "Fair" constitution that will lead to some kind of reconciliation. Thats why I think a referendum is a mistake and a bit of a gimmick . I doubt many will sit down and read the whole document and make an assessment. So the majority of people will listen to the objections that will be raised by Party cheerleaders and vote accordingly. It requires moderates on both sides to sit down and attempt to bring in something that is acceptable to both sides, easier said than done of course

It's impossible to keep both side happy because one side does not want a fair constitution - they want a charter that perpetuates their control of the nations resources and wealth and maintains the subjugation of the majority.

The real benefit of a referendum is it will be the first poll conducted that will give an accurate reading of the peoples like or dislike for the Junta.

I'd be surprised if the yes vote for the draft charter managed to top 20%.

Whatever level of support the inane draft charter achieves (in what will most likely be at least a semi rigged referendum) we can safely assume that this is the true level of Junta support.

Should there be a resounding NO vote, then those who think unelected appointed military regimes are the solution to Thailands woes should take a bit of time out for introspection and have a good hard look at what it is they are really advocating and cheerleading for here

I think you are right and thats why I think thee will be no referendum.

The Junta will do some polls beforehand and figure out their draft charter is not supported by the people, so better skip the whole referendum part and just push it through anyways.

[Bob12345]

... and another side wants the new Elite to take over with some ex-MoFA already indicating to hand out passports to 'deserving' people.

I think the other side wants to have voting rights and a say in the future of their country.

Only a small minority would actually be interested to get T back in power.

You are just trying to create an enemy to justify your support for a non-elected, oppressive, corrupt government.

[Tatsujin]

It is probably impossible to keep both sides happy and have a "Fair" constitution that will lead to some kind of reconciliation. Thats why I think a referendum is a mistake and a bit of a gimmick . I doubt many will sit down and read the whole document and make an assessment. So the majority of people will listen to the objections that will be raised by Party cheerleaders and vote accordingly. It requires moderates on both sides to sit down and attempt to bring in something that is acceptable to both sides, easier said than done of course

It's impossible to keep both side happy because one side does not want a fair constitution - they want a charter that perpetuates their control of the nations resources and wealth and maintains the subjugation of the majority.

The real benefit of a referendum is it will be the first poll conducted that will give an accurate reading of the peoples like or dislike for the Junta.

I'd be surprised if the yes vote for the draft charter managed to top 20%.

Whatever level of support the inane draft charter achieves (in what will most likely be at least a semi rigged referendum) we can safely assume that this is the true level of Junta support.

Should there be a resounding NO vote, then those who think unelected appointed military regimes are the solution to Thailands woes should take a bit of time out for introspection and have a good hard look at what it is they are really advocating and cheerleading for here

"perpetuates their control of the nations resources and wealth and maintains the subjugation of the majority" ... explain just how exactly that isn't the same as it was under any Thaksin Government? Did life dramatically improve under Thaksin for most people over the last 10 years? Were the rice farmers (who are the majority you are are referring to I assume) suddenly better off in the long term?

I would say not ... all I see is a massive increase in their personal debts, and a massive increase in the unusual wealth of the higher-ups in PT, and even more fingers in the pies with people like the village headsmen.

[Tatsujin]

... and another side wants the new Elite to take over with some ex-MoFA already indicating to hand out passports to 'deserving' people.

I think the other side wants to have voting rights and a say in the future of their country.

Only a small minority would actually be interested to get T back in power.

You are just trying to create an enemy to justify your support for a non-elected, oppressive, corrupt government.

They already have voting rights and a say in the future of their country when it comes around to voting time.

The amount of money the "people" and the "country" has lost whilst under Thaksin control is beyond belief ... and they still don't see it or admit to it. Thaksin's "Governments" were just as (if not more) corrupt than any other with his control (at the time) over the Royal Thai Police and other bodies.

I agree that a non-elected Govt is not desirable in the long term, but neither is a Thaksin Dictatorship.

[smedly]

It is probably impossible to keep both sides happy and have a "Fair" constitution that will lead to some kind of reconciliation. Thats why I think a referendum is a mistake and a bit of a gimmick . I doubt many will sit down and read the whole document and make an assessment. So the majority of people will listen to the objections that will be raised by Party cheerleaders and vote accordingly. It requires moderates on both sides to sit down and attempt to bring in something that is acceptable to both sides, easier said than done of course

wow I actually agree with something you said, I would also add that I don't see it as two sides at all, I see one side (the majority of Thai people) and some divisive fringe groups that that are now very small in numbers - they might pretend to be big players but in reality have lost most of any support they had in the past excluding a few extremists and those who would do pretty much anything for a few hundred baht

[smedly]

It is probably impossible to keep both sides happy and have a "Fair" constitution that will lead to some kind of reconciliation. Thats why I think a referendum is a mistake and a bit of a gimmick . I doubt many will sit down and read the whole document and make an assessment. So the majority of people will listen to the objections that will be raised by Party cheerleaders and vote accordingly. It requires moderates on both sides to sit down and attempt to bring in something that is acceptable to both sides, easier said than done of course

It's impossible to keep both side happy because one side does not want a fair constitution - they want a charter that perpetuates their control of the nations resources and wealth and maintains the subjugation of the majority.

The real benefit of a referendum is it will be the first poll conducted that will give an accurate reading of the peoples like or dislike for the Junta.

I'd be surprised if the yes vote for the draft charter managed to top 20%.

Whatever level of support the inane draft charter achieves (in what will most likely be at least a semi rigged referendum) we can safely assume that this is the true level of Junta support.

Should there be a resounding NO vote, then those who think unelected appointed military regimes are the solution to Thailands woes should take a bit of time out for introspection and have a good hard look at what it is they are really advocating and cheerleading for here

may I add a word often used by Thaksin - politicians - red shirt leaders that exactly describes the highlighted sentence above "Democracy" or their understanding or interpretation of it

and although I agree in principle to most of what you say the last paragraph describes exactly why this new charter is so important, it is designed to put an end to the endless cycle of corrupt governments and the required military intervention when it all goes %%% up

[sweatalot]

It is probably impossible to keep both sides happy and have a "Fair" constitution that will lead to some kind of reconciliation. Thats why I think a referendum is a mistake and a bit of a gimmick . I doubt many will sit down and read the whole document and make an assessment. So the majority of people will listen to the objections that will be raised by Party cheerleaders and vote accordingly. It requires moderates on both sides to sit down and attempt to bring in something that is acceptable to both sides, easier said than done of course

It is probably impossible to keep both sides happy and have a "Fair" constitution that will lead to some kind of reconciliation.

What use is it to have a constitution that keeps criminals and corrupted people happy?

[Praematura]

Lol "coup wasted"

[jayboy]

A brilliant analysis from Kim McQuay of the Asia Foundation.

http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2015/05/27/between-two-worlds-thailands-coup-one-year-on

[phoenixdoglover]

A brilliant analysis from Kim McQuay of the Asia Foundation.

http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2015/05/27/between-two-worlds-thailands-coup-one-year-on

Yes, agree. All without impugning the motives of the political players, which is a nice change from the rhetoric here.

[Anthony5]

Especially if the outsider PM article is removed, the coup will have not the admired result.

[ExPratt]

It is probably impossible to keep both sides happy and have a "Fair" constitution that will lead to some kind of reconciliation. Thats why I think a referendum is a mistake and a bit of a gimmick . I doubt many will sit down and read the whole document and make an assessment. So the majority of people will listen to the objections that will be raised by Party cheerleaders and vote accordingly. It requires moderates on both sides to sit down and attempt to bring in something that is acceptable to both sides, easier said than done of course

It's impossible to keep both side happy because one side does not want a fair constitution - they want a charter that perpetuates their control of the nations resources and wealth and maintains the subjugation of the majority.

The real benefit of a referendum is it will be the first poll conducted that will give an accurate reading of the peoples like or dislike for the Junta.

I'd be surprised if the yes vote for the draft charter managed to top 20%.

Whatever level of support the inane draft charter achieves (in what will most likely be at least a semi rigged referendum) we can safely assume that this is the true level of Junta support.

Should there be a resounding NO vote, then those who think unelected appointed military regimes are the solution to Thailands woes should take a bit of time out for introspection and have a good hard look at what it is they are really advocating and cheerleading for here

I don't think there is any benefit in a Referendum after months. They are not going to sent 40 million copies out for people to read , those who want to read it all probably can. If you don't read it you cannot say its good or bad, There are some big issues obviously about the prevalence of appointed PM and senate members. People who do not understand the whole document will vote along their party lines. To me it makes it meaningless. I think to cut of PTPs head off was a bad move as they are the people now who The Junta should be talking to , they could perhaps convince there own people to accept some unpalatable concession.

[TheAppletons]

A brilliant analysis from Kim McQuay of the Asia Foundation.

http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2015/05/27/between-two-worlds-thailands-coup-one-year-on

Nice read, thanks.

[ExPratt]

It is probably impossible to keep both sides happy and have a "Fair" constitution that will lead to some kind of reconciliation. Thats why I think a referendum is a mistake and a bit of a gimmick . I doubt many will sit down and read the whole document and make an assessment. So the majority of people will listen to the objections that will be raised by Party cheerleaders and vote accordingly. It requires moderates on both sides to sit down and attempt to bring in something that is acceptable to both sides, easier said than done of course

It is probably impossible to keep both sides happy and have a "Fair" constitution that will lead to some kind of reconciliation.

What use is it to have a constitution that keeps criminals and corrupted people happy?

Well I think they are common on both sides, So I think reasonable and moderate people agreed by all should comment on the new constitution and if agreed change it , Cant see a a referendum is going to do

[Neocon]

"Reconciliation" is a nice sounding perception management tool designed for public consumption, but it's the wrong "-ation".

What's really wanted by the junta and its backers - and the draft charter is driving towards - is left-wing "Capitulation".

[Srikcir]

"the new charter must be able to solve all the problems that occurred prior to the military's takeover from an elected government"

Does it take away from the military its extra-constitutionality? Every Thai military coup PRESUMES it has the sole power of sovereignty over the nation's people to establish whatever rule of law it decides whenever it decides against whomever it decides.

The charter attempts to appease the military by empowering it with covert control over the organs of future elected government. That is not a solution but preserverance of the status quo.

[billd766]

In order for the coup not to "go to waste", the new charter must be able to solve all the problems that occurred prior to the military's takeover from an elected government, he said.

Now that's a tall order.

Of course by 'problems' they actually mean the various ways the majority can complicate the plans of the old money. Once they have a system in place that ensures compliance of the majority, it will be smooth sailing. There are political methods to accomplish this. The real trick is how to dress that pig to look like democracy

It is impossible to write a constitution which makes everybody happy.

A pig with lipstick is still a pig.

pig with lipstick.htm

[rubl]

A brilliant analysis from Kim McQuay of the Asia Foundation.

http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2015/05/27/between-two-worlds-thailands-coup-one-year-on

Yes, agree. All without impugning the motives of the political players, which is a nice change from the rhetoric here.

"The 2014 coup ended several months of escalating political tension triggered by the clandestine bid of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to pass a blanket amnesty bill and alter the 2007 Constitution to give the Senate more elected members. Among several implications of the amnesty bill that rankled both opponents of the government and its core Red Shirt supporters, the lightning-rod factor for opponents was the prospective pardon and return from self-exile of the prime minister’s brother, convicted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. "

[FarangKyAy]

I thing the NO vote won't win, not because of a general agreement about this Constitution, but because people want to go back to "normal"... the There Is No Alternative argument will weight on this referendum.

The Last Constitution was approved by a rigged refferendum (Threat to the poulation : "Vote Yes or else we will set up our own Constitution without asking for your approval", moves to deter the No vote campaigners, "If you're a true thai vote yes", "Say yes now, you can modify some articles later..." and so on) .... So logically the Yes vote won (I think around 65%) but the level of participation was so low that the Junta was at first disappointed ... later they finally spin it saying no one can amend the Constitution has it has been approved by thai people...

I would be surprised if the NO vote wins its way, it would mean that, in Politics, Thai people are actually learning from past experience (false promises etc ) ....

Edited May 28, 2015 by FarangKyAy