Vote 'could endorse' Thai PM

[webfact]

POLITICS
Vote 'could endorse' PM
THE Nation

NRC man seeks referendum to legitimise Prayut Staying on; activists warn of deepening divide

BANGKOK: -- THE possibility of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha staying in power another two years may disappoint many public figures while social activists have warned the move would lead to a deeper social divide. But a pro-junta reformer said yesterday that a referendum on the matter would legitimise the premier staying in power longer - if he had support of the people.

National Reform Committee member Paiboon Nititawan suggested two referendums be held - one to vote on endorsing the new constitution and one to vote on endorsing Prayut's administration continuing for another two years before a new election is held so national reforms could be completed.

Paiboon has pushed for a campaign to solicit signatures so a referendum can be held to give Prayut legitimacy to continue running the country.

There would be four scenarios if the referendums were held, he said.

If the public approves the charter draft and the two-year extension, the charter would take effect two years later and the provisional charter would continue to be in force for another two years;

If the public approves the charter draft but disapproves of the two-year extension, the charter's organic laws would be legislated and a general election called;

If the public disapproves of the charter but gives the nod for the two-year extension, a new charter draft would be written and reform would be carried out for two years;

If the public disapproves of the charter and the two-year extension, a new charter draft would be written as stipulated in the provisional charter.

Political activist and university lecturer Suriyasai Katasila cautioned the government yesterday against holding a referendum on extending its term, saying that could deepen national conflicts.

Suriyasai recommended that the government sign a pact with key agencies to set a new and clear roadmap to democracy.

"The government and the people who push for the term extension have to think hard. With more than one year in office left, it is possible that the government could achieve its reform plans according to its current roadmap,'' he said.

Political observers believe Prime Minister Prayut may be firmly in control domestically but he fears pressure from the international community, in particular the West, and resulting negative impacts on the economy.

Deputy chairman of the National Legislative Assembly's economic committee, Issara Vongkusolkij, said he was not worried about possible negative repercussions from extending the government's term because the business sector wanted political stability.

The economy was still strong with a current account surplus and the government could save more than Bt300 billion from energy imports, he said.

Exports had slowed because of economic problems in some parts of the world such as the EU, he said. Although Thai farmers' income had dropped because of dwindling rice and rubber prices, the tourism sector had seen a 24-per-cent rise over the past four months.

However, Banyong Pongpanich, chairman of Phatra Capital, commented on his Facebook page yesterday that extending the government's term would be wrong. "Both the National Legislative Assembly and the National Reform Committee, in association with crony businessmen, have joined forces to call on the PM to stay in power for another two years. He [the PM] seems to want to sacrifice and agree to the call. May I take a long sigh here …'' he said.

Activist Suriyasai said public sentiment likely favoured extending Prayut's rule as people feared that national divisions would persist after a general election. They want to see the premier deliver reforms first, he said.

Suriyasai said old political faces were likely to return and old problems reoccur as political conflicts erupt continually, while there were no signs of national reconciliation.

Meanwhile Dusit Poll results released yesterday found that most people want Prayut to stay in power longer.

Of 1,249 people surveyed across the country, 76 per cent said reform should be implemented before an election to prevent conflicts after the ballot.

Asked how long the reform process should be before an election can be held, 36 per cent said two years, while 31 per cent said one year.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Vote-could-endorse-PM-30261840.html


-- The Nation 2015-06-08

[edwinchester]

A vote.......with one candidate. Reminds me of somewhere else for some reason.

[lujanit]

No vote is needed. Article 44 will fix this.

[chainarong]

Say no more , the junta does more back flips than the flim flam man , not surprising this coming about , especially from someone who for weeks told anybody who would listen there would be no coup, but it might just be all worthwhile , at least everyone concerned will know two things , whether the people do like the Prayut - O and the NIDA polls are correct.

Edited June 7, 2015 by chainarong

[thesetat2013]

A vote.......with one candidate. Reminds me of somewhere else for some reason.

This is the first thing that came to mind upon reading this article

[quandow]

No vote is needed. Article 44 will fix this.

OHHHHH!!!!! THAT'S what Article 44 is all about - THANKS for clearing that up, it seems to have been absolutely ineffectual for anything else!

[rijb]

Will there be any 'voting' outside of Bangkok?

[Srikcir]

The Fourth Option:

"If the public disapproves of the charter and the two-year extension, a new charter draft would be written as stipulated in the provisional charter."

A return to the status quo is not an option but the continuation of subjugation of Thai people's sovereignty, rights and liberties.

I'd rather see as a fourth option that immediately moves the nation forward as a democratic society such as the following:

The government is placed into caretaker status, the 2007 Constitution restored, and national elections held within 90 days.

And maybe as an additional incentive:

Amnesty for the coup is withdrawn in compliance with the 2007 Constitution.

[dominique355]

There appears to be a conflict of interest: Either the new Constitution or the Prayuth government. Both cannot coexist ... unless there are elections and a majority of Thai elect Prayuth.

But no special power like Art. 44. So he will not be able to circumvent the legislative and the judiciary. But then, what's the point of having him?

[oneday]

Another stupid idea. There are two outcomes.

He wins...so the whole exercise was a complete waste of time and money.

He loses...OK, now what do they do. Is there someone else in the wings to replace him? Will they have to have another vote for this new unknown person?

STUPID!

Edited June 8, 2015 by oneday

[Fat Haggis]

The wool is being pulled over eyes daily, with more and more delaying tactics and for one reason only.

And yet there's still people here who can't see the woods for the trees, the longer someone holds onto power and in this case absolutel power, the less they want to relinquish it.

It's all going to end in tears anyway.

[donmuang37]

Some of you guys are missing the point: A vote will only be taken if the outcome is certain to those arranging the vote.

Does anyone seriously expect a "free and fair election"? From people who are writing a constitution to ensure only the current elite of a certain color can be in power? Appointed senate, who then appoints the members of the "independent" agencies and bodies? Ad nausem...

Right!

[mmh8]

I am just waiting for the the headline in which a group demand a democratic vote in a free and fair election for next prime minister, waiting for the cycle to complete itself, we need a chef, perhaps a proxy for anyone who is not present in the country,

let the wheels turn in the next exciting installment of the nang rai... do we get points if we guess what the story lines are? perhaps a monetary prize for stating the obvious

[aaacorp]

Well, one has to wait that a specific event happens, and it may be later than 2016....

[toybits]

He didn't need a vote the first time around.

[h90]

Will there be any 'voting' outside of Bangkok?

yes in the south

[dageurreotype]

Some of you guys are missing the point: A vote will only be taken if the outcome is certain to those arranging the vote.

Does anyone seriously expect a "free and fair election"? From people who are writing a constitution to ensure only the current elite of a certain color can be in power? Appointed senate, who then appoints the members of the "independent" agencies and bodies? Ad nausem...

Right!

Any chance of a free and fair election went down the pan when political discussion was banned and those who might contribute to the evolving process of democracy were made silent.

[Solomon]

There will be no elections or votes of any kind as they know they lack support - these guys will be forced from power by the people at the appropriate time.

[greenchair]

The Fourth Option:

"If the public disapproves of the charter and the two-year extension, a new charter draft would be written as stipulated in the provisional charter."

A return to the status quo is not an option but the continuation of subjugation of Thai people's sovereignty, rights and liberties.

I'd rather see as a fourth option that immediately moves the nation forward as a democratic society such as the following:

The government is placed into caretaker status, the 2007 Constitution restored, and national elections held within 90 days.

And maybe as an additional incentive:

Amnesty for the coup is withdrawn in compliance with the 2007 Constitution.

Nobody wanted the 2007 constitution.

Nobody wants this constitution either.

Fifth option.

Reinstate the 1997 constitution.

Hold elections within 90 days with Prayuth as one of the candidate.

If he wins, he can have his way for 4 years.

Funnily enough, I think he would be one of the few candidates that might just beat pt.

[phoenixdoglover]

Some members of the NRC are desperate to hold on. They've been flogging these ideas for the past 10 days or so.

We must ask, "Why?"

I can think of two obvious reasons:

1) They like their current job, which evidently involves a lot of talk about the need for reform, but very little in the way of proposals focused on systemic reform.

and

2) They have zero faith in the ability of a government under the new Charter to carry on reform (er, whatever they mean by reform, if and when it gets defined)

On a more sinister level, they could be just following orders, as the setup guys for the inevitable.

Oh, how cynical I have become.

[tbthailand]

as a note, ...

There would be four scenarios if the referendums were held, he said.

• If the public approves the charter draft and the two-year extension, the charter would take effect two years later and the provisional charter would continue to be in force for another two years;
• If the public approves the charter draft but disapproves of the two-year extension, the charter's organic laws would be legislated and a general election called;
• If the public disapproves of the charter but gives the nod for the two-year extension, a new charter draft would be written and reform would be carried out for two years;
• If the public disapproves of the charter and the two-year extension, a new charter draft would be written as stipulated in the provisional charter.

These four options proposed by the hand-pick junta NRC all lead to a "win/win/win/win" scenario for the junta - how unsurprising.

Others have pointed out that a "referendum" with but one candidate is a farce, ... even if there were no censorship, martial law II, or bans on public assembly/demonstrations...

We're heading down the sh!tter...

[h90]

Some of you guys are missing the point: A vote will only be taken if the outcome is certain to those arranging the vote.

Does anyone seriously expect a "free and fair election"? From people who are writing a constitution to ensure only the current elite of a certain color can be in power? Appointed senate, who then appoints the members of the "independent" agencies and bodies? Ad nausem...

Right!

Any chance of a free and fair election went down the pan when political discussion was banned and those who might contribute to the evolving process of democracy were made silent.

Well it went down 20-30 or more years ago