US Charges Leaders of White Supremacist Group for Plotting Global Attacks via Telegram

[Lite Beer]

'No' voices get louder as NRC set to decide on fate of draft charter today
KASAMAKORN CHANWANPEN
THE SUNDAY NATION

BANGKOK: -- THE NATIONAL Reform Council's 247 members have the important task of voting on the charter today. Over the past few weeks, the public has heard divisive voices with those opposing the charter stepping out more often to make themselves heard. As of today, it seems a neck-and-neck situation.

The Sunday Nation talked to several reformers representing different interest groups sitting on 18 reform committees covering politics, business, social and non-profit organisations, bureaucratic system, the media, academics, justice system and legal reform, anti-corruption, local administration and provinces, and military and police.

Their voices on the charter have differed not only on the content, but also the consequences after the voting, although many have claimed they shared common goal of "national interests."

High-profile reformer and NRC whip spokesman Wanchai Sornsiri yesterday estimated that about 150 NRC members would vote against the charter, as they viewed the draft as problematic that could lead to a new conflict. The charter needs half of the NRC votes, or 124, to be passed under the interim charter.

According to Ekarat Changlao, NRC members representing Khon Kaen province, provincial reformers have increasingly spoken out against the charter. On Friday, he claimed that some 95 per cent of the council members from the provinces - especially those from the Northeast - planned to vote against it because of the controversial points concerning the National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Committee and outsider prime minister.

The interest groups from politics and academics, which could be seen sitting in the political reforms committee, meanwhile, have remained divided with some academics like Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, chair of the committee, saying no to the charter, while the others - some of them former senators - staying positive, including Prasarn Marukpitak.

A reformer from the justice system and legal reform committee, Udom Fuangfung, on the other hand, said firmly that he would vote 'No' today. He believed the charter would create conflict. He said it would be better for the council to reject the charter rather than waste money 0holding a national referendum.

"In my field of expertise - combating corruption - the charter doesn't serve the purpose whatsoever. Plus, there are too many flaws that don't serve the purpose of bringing peace and reconciliation as intended either," said Udom.

A few days ago, Seri Suwannapanont, former charter drafter and chair of the justice system and legal reform committee had said that he had discussed with colleagues from different groups and it seems that the "No" votes will outnumber the "Yes" votes. Reacting to a rumour that some members from military groups had tried to convince their colleagues to vote "No", Seri dismissed the speculation, saying it would be impossible as the National Council for Peace and Order and the government had publicly supported the charter.

Opposition to the charter also came from an environment figure like former National Park chief Damrong Pideth. He said the charter did not have a balance between rights of the people and those of other living organisms as well as natural resources. He said the charter gave too much importance to rights of indigenous people, while leaving out rights of forests and wildlife to co-exist.

Ekachai Srivilas, a member from the political reforms panel and a few social-based committees, said he would vote "Yes" because a lot of effort as well as resources had been put into drafting the Constitution and he did not want to see it go in vain.

Ekachai said he felt rather "indifferent" about the details of the charter. Resolution lies with the people, not the Constitution, he said. Ekachai said after meeting colleagues from some groups he learned that the votes from both camps were neck and neck.

Asked if he viewed the draft charter good, Ekachai said, "It depends on the 'gauge'. If democracy is taken as a gauge, then this can't be good. But if it's about conflict resolution, perhaps yes it's possibly okay. Still, this doesn't mean all the disputes would go away though."

Wasant Paileeklee, a veteran journalist of the media reform committee, showed satisfaction saying overall he found more reasons to like the charter than dislike it.

"What I like about the draft is how it gives people the freedom and rights. Also, it deals a lot with rooting out corruption," he said.

However, he went on to say, "I know it is also controversial - the strategic committee. But it [the committee] is advantageous too because it would work to push the reform and to establish reconciliation."

NRC member from the business sector Sonthirat Sonthijirawong who also chairs the Thai SMEs Association, said he was still undecided, as he found the charter very controversial.

"I think there are two prominent points about this draft Constitution - the provision of the mechanism to establish peace and the continuous strategy that could push the country forward," he pointed when added that it was rather undemocratic and could be disappointing to many people. Thus, he was still weighing, he said.

Meanwhile, the charter drafters remained positive.

Constitutional Drafting Committee (CDC) member Kobsak Pootrakul said he believed all the 21 drafters would approve the charter today, although there had been debates during the meeting. After all, it's their work, he said adding that "Why would we go against our own work? We should be proud, shouldn't we?"

"Overall, I am happy about the draft. It would be a shame if it were to be rejected by the reform council. I wish it would pass because this charter will really empower the people unlike anything before it."

Prominent charter drafters like CDC chairman Borwornsak Uwanno and CDC spokesperson Kamnoon Sidhisamarn reiterated that the CDC had done its best and they would accept whatever the result.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/No-voices-get-louder-as-NRC-set-to-decide-on-fate--30268227.html

-- The Nation 2015-09-06

[greenchair]

I feel another headache coming on. ?

[aussieinthailand]

Waiting for section 44, now you see who's the boss

[Blackfalds]

"18 reform committees covering politics, business, social and non-profit organisations, bureaucratic system, the media, academics, justice system and legal reform, anti-corruption, local administration and provinces, etc."

This has all the earmarks of a big cock-up.

Trying to foment notions of political diversity among these entities, all from one side of the political divide.

There may be cosmetic differences of opinion to be sure when one gets enough people together, but in the end they all sing off the same song-sheet. To suggest otherwise is pure deviousness.

They use the media to give breathless play-by-play accounts of these discussions for purely self-serving reasons, trying to elevate minor areas of debate, while selling the notion of meaningful dissonance.

There is no meaningful debate in an echo chamber.

In the end there is no need for them to be forced into line. They are already there and have been from the beginning.

​There is nothing suspenseful here as is trying to be characterized.

Edited September 6, 2015 by Blackfalds

[Blackfalds]

"18 reform committees...."

Can you imagine the cost to this.

Each one of these committees having multiple members, each of whom get per-diem's, compensation for attending meetings, food and sustenance, etc. etc. That is probably just the tip of the iceberg.....never mind relocation and accommodation expenses. and stuff I haven't even thought about.

Boggles the mind.....All of it for like-minded, unrepresentative individuals trying to create the facade of political debate and endorsement of stuff they were already pre-disposed to, or they wouldn't be where they are.

​This is aggravated even more when one considers the actual intent of the code-word "Reform".

And this doesn't even include other puppet assemblies plus so-called independent, non-electorally linked governing entities.

Wow.

[Jon Wetherall]

"I wish it would pass because this charter will really empower the people unlike anything before it."

Cat out off the bag. The whole exercise has been selflessly undertaken by good and well-intentioned martyrs earning only 1.7 million baht a year plus perks for self, unjustified employment for rellies and mia-noys, and maybe even tea-money too. All solely in order to benefit the common people of the country.

Did I get that right?

I'm really glad my IQ is over 80.

[Jon Wetherall]

"18 reform committees covering politics, business, social and non-profit organisations, bureaucratic system, the media, academics, justice system and legal reform, anti-corruption, local administration and provinces, etc."

This has all the earmarks of a big cock-up.

Trying to foment notions of political diversity among these entities, all from one side of the political divide.

There may be cosmetic differences of opinion to be sure when one gets enough people together, but in the end they all sing off the same song-sheet. To suggest otherwise is pure deviousness.

They use the media to give breathless play-by-play accounts of these discussions for purely self-serving reasons, trying to elevate minor areas of debate, while selling the notion of meaningful dissonance.

There is no meaningful debate in an echo chamber.

In the end there is no need for them to be forced into line. They are already there and have been from the beginning.

​There is nothing suspenseful here as is trying to be characterized.

"This has all the earmarks of a big cock-up."

Don't be too critical, this *is* Thailand after all. LOS, Land of the <deleted>. It might only be a small cock-up.

[Blackfalds]

I understand it failed. It was voted down.

[rayw]

I do not know of course the full details of the draft charter as it stands now, but whatever the most important thing for Thailand is that they no longer use the deeply flawed undemocratic First Past The Post electoral system as that truly rapes democracy as we see else where in the World with minority elected Governments (the UK is a classic example where the peoples will does NOT prevail in most elections and certainly this year's deeply flawed one) . If as the NRC stated some months ago that they plan to introduce a sound PR system similar to that used in Germany, then how can that be undemocratic as some are saying ?? With PR any fully exclusively in control political party can only Govern with a minimum of 50% or more of the popular vote, which after all is unarguably what democracy means i.e. majority will of the people.

Be interesting to see what happens now as future minority elected Government's in Thailand will be a mandate for understandable disharmony and rightful discontent. Any party earning a true over 50% of the popular vote has a right to be in power and must be accepted by all no matter what their political allegiance is, as that is what democracy is about. Of course after it serves its term then they need to seek re-election by a further true majority vote or hand the reigns to a party who does or a consensus coalition that between them have a collective majority vote.

Still want to know which parts of the proposed charter is supposedly undemocratic and if there are any such clauses then it cannot be true PR being proposed. The Australian system of AV where every elected member of the new Parliament HAS to achieve a majority support of the electorate before they can be pronounced elected and voting is of course compulsory. Only flaw in the Australian system IMHO is there is no Abstention box to tick on the voting papers for folk that cannot support any of the candidates and yet are I believe rightfully forced to have to vote. The PR system does statistically produce a more accurate result as to the percentage of seats to public votes.

[rayw]

"I wish it would pass because this charter will really empower the people unlike anything before it."

Cat out off the bag. The whole exercise has been selflessly undertaken by good and well-intentioned martyrs earning only 1.7 million baht a year plus perks for self, unjustified employment for rellies and mia-noys, and maybe even tea-money too. All solely in order to benefit the common people of the country.

Did I get that right?

I'm really glad my IQ is over 80.

Really ??? 1.7 million Baht is just £35K p.a hardly excessive or fat cat salary for such a high profile difficult and thankless job. Whether anyone uses some of their income for a mia-noy is totally irrelevant as we can all spend our money on whatever we legally want to (wish I could afford a mia-noy but not on my small pensions !! )​. So very cynical folk are here. Give the new proposed charter a chance and let us all see if it is as good as originally promised with the early proposed fully democratic PR electoral system being the pivotal part of it. At the end of the day it is of course the Thai people who will have to agree to it in a referendum.

Edited September 6, 2015 by rayw