CDC's Meechai insists explanation of draft charter must be straightforward and honest

[webfact]

CDC's Meechai insists explanation of draft charter must be straightforward and honest

BANGKOK, 11 May 2016 (NNT) - The Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Commission has insisted that the explanation of the draft charter for the public ahead of the referendum in August must be straightforward and carry no distortions.

CDC Chairman Meechai Richupan said on Tuesday that the charter drafters will host a training session on May 18 and 19 for volunteers, who will assist during the trips in explaining key details of the new draft Constitution to people across the country, in order to ensure that there are no distortions of any information.

Mr. Meechai insisted that all volunteers, particularly those who will work at the provincial level, will be equipped to deliver only accurate information and the CDC will make them familiar with frequently-asked questions in order to help them perform their job effectively.

The CDC Chairman added that the Interior Ministry will be responsible for the safety and orderliness of the trips in each province and the charter drafters will wait for the ministry’s work plan before they make a decision on the areas to visit.


-- NNT 2016-05-11

[sjaak327]

I agree, and it can also be extremely short.

In essence it goes like this: the draft charter will ensure continued influence for the elite (or the military if you will) in the way Thailand is run.

This is achieved by a fully appointed senate that has far reaching powers, including the power to send an elected government away, and the power to elect the PM.

In short, it ensures that election results matter less than before, hence it will bring a democracy that isn't really a democracy, because an electoral majority can easily be ignored or circumvented.

[deckape]

With the power of social media to 'educate' I don't think this thing has a snowball's chance in hell. Maybe if the ballot box is stuffed...

[Your Thainess]

This guy Meechai could give Prayuth a run for his money in a BS contest. He seems to be warming up...

[baboon]

As it was explained to the FCCT. Only one side of the story allowed of course, in the interests of fairness and transparency, but the journalists were none too impressed...

https://youtu.be/War32YxSotk

[rubl]

I wonder who already read the draft constitution in order to be honest and straightforward in commenting

[ChrisY1]

"straightforward and honest" ......in the same sentence?.........an oxymoron if ever there was one!

[baboon]

I wonder who already read the draft constitution in order to be honest and straightforward in commenting

Perhaps if you had actually watched the video in order to be honest and straightforward in commenting?

[brucec64]

As it was explained to the FCCT. Only one side of the story allowed of course, in the interests of fairness and transparency, but the journalists were none too impressed...

https://youtu.be/War32YxSotk

I noticed Jonathan Head has an arm brace. A little "attitide adjustment" before the meeting?

[rubl]

I wonder who already read the draft constitution in order to be honest and straightforward in commenting

Perhaps if you had actually watched the video in order to be honest and straightforward in commenting?

Do you mean there is a video in which the new draft constitution is read out in English?

[baboon]

I wonder who already read the draft constitution in order to be honest and straightforward in commenting

Perhaps if you had actually watched the video in order to be honest and straightforward in commenting?

Do you mean there is a video in which the new draft constitution is read out in English?

I mean perhaps you should have actually watched the video in order to be honest and straightforward in commenting.

[rubl]

I wonder who already read the draft constitution in order to be honest and straightforward in commenting

Perhaps if you had actually watched the video in order to be honest and straightforward in commenting?

Do you mean there is a video in which the new draft constitution is read out in English?

I mean perhaps you should have actually watched the video in order to be honest and straightforward in commenting.

My dear baboon, in order to do 'straightforward and honest' commenting on the new draft charter you should first read and study it.

Like you I've read a lot of comments from many people (qualified and unqualified ones), but till now I did not find an English translation. Till then I will not say much, apart from the fact that I still think the 2007 constitution should have been used as starting point.

[baboon]

My dear rubl, in order to do 'straightforward and honest' commenting on the video, you should first watch it.

[SABloke]

''...must be straightforward and carry no distortions.''

and then:

''...who will assist during the trips in explaining KEY DETAILS of the new draft Constitution to people across the country,...''

Why not just explain the WHOLE fukcing thing

Edited May 11, 2016 by SABloke

[brucec64]

I wonder who already read the draft constitution in order to be honest and straightforward in commenting

Perhaps if you had actually watched the video in order to be honest and straightforward in commenting?

I did watch the video. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still just a pig...

[rubl]

My dear rubl, in order to do 'straightforward and honest' commenting on the video, you should first watch it.

My dear baboon, I'm commenting on the topic, not on the video you came up with to distract from the fact you didn't read the draft constitution yet.

[baboon]

My dear rubl, in order to do 'straightforward and honest' commenting on the video, you should first watch it.

My dear baboon, I'm commenting on the topic, not on the video you came up with to distract from the fact you didn't read the draft constitution yet.

My dear rubl, the video was on topic. Don't come up with distractions from the fact you didn't watch it and haven't read the draft constitution yourself yet. It isn't straightforward and honest. Edited May 11, 2016 by baboon

[SABloke]

My dear rubl, in order to do 'straightforward and honest' commenting on the video, you should first watch it.

My dear baboon, I'm commenting on the topic, not on the video you came up with to distract from the fact you didn't read the draft constitution yet.

My dear rubl, the video was on topic. Don't come up with distractions from the fact you didn't watch it and haven't read the draft constitution yourself yet. It isn't straightforward and honest.

Get a room already...my dears

[rubl]

My dear rubl, in order to do 'straightforward and honest' commenting on the video, you should first watch it.

My dear baboon, I'm commenting on the topic, not on the video you came up with to distract from the fact you didn't read the draft constitution yet.

My dear rubl, the video was on topic. Don't come up with distractions from the fact you didn't watch it and haven't read the draft constitution yourself yet.

I never said I read the new draft charter, only asked regularly if anyone had already found a reasonable English translation. Others seem to have no need to read or are willing to believe what some who are rabidly against are telling them.

Anyway the topic

"The Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Commission has insisted that the explanation of the draft charter for the public ahead of the referendum in August must be straightforward and carry no distortions."

[baboon]

My dear rubl, in order to do 'straightforward and honest' commenting on the video, you should first watch it.

My dear baboon, I'm commenting on the topic, not on the video you came up with to distract from the fact you didn't read the draft constitution yet.

My dear rubl, the video was on topic. Don't come up with distractions from the fact you didn't watch it and haven't read the draft constitution yourself yet.

I never said I read the new draft charter, only asked regularly if anyone had already found a reasonable English translation. Others seem to have no need to read or are willing to believe what some who are rabidly against are telling them.

Anyway the topic

"The Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Commission has insisted that the explanation of the draft charter for the public ahead of the referendum in August must be straightforward and carry no distortions."

Excellent: Back on topic and you have finished casting aspersions on an on - topic video you didn't even watch.

[rubl]

My dear baboon, I'm commenting on the topic, not on the video you came up with to distract from the fact you didn't read the draft constitution yet.

My dear rubl, the video was on topic. Don't come up with distractions from the fact you didn't watch it and haven't read the draft constitution yourself yet.

I never said I read the new draft charter, only asked regularly if anyone had already found a reasonable English translation. Others seem to have no need to read or are willing to believe what some who are rabidly against are telling them.

Anyway the topic

"The Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Commission has insisted that the explanation of the draft charter for the public ahead of the referendum in August must be straightforward and carry no distortions."

Excellent: Back on topic and you have finished casting aspersions on an on - topic video you didn't even watch.

I started with

"I wonder who already read the draft constitution in order to be honest and straightforward in commenting"

Till now the answer seems "no one"

[baboon]

And I finished with

"Excellent: Back on topic and you have finished casting aspersions on an on - topic video you didn't even watch."

Till now it seems you haven't.

Edited May 11, 2016 by baboon

[sjaak327]

Oh my, rubl is derailing yet another thread, with the utterly ridiculous notion that one should read the constitution before an honest comment is possible.

Various provisions in the draft constitution have been published and translated into English, I mentioned the most juicy ones in the first post of this thread. Based upon those provisions a rejection would be the only logical choice, at least if democracy is the goal.

Take it from me, the vast majority of the people that will actually vote will not read the constitution either, in fact I would be surprised if even 1% of eligible Thai voters will read it entirely.

Are you saying that the referendum isn't honest even before it has run it's course ?

[rubl]

Oh my, rubl is derailing yet another thread, with the utterly ridiculous notion that one should read the constitution before an honest comment is possible.

Various provisions in the draft constitution have been published and translated into English, I mentioned the most juicy ones in the first post of this thread. Based upon those provisions a rejection would be the only logical choice, at least if democracy is the goal.

Take it from me, the vast majority of the people that will actually vote will not read the constitution either, in fact I would be surprised if even 1% of eligible Thai voters will read it entirely.

Are you saying that the referendum isn't honest even before it has run it's course ?

Oh my, ask for an English version of the draft constitution in order to be able to better judge straightforward and honest explanations and get condemned for it.

The juicy bit and pieces already translated are from various 'working versions' of the draft and come from various people not all of them beyond 'innovative' translation work.

Interesting the 'no need to read the constitution'. Well, better to state your uninformed opinion I guess?

PS I also fear almost no Thai will read the draft constitution, just like almost no Thai read either 1997 or 2007 version. It would seem they are really trusting that others know what they are doing without the need to check.

Edited May 12, 2016 by rubl

[jayboy]

Oh my, rubl is derailing yet another thread, with the utterly ridiculous notion that one should read the constitution before an honest comment is possible.

Various provisions in the draft constitution have been published and translated into English, I mentioned the most juicy ones in the first post of this thread. Based upon those provisions a rejection would be the only logical choice, at least if democracy is the goal.

Take it from me, the vast majority of the people that will actually vote will not read the constitution either, in fact I would be surprised if even 1% of eligible Thai voters will read it entirely.

Are you saying that the referendum isn't honest even before it has run it's course ?

Oh my, ask for an English version of the draft constitution in order to be able to better judge straightforward and honest explanations and get condemned for it.

The juicy bit and pieces already translated are from various 'working versions' of the draft and come from various people not all of them beyond 'innovative' translation work.

Interesting the 'no need to read the constitution'. Well, better to state your uninformed opinion I guess?

PS I also fear almost no Thai will read the draft constitution, just like almost no Thai read either 1997 or 2007 version. It would seem they are really trusting that others know what they are doing without the need to check.

No country on earth would expect the majority its citizens to read a long proposed constitution in detail prior to a referendum.It would be reasonable however for citizens to have a grasp of the main points, and the strategic objectives the framers had in mind.In the case of the 1997 constitution these objectives were achieved through a period of very full public consultation and discussion.The 2007 constitution, very much a creation of the military, was less satisfactory in this respect.Although it was approved, this was in the face of a very one sided campaign of government/mi;itary propaganda accompanied by threats it would be imposed anyway if rejected.Even though it had a astonishingly small margin of approval many Thais hostile to its principles grudgingly abstained or signed off simply to return to a more stable political order.The current proposed constitution has no legitimacy at all simply because the ruling Junta has prohibited any serious public debate unless favourable to its agenda.The main components are widely known as is the agenda of the Junta and its supporters.Whether it passes or not is really beside the point but you are completely wrong to believe the Thai people do not understand what is intended.The intention is to make the constitution permanent in key details specifically diminishing political parties and giving enormous powers to unelected interests.

[sjaak327]

Oh my, rubl is derailing yet another thread, with the utterly ridiculous notion that one should read the constitution before an honest comment is possible.

Various provisions in the draft constitution have been published and translated into English, I mentioned the most juicy ones in the first post of this thread. Based upon those provisions a rejection would be the only logical choice, at least if democracy is the goal.

Take it from me, the vast majority of the people that will actually vote will not read the constitution either, in fact I would be surprised if even 1% of eligible Thai voters will read it entirely.

Are you saying that the referendum isn't honest even before it has run it's course ?

Oh my, ask for an English version of the draft constitution in order to be able to better judge straightforward and honest explanations and get condemned for it.

The juicy bit and pieces already translated are from various 'working versions' of the draft and come from various people not all of them beyond 'innovative' translation work.

Interesting the 'no need to read the constitution'. Well, better to state your uninformed opinion I guess?

PS I also fear almost no Thai will read the draft constitution, just like almost no Thai read either 1997 or 2007 version. It would seem they are really trusting that others know what they are doing without the need to check.

We have been informed rubl, and mostly by the CDC themselves, are you claiming the CDC isn't accurately reporting on it's own document ?

There are precious little uninformed people in Thailand. Even in our home country, the percentage of people that actually would read a constitution is small.

The only chance this draft is approved is when the turnout is incredibly low. A bit like that referendum recently in The Netherlands. At least there, they do have a minimum turnout for a referendum to be valid. 30%. They barely made it with 32%. Of course this referendum does not have to be followed by the government, personally I believe for good reasons. 32% turnover, of which 60% voted no, this means that only 17.6% of the electorate voted no, that's a number that is way to low.

For the draft referendum, there isn't even a minimum turnout required, and that could be the only chance they have to get a yes...

Oh by the way, according to the same CDC the draft constitution up for vote can and will be changed post the referendum, maybe that's why it is called a draft.

Edited May 12, 2016 by sjaak327

[rubl]

Oh my, rubl is derailing yet another thread, with the utterly ridiculous notion that one should read the constitution before an honest comment is possible.

Various provisions in the draft constitution have been published and translated into English, I mentioned the most juicy ones in the first post of this thread. Based upon those provisions a rejection would be the only logical choice, at least if democracy is the goal.

Take it from me, the vast majority of the people that will actually vote will not read the constitution either, in fact I would be surprised if even 1% of eligible Thai voters will read it entirely.

Are you saying that the referendum isn't honest even before it has run it's course ?

Oh my, ask for an English version of the draft constitution in order to be able to better judge straightforward and honest explanations and get condemned for it.

The juicy bit and pieces already translated are from various 'working versions' of the draft and come from various people not all of them beyond 'innovative' translation work.

Interesting the 'no need to read the constitution'. Well, better to state your uninformed opinion I guess?

PS I also fear almost no Thai will read the draft constitution, just like almost no Thai read either 1997 or 2007 version. It would seem they are really trusting that others know what they are doing without the need to check.

No country on earth would expect the majority its citizens to read a long proposed constitution in detail prior to a referendum.It would be reasonable however for citizens to have a grasp of the main points, and the strategic objectives the framers had in mind.In the case of the 1997 constitution these objectives were achieved through a period of very full public consultation and discussion.The 2007 constitution, very much a creation of the military, was less satisfactory in this respect.Although it was approved, this was in the face of a very one sided campaign of government/mi;itary propaganda accompanied by threats it would be imposed anyway if rejected.Even though it had a astonishingly small margin of approval many Thais hostile to its principles grudgingly abstained or signed off simply to return to a more stable political order.The current proposed constitution has no legitimacy at all simply because the ruling Junta has prohibited any serious public debate unless favourable to its agenda.The main components are widely known as is the agenda of the Junta and its supporters.Whether it passes or not is really beside the point but you are completely wrong to believe the Thai people do not understand what is intended.The intention is to make the constitution permanent in key details specifically diminishing political parties and giving enormous powers to unelected interests.

The wiki page has

"The 1996 amendment called for the creation of an entirely new constitution by a special committee outside the National Assembly. The Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) was formed with 99 members: seventy-six of them directly elected from each of the provinces and 23 qualified persons short-listed by the Parliament from academia and other sources.^[5] Anand Panyarachun, Premier in 1991 under the military regime, was selected as a member of the CDA and appointed Chairman of the Drafting Committee. Political scientists and juristsChai-Anan Samudavanija, Amorn Chantarasomboon, Uthai Pimchaichon, andBorwornsak Uwanno were key influencers of the draft. A process of public consultation took place on a nationwide basis."

No info on that 'public consultation'.

Now in 2014 the NCPO asked for public participation in many of it's reform groups but instead of altruistic, overwhelming support to force the right reforms the response ranged from negative to non-obstruction by non-participation.

As for what the Thai public things or believes, well, mostly 'what's in it for me' I'm afraid. I know negative, but truthful.

[rubl]

Oh my, rubl is derailing yet another thread, with the utterly ridiculous notion that one should read the constitution before an honest comment is possible.

Various provisions in the draft constitution have been published and translated into English, I mentioned the most juicy ones in the first post of this thread. Based upon those provisions a rejection would be the only logical choice, at least if democracy is the goal.

Take it from me, the vast majority of the people that will actually vote will not read the constitution either, in fact I would be surprised if even 1% of eligible Thai voters will read it entirely.

Are you saying that the referendum isn't honest even before it has run it's course ?

Oh my, ask for an English version of the draft constitution in order to be able to better judge straightforward and honest explanations and get condemned for it.

The juicy bit and pieces already translated are from various 'working versions' of the draft and come from various people not all of them beyond 'innovative' translation work.

Interesting the 'no need to read the constitution'. Well, better to state your uninformed opinion I guess?

PS I also fear almost no Thai will read the draft constitution, just like almost no Thai read either 1997 or 2007 version. It would seem they are really trusting that others know what they are doing without the need to check.

We have been informed rubl, and mostly by the CDC themselves, are you claiming the CDC isn't accurately reporting on it's own document ?

There are precious little uninformed people in Thailand. Even in our home country, the percentage of people that actually would read a constitution is small.

The only chance this draft is approved is when the turnout is incredibly low. A bit like that referendum recently in The Netherlands. At least there, they do have a minimum turnout for a referendum to be valid. 30%. They barely made it with 32%. Of course this referendum does not have to be followed by the government, personally I believe for good reasons. 32% turnover, of which 60% voted no, this means that only 17.6% of the electorate voted no, that's a number that is way to low.

For the draft referendum, there isn't even a minimum turnout required, and that could be the only chance they have to get a yes...

Oh by the way, according to the same CDC the draft constitution up for vote can and will be changed post the referendum, maybe that's why it is called a draft.

"There are precious little uninformed people in Thailand"

As far as the constitution is concerned you'll find more knowledge amongst our dear TVF members than amongst all Thai.

Oh, by the way 'informed mostly by the CDC themselves' ? Seems a bit of a contradiction.

Edited May 12, 2016 by rubl

[heybruce]

"straightforward and honest". And also objective.

We all know that you can only trust a book review written by the book's author, and a movie review written by the movie's producer. In the same manner the only people able to provide a straightforward and honest review of the constitution is the committee that wrote it.

The CDC has an advantage over authors and producers in that the junta can outlaw any other reviews. Of course they only do that because an unrestricted public discussion of the draft constitution would reveal that the junta has not healed divisions but made them deeper cause divisions.

[heybruce]

Oh my, rubl is derailing yet another thread, with the utterly ridiculous notion that one should read the constitution before an honest comment is possible.

Various provisions in the draft constitution have been published and translated into English, I mentioned the most juicy ones in the first post of this thread. Based upon those provisions a rejection would be the only logical choice, at least if democracy is the goal.

Take it from me, the vast majority of the people that will actually vote will not read the constitution either, in fact I would be surprised if even 1% of eligible Thai voters will read it entirely.

Are you saying that the referendum isn't honest even before it has run it's course ?

Oh my, ask for an English version of the draft constitution in order to be able to better judge straightforward and honest explanations and get condemned for it.

The juicy bit and pieces already translated are from various 'working versions' of the draft and come from various people not all of them beyond 'innovative' translation work.

Interesting the 'no need to read the constitution'. Well, better to state your uninformed opinion I guess?

PS I also fear almost no Thai will read the draft constitution, just like almost no Thai read either 1997 or 2007 version. It would seem they are really trusting that others know what they are doing without the need to check.

We have been informed rubl, and mostly by the CDC themselves, are you claiming the CDC isn't accurately reporting on it's own document ?

There are precious little uninformed people in Thailand. Even in our home country, the percentage of people that actually would read a constitution is small.

The only chance this draft is approved is when the turnout is incredibly low. A bit like that referendum recently in The Netherlands. At least there, they do have a minimum turnout for a referendum to be valid. 30%. They barely made it with 32%. Of course this referendum does not have to be followed by the government, personally I believe for good reasons. 32% turnover, of which 60% voted no, this means that only 17.6% of the electorate voted no, that's a number that is way to low.

For the draft referendum, there isn't even a minimum turnout required, and that could be the only chance they have to get a yes...

Oh by the way, according to the same CDC the draft constitution up for vote can and will be changed post the referendum, maybe that's why it is called a draft.

"There are precious little uninformed people in Thailand"

As far as the constitution is concerned you'll find more knowledge amongst our dear TVF members than amongst all Thai.

Oh, by the way 'informed mostly by the CDC themselves' ? Seems a bit of a contradiction.

rubl continues to show his contempt for the Thai people. It makes one wonder why he is here.