Govt must decide if military can help disseminate charter: drafter

KHANITTHA THEPPAJORN,
JAKRAWAN SALAYTOO
THE SUNDAY NATION

BANGKOK: THE constitution drafters will not reject a military offer to help spread the content of the new charter draft ahead of the national referendum as the decision rests with the government, according to a key drafter

However Thitipan Chuaboonchai, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Commission's opinion-gathering subcommittee, said the CDC had not made a decision on whether to accept the offer.

He said the government should decide whether it was proper to accept help from the military, in response to concerns that doing so might result in the military "guiding" voters to back the constitution draft.

The CDC's role was to explain and create an understanding about the charter, he said.

Thitipan's remarks came as the drafters prepared to publicise the first draft on January 29.

From that date until February 15, relevant bodies and the general public can give their opinions on the draft for the CDC to consider before revisiting the document.

Thitipan said people in each region of the country could express their opinions on the charter.

Last month, Air Force officers and the staff judge advocate offered assistance to propagate the draft, he said.

Thitipan said the dissemination of the draft and explaining it to the public needed a collaborative approach from many sectors including the involvement of the military.

He said the CDC could not discriminate against the military by barring the Army from the process.

"I think we need to be fair in this matter. It's the government's decision if they want the military to help with the dissemination … That is understandable because they want the roadmap to be followed," Thitipan said, adding that with help, people could understand the constitution before voting in the referendum.

The spokesman for the CDC subcommittee for gathering opinions, Thienchai Na Nakorn, said he did not know the details about the military's offer to help disseminate the charter and if that happened it would be difficult for him to say whether it would be suggestive.

However, he said that eventually each voter decided how they voted.

Thitipan's subcommittee will disseminate the draft and gather public opinion from February 1-15, with public dialogues held in the four regions of the country. The target audience will be civil servants.

The subcommittee aims to use media methods to make it easier for labourers and farmers to better understand the draft, while it will use social media for the middle class.

CDC spokesman Amorn Wanichwiwatana said the finished draft would be a truly new constitution.

Most charters adopted in the past had been adapted from previous drafts, he said, adding the current drafters are doing their best to come up with one of the best charters.

He said the drafters were reviewing the National Reform Steering Assembly's proposals on the charter and the reforms.

He said anybody from any sector could express their thoughts on the draft as the charter drafting panel was open for all opinions.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Govt-must-decide-if-military-can-help-disseminate--30276025.html

-- The Nation 2016-01-03

"He said the CDC could not discriminate against the military by barring the Army from the process."

They are not, you fool. You are their nominees.

The Thai people are the only ones being discriminated against and fools like him will no doubt result in its failure.

Govt must decide if military can help disseminate charter: drafter

The subcommittee aims to use media methods to make it easier for labourers and farmers to better understand the draft, while it will use social media for the middle class.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Govt-must-decide-if-military-can-help-disseminate--30276025.html

-- The Nation 2016-01-03

Patronising Bar Stewards!

An excellent notion. The Thai army already are notorious for explaining politics and for using their powers of persuasion should the public see it another way. What could possibly go wrong...?

Wow! What a picture that will make.

Solders, whose level of education is very questionable, going door-to-door in military vehicles and guns slung over their shoulders spreading the gospel of the CDC's wonderful new draft. Do the words "coercion and intimidation" come to mind?

Attitude adjustment on a grand scale.

Wow! What a picture that will make.

Solders, whose level of education is very questionable, going door-to-door in military vehicles and guns slung over their shoulders spreading the gospel of the CDC's wonderful new draft. Do the words "coercion and intimidation" come to mind?

Not if they start jailing people or 'Inviting' them to discuss the matter further at an undisclosed location...

Yes, I can see a free and fair referendum coming up, not.

How does this article mention the "government" and the "military as if they are two different things?

There is no government, the country is under military rule.

"THE constitution drafters will not reject a military offer to help spread the content of the new charter draft ahead of the national referendum as the decision rests with the government, according to a key drafter

However Thitipan Chuaboonchai, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Commission's opinion-gathering subcommittee, said the CDC had not made a decision on whether to accept the offer."

So which is it?

Unless there is freedom to campaign both for and against the Charter, it will - even if approved - have little moral force and in due time will be itself discarded.

I don't see how any Charter can be made permanent.The only exception is the US Constitution- but this was drafted by exceptional men, some of near genius quality.

The contrast between these eighteenth century American men of vision and the hacks and thugs promoting the Thai Charter is rather striking - to put it mildly.

But the government is the military?

Even more tough times ahead.

What's missing from the proposed charter is any credible philosophical underpinning.For an equality-minded liberalism the pillars are two principles of justice: the inviolability of individual rights and the idea that when justifying social inequality—some degree of which is inevitable in a flourishing and prosperous society—absolute priority should be given to the needs of the worst off.

Until the privileged of Thailand grasp this, their efforts are futile.

Unless there is freedom to campaign both for and against the Charter, it will - even if approved - have little moral force and in due time will be itself discarded.

I don't see how any Charter can be made permanent.The only exception is the US Constitution- but this was drafted by exceptional men, some of near genius quality.

The contrast between these eighteenth century American men of vision and the hacks and thugs promoting the Thai Charter is rather striking - to put it mildly.

Elegance is found in simplicity. The Thai Charter is a complex, contradictory mess.

Simple is difficult.

The chairman of the Constitution Drafting Commission’s opinion-gathering subcommittee says, "With (military) help, people could understand the constitution before voting in the referendum".

Unless there is freedom to campaign both for and against the Charter, it will - even if approved - have little moral force and in due time will be itself discarded.

I don't see how any Charter can be made permanent.The only exception is the US Constitution- but this was drafted by exceptional men, some of near genius quality.

The contrast between these eighteenth century American men of vision and the hacks and thugs promoting the Thai Charter is rather striking - to put it mildly.

Elegance is found in simplicity. The Thai Charter is a complex, contradictory mess.

Simple is difficult.

"The Thai Charter is a complex, contradictory mess"

............and is so deliberately. How else would the "neutral" Constitutional Court do the bidding of it's masters if it didn't have legal loopholes to manipulate. Remember, this is a Court that argued over the use of "and" so that it could rule an attempt by the PTP government to amend the constitution was an attempt to overthrow the democratic regime of government!

Of course, ripping up the constitution completely and writing another one is a completely different state of affairs, if done by the "right" people.

ah, the junta pawns are playing the game expressing their fake concerns for the fairness of a process that is not at all fair.

the junta = the military = the government. And you, CDC chairman are one of their chief lackies. So when you seem "reflective" or "concerned" on whether or not the "junta=military=government" will distribute your turd/charter to the Thai people, no one with a brain will take your "concern" seriously.

it seems rather clear that the situation under which a referendum will be held, if it is held for this particular draft, will be significantly more restrictive than the already extremely restrictive environment of the 2007 referendum.

"Govt must decide if military can help disseminate charter: drafter"

This regime is absolute with "article-number-not-to-be-named" and have therefore made up their mind anyway, 'cause "article-number-not-to-be-named" doesn't need public consent...

An excellent notion. The Thai army already are notorious for explaining politics and for using their powers of persuasion should the public see it another way. What could possibly go wrong...?

"With a magazine of 30 rounds - load!"

"the government should decide whether it was proper to accept help from the military"

I think the decision was already made:

"A law granting the military authority to order 300,000 men into service annually was recently passed by the junta-appointed legislature with little public debate and no opposition" 2015-11-20

Unless there is freedom to campaign both for and against the Charter, it will - even if approved - have little moral force and in due time will be itself discarded.

I don't see how any Charter can be made permanent.The only exception is the US Constitution- but this was drafted by exceptional men, some of near genius quality.

The contrast between these eighteenth century American men of vision and the hacks and thugs promoting the Thai Charter is rather striking - to put it mildly.

Much of the difference in contrast is in the eye of the beholder. How would today's critics describe educated and wealthy men, more than a few of whom were slave owners?

Leaving aside women's emancipation and racial discrimination, shouldn't the body have included a few illiterate backwoodsmen to be truly democratic?

The military phobic are having a field day, ignoring that civic functions such as flood assistance and relief package distribution are carried out while unarmed.

Who is better equipped to distribute copies of the proposed charter to all corners of the nation? Nattuwat Trucking perhaps?

Unless there is freedom to campaign both for and against the Charter, it will - even if approved - have little moral force and in due time will be itself discarded.

I don't see how any Charter can be made permanent.The only exception is the US Constitution- but this was drafted by exceptional men, some of near genius quality.

The contrast between these eighteenth century American men of vision and the hacks and thugs promoting the Thai Charter is rather striking - to put it mildly.

Much of the difference in contrast is in the eye of the beholder. How would today's critics describe educated and wealthy men, more than a few of whom were slave owners?

Leaving aside women's emancipation and racial discrimination, shouldn't the body have included a few illiterate backwoodsmen to be truly democratic?

I take the point that the Founding Fathers were elitist in the sense of mostly being upper or upper middle class country gentlemen.But one must be careful of imposing today's more democratic standards on the past.

Where you are profoundly wrong is to suggest the different quality I noted is largely a matter of perception.That is another example of relativism taken to absurd extremes.The American framers of the constitution were remarkably endowed with genius while their modern Thai equivalents are mediocre dullards.

Perhaps it's significant that the former were aiming to celebrate and advance the human spirit while the latter are aiming to crush or stifle it.The former remarkable men will live for ever in world civilisation.The latter mediocrities bring shame and dishonour to their country.

Unless there is freedom to campaign both for and against the Charter, it will - even if approved - have little moral force and in due time will be itself discarded.

I don't see how any Charter can be made permanent.The only exception is the US Constitution- but this was drafted by exceptional men, some of near genius quality.

The contrast between these eighteenth century American men of vision and the hacks and thugs promoting the Thai Charter is rather striking - to put it mildly.

Much of the difference in contrast is in the eye of the beholder. How would today's critics describe educated and wealthy men, more than a few of whom were slave owners?

Leaving aside women's emancipation and racial discrimination, shouldn't the body have included a few illiterate backwoodsmen to be truly democratic?

I take the point that the Founding Fathers were elitist in the sense of mostly being upper or upper middle class country gentlemen.But one must be careful of imposing today's more democratic standards on the past.

Where you are profoundly wrong is to suggest the different quality I noted is largely a matter of perception.That is another example of relativism taken to absurd extremes.The American framers of the constitution were remarkably endowed with genius while their modern Thai equivalents are mediocre dullards.

Perhaps it's significant that the former were aiming to celebrate and advance the human spirit while the latter are aiming to crush or stifle it.The former remarkable men will live for ever in world civilisation.The latter mediocrities bring shame and dishonour to their country.

Yes, in your far from humble opinion. Perhaps in a couple of hundred years the new Thai constiution may be viewed in a similar light, hopefully without a civil war to prompt a few amendments.

The military phobic are having a field day, ignoring that civic functions such as flood assistance and relief package distribution are carried out while unarmed.

Who is better equipped to distribute copies of the proposed charter to all corners of the nation? Nattuwat Trucking perhaps?

Don't be ridiculous. Of course there is little confidence in the Military playing this kind of role given the anti democratic nature of the Junta, not to mention the recent memory of when military gangsters last tried to ram a constitution through.

How on earth is the Military's emergency role in natural disaster at all relevant? As though that in some way excused its many abuses and crimes.

Unless there is freedom to campaign both for and against the Charter, it will - even if approved - have little moral force and in due time will be itself discarded.

I don't see how any Charter can be made permanent.The only exception is the US Constitution- but this was drafted by exceptional men, some of near genius quality.

The contrast between these eighteenth century American men of vision and the hacks and thugs promoting the Thai Charter is rather striking - to put it mildly.

Much of the difference in contrast is in the eye of the beholder. How would today's critics describe educated and wealthy men, more than a few of whom were slave owners?

Leaving aside women's emancipation and racial discrimination, shouldn't the body have included a few illiterate backwoodsmen to be truly democratic?

I take the point that the Founding Fathers were elitist in the sense of mostly being upper or upper middle class country gentlemen.But one must be careful of imposing today's more democratic standards on the past.

Where you are profoundly wrong is to suggest the different quality I noted is largely a matter of perception.That is another example of relativism taken to absurd extremes.The American framers of the constitution were remarkably endowed with genius while their modern Thai equivalents are mediocre dullards.

Perhaps it's significant that the former were aiming to celebrate and advance the human spirit while the latter are aiming to crush or stifle it.The former remarkable men will live for ever in world civilisation.The latter mediocrities bring shame and dishonour to their country.

Yes, in your far from humble opinion. Perhaps in a couple of hundred years the new Thai constiution may be viewed in a similar light, hopefully without a civil war to prompt a few amendments.

Ah, so you really are completely deluded.

Unless there is freedom to campaign both for and against the Charter, it will - even if approved - have little moral force and in due time will be itself discarded.

I don't see how any Charter can be made permanent.The only exception is the US Constitution- but this was drafted by exceptional men, some of near genius quality.

The contrast between these eighteenth century American men of vision and the hacks and thugs promoting the Thai Charter is rather striking - to put it mildly.

Much of the difference in contrast is in the eye of the beholder. How would today's critics describe educated and wealthy men, more than a few of whom were slave owners?

Leaving aside women's emancipation and racial discrimination, shouldn't the body have included a few illiterate backwoodsmen to be truly democratic?

I take the point that the Founding Fathers were elitist in the sense of mostly being upper or upper middle class country gentlemen.But one must be careful of imposing today's more democratic standards on the past.

Where you are profoundly wrong is to suggest the different quality I noted is largely a matter of perception.That is another example of relativism taken to absurd extremes.The American framers of the constitution were remarkably endowed with genius while their modern Thai equivalents are mediocre dullards.

Perhaps it's significant that the former were aiming to celebrate and advance the human spirit while the latter are aiming to crush or stifle it.The former remarkable men will live for ever in world civilisation.The latter mediocrities bring shame and dishonour to their country.

Yes, in your far from humble opinion. Perhaps in a couple of hundred years the new Thai constiution may be viewed in a similar light, hopefully without a civil war to prompt a few amendments.

which one of the 20-some-odd Thai constitutions would that be at some imaginary time in the future?