NCPO defends using troops in Constitution PR Blitz

[webfact]

Junta Defends Using Troops in Constitution PR Blitz
By Teeranai Charuvastra
Staff Reporter


Army officers lecture an audience Monday in Ratchaburi province about the supposed improvements in the new charter draft.

BANGKOK — A leader of the ruling junta said yesterday he saw nothing wrong with dispatching soldiers to convince people across the country to support the new constitution drafted under its oversight.

Deputy junta leader Prawit Wongsuwan said today the troops will meet with local communities through Thailand to “create understanding” about the charter draft and encourage them to participate in the upcoming referendum.

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1454928468&typecate=06&section=

-- Khaosod English 2016-02-09

[NongKhaiKid]

What will theses troops do to ' convince ' people to be supportive ? There are memories in some areas of the military units that went into some villages after the coup to spread the word and it isn't favourable

Doesn't the govt realise that uniformed soldiers etc project more than a hint of authority and a ' must comply ' atmosphere but of course there's no saying that this may be the general idea.

[jaywalker]

From the article -

“How can it be political?” Prawit said. “I don’t think it will do any harm, because telling people to vote in the referendum is not a political issue.”

OK. If you say so.

[NongKhaiKid]

Not a political issue !

I suppose then this is just another service to the public supplied by an ever caring govt, of course who they actually care about is open to debate.

[harada]

Guns do tend to convince.

[thesetat2013]

I thought soldiers were meant to defend the country from invaders. NOT convince their own people to vote for and approve a new charter. How can it be justified using military money and personnel to do this?

[apetley]

I will make up my mind on the new constitution when I get a chance to read it but, in the spirit of democracy, wonder if those people who oppose it will be allowed to campaign against it?

[ramrod711]

I thought soldiers were meant to defend the country from invaders. NOT convince their own people to vote for and approve a new charter. How can it be justified using military money and personnel to do this?

Soldiers are often used for other than military purposes, flood and earthquake relief to name a couple. I know that a flashy, expensive public relations campaign is the usual way to go about this, but I see nothing wrong with using soldiers to encourage people to vote. Telling people how to vote is an entirely different issue, I wouldn't support that. I also agree that guns would not be a suitable accoutrement for encouraging people to exercise their democratic rights.

[aussieinthailand]

So there is twice daily promotions on TV and radio, but the Junta thinks it's ok to send out soldiers to "convince" people to vote, yet another monumentally stupid PR movement that is a gift for those that don't like the draft, Who is the nimrod that suggested that? Yet another village is missing their idiot.

[LannaGuy]

Guns do tend to convince.

well not 'convince' but 'comply' and, usually, in the shorter term

[chuang]

But convincing others not to vote is a crime.

[JAG]

I thought soldiers were meant to defend the country from invaders. NOT convince their own people to vote for and approve a new charter. How can it be justified using military money and personnel to do this?

Because the military are the government, have been since they overthrew the elected civilian government (which you will recall was in the process of staging an entirely constitutional election), and have every intention of remaining the government in the future. This charter is one means of ensuring that they do so. Therefore they will use all the means at their disposal to "persuade" the voters of its "benefits".

[NongKhaiKid]

I thought soldiers were meant to defend the country from invaders. NOT convince their own people to vote for and approve a new charter. How can it be justified using military money and personnel to do this?

Soldiers are often used for other than military purposes, flood and earthquake relief to name a couple. I know that a flashy, expensive public relations campaign is the usual way to go about this, but I see nothing wrong with using soldiers to encourage people to vote. Telling people how to vote is an entirely different issue, I wouldn't support that. I also agree that guns would not be a suitable accoutrement for encouraging people to exercise their democratic rights.

I see what you're saying but the problem for me is that the military represents the govt and will be seen as carrying the official message to vote in favour rather than simply just to vote.

[Just1Voice]

I told my wife about this and she just laughed. She said Pan-O himself could come to our house and ask nice, and she would still vote against it.

[baboon]

One has to ask the question of whether Thailand is a country with an army or an army with a country...

[pookiki]

When the current regime enjoys immunity for any act and absolute power under Article 44, how could anything ever be wrong??

[GeorgesAbitbol]

Why do they bother if 99% of the Thais are happy, they will run to the poll without hesitation!

[mrrizzla]

This is the year 2016 yet the ruling elite still have a medieval mentality.

[sawadee1947]

A leader of the ruling junta said yesterday he saw nothing wrong with dispatching soldiers to convince people across the country to support the new constitution drafted under its oversight.

soldiers to convince people and to create understanding ????

last time I read about this in a newspaper. It was about North Korea. Or years ago it was about Mao.

But maybe I cannot remember

[halloween]

I thought soldiers were meant to defend the country from invaders. NOT convince their own people to vote for and approve a new charter. How can it be justified using military money and personnel to do this?

They also help flood victims. Do you object to that also?

[mrrizzla]

I thought soldiers were meant to defend the country from invaders. NOT convince their own people to vote for and approve a new charter. How can it be justified using military money and personnel to do this?

They also help flood victims. Do you object to that also?

Well that is more in line of what an army should be doing rather than playing kings.

[halloween]

Guns do tend to convince.

So do tanks. Are you assuming that the soldiers sent to promote the charter will be armed with guns or other weapons?

They don't carry guns for flood relief, and until they were attacked, most were carrying riot shields and batons in 2010.

[halloween]

I thought soldiers were meant to defend the country from invaders. NOT convince their own people to vote for and approve a new charter. How can it be justified using military money and personnel to do this?

They also help flood victims. Do you object to that also?

Well that is more in line of what an army should be doing rather than playing kings.

While they are waiting for the next flood.............

[CantSpell]

They took vote buying to an all new level then

At least the guns, you keep with you: much much cheaper

[tbthailand]

I will make up my mind on the new constitution when I get a chance to read it but, in the spirit of democracy, wonder if those people who oppose it will be allowed to campaign against it?

yeah, well, probably not.....

Drafters threaten legal action against critics of new charter

[Eric Loh]

I thought soldiers were meant to defend the country from invaders. NOT convince their own people to vote for and approve a new charter. How can it be justified using military money and personnel to do this?

They also help flood victims. Do you object to that also?

Helping flood victims or any natural disasters are the military civic responsibilities as in all other countries. Certainly not the same as convincing people how to vote. That's intimidation and a gross misuse of military personnel and tax payer money. I hope the corruption agencies will take this up as malfeasance. Wishful thinking?

[jaywalker]

One has to ask the question of whether Thailand is a country with an army or an army with a country...

Well said!

[Srikcir]

Prayut planned on using troops in Constitution PR blitz just two weeks after he appointed Meechai as Chairman of the CDC!

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/863529-thai-army-reserve-students-to-educate-public-on-charter-drafting-process/

The 300,000 or so military reserve students nationwide would get greater understanding of the constitution and how it is being written by a three-stage process:

1. The people who will teach the students under their command will themselves be educated about the charter.

2. The students will be lectured on the constitution and the process of drafting it.

3. The students will be used as core figures in helping to explain the constitution and the drafting process to their families and communities ahead of the referendum.

Amorn, a CDC spokesman, said "the 21 CDC members alone could not make Thais understand the draft so they needed to rely on the students for help. He said he would impart the right information on the military."

This spoon-fed propoganda is military offensive planning at its best - but it feels like the military is at war on the public.

[ramrod711]

I thought soldiers were meant to defend the country from invaders. NOT convince their own people to vote for and approve a new charter. How can it be justified using military money and personnel to do this?

Soldiers are often used for other than military purposes, flood and earthquake relief to name a couple. I know that a flashy, expensive public relations campaign is the usual way to go about this, but I see nothing wrong with using soldiers to encourage people to vote. Telling people how to vote is an entirely different issue, I wouldn't support that. I also agree that guns would not be a suitable accoutrement for encouraging people to exercise their democratic rights.

I see what you're saying but the problem for me is that the military represents the govt and will be seen as carrying the official message to vote in favour rather than simply just to vote.

I understand your concern regarding the perception of soldiers being representatives of the military government. I wonder if the fact that many of the soldiers come from poor areas would counter that. Remember the "watermelon soldiers", green on the outside, red on the inside? I doubt that the soldiers selected would all be staunch supporters of the government. In any case, encouragement TO vote is good, telling people HOW to vote is not.

[NongKhaiKid]

I thought soldiers were meant to defend the country from invaders. NOT convince their own people to vote for and approve a new charter. How can it be justified using military money and personnel to do this?

Soldiers are often used for other than military purposes, flood and earthquake relief to name a couple. I know that a flashy, expensive public relations campaign is the usual way to go about this, but I see nothing wrong with using soldiers to encourage people to vote. Telling people how to vote is an entirely different issue, I wouldn't support that. I also agree that guns would not be a suitable accoutrement for encouraging people to exercise their democratic rights.

I see what you're saying but the problem for me is that the military represents the govt and will be seen as carrying the official message to vote in favour rather than simply just to vote.

I understand your concern regarding the perception of soldiers being representatives of the military government. I wonder if the fact that many of the soldiers come from poor areas would counter that. Remember the "watermelon soldiers", green on the outside, red on the inside? I doubt that the soldiers selected would all be staunch supporters of the government. In any case, encouragement TO vote is good, telling people HOW to vote is not.

Interesting situation isn't it ?

I wonder what the soldiers will be briefed to do, tell people it's up to them how they vote or to indicate, directly or obliquely, how they should ?

My home area is very red although there's no sign of it these days, the area houses an army basic training camp and as the recruits are from Isan many, if not the majority, will come from red or red leaning households.

I don't know how interested in politics these young men are but presumably have picked up something from family etc so I wonder how they feel being in an army which is running a govt with its current attitude and policies and after training having to go out and perhaps enforce these policies ?