Referendum will send clear signal to NCPO: rights advocate

[webfact]

Referendum will send clear signal to NCPO: rights advocate
PRAVIT ROJANAPHRUK
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- Those who oppose the junta should vote in the upcoming referendum on the draft charter because it is a legitimate, albeit imperfect, way to settle differences, iLaw member Narongsak Niamsorn said. "It's one way to make a move and fight," he pointed out.

Narongsak, who belongs to the NGO advocating legal rights and reform, recently wrote a comparison between the draft charter and previous constitutions.

He said it would be unfortunate if those against the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) do not participate in the referendum, fearing that if the draft charter is rejected, the NCPO will stay on and restart a new drafting process.

Some opponents say the lack of real choices in the referendum makes it invalid, and is more a junta-imposed "Catch-22", as the junta will stay in power no matter what the outcome.

Narongsak, however, said the outcome of the referendum will send a clear signal to the NCPO.

"If the draft charter is rejected [in the referendum], it will have a considerable impact because despite many limitations imposed [on civic rights], the result of the referendum can still be negative. If the charter is rejected, and the NCPO remains in power, the redrafting of a new charter won't be easy and political groups would be more visible and legitimate. Also the referendum will have proven that the majority does not approve.

"This will pile immense pressure on the NCPO. How can they stay once their legitimacy has been reduced?"

Though he wouldn't reveal which way he would vote, he insisted that opponents of the junta should participate. "Sure it won't be a real referendum," he said, referring to the absence of a real choice if the draft is rejected, "but it will be a way to make the voices of opponents heard".

Narongsak said the government should ensure that people can freely air their support or opposition to the draft charter if they want the referendum to be accepted as legitimate, and should stop threatening to prosecute those who campaign against it.

In case the draft is endorsed in the referendum, Narongsak said it would become Thailand's 20th constitution, but it is not likely to be the last, because the drafting process lacked public participation and people don't feel they own it.

He predicted that those who disagree with the draft charter will later try to have it amended, and warned that items, such as inclusion of the National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Committee (NSRRC), would cause conflicts in the future. He is among those who consider the NSRRC undemocratic.

"It has regressive elements that are not found anywhere else," he said, referring to the NSRRC, which is dubbed by opponents as a "superboard" that can override the authority of an elected government when it sees the existence of a crisis.

He said he was very surprised by the inclusion of the NSRRC in the draft charter, because there has been no history of a legal body having power over an elected government being enshrined in a charter.

"[The NSRRC] can do anything. It's like enshrining the junta into the constitution," Narongsak said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Referendum-will-send-clear-signal-to-NCPO-rights-a-30268023.html


-- The Nation 2015-09-03

[ramrod711]

"It has regressive elements that are not found anywhere else," he said, referring to the NSRRC, which is dubbed by opponents as a "superboard" that can override the authority of an elected government when it sees the existence of a crisis.

He said he was very surprised by the inclusion of the NSRRC in the draft charter, because there has been no history of a legal body having power over an elected government being enshrined in a charter.

True, but on the bright side, it would preclude the charter from beginning with "We the People".

[Laughing Gravy]

The last two paragraphs says it all. How can anyone have power of an elected government? What it means is that the elected government has no power. jus another way of saying a dic ship.

A referendum. That's funny, as if it peopleb says no. Do people really believe the current people in power would say. 'ok we will respect peoples wishes we will stop what we are doing'. If you believe that then I feel you are delusional.

[TheAppletons]

Anyone remember Suthep Thaugsuban's 2014 protest "platform"? That the government should be replaced by an unelected council of "good people" (meaning members of the Thai elite with vested interests in maintaining the status quo)?

Seems the current despotic government is embracing that concept. What a surprise.

Edited September 3, 2015 by TheAppletons

[Blackfalds]

"He predicted that those who disagree with the draft charter will later try to have it amended..."

This is a faulty conclusion.

Should by any remote possibility a fair election be held in the future. A representative govt. ought not to think of amendments. That would be like trying to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear"

The only thing that would extend representative input to a constitution, would be to turf the one resulting from the current situation, and proceed with Democratic principles being the guiding force for construction of such a thing.

I wont hold my breath for any such electoral eventuality however.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Blackfalds

[tbthailand]

"If the draft charter is rejected [in the referendum], it will have a considerable impact because despite many limitations imposed [on civic rights], the result of the referendum can still be negative. If the charter is rejected, and the NCPO remains in power, the redrafting of a new charter won't be easy and political groups would be more visible and legitimate. Also the referendum will have proven that the majority does not approve.

"This will pile immense pressure on the NCPO. How can they stay once their legitimacy has been reduced?"

In this, I am afraid that he has identified the only path forward for Thais who want democracy.

Reject this constitution and then fight like heck for a new one.

[billd766]

"He predicted that those who disagree with the draft charter will later try to have it amended..."

This is a faulty conclusion.

Should by any remote possibility a fair election be held in the future. A representative govt. ought not to think of amendments. That would be like trying to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear"

The only thing that would extend representative input to a constitution, would be to turf the one resulting from the current situation, and proceed with Democratic principles being the guiding force for construction of such a thing.

I wont hold my breath for any such electoral eventuality however.

Now whose Democratic principles should be chosen? TRT, Democrats, the USA model, the UK model, Australian, EU, German, Syrian, Egyptian, North or South Korean, South African, Zimbabwean, Sudanese, Malaysian, Singaporean or any other of the 160 countries in the world?

What your version of Democracy is will perhaps be different from mine, Thais or most other people in the world.

There is NO one size "Democracy" that fits all.

Do you believe that it is right for you to wish for and impose your version of Democracy on the Thai people whether they want it or not?

It is a Thai problem for them to sort out for themselves not for outsiders to impose.

[candide]

"He predicted that those who disagree with the draft charter will later try to have it amended..."

This is a faulty conclusion.

Should by any remote possibility a fair election be held in the future. A representative govt. ought not to think of amendments. That would be like trying to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear"

The only thing that would extend representative input to a constitution, would be to turf the one resulting from the current situation, and proceed with Democratic principles being the guiding force for construction of such a thing.

I wont hold my breath for any such electoral eventuality however.

Now whose Democratic principles should be chosen? TRT, Democrats, the USA model, the UK model, Australian, EU, German, Syrian, Egyptian, North or South Korean, South African, Zimbabwean, Sudanese, Malaysian, Singaporean or any other of the 160 countries in the world?

What your version of Democracy is will perhaps be different from mine, Thais or most other people in the world.

There is NO one size "Democracy" that fits all.

Do you believe that it is right for you to wish for and impose your version of Democracy on the Thai people whether they want it or not?

It is a Thai problem for them to sort out for themselves not for outsiders to impose.

For example, an elected national constituent assembly with 2/3 majority rule would be a democratic way to let the Thai decide which kind of democracy they want.

[jayboy]

"He predicted that those who disagree with the draft charter will later try to have it amended..."

This is a faulty conclusion.

Should by any remote possibility a fair election be held in the future. A representative govt. ought not to think of amendments. That would be like trying to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear"

The only thing that would extend representative input to a constitution, would be to turf the one resulting from the current situation, and proceed with Democratic principles being the guiding force for construction of such a thing.

I wont hold my breath for any such electoral eventuality however.

Now whose Democratic principles should be chosen? TRT, Democrats, the USA model, the UK model, Australian, EU, German, Syrian, Egyptian, North or South Korean, South African, Zimbabwean, Sudanese, Malaysian, Singaporean or any other of the 160 countries in the world?

What your version of Democracy is will perhaps be different from mine, Thais or most other people in the world.

There is NO one size "Democracy" that fits all.

Do you believe that it is right for you to wish for and impose your version of Democracy on the Thai people whether they want it or not?

It is a Thai problem for them to sort out for themselves not for outsiders to impose.

If you put your low grade rant on hold, it might dawn on you that in fact the whole issue is about Thais deciding what form of democratic government they want.A minority of Thais however want to bludgeon and silence the majority.That is the problem.

[Jon Wetherall]

"He predicted that those who disagree with the draft charter will later try to have it amended..."

This is a faulty conclusion.

Should by any remote possibility a fair election be held in the future. A representative govt. ought not to think of amendments. That would be like trying to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear"

The only thing that would extend representative input to a constitution, would be to turf the one resulting from the current situation, and proceed with Democratic principles being the guiding force for construction of such a thing.

I wont hold my breath for any such electoral eventuality however.

Now whose Democratic principles should be chosen? TRT, Democrats, the USA model, the UK model, Australian, EU, German, Syrian, Egyptian, North or South Korean, South African, Zimbabwean, Sudanese, Malaysian, Singaporean or any other of the 160 countries in the world?

What your version of Democracy is will perhaps be different from mine, Thais or most other people in the world.

There is NO one size "Democracy" that fits all.

Do you believe that it is right for you to wish for and impose your version of Democracy on the Thai people whether they want it or not?

It is a Thai problem for them to sort out for themselves not for outsiders to impose.

"It is a Thai problem for them to sort out for themselves not for outsiders to impose."

Very true.

However it is also a problem for outsiders to decide if, on the basis of democratic credentials, they wish to associate in any way with Thailand, or to buy Thai products. It is, after all, a free world.

That is the first reality of the global village. no country is really free and independent. All countries and all peoples are judged by their peers. This is one of the things the army wallahs have such trouble understanding as they obsessively pursue the approval of a tiny minority.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Jon Wetherall

[tomacht8]

"He predicted that those who disagree with the draft charter will later try to have it amended..."

This is a faulty conclusion.

Should by any remote possibility a fair election be held in the future. A representative govt. ought not to think of amendments. That would be like trying to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear"

The only thing that would extend representative input to a constitution, would be to turf the one resulting from the current situation, and proceed with Democratic principles being the guiding force for construction of such a thing.

I wont hold my breath for any such electoral eventuality however.

Now whose Democratic principles should be chosen? TRT, Democrats, the USA model, the UK model, Australian, EU, German, Syrian, Egyptian, North or South Korean, South African, Zimbabwean, Sudanese, Malaysian, Singaporean or any other of the 160 countries in the world?

What your version of Democracy is will perhaps be different from mine, Thais or most other people in the world.

There is NO one size "Democracy" that fits all.

Do you believe that it is right for you to wish for and impose your version of Democracy on the Thai people whether they want it or not?

It is a Thai problem for them to sort out for themselves not for outsiders to impose.

If you put your low grade rant on hold, it might dawn on you that in fact the whole issue is about Thais deciding what form of democratic government they want.A minority of Thais however want to bludgeon and silence the majority.That is the problem.

Why are you so rude?

"If you put your low grade rant on hold...."

A minority of Thais however want to bludgeon and silence the majority.

This state of affairs exists here for more then 100 years.

So relax.

[billd766]

"He predicted that those who disagree with the draft charter will later try to have it amended..."

This is a faulty conclusion.

Should by any remote possibility a fair election be held in the future. A representative govt. ought not to think of amendments. That would be like trying to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear"

The only thing that would extend representative input to a constitution, would be to turf the one resulting from the current situation, and proceed with Democratic principles being the guiding force for construction of such a thing.

I wont hold my breath for any such electoral eventuality however.

Now whose Democratic principles should be chosen? TRT, Democrats, the USA model, the UK model, Australian, EU, German, Syrian, Egyptian, North or South Korean, South African, Zimbabwean, Sudanese, Malaysian, Singaporean or any other of the 160 countries in the world?

What your version of Democracy is will perhaps be different from mine, Thais or most other people in the world.

There is NO one size "Democracy" that fits all.

Do you believe that it is right for you to wish for and impose your version of Democracy on the Thai people whether they want it or not?

It is a Thai problem for them to sort out for themselves not for outsiders to impose.

If you put your low grade rant on hold, it might dawn on you that in fact the whole issue is about Thais deciding what form of democratic government they want.A minority of Thais however want to bludgeon and silence the majority.That is the problem.

If you read this and many other threads there are so many farang who want to decide what the Thai people ought to do when in reality very few of us farangs on TVF including me actually have NO voice in Thailand. We cannot vote, we have no voice and at best we MAY be able to change the vote of our wives and Thai families but that is by no means certain either.

Jayboy you are correct. It IS a Thai problem and unless you are Thai it isn't your problem either and NO it wasn't a low grade rant at all. The whole issue is what Thais want, not you or me or ANY other farang wants, so let the Thai people decide. It makes NO difference what you, I or any other farang think is good for Thais, let THEM decide and NOT you. It makes NO difference what any farang wants for the Thai people. If you haven't managed to work that out yet, then that is your problem, not theirs.

[billd766]

"He predicted that those who disagree with the draft charter will later try to have it amended..."

This is a faulty conclusion.

Should by any remote possibility a fair election be held in the future. A representative govt. ought not to think of amendments. That would be like trying to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear"

The only thing that would extend representative input to a constitution, would be to turf the one resulting from the current situation, and proceed with Democratic principles being the guiding force for construction of such a thing.

I wont hold my breath for any such electoral eventuality however.

Now whose Democratic principles should be chosen? TRT, Democrats, the USA model, the UK model, Australian, EU, German, Syrian, Egyptian, North or South Korean, South African, Zimbabwean, Sudanese, Malaysian, Singaporean or any other of the 160 countries in the world?

What your version of Democracy is will perhaps be different from mine, Thais or most other people in the world.

There is NO one size "Democracy" that fits all.

Do you believe that it is right for you to wish for and impose your version of Democracy on the Thai people whether they want it or not?

It is a Thai problem for them to sort out for themselves not for outsiders to impose.

"It is a Thai problem for them to sort out for themselves not for outsiders to impose."

Very true.

However it is also a problem for outsiders to decide if, on the basis of democratic credentials, they wish to associate in any way with Thailand, or to buy Thai products. It is, after all, a free world.

That is the first reality of the global village. no country is really free and independent. All countries and all peoples are judged by their peers. This is one of the things the army wallahs have such trouble understanding as they obsessively pursue the approval of a tiny minority.

Absolutely. But it is the choice that Thai people have to make , not you or I. The Thai people will do what THEY want to do and not necessarily what you or I think is the right thing to do.

[jayboy]

"He predicted that those who disagree with the draft charter will later try to have it amended..."

This is a faulty conclusion.

Should by any remote possibility a fair election be held in the future. A representative govt. ought not to think of amendments. That would be like trying to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear"

The only thing that would extend representative input to a constitution, would be to turf the one resulting from the current situation, and proceed with Democratic principles being the guiding force for construction of such a thing.

I wont hold my breath for any such electoral eventuality however.

Now whose Democratic principles should be chosen? TRT, Democrats, the USA model, the UK model, Australian, EU, German, Syrian, Egyptian, North or South Korean, South African, Zimbabwean, Sudanese, Malaysian, Singaporean or any other of the 160 countries in the world?

What your version of Democracy is will perhaps be different from mine, Thais or most other people in the world.

There is NO one size "Democracy" that fits all.

Do you believe that it is right for you to wish for and impose your version of Democracy on the Thai people whether they want it or not?

It is a Thai problem for them to sort out for themselves not for outsiders to impose.

If you put your low grade rant on hold, it might dawn on you that in fact the whole issue is about Thais deciding what form of democratic government they want.A minority of Thais however want to bludgeon and silence the majority.That is the problem.

If you read this and many other threads there are so many farang who want to decide what the Thai people ought to do when in reality very few of us farangs on TVF including me actually have NO voice in Thailand. We cannot vote, we have no voice and at best we MAY be able to change the vote of our wives and Thai families but that is by no means certain either.

Jayboy you are correct. It IS a Thai problem and unless you are Thai it isn't your problem either and NO it wasn't a low grade rant at all. The whole issue is what Thais want, not you or me or ANY other farang wants, so let the Thai people decide. It makes NO difference what you, I or any other farang think is good for Thais, let THEM decide and NOT you. It makes NO difference what any farang wants for the Thai people. If you haven't managed to work that out yet, then that is your problem, not theirs.

Of course it is a matter for Thais and not for foreigners.Was anybody suggesting it should be otherwise?The problem is that establishment Thais buttressed by the Sino Thai middle class refuse to accept that they cannot hold a permanent veto over the wishes of the majority.It's not a particularly unusual dilemma but the Thai governing class has behaved with unusual stupidity.With a better developed sense of enlightened self interest it could have managed the transition to popular democracy and still kept more or less at the top of the heap.

[rubl]

"He predicted that those who disagree with the draft charter will later try to have it amended..."

This is a faulty conclusion.

Should by any remote possibility a fair election be held in the future. A representative govt. ought not to think of amendments. That would be like trying to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear"

The only thing that would extend representative input to a constitution, would be to turf the one resulting from the current situation, and proceed with Democratic principles being the guiding force for construction of such a thing.

I wont hold my breath for any such electoral eventuality however.

Now whose Democratic principles should be chosen? TRT, Democrats, the USA model, the UK model, Australian, EU, German, Syrian, Egyptian, North or South Korean, South African, Zimbabwean, Sudanese, Malaysian, Singaporean or any other of the 160 countries in the world?

What your version of Democracy is will perhaps be different from mine, Thais or most other people in the world.

There is NO one size "Democracy" that fits all.

Do you believe that it is right for you to wish for and impose your version of Democracy on the Thai people whether they want it or not?

It is a Thai problem for them to sort out for themselves not for outsiders to impose.

For example, an elected national constituent assembly with 2/3 majority rule would be a democratic way to let the Thai decide which kind of democracy they want.

Especially when the local strongmen clearly indicate how they want to have the vote go.

[LannaGuy]

clear signal:

YES army stays and will step in any time they don't like the elected government

NO army stays until it get's the above

democracy and liberty will never prevail whilst the army does not obey and answer to those who are ELECTED by and for the people

[rubl]

clear signal:

YES army stays and will step in any time they don't like the elected government

NO army stays until it get's the above

democracy and liberty will never prevail whilst the army does not obey and answer to those who are ELECTED by and for the people

Now if only Thailand managed to get those who work FOR the people

[LannaGuy]

clear signal:

YES army stays and will step in any time they don't like the elected government

NO army stays until it get's the above

democracy and liberty will never prevail whilst the army does not obey and answer to those who are ELECTED by and for the people

Now if only Thailand managed to get those who work FOR the people

well we actually agree but it can never happen if the army keeps stepping in (is it 22 times?) the 'people' have to decide even if that is painful to watch and it IS their choice. Freedom to vote, even if we hate the choice, is a basic human right

[rubl]

clear signal:

YES army stays and will step in any time they don't like the elected government

NO army stays until it get's the above

democracy and liberty will never prevail whilst the army does not obey and answer to those who are ELECTED by and for the people

Now if only Thailand managed to get those who work FOR the people

well we actually agree but it can never happen if the army keeps stepping in (is it 22 times?) the 'people' have to decide even if that is painful to watch and it IS their choice. Freedom to vote, even if we hate the choice, is a basic human right

doesn't matter if we like or dislike a choice. As long as the electorate is still controlled to 'elect' a party which afterwards has the attitude of "We value your vote till it's counted, we have a mandate, please go home now" there will not be democracy and liberty either. The army under control of elected criminals is not a step forward.

[LannaGuy]

clear signal:

YES army stays and will step in any time they don't like the elected government

NO army stays until it get's the above

democracy and liberty will never prevail whilst the army does not obey and answer to those who are ELECTED by and for the people

Now if only Thailand managed to get those who work FOR the people

well we actually agree but it can never happen if the army keeps stepping in (is it 22 times?) the 'people' have to decide even if that is painful to watch and it IS their choice. Freedom to vote, even if we hate the choice, is a basic human right

doesn't matter if we like or dislike a choice. As long as the electorate is still controlled to 'elect' a party which afterwards has the attitude of "We value your vote till it's counted, we have a mandate, please go home now" there will not be democracy and liberty either. The army under control of elected criminals is not a step forward.

YOU may think that but it's the citizens of Thailand's CHOICE (or it should be) and therefore you are STILL saying the Army have the right to step in if they don't like the CHOICE. I hate Republicans and Tories but I would not agree with the Army stepping in when they were elected even though they sent 1000s people to their deaths in wars built on lies - PTP never DID THAT!!!

Edited September 5, 2015 by LannaGuy

[baboon]

clear signal:

YES army stays and will step in any time they don't like the elected government

NO army stays until it get's the above

democracy and liberty will never prevail whilst the army does not obey and answer to those who are ELECTED by and for the people

Now if only Thailand managed to get those who work FOR the people

well we actually agree but it can never happen if the army keeps stepping in (is it 22 times?) the 'people' have to decide even if that is painful to watch and it IS their choice. Freedom to vote, even if we hate the choice, is a basic human right

doesn't matter if we like or dislike a choice. As long as the electorate is still controlled to 'elect' a party which afterwards has the attitude of "We value your vote till it's counted, we have a mandate, please go home now" there will not be democracy and liberty either. The army under control of elected criminals is not a step forward.

How were they controlled and why the inverted commas round the word 'elect'?

Edited September 5, 2015 by baboon

[wow64]

Should just stop calling it a democracy and be done with it.

[jayboy]

clear signal:

YES army stays and will step in any time they don't like the elected government

NO army stays until it get's the above

democracy and liberty will never prevail whilst the army does not obey and answer to those who are ELECTED by and for the people

Now if only Thailand managed to get those who work FOR the people

well we actually agree but it can never happen if the army keeps stepping in (is it 22 times?) the 'people' have to decide even if that is painful to watch and it IS their choice. Freedom to vote, even if we hate the choice, is a basic human right

doesn't matter if we like or dislike a choice. As long as the electorate is still controlled to 'elect' a party which afterwards has the attitude of "We value your vote till it's counted, we have a mandate, please go home now" there will not be democracy and liberty either. The army under control of elected criminals is not a step forward.

My recollection is that the last government was constantly checked and blocked by court decisions, street protests, military pressure and parliamentary opposition.It did certainly have an electoral mandate but that hardly gave it unrestrained freedom of action.

The trouble with some is that they deny the importance of elections at all because they don't trust the people and prefer control by "self appointed "good people".Your reference in inverted commas to "elect" and suggestion to "control" betrays your mindset.To be fair its also the view of many Thai middle class urbanites.

I don't think the last government lost contact with its supporters after the general election.Even now the Junta and its supporters are terrified of the outcome should the Thai people be consulted in a free and democratic general election.Whatever the lies about the weakness of elections (vote buying, feudal lords, stupid electors - all disproven now of course) seeking the mandate of the Thai people is the best way to proceed.

Military forces should be under civilian control.If you have a penchant for the army to be under the control of unelected criminals that's your choice.Whatever the weaknesses of civilian governments they can be voted out.But to turf out a government is the preogative of the Thai people not the business of coupsters (and their sponsors) and other gangsters.

[Praematura]

Syrian, Zimbabwe, North Korea, etc as democracies? Lol how can you expect to have credibility makes statements like that.

Go look up democracy and see it entails choosing your representatives. What we have here is a military government that is seeking to retain power through a facade of a new constitution.

Making the asinine statement "it's for Thais to decide" is obvious as we have no rights here.

[Jon Wetherall]

Referendum will send clear signal to NCPO

Won't it just... batten down the hatches bosun, stormy weather's a-coming...

[billd766]

Now whose Democratic principles should be chosen? TRT, Democrats, the USA model, the UK model, Australian, EU, German, Syrian, Egyptian, North or South Korean, South African, Zimbabwean, Sudanese, Malaysian, Singaporean or any other of the 160 countries in the world?

What your version of Democracy is will perhaps be different from mine, Thais or most other people in the world.

There is NO one size "Democracy" that fits all.

Do you believe that it is right for you to wish for and impose your version of Democracy on the Thai people whether they want it or not?

It is a Thai problem for them to sort out for themselves not for outsiders to impose.

If you put your low grade rant on hold, it might dawn on you that in fact the whole issue is about Thais deciding what form of democratic government they want.A minority of Thais however want to bludgeon and silence the majority.That is the problem.

If you read this and many other threads there are so many farang who want to decide what the Thai people ought to do when in reality very few of us farangs on TVF including me actually have NO voice in Thailand. We cannot vote, we have no voice and at best we MAY be able to change the vote of our wives and Thai families but that is by no means certain either.

Jayboy you are correct. It IS a Thai problem and unless you are Thai it isn't your problem either and NO it wasn't a low grade rant at all. The whole issue is what Thais want, not you or me or ANY other farang wants, so let the Thai people decide. It makes NO difference what you, I or any other farang think is good for Thais, let THEM decide and NOT you. It makes NO difference what any farang wants for the Thai people. If you haven't managed to work that out yet, then that is your problem, not theirs.

Of course it is a matter for Thais and not for foreigners.Was anybody suggesting it should be otherwise?The problem is that establishment Thais buttressed by the Sino Thai middle class refuse to accept that they cannot hold a permanent veto over the wishes of the majority.It's not a particularly unusual dilemma but the Thai governing class has behaved with unusual stupidity.With a better developed sense of enlightened self interest it could have managed the transition to popular democracy and still kept more or less at the top of the heap.

But if as you say the Establishment Thais and the middle class Thais refuse to accept the changes that will come, again they are Thai people and we are not. WE do not have the right to tell the Thais whether THEY are right or wrong as it is THEIR country and not ours. Change IS coming but of necessity it is slow.

You mention once again "popular democracy" but which "popular democracy" is right for Thailand at the present? It is not our place to tell the Thais "this is popular democracy the............... way, and this is the way you should go".

What is your version of "popular democracy"?

[jayboy]

Now whose Democratic principles should be chosen? TRT, Democrats, the USA model, the UK model, Australian, EU, German, Syrian, Egyptian, North or South Korean, South African, Zimbabwean, Sudanese, Malaysian, Singaporean or any other of the 160 countries in the world?

What your version of Democracy is will perhaps be different from mine, Thais or most other people in the world.

There is NO one size "Democracy" that fits all.

Do you believe that it is right for you to wish for and impose your version of Democracy on the Thai people whether they want it or not?

It is a Thai problem for them to sort out for themselves not for outsiders to impose.

If you put your low grade rant on hold, it might dawn on you that in fact the whole issue is about Thais deciding what form of democratic government they want.A minority of Thais however want to bludgeon and silence the majority.That is the problem.

If you read this and many other threads there are so many farang who want to decide what the Thai people ought to do when in reality very few of us farangs on TVF including me actually have NO voice in Thailand. We cannot vote, we have no voice and at best we MAY be able to change the vote of our wives and Thai families but that is by no means certain either.

Jayboy you are correct. It IS a Thai problem and unless you are Thai it isn't your problem either and NO it wasn't a low grade rant at all. The whole issue is what Thais want, not you or me or ANY other farang wants, so let the Thai people decide. It makes NO difference what you, I or any other farang think is good for Thais, let THEM decide and NOT you. It makes NO difference what any farang wants for the Thai people. If you haven't managed to work that out yet, then that is your problem, not theirs.

Of course it is a matter for Thais and not for foreigners.Was anybody suggesting it should be otherwise?The problem is that establishment Thais buttressed by the Sino Thai middle class refuse to accept that they cannot hold a permanent veto over the wishes of the majority.It's not a particularly unusual dilemma but the Thai governing class has behaved with unusual stupidity.With a better developed sense of enlightened self interest it could have managed the transition to popular democracy and still kept more or less at the top of the heap.

But if as you say the Establishment Thais and the middle class Thais refuse to accept the changes that will come, again they are Thai people and we are not. WE do not have the right to tell the Thais whether THEY are right or wrong as it is THEIR country and not ours. Change IS coming but of necessity it is slow.

You mention once again "popular democracy" but which "popular democracy" is right for Thailand at the present? It is not our place to tell the Thais "this is popular democracy the............... way, and this is the way you should go".

What is your version of "popular democracy"?

You are pushing at an open door.I agree it is not for foreigners to tell Thais what to do.They would pay no notice anyway.

It is perfectly in order for foreigners to be interested and to comment.Many perceptive Thais agree given the tendency of many of their countrymen to believe in an intellectually bankrupt version of exceptionalism, ie believing that Thailand is utterly unique and the lessons of other countries are not relevant.Sometimes it takes an outsider to discern reality.

Which brand of popular democracy is a matter for the Thais and there should be transparency with involved not just a few.

[Jon Wetherall]

democracy and liberty will never prevail whilst the army does not obey and answer to those who are ELECTED by and for the people

Now if only Thailand managed to get those who work FOR the people

well we actually agree but it can never happen if the army keeps stepping in (is it 22 times?) the 'people' have to decide even if that is painful to watch and it IS their choice. Freedom to vote, even if we hate the choice, is a basic human right

doesn't matter if we like or dislike a choice. As long as the electorate is still controlled to 'elect' a party which afterwards has the attitude of "We value your vote till it's counted, we have a mandate, please go home now" there will not be democracy and liberty either. The army under control of elected criminals is not a step forward.

My recollection is that the last government was constantly checked and blocked by court decisions, street protests, military pressure and parliamentary opposition.It did certainly have an electoral mandate but that hardly gave it unrestrained freedom of action.

The trouble with some is that they deny the importance of elections at all because they don't trust the people and prefer control by "self appointed "good people".Your reference in inverted commas to "elect" and suggestion to "control" betrays your mindset.To be fair its also the view of many Thai middle class urbanites.

I don't think the last government lost contact with its supporters after the general election.Even now the Junta and its supporters are terrified of the outcome should the Thai people be consulted in a free and democratic general election.Whatever the lies about the weakness of elections (vote buying, feudal lords, stupid electors - all disproven now of course) seeking the mandate of the Thai people is the best way to proceed.

Military forces should be under civilian control.If you have a penchant for the army to be under the control of unelected criminals that's your choice.Whatever the weaknesses of civilian governments they can be voted out.But to turf out a government is the preogative of the Thai people not the business of coupsters (and their sponsors) and other gangsters.

Amen. Well said.

[dageurreotype]

"He predicted that those who disagree with the draft charter will later try to have it amended..."

This is a faulty conclusion.

Should by any remote possibility a fair election be held in the future. A representative govt. ought not to think of amendments. That would be like trying to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear"

The only thing that would extend representative input to a constitution, would be to turf the one resulting from the current situation, and proceed with Democratic principles being the guiding force for construction of such a thing.

I wont hold my breath for any such electoral eventuality however.

Now whose Democratic principles should be chosen? TRT, Democrats, the USA model, the UK model, Australian, EU, German, Syrian, Egyptian, North or South Korean, South African, Zimbabwean, Sudanese, Malaysian, Singaporean or any other of the 160 countries in the world?

What your version of Democracy is will perhaps be different from mine, Thais or most other people in the world.

There is NO one size "Democracy" that fits all.

Do you believe that it is right for you to wish for and impose your version of Democracy on the Thai people whether they want it or not?

It is a Thai problem for them to sort out for themselves not for outsiders to impose.

There are no 'versions' of Democracy alike there are no 'versions' of Truth. There is only ONE. Enough with this 'well if it doesn't suit our agenda we'll tweak it a bit and rename it' nonsense. Just come right out and say you really don't mind being undemocratic because it suits your interests exactly the same as lying through your teeth if needs be. There is Democracy and there is Truth, both of which should be strove towards and fought for. End of.

[dageurreotype]

"He predicted that those who disagree with the draft charter will later try to have it amended..."

This is a faulty conclusion.

Should by any remote possibility a fair election be held in the future. A representative govt. ought not to think of amendments. That would be like trying to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear"

The only thing that would extend representative input to a constitution, would be to turf the one resulting from the current situation, and proceed with Democratic principles being the guiding force for construction of such a thing.

I wont hold my breath for any such electoral eventuality however.

Now whose Democratic principles should be chosen? TRT, Democrats, the USA model, the UK model, Australian, EU, German, Syrian, Egyptian, North or South Korean, South African, Zimbabwean, Sudanese, Malaysian, Singaporean or any other of the 160 countries in the world?

What your version of Democracy is will perhaps be different from mine, Thais or most other people in the world.

There is NO one size "Democracy" that fits all.

Do you believe that it is right for you to wish for and impose your version of Democracy on the Thai people whether they want it or not?

It is a Thai problem for them to sort out for themselves not for outsiders to impose.

There are no 'versions' of Democracy alike there are no 'versions' of Truth. There is only ONE. Enough with this 'well if it doesn't suit our agenda we'll tweak it a bit and rename it' nonsense. Just come right out and say you really don't mind being undemocratic because it suits your interests exactly the same as lying through your teeth if needs be. There is Democracy and there is Truth, both of which should be strove towards and fought for. End of.