NRC member queries 'majority votes' requirement for referendum
KASAMAKORN CHANWANPEN
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- A MEMBER of the National Reform Council has called on his colleagues to shoot down the draft charter, arguing that the conditions for the referendum were flawed and it would be a waste of state funds if it were to go ahead.

Niran Pantarakit, a member of the NRC's political reform committee, said he had studied the conditions listed in the interim charter and realised that Clause 7 of Article 37 says "the charter must win majority votes of the total 'eligible voters'."

This, he said, would mean that the draft would have to win "yes" votes from a majority of 47 million eligible voters, which would make it impossible for the draft charter to go through.

"If the charter is put through a referendum, it would most certainly fail. How can it possibly win 23.5 million votes when the turnout might be even less [than that]?" Niran remarked.

Hence, he said, the best option would be for the reformers to vote down the draft charter this Sunday. He also called on concerned agencies, including the Cabinet and the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), to amend the interim charter before the referendum is held.

However, Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) member Jade Donavanik insisted that the clause referred to the turnout rather than the entire electorate. He said that to win approval, the draft charter would have to win a simple majority from the eligible voters who exercise their ballot.

CDC spokesman Kamnoon Sidhisamarn, meanwhile, said he did not believe the interim charter crafted by the NLA would have any mistakes.

Election Commissioner Somchai Srisutthiya-korn has said that the EC was discussing the issue with its legal team and had not yet resolved whether the interim charter's Article 37 would pose the problems pointed out by Niran, Somchai's secretary said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/NRC-member-queries-majority-votes-requirement-for--30268022.html


-- The Nation 2015-09-03

You'd think they'd learn by now to have grey areas and ambiguity removed from all laws, charters and constitutions. It can't be that hard to write things in a clear and unambigious way.

They will change this to be a majority of those who vote; this will be much easier to "control".

They cannot get a majority of registered voters.

They should also require some sort of "quorum", a minimum total number of people voting for/against, but that won't happen.

Not sure why they don't just conduct a poll, say that 93% approve the new Constitution, Gazette it and be done with it?

You'd think they'd learn by now to have grey areas and ambiguity removed from all laws, charters and constitutions. It can't be that hard to write things in a clear and unambigious way.

I reckon it was a calculated decision and carefully worded, because they secretly want the charter to be rejected. The charter probably would have been passed by the people who showed up to vote (if for nothing other than getting rid of the junta) and then WHAM ''Sorry folks...we said majority if eligible voters-charter rejected. We're staying on make a new one''

This resembles the "Student Government" we had in High School.

Not to worry. Mr.Prime Minister can provide "wise instruction" to the NRC.

Remember that the NCPO never intended for a referendum for the new constitution. The Interim Charter did not originally provide for a referendum. And while members of NRC and CDC have recommended that a referendum be held on the draft, the NCPO has yet to amend the Interim Charter for allow a referendum. Prayut says he wants to see the final draft as approved by the NRA first.

The Junta was likely following the same process it used for the 1997 Constitution: passed by a majority of the junta-appointed legislature and endorsed by the Head of State.

The junta's 2007 draft Constitution was voted on in a referendum by only about 58% of registered voters and of those voters only about 58% approved the draft. So basically the draft was approved by a MINORITY of registered voters in a country where the law requires people to vote. The resulting political conflict should have been expected!

The military has truly not learned from history. But absolute power can be blinding.

You'd think they'd learn by now to have grey areas and ambiguity removed from all laws, charters and constitutions. It can't be that hard to write things in a clear and unambigious way.

hmmm, makes you wonder about the quality of the junta's hand-picked lackies, ...

which in turn makes you wonder about the quality of the junta itself...

But on the other side, you have the great strides of progress which have been made in the past year by a "government" with no opposition, no political or legal hurdles, and a carte-blanche, green-field fist-full of extra-legal powers...

All made harder since there is no campaigning. Stay at home and scupper the charter.