Thai public faces dilemma over referendum

[webfact]

POLITICS
Public faces dilemma over referendum
PRAVIT ROJANAPHRUK,
NITIPOL KIRAVANICH
THE NATION



Observers warn of Catch-22 situation - rejection of charter would extend junta rule

BANGKOK: -- WHILE critics say amendments to the interim charter are aimed at altering the road map to facilitate an extended reign by the military government, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha insists that his regime will not stay on until 2017.

"I will not stay with you for the rest of my life. I think I will not be with you in 2017, indeed I have to go in 2016," Prayut told people in the eastern province of Rayong, which he visited to inspect an irrigation project yesterday. The country has problems because its administration was abused, he said. "What I did [to correct the mistakes] last year will be finished by next year and handed over to the new government."

Prayut said he would stick to his timeframe under the road map but critics believe the decision to amend the provisional charter is a clear indication that the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) is seeking to stay on in power through legal means.

The amendment will allow the referendum to ask people whether they will endorse the new constitution and other questions such as whether the military government should continue.

Observers said people are caught in a Catch-22 conundrum. If they reject the draft charter, they would in effect be letting the junta stay on to oversee another round of charter writing. "This is [like seeking] an extension of a stay in power through a legal instrument," said Somchai Preechasinlapakun, a Chiang Mai law lecturer.

Pressure should be exerted to allow for a choice. If the new charter is thumbed down, a choice should be given for reviving an old but acceptable charter instead of coming up with yet another version under the auspices of the NCPO, which guarantees nothing better, he said.

PM's Office Minister Suwapan Tanyuvardhana said the Prayut government could remain in power for two to four more years after the plebiscite due to several factors. For instance, the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC)'s term will be extended for 30 days to review the charter. If the National Reform Committee (NRC) votes to pass the revised charter, the plebiscite would be conducted around January or February.

If the NRC rejects the charter, a new NRC and CDC would be appointed. The process of seeking royal endorsement for the charter and drafting organic laws required by the charter is lengthy, he said.

Attasit Pankaew, a political scientist at Thammasat University, said the referendum would probably include a question on whether to allow the NCPO and its leader Prayut to stay on.

NRC member Seree Suwanphanont warned that the voting on the new charter would end up becoming a vote on Prayut and the junta.

Weng Tojirakarn, co-leader of the red-shirt United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship, said it's wishful thinking to assume the referendum would be free and fair when opponents of the junta cannot meet to articulate the issue without the threat of arrest. ""Referendum" sounds sacred, but it's going to be a referendum held under the barrel of a gun," he said.

Deputy PM Wissanu Krea-ngam proposed that the amendment of the interim charter, expected to come into force in July, would also allow politicians banned from politics to become members of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), Cabinet and a new reform council. The amendment aims to promote reconciliation, he said.

Jade Donavanik, a CDC member, said the amendment would bring more inclusiveness in national reform and charter drafting by bringing in politicians from the cold who will be key players in the post-junta era. The proposal would give different political groups a chance to "communicate and compromise", he said.

Suwapan dismissed speculation that the amendment of the interim charter would pave the way for persons who were once banned from politics to get Cabinet portfolios.

Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said the charter should be amended only if necessary. He questioned if it was necessary to allow politicians once banned from serving as Cabinet or NLA members.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Public-faces-dilemma-over-referendum-30262077.html


-- The Nation 2015-06-11

[toybits]

The junta's having to stay longer if charter is rejected is a sign of their failure.

[Bannum opinions]

"""Referendum" sounds sacred, but it's going to be a referendum held under the barrel of a gun," he said" (Dr. Weng)

Wot I have been saying all along...This talk of a 'referendum' is again illusionary...the same way that the anti-Democrats will bury their machinations under a judicial veneer. Such as the proliferation of quasi-judicial so-called Independent Agencies, designed to thwart the will of the people expressed via elections. Elections that could accidentally bring the wrong people to power, according to them. Disdain for the electorate to the extreme.

The quote of Dr. Weng above speaks of a 'barrel of a gun"....What is equally scary is the pronouncements by the Election Commission indicating they are ready to hold a referendum, and will "Educate" the voting public.......Not only is this perceived by Democracy activists of anti-Democrats doing the education exclusively, but also has that tinge of arrogance so prevalent in anti-democrat circles....According to them, they have the lofty insight needing to educate those serfs beneath them. When the serfs rear up, it is that they don't understand. If they could only be educated, they would see the light....Their light.

Anyway, all this said, I wish the media would coerce those who glibly speak of 'referendums', to detail the process they are envisioning first. A little like this nonsense of "reform before elections", in this case ' "Referendum Process clarity before talk of referendums".

In other words, take the "sacredness" out of the term 'referendum, and see it for what it will be.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Bannum opinions

[LannaGuy]

Hobson's Choice and it's designed that way

choose yellow or get the other fellow

[halloween]

Weng is a (temporarily) unemployed mercenary propagandist, prepared to lie like a pig in shit for payment, and upset that his future prospects of work look dim. Appointed as an MP as a reward for his criminal activities and to delay prosecution, he sold his vote for monthly payments from an avaricious criminal.

Anything he says should be taken with a 5 ton grain of salt.

[eggers]

Looks like PM has grown a "mullet"???

Hmmm, on second check, perhaps short person standing behind him + angle of shot...

[Robby nz]

The great problem must be in what is going to be the questions in a referendum.

Although I haven't read the contents of the proposed charter (as other posters apparently have) I suspect there will be parts that are acceptable to everyone and others that certain sectors see as detrimental to them and they would be against for their own good.There could also be others which would be generally unacceptable.

So just to ask "Do you accept or reject" will not give a fair indication of what those who take part in the referendum really want.

Neither can I believe that everyone who would vote in such a referendum would understand the contents or consequences of what they were voting for or against.

A choice of going back to previous charters which politicians have already found ways to subvert would also be unacceptable.

[Emster23]

Like dilemma "Do you want to be eaten by sharks or crocodiles?"

[Srikcir]

The great problem must be in what is going to be the questions in a referendum.

Although I haven't read the contents of the proposed charter (as other posters apparently have) I suspect there will be parts that are acceptable to everyone and others that certain sectors see as detrimental to them and they would be against for their own good.There could also be others which would be generally unacceptable.

So just to ask "Do you accept or reject" will not give a fair indication of what those who take part in the referendum really want.

Neither can I believe that everyone who would vote in such a referendum would understand the contents or consequences of what they were voting for or against.

A choice of going back to previous charters which politicians have already found ways to subvert would also be unacceptable.

"Do you accept or reject will not give a fair indication of what those who take part in the referendum really want."

It wasn't fair that the Junta abolished the 2007 Constitution without PERMISSION of the Thai electorate. The Constitution had a process for amending it but the military chose to bypass the democratic institutions as the only means to completely rewrite it in a manner that provided the elitists with UNFAIR advantages promulgated as law.

So too bad if it's all or nothing - seems very fair compared to the Thai people who have unwillingly lost their rights and liberties to a minority under the gun.