Its Happening - Law to Tax Overseas Income Now in Progress

[Lite Beer]

NEW CHARTER
Referendum clause is clear, Wissanu says
JEERAPONG PRASERTPOLKRUNG
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- A CONSTITUTIONAL COURT verdict may be sought to determine if the result of the upcoming referendum on the draft charter should take into account voters who turn out or all eligible voters, Deputy Premier Wissanu Krea-ngam has said.

He said people who have doubts on this matter should bring their concern to court or consult with the Council of State, which is the government's legal advisory agency.

The government, he said, did not have doubts about this.

The amended version of the post-coup interim charter states in Article 37 that a national referendum is required to endorse the draft constitution.

The clause reads in part: "If the majority [of voters] at the referendum approves the draft constitution, the prime minister shall present the draft constitution to the King for his signature within 30 days as from the date the referendum result is published."

Wissanu said that if most people who vote are in favour of the draft it should pass, although he understood people could have a different view.

Despite the issue still being contentious, the deputy PM said it should proceed in line with intentions of the government and Election Commission.

Wissanu said that for him the interim charter clause was clear. "How could it mean otherwise? There are 40 million eligible voters but then someone came out and insisted that at least 20 million votes are needed for the charter to pass. Where do you get that from?" he said.

He denied the unclear clause was a mistake, saying that it was similar to a clause in the 2006 interim charter, in that the 2007 draft constitution was passed after most people who voted in the referendum called for that. He saw no need to amend the article.

Wissanu also insisted that National Reform Council members could vote independently tomorrow on whether to approve the draft constitution. The government had not tried to influence their vote, as he would have known had there been such a move.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Referendum-clause-is-clear-Wissanu-says-30268192.html

-- The Nation 2015-09-05

[aussieinthailand]

So for the referendum if there is 40,000,000 voters and it needs for (most) voters to vote yes then it should pass, and some have suggested that it would need 20,000,000 or more to pass, "where did you get that from?"

Ok so now that's clear,,, And these blokes are running the show,

[Srikcir]

The 2007 draft constitution passed with a bare majority of people who VOTED. The total vote was only about half of the total voters registered. So the constitution passed by essentially a MINORITY of the voters or about 25%.

The 2007 draft constitution had no NATIONAL concensus. It' was hardly a surprise that the majority of Thai voters decided through the PTP elected government to amend the constitution.

A draft constitution that can't garner at least 50% of registered voters will ultimately fail in its application. The Junta was admittedly wrong to exclude a referendum for the draft constitution in the Interim Charter. Why can't it also admit wrong about requiring only a majority of people who vote and amend the charter again? It's not like the five members of NCPO are too busy to make the amendment.

[MZurf]

Here we go again. The word/term "majority" creating problems for the junta and their cheerleaders. I guess that is unavoidable when overthrowing an elected government and trying to justify implementing a new constitution giving yourself the final say forever.

[Thai at Heart]

It's compulsory to vote, so they will have to prosecute those who don't pitch. Since its compulsory there are 40mn available votes needing 20mn to win.

These idiots are too incompetent.

[Arkady]

I looked at the Thai original. Translating from Section 37/7 literally it says "if those who have the right vote with a majority approve the draft constitution..." This could also be interpreted as "if those who have the right to vote approve the draft constitution with a majority...." which implies "majority of votes cast". However, the wording "majority of votes cast" is not there and an objective interpretation, IMHO not being a Thai language expert, would more likely be "majority of those with the right to vote" which happens to be what it says.

I would think that a referendum win based on a majority of votes cast would undoubtedly result in a challenge in the Constitutional Court. Winning by a majority of those eligible to vote is virtually impossible. So it actually appears incredibly enough to be oversight.

The eligible number of voters in the 2007 referendum, which was clearly to be by majority of votes cast, was 45 million. The voter turn-out was only 57% and it passed by a 57% majority of votes cast.

[Jon Wetherall]

Wissanu. More fun than a box of frogs.

[Baerboxer]

Here we go again. The word/term "majority" creating problems for the junta and their cheerleaders. I guess that is unavoidable when overthrowing an elected government and trying to justify implementing a new constitution giving yourself the final say forever.

I thought it was you who had the problem with the word "majority" - or more specifically only wanted to use one definition that you liked and ignore all the others?

The issue here is whether the majority needed is based on all votes case, or the number of eligible voters.

Not a discussion of whether 48% constitutes a majority, or even a landslide majority.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Baerboxer

[Jon Wetherall]

Here we go again. The word/term "majority" creating problems for the junta and their cheerleaders. I guess that is unavoidable when overthrowing an elected government and trying to justify implementing a new constitution giving yourself the final say forever.

I thought it was you who had the problem with the word "majority" - or more specifically only wanted to use one definition that you liked and ignore all the others?

The issue here is whether the majority needed is based on all votes case, or the number of eligible voters.

Not a discussion of whether 48% constitutes a majority, or even a landslide majority.

Well, the answer to that appears to be as clear as Wissanu states. But not exactly in the meaning he states. In fact, not at all in the meaning he states.

Mrs Wissanu: hello dear, how was your day?

Mr Wissanu: I don't know dear, I think I made a bit of a of tw@t of myself. Again.

Mrs Wissanu: Really? Well never mind dear, that nice ex-General with the tall hat still thinks you're smart... he's never complained about beady eyes or anything, not like the others.

Mr Wissanu: Well, thank you dear, but I'm not sure that makes me feel any less tw@t-like really...

Edited September 5, 2015 by Jon Wetherall

[MZurf]

Here we go again. The word/term "majority" creating problems for the junta and their cheerleaders. I guess that is unavoidable when overthrowing an elected government and trying to justify implementing a new constitution giving yourself the final say forever.

I thought it was you who had the problem with the word "majority" - or more specifically only wanted to use one definition that you liked and ignore all the others?

The issue here is whether the majority needed is based on all votes case, or the number of eligible voters.

Not a discussion of whether 48% constitutes a majority, or even a landslide majority.

I'm having a problem with the word majority and ignore all other definitions?? That's rich. Whenever I have stated that the PTP/TRTgot the majority of the votes in every election for the last 9 years the junta lovers have started squealing like pigs and tried every definition of the word ever used just to get away from the unpalatable facts.

What we see now is the deputy PM trying the same verbal acrobatics. They might feel what way the wind is blowing, and even if the junta stays in power regardless of a yes or no win it will be a serious loss of face for Uncle Too if the vote is no.

[Baerboxer]

Here we go again. The word/term "majority" creating problems for the junta and their cheerleaders. I guess that is unavoidable when overthrowing an elected government and trying to justify implementing a new constitution giving yourself the final say forever.

I thought it was you who had the problem with the word "majority" - or more specifically only wanted to use one definition that you liked and ignore all the others?

The issue here is whether the majority needed is based on all votes case, or the number of eligible voters.

Not a discussion of whether 48% constitutes a majority, or even a landslide majority.

I'm having a problem with the word majority and ignore all other definitions?? That's rich. Whenever I have stated that the PTP/TRTgot the majority of the votes in every election for the last 9 years the junta lovers have started squealing like pigs and tried every definition of the word ever used just to get away from the unpalatable facts.

What we see now is the deputy PM trying the same verbal acrobatics. They might feel what way the wind is blowing, and even if the junta stays in power regardless of a yes or no win it will be a serious loss of face for Uncle Too if the vote is no.

That's because many people view a majority as being over 50% of the votes in an election. As per some definitions. Rather than simply the biggest portion.

The fact is that Thaksin proxy parties won elections. The way the electoral system works meant that in 2011 they had the biggest minority vote but that translated to a majority of parliamentary seats. All electoral systems have their pros and cons. Each Thaksin proxy government then got caught lying, cheating and breaking laws. Incredibly stupid for a government that could do things correct as they have the majority. This all becomes compounded because the hiso elites, including the Shins, that play these games never actually obey laws or have them really enforced on them anyway. Apart from a few exceptions.

There is more time spent in arguing the meaning of laws, phrases, and trying to twist them with the threat of suing everyone and anyone for defamation at the slightest whim than actually trying to do their job. That applies to all politicians, civil servants and their ilk.