CDC reaches conclusion on minimum age of Thai voters under new charter

[rubl]

By the time the eighteen year olds of today get a chance to exercise their right to vote, they will probably be at least 25 (and will probably be choosing between two "approved" candidates who in all likelihood will be generals, admirals or air chief marshals (retd.))

Those being 18 on 2011-07-04 would have to wait 4 years, then being 22, democratically so.

your point being?

Sure if you reach voting age just after and election in a stable country, you would need to wait until that governments term expired to get a chance to vote. Not many Thai governments have managed to make it to full term for various reasons, amongst them the 22 coups. However you would get a chance to vote in regional and local elections and thereby exercise you democratic rights. It is not the same as reaching voting age in a country where democracy has been stolen and having to wait an unknown period until it is given back.

In addition, as a citizen, or even as a resident and tax payer in Thailand, you are not permitted to express opinions on a broad and ever expanding range of subjects in which the citizens and taxpayers might otherwise expect to have a legitimate interest and some say.

My point being that you're just being negative.

The CDC decision to put the minimum age for voting on 18 has nothing to do with when a new election will be held. More to the point is wondering about whether it will still be mandatory to vote with voting rights withheld for a few years if one doesn't vote and doesn't have a valid reason for doing so. Furthermore what about the withholding of voting rights for people (like politicians) who have been sentenced.

[skildpadden]

Wow the CDC is really working fast - shouldn't voting age be an obvious thing and handled in 5 minutes? If this is the speed, how long will they then take on deciding on who can be elected?

[MorristheRunt]

What vote?

Not going to happend anytime soon.

[tuanku]

By the time the eighteen year olds of today get a chance to exercise their right to vote, they will probably be at least 25 (and will probably be choosing between two "approved" candidates who in all likelihood will be generals, admirals or air chief marshals (retd.))

Those being 18 on 2011-07-04 would have to wait 4 years, then being 22, democratically so.

your point being?

Sure if you reach voting age just after and election in a stable country, you would need to wait until that governments term expired to get a chance to vote. Not many Thai governments have managed to make it to full term for various reasons, amongst them the 22 coups. However you would get a chance to vote in regional and local elections and thereby exercise you democratic rights. It is not the same as reaching voting age in a country where democracy has been stolen and having to wait an unknown period until it is given back.

In addition, as a citizen, or even as a resident and tax payer in Thailand, you are not permitted to express opinions on a broad and ever expanding range of subjects in which the citizens and taxpayers might otherwise expect to have a legitimate interest and some say.

My point being that you're just being negative.

The CDC decision to put the minimum age for voting on 18 has nothing to do with when a new election will be held. More to the point is wondering about whether it will still be mandatory to vote with voting rights withheld for a few years if one doesn't vote and doesn't have a valid reason for doing so. Furthermore what about the withholding of voting rights for people (like politicians) who have been sentenced.

When it comes to being negative about democracy in Thailand, I don't hold a candle to the non-elected junta.

Making voting mandatory in my opinion is in itself antidemocratic as I would say that citizens have a right not to vote if there is no candidate that they agree with, but any system of elections is trivialised when the army backed by who knows who are asked to step in the minute things are going in a direction that certain groups of influential people disagree with.

Part of democracy is the minority accepting the outcome of the vote and contesting policies and actions solely through the democratic process. There is a suspicion that the democratic process is being rigged to come up with certain outcomes, together with providing a fail safe mechanism which ensures the status quo in society is preserved. When the preservation of this status quo disadvantages the majority of the population, there will only be one outcome in the long run, as history has shown time and time again.

In my opinion, the CDC military appointees are carefully constructing a straw house which will be blown away soon enough by the irresistable winds of change. It only requires the right butterfly wings to start this off, whether it will be drought/climate change, visible corruption, a non-functional legal system, poor governance and economic management, dissension between the military factions, the succession or a combination of some or all of these, or something else entirely, I do not believe that the current Thailand can last and personally hope to see things change for the better within my lifetime (i.e. in the short term)

[rubl]

Those being 18 on 2011-07-04 would have to wait 4 years, then being 22, democratically so.

your point being?

Sure if you reach voting age just after and election in a stable country, you would need to wait until that governments term expired to get a chance to vote. Not many Thai governments have managed to make it to full term for various reasons, amongst them the 22 coups. However you would get a chance to vote in regional and local elections and thereby exercise you democratic rights. It is not the same as reaching voting age in a country where democracy has been stolen and having to wait an unknown period until it is given back.

In addition, as a citizen, or even as a resident and tax payer in Thailand, you are not permitted to express opinions on a broad and ever expanding range of subjects in which the citizens and taxpayers might otherwise expect to have a legitimate interest and some say.

My point being that you're just being negative.

The CDC decision to put the minimum age for voting on 18 has nothing to do with when a new election will be held. More to the point is wondering about whether it will still be mandatory to vote with voting rights withheld for a few years if one doesn't vote and doesn't have a valid reason for doing so. Furthermore what about the withholding of voting rights for people (like politicians) who have been sentenced.

When it comes to being negative about democracy in Thailand, I don't hold a candle to the non-elected junta.

Making voting mandatory in my opinion is in itself antidemocratic as I would say that citizens have a right not to vote if there is no candidate that they agree with, but any system of elections is trivialised when the army backed by who knows who are asked to step in the minute things are going in a direction that certain groups of influential people disagree with.

Part of democracy is the minority accepting the outcome of the vote and contesting policies and actions solely through the democratic process. There is a suspicion that the democratic process is being rigged to come up with certain outcomes, together with providing a fail safe mechanism which ensures the status quo in society is preserved. When the preservation of this status quo disadvantages the majority of the population, there will only be one outcome in the long run, as history has shown time and time again.

In my opinion, the CDC military appointees are carefully constructing a straw house which will be blown away soon enough by the irresistable winds of change. It only requires the right butterfly wings to start this off, whether it will be drought/climate change, visible corruption, a non-functional legal system, poor governance and economic management, dissension between the military factions, the succession or a combination of some or all of these, or something else entirely, I do not believe that the current Thailand can last and personally hope to see things change for the better within my lifetime (i.e. in the short term)

So you don't have anything to say on the topic.