Meechai says it is alright for CDC to talk about the merits of draft charter to public



BANGKOK: -- Constitution Drafting Committee chairman Meechai Ruchupan has defended the role of his colleagues in educating members of the public about the merits of the draft.

He said Monday that it was natural for the CDC members to talk only about the merits of the draft charter with the public even though there are people who disagree with the draft charter.

He said that the CDC is duty-bound to clarify to the public about the gist of the draft charter so that people in general will understand them.

Mr Meechai declined to comment when asked about the demand of political parties that they be allowed to hold party meetings, saying that this issue has nothing to do with the CDC.

He disclosed that the field trips by CDC members to clarify about the draft charter have proceeded smoothly.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/content/165365


-- Thai PBS 2016-05-31

The government committee that wrote the draft constitution is going on government funded road trips to promote the draft constitution, nobody is allowed to criticize the draft, and there will be no international monitors of the election. I think we may safely assume the only election monitors will be the junta's people.

What conclusions might we draw from this?

The government committee that wrote the draft constitution is going on government funded road trips to promote the draft constitution, nobody is allowed to criticize the draft, and there will be no international monitors of the election. I think we may safely assume the only election monitors will be the junta's people.

What conclusions might we draw from this?

I dunno, but give it a while and somebody will bring You Know Who into it and how this is all his fault...

I fail to see what is wrong with the authors of the charter being allowed to explain its contents

and I am saying nothing more or lesss than that before some smart (<deleted>) try to twist or miss quote what I said, it is very specific about the contents of the OP

Absolutely no surprise at all. This guy and his ilk couldn't lie straight in bed.

'Clarify' my a$$. Did anyone think anything different would happen? They're delusional if they did. Without the mechanisms in place to keep the army in power for 20 years with a veneer of popular approval, this lot are dead in the water.

It's a life-or-death issue for the gentry in Thailand, having already refused to give up the democratic bone, these dogs are committed to keeping the bone or savaging the owner. They're riding the tiger, they can't stay on it and they dare not get off it.

The world needs to join together in disapproval of (yet another) coup government. This is the only way to prevent major violence, even though the average Thai has been propagandised into submissiveness.

regardless, there will be a reckoning and it won't be pretty.

W

I fail to see what is wrong with the authors of the charter being allowed to explain its contents

and I am saying nothing more or lesss than that before some smart (<deleted>) try to twist or miss quote what I said, it is very specific about the contents of the OP

If you want people to make up their own minds they need to be given all relevant information in an unbiased way.

They can then weight the pro's and con's and make up their mind.

But not even you can expect the authors of the charter to be unbiased, can you?

That would mean only one side of the charter is highlighted and people will be "tricked" in approving it even though it is not in their best interest.

If that is the goal, why even bother with a vote?

I fail to see what is wrong with the authors of the charter being allowed to explain its contents

and I am saying nothing more or lesss than that before some smart (<deleted>) try to twist or miss quote what I said, it is very specific about the contents of the OP

If you want people to make up their own minds they need to be given all relevant information in an unbiased way.

They can then weight the pro's and con's and make up their mind.

But not even you can expect the authors of the charter to be unbiased, can you?

That would mean only one side of the charter is highlighted and people will be "tricked" in approving it even though it is not in their best interest.

If that is the goal, why even bother with a vote?

The vote is window dressing. Debate is prevented by the draconian referendum law, the two major political parties have already rejected the draft, yet a yes vote might be a possibility, no observers are welcome.

I fail to see what is wrong with the authors of the charter being allowed to explain its contents

and I am saying nothing more or lesss than that before some smart (<deleted>) try to twist or miss quote what I said, it is very specific about the contents of the OP

Neither do I, but that isn't what Meechai said. He said "explain the merits of the charter", which is the same as persuasion.

Not the same thing at all. But then I suspect you knew that - or should have done.

W

I fail to see what is wrong with the authors of the charter being allowed to explain its contents

and I am saying nothing more or lesss than that before some smart (<deleted>) try to twist or miss quote what I said, it is very specific about the contents of the OP

If you want people to make up their own minds they need to be given all relevant information in an unbiased way.

They can then weight the pro's and con's and make up their mind.

But not even you can expect the authors of the charter to be unbiased, can you?

That would mean only one side of the charter is highlighted and people will be "tricked" in approving it even though it is not in their best interest.

If that is the goal, why even bother with a vote?

The vote is window dressing. Debate is prevented by the draconian referendum law, the two major political parties have already rejected the draft, yet a yes vote might be a possibility, no observers are welcome.

Plus, isn't Somchai the Poisonous saying they will use voting machines? Untold potential for fraud. Plus, no observers? So a 60 no vote in any polling station could easily be recorded as a yes vote 'by honest mistake' and you don't even need voting machines to do that. We are talking about Thais after all... Think they couldn't/wouldn't do it?

Think again.

W

Edited May 31, 201610 yr by Winniedapu

Well, wouldn't anyone here like to hear the justification for the contents of the draft charter? Should make is easier to point out possible errors in the justification and/or the charter.

Well, wouldn't anyone here like to hear the justification for the contents of the draft charter? Should make is easier to point out possible errors in the justification and/or the charter.

I think everybody already knows the justification, its not rocket science when you can read english and dont stick to just local sources.

And they will only highlight the parts that look solid, the small print will not be mentioned or explained.

Edited May 31, 201610 yr by Bob12345

Well, wouldn't anyone here like to hear the justification for the contents of the draft charter? Should make is easier to point out possible errors in the justification and/or the charter.

True, but since criticizing the draft in a manner the junta considers "impolite" is punishable by up to ten years in prison, I don't think people will feel free to point out the errors. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-thailand-politics-idUKKCN0XU0PA

Well, wouldn't anyone here like to hear the justification for the contents of the draft charter? Should make is easier to point out possible errors in the justification and/or the charter.

I think everybody already knows the justification, its not rocket science when you can read english and dont stick to just local sources.

And they will only highlight the parts that look solid, the small print will not be mentioned or explained.

English? Does that mean you found a reasonable English translation of the draft charter?

To judge the charter by the selected bits and pieces opponents translated seems not the right way.

Well, wouldn't anyone here like to hear the justification for the contents of the draft charter? Should make is easier to point out possible errors in the justification and/or the charter.

True, but since criticizing the draft in a manner the junta considers "impolite" is punishable by up to ten years in prison, I don't think people will feel free to point out the errors. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-thailand-politics-idUKKCN0XU0PA

But pointing out errors and inconsistences is not the same as critisising with "not want we (are told to) want".

It seems un-democratic, or at the very least, a conflict of interest, for charter drafters to be proactively pushing the "merits" of their "draft".

This is like a celebrity endorsing a plastic surgeon after having been given a free rhinoplasty.

But I do realize that Good People are always above any "conflict of interest".

Now if you want to accept questions from the public, and address those, most would probably find this reasonable. In fact, maybe best to take questions, and then let both supporters and detractors debate the positives and negatives surrounding the question or issue.

Oh, what am I thinking? Just let them go shill for their "Constitution", rel. 20.3.

Well, wouldn't anyone here like to hear the justification for the contents of the draft charter? Should make is easier to point out possible errors in the justification and/or the charter.

True, but since criticizing the draft in a manner the junta considers "impolite" is punishable by up to ten years in prison, I don't think people will feel free to point out the errors. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-thailand-politics-idUKKCN0XU0PA

But pointing out errors and inconsistences is not the same as critisising with "not want we (are told to) want".

Are you willing to bet ten years of your life that pointing out errors and inconsistencies will not be taken as impolite? Remember this is a thin skinned junta that threatens prosecution for a thumbs up on Facebook.

Well, wouldn't anyone here like to hear the justification for the contents of the draft charter? Should make is easier to point out possible errors in the justification and/or the charter.

I think everybody already knows the justification, its not rocket science when you can read english and dont stick to just local sources.

And they will only highlight the parts that look solid, the small print will not be mentioned or explained.

English? Does that mean you found a reasonable English translation of the draft charter?

To judge the charter by the selected bits and pieces opponents translated seems not the right way.

It might come as a surprise to you but most people understand that every re-write of the constitution by the army has the goal to at least keep the perks for the army there, and at best/worst to increase their perks (money, power, etc).

Edited June 3, 201610 yr by Bob12345

Well, wouldn't anyone here like to hear the justification for the contents of the draft charter? Should make is easier to point out possible errors in the justification and/or the charter.

Of course. As well, people are entitled to hear criticism of the Draft Charter, including a rejection of the official justifications.

And this is the point: there is nothing sacrosanct about the justifications.

I fail to see what is wrong with the authors of the charter being allowed to explain its contents

and I am saying nothing more or lesss than that before some smart (<deleted>) try to twist or miss quote what I said, it is very specific about the contents of the OP

"I fail to see what is wrong with the authors of the charter being allowed to explain its contents".

Ok smedly since you fail to see the problem then let us enlighten you.

The CDC are not explaining selected sections of the draft in detail and or its ramifications or the new powers that will be given to the military over an elected government... there now all better mate, ooohh and look no " smart (______ ) trying to twist or miss quote you,, ok then

That's why in the OP it says they are ONLY explaining the merits of the draft charter to the public.

So if a one sided section ( only the merits) of the charter is explained to the people then how is that in any way shape or form fair non bias and down right dishonest???

Now you have the chance and admit that your comment was not quite honest as you left out quite conveniently the ONLY THE MERITS are explained.

You see that's why in a court room you are told to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth,,, man that really dose make quite a difference huh...

Well, wouldn't anyone here like to hear the justification for the contents of the draft charter? Should make is easier to point out possible errors in the justification and/or the charter.

True, but since criticizing the draft in a manner the junta considers "impolite" is punishable by up to ten years in prison, I don't think people will feel free to point out the errors. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-thailand-politics-idUKKCN0XU0PA

But pointing out errors and inconsistences is not the same as critisising with "not want we (are told to) want".

Are you willing to bet ten years of your life that pointing out errors and inconsistencies will not be taken as impolite? Remember this is a thin skinned junta that threatens prosecution for a thumbs up on Facebook.

Apart from being against forums rules I'm not a betting man.

Mind you with all the 'nice' things some here have to say about the junta and nothing happening, I wonder a lot.

Well, wouldn't anyone here like to hear the justification for the contents of the draft charter? Should make is easier to point out possible errors in the justification and/or the charter.

I think everybody already knows the justification, its not rocket science when you can read english and dont stick to just local sources.

And they will only highlight the parts that look solid, the small print will not be mentioned or explained.

English? Does that mean you found a reasonable English translation of the draft charter?

To judge the charter by the selected bits and pieces opponents translated seems not the right way.

It might come as a surprise to you but most people understand that every re-write of the constitution by the army has the goal to at least keep the perks for the army there, and at best/worst to increase their perks (money, power, etc).

That's the same as and has the same value as saying "obviously and as everyone knows'. No real value.

Well, wouldn't anyone here like to hear the justification for the contents of the draft charter? Should make is easier to point out possible errors in the justification and/or the charter.

Of course. As well, people are entitled to hear criticism of the Draft Charter, including a rejection of the official justifications.

And this is the point: there is nothing sacrosanct about the justifications.

Absolutely, that's why you should hear their justifications in order to investigate, check, compare, etc., etc. The usual "It's the junta, so I'm against" sounds nice only.

Well, wouldn't anyone here like to hear the justification for the contents of the draft charter? Should make is easier to point out possible errors in the justification and/or the charter.

Of course. As well, people are entitled to hear criticism of the Draft Charter, including a rejection of the official justifications.

And this is the point: there is nothing sacrosanct about the justifications.

Absolutely, that's why you should hear their justifications in order to investigate, check, compare, etc., etc. The usual "It's the junta, so I'm against" sounds nice only.

Is it is allowed, even after carefully listening to the (alledged) merits of the proposed constitution, to hold a meeting talking about the (alledged) flaws of the constitution?

Well, wouldn't anyone here like to hear the justification for the contents of the draft charter? Should make is easier to point out possible errors in the justification and/or the charter.

Of course. As well, people are entitled to hear criticism of the Draft Charter, including a rejection of the official justifications.

And this is the point: there is nothing sacrosanct about the justifications.

Absolutely, that's why you should hear their justifications in order to investigate, check, compare, etc., etc. The usual "It's the junta, so I'm against" sounds nice only.

Is it is allowed, even after carefully listening to the (alledged) merits of the proposed constitution, to hold a meeting talking about the (alledged) flaws of the constitution?

Next time I see the PM I'll ask him. In the mean time I would suggest that those who come to listen ask questions directly.

Of course a bit of preparations, like reading the draft charter and doing some checks would help to come to a more meaningful discussion.

Edited June 3, 201610 yr by rubl

"Well, wouldn't anyone here like to hear the justification for the contents of the draft charter? Should make is easier to point out possible errors in the justification and/or the charter."

True, but since criticizing the draft in a manner the junta considers "impolite" is punishable by up to ten years in prison, I don't think people will feel free to point out the errors. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-thailand-politics-idUKKCN0XU0PA

But pointing out errors and inconsistences is not the same as critisising with "not want we (are told to) want".

Are you willing to bet ten years of your life that pointing out errors and inconsistencies will not be taken as impolite? Remember this is a thin skinned junta that threatens prosecution for a thumbs up on Facebook.

Apart from being against forums rules I'm not a betting man.

Mind you with all the 'nice' things some here have to say about the junta and nothing happening, I wonder a lot.

In other words, you won't dare to question the CDC's promotion of the merits of the draft charter. You are not alone.

Well, wouldn't anyone here like to hear the justification for the contents of the draft charter? Should make is easier to point out possible errors in the justification and/or the charter.

Of course. As well, people are entitled to hear criticism of the Draft Charter, including a rejection of the official justifications.

And this is the point: there is nothing sacrosanct about the justifications.

Absolutely, that's why you should hear their justifications in order to investigate, check, compare, etc., etc. The usual "It's the junta, so I'm against" sounds nice only.

Is it is allowed, even after carefully listening to the (alledged) merits of the proposed constitution, to hold a meeting talking about the (alledged) flaws of the constitution?

Next time I see the PM I'll ask him. In the mean time I would suggest that those who come to listen ask questions directly.

Of course a bit of preparations, like reading the draft charter and doing some checks would help to come to a more meaningful discussion.

You can deploy your best community manager's skills, the basics still remain: the pro-charter are allowed to campaign, the ones who are against it are not allowed to without risking 10 YEARS JAIL.

Are you willing to bet ten years of your life that pointing out errors and inconsistencies will not be taken as impolite? Remember this is a thin skinned junta that threatens prosecution for a thumbs up on Facebook.

Apart from being against forums rules I'm not a betting man.

Mind you with all the 'nice' things some here have to say about the junta and nothing happening, I wonder a lot.

In other words, you won't dare to question the CDC's promotion of the merits of the draft charter. You are not alone.

English is a difficult language, isn't it?

In other words I will not engage in a wager.

In other words, you focus on the metaphorical to avoid the question.

Ok, remove the wager. If the draft charter has obvious shortcomings, will you express views the junta may consider impolite to identify these problems? How brave of you.

However in the event that English is difficult for you and you are still unclear on this subject, I will state the situation and my concerns directly and without nuance:

The CDC will "inform" the people about how wonderful the constitution they wrote is.

You suggested that people can analyze and critique this propaganda.

I pointed out that a junta so thinned skin that it threatens prosecution of anyone who "Likes" a Facebook post the junta doesn't like may decide it is offended by this analysis and critique. Any modestly informed Thai citizen is aware of this and won't risk ten years in prison with pointless criticism of a draft charter that will not be changed.

No wagers, just honesty. Will you critique the draft charter if there ares problems with it?

Edited June 3, 201610 yr by heybruce

Well, wouldn't anyone here like to hear the justification for the contents of the draft charter? Should make is easier to point out possible errors in the justification and/or the charter.

Of course. As well, people are entitled to hear criticism of the Draft Charter, including a rejection of the official justifications.

And this is the point: there is nothing sacrosanct about the justifications.

Absolutely, that's why you should hear their justifications in order to investigate, check, compare, etc., etc. The usual "It's the junta, so I'm against" sounds nice only.

Is it is allowed, even after carefully listening to the (alledged) merits of the proposed constitution, to hold a meeting talking about the (alledged) flaws of the constitution?

Next time I see the PM I'll ask him. In the mean time I would suggest that those who come to listen ask questions directly.

Of course a bit of preparations, like reading the draft charter and doing some checks would help to come to a more meaningful discussion.

You can deploy your best community manager's skills, the basics still remain: the pro-charter are allowed to campaign, the ones who are against it are not allowed to without risking 10 YEARS JAIL.

I wasted time addressing rubl's dodges while you went straight to the heart of the matter. Well done Candide!

In other words, you won't dare to question the CDC's promotion of the merits of the draft charter. You are not alone.

English is a difficult language, isn't it?

In other words I will not engage in a wager.

In other words, you focus on the metaphorical to avoid the question.

Ok, remove the wager. If the draft charter has obvious shortcomings, will you express views the junta may consider impolite to identify these problems? How brave of you.

However in the event that English is difficult for you and you are still unclear on this subject, I will state the situation and my concerns directly and without nuance:

The CDC will "inform" the people about how wonderful the constitution they wrote is.

You suggested that people can analyze and critique this propaganda.

I pointed out that a junta so thinned skin that it threatens prosecution of anyone who "Likes" a Facebook post the junta doesn't like may decide it is offended by this analysis and critique. Any modestly informed Thai citizen is aware of this and won't risk ten years in prison with pointless criticism of a draft charter that will not be changed.

No wagers, just honesty. Will you critique the draft charter if there ares problems with it?

As till now I have not been able to read the draft charter in a reasonable language like Dutch or English and as I do not want to depend on the selective comments from others I have no comments.

To speculate on 'if the draft charter has obvious shortcomings' already seems to indicate a certain prejudice, metaphorically speaking.

I wrote that I think the CDC sessions are the ideal opportunity to ask questions. Of course you can ask more to the point questions when you have read the draft charter. For Thai no problem, both printed version and online version available.

BTW asking some colleagues I get the impression that lots of Thai didn't read either 1997, 2007 or 2016 charter. That's better left to lawyers and politicians was the suggestion.

As for critique on charters, I think I should first re-read and study the Netherlands constitution before deeming myself an expert on constitutions and what's wrong with them. Also a refresher course in democracy and it's rights and duties might be in order. Sorry if this disappoints you and others here. I'm sure some spent day and night for a while to pear over the Thai of the draft charter.

Next time I see the PM I'll ask him. In the mean time I would suggest that those who come to listen ask questions directly.

Of course a bit of preparations, like reading the draft charter and doing some checks would help to come to a more meaningful discussion.

You can deploy your best community manager's skills, the basics still remain: the pro-charter are allowed to campaign, the ones who are against it are not allowed to without risking 10 YEARS JAIL.

I wasted time addressing rubl's dodges while you went straight to the heart of the matter. Well done Candide!

Actually you tried a bet to make me say what you want to hear.

Of course, there's neither a pro-charter 'campaign' nor a anti-charter. As such the government should have warned all not to do any (political) campaigning, more fair.