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

[dominique355]

The Election Law in Sec 61 says, that text picture or sounds that are "inconsistent with the truth, or are violent, aggressive, rude, inciting or threatening and aimed at preventing a voter from casting a ballot or vote in any direction shall be considered as disrupting the referendum process".

Wouldn't that also prevent people from praising the merits of the constitution draft?

But I guess that Military Government doesn't have to follow its own rules. These are only for the people.

[Winniedapu]

They're changing the rules. Again.

Another good sign the junta is no longer sure of it's support.

W

'For the times, they are a-changing". (Bob Dylan) and;

"There will be a reckoning". (me)

[heybruce]

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.

You rationalize the junta's propaganda campaign as informative and ignore the fact that alternative views are suppressed. When this is pointed out you twist and turn to avoid admitting the obvious. Typical rubl.

"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."

Don't you think lawyers and politicians should be allowed to communicate their analysis of the constitution without fear of a long prison term? Oh wait, I withdraw the question. You'll just twist and turn without ever answering it.

[heybruce]

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.

In case you've forgotten, the OP is about the government doing the political campaigning it won't allow others to do. You seem fine with that, very few others are.

[rubl]

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.

In case you've forgotten, the OP is about the government doing the political campaigning it won't allow others to do. You seem fine with that, very few others are.

Actually the topic is on the CDC explaining the draft charter as they have made it.

[Winniedapu]

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.

In case you've forgotten, the OP is about the government doing the political campaigning it won't allow others to do. You seem fine with that, very few others are.

Actually the topic is on the CDC explaining the draft charter as they have made it.

Actually, it's not. The topic is on the CDC "explaining the merits of the draft". Not the same thing at all, and very deceitful.

But then Meechai's provenance is not encouraging for anyone seeking integrity or indeed, anything for the benefit of Thais in general.

He's a true believer and there are few things more dangerous anywhere. IMHO the old boy is a vicious old cur and should be put out to pasture, or better still, down.

W

[baboon]

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.

As till now you have not been able to read the draft charter in any reasonable language such as Dutch or English, or indeed any other 'unreasonable' language such as Thai. You haven't read it at all, end of story. Just thought you and I should remind the Thaivisa readership of that fact.

All in the name of democracy, of course.

[heybruce]

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.

In case you've forgotten, the OP is about the government doing the political campaigning it won't allow others to do. You seem fine with that, very few others are.

Actually the topic is on the CDC explaining the draft charter as they have made it.

You are truly desperate. The CDC, the committee created by this military installed government, is "explaining" the charter they have produced in order to convince the people to approve it. In order to improve the junta's chances of getting the charter improved, all criticism the junta considers "impolite" opens the critics to ten years in prison.

Your stripped down definition of the OP is as informative as saying "Sex is about making babies." Technically correct and comically misleading.

[rubl]

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.

In case you've forgotten, the OP is about the government doing the political campaigning it won't allow others to do. You seem fine with that, very few others are.

Actually the topic is on the CDC explaining the draft charter as they have made it.

Actually, it's not. The topic is on the CDC "explaining the merits of the draft". Not the same thing at all, and very deceitful.

But then Meechai's provenance is not encouraging for anyone seeking integrity or indeed, anything for the benefit of Thais in general.

He's a true believer and there are few things more dangerous anywhere. IMHO the old boy is a vicious old cur and should be put out to pasture, or better still, down.

W

Assuming the CDC didn't write the charter just for the fun of it they wrote it making choices, discussed phrasing, etc., etc.

The choosen phrasing and parts are therefore deemed to have merit above those not choosen. All part of explaining the charter.

[rubl]

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.

As till now you have not been able to read the draft charter in any reasonable language such as Dutch or English, or indeed any other 'unreasonable' language such as Thai. You haven't read it at all, end of story. Just thought you and I should remind the Thaivisa readership of that fact.

All in the name of democracy, of course.

No reason to remind the TVF readership. I'm about the only one who frequently says not to read the Thai version and looking for a translation. Others seem to be fluent in Thai or rely on the bit and pieces others don't like and commented on.

Of course you haven't commented yet on what you've done, charter-wise that is.

All in the name of Democracy as some want us to see it, election-wise.

[rubl]

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.

As till now you have not been able to read the draft charter in any reasonable language such as Dutch or English, or indeed any other 'unreasonable' language such as Thai. You haven't read it at all, end of story. Just thought you and I should remind the Thaivisa readership of that fact.

All in the name of democracy, of course.

No need to remind ThaiVisa readership of that fact. They have been able to read the many times I said I don't read the Thai version and am looking for a translation. All others here seem to be fluent in Thai or depend on the bits some didn't like and translated for a wide audience. You of course didn't comment yet on what you did.

So, explain, let people ask intelligent questions, hope people prepare themselves by reading the draft charter rather than taking the pamphlet "questions to ask" as prepared by some.

[rubl]

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.

In case you've forgotten, the OP is about the government doing the political campaigning it won't allow others to do. You seem fine with that, very few others are.

Actually the topic is on the CDC explaining the draft charter as they have made it.

You are truly desperate. The CDC, the committee created by this military installed government, is "explaining" the charter they have produced in order to convince the people to approve it. In order to improve the junta's chances of getting the charter improved, all criticism the junta considers "impolite" opens the critics to ten years in prison.

Your stripped down definition of the OP is as informative as saying "Sex is about making babies." Technically correct and comically misleading.

Interesting that desperation and the making of babies.

To explain the charter you have to explain the background of a charter, the choices made, the reasoning for choices, etc., etc. Of course to write 'explain' makes a sentence fit in a topic title.

BTW there is a difference between criticism and campaigning.

"Campaigning for or against the draft is subject to nebulous rules that could land activists in prison for up to 10 years. Even the sale of a "Vote No" T-shirt is considered against the law."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/922438-thai-junta-leader-defends-crackdown-on-social-media/

[baboon]

^^

A nice and fluffy way of describing stacking the deck and reserving the right to cry foul if the table still wins against the house advantage. (Response to post 42)

[Winniedapu]

Actually the topic is on the CDC explaining the draft charter as they have made it.

Actually, it's not. The topic is on the CDC "explaining the merits of the draft". Not the same thing at all, and very deceitful.

But then Meechai's provenance is not encouraging for anyone seeking integrity or indeed, anything for the benefit of Thais in general.

He's a true believer and there are few things more dangerous anywhere. IMHO the old boy is a vicious old cur and should be put out to pasture, or better still, down.

W

Assuming the CDC didn't write the charter just for the fun of it they wrote it making choices, discussed phrasing, etc., etc.

The choosen phrasing and parts are therefore deemed to have merit above those not choosen. All part of explaining the charter.

Ah the joys of spinning.

Doesn't make anything more true or even more believable, but it's such fun to try and twist words to dupe the great unwashed. Gives you a real feeling of being important. No?

W

If I grovel around the rich and powerful, and carry thei flag, and bear their cups, then one day, I'm sure they'll notice me and throw me a bone. That's the trick... how to be noticed when all you've got is only a hunger for more and a desire to be close to power, even if it's only someone else's.

[phoenixdoglover]

By the way, there is no need to speculate at this point regarding the thought process used by the CDC for some of the most significant aspects of the draft Charter. The Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand held a meeting, and the official spokesperson for the CDC explained the rationale. It's on youtube for all to see.

I personally don't accept some of the rationale, which goes under the general heading of "too much conflict among the politicians". Conflict among politicians is a "feature" of many democratic forms of government. We can expect that the politicians will frequently align into opposing camps, they will disagree on many matters of policy and law, and they will vilify each other. They will also engage in unethical activities, using parliamentary tricks to thwart the opposition. All of this is "normal".

What is not normal in Thailand is the selective rule of law, and the politically influenced judiciary. Therefore, when a critical stage of Thailand's experiment with democracy (circa 2013) comes to fore, the police fail to enforce simple laws regarding physical obstruction (demonstrators blocking government offices and voting locations), the Army fails to support the civilian government, and the Judiciary intervenes in the political process by hammering through a decision on abuse of power by the PM. We can argue this one on its merits, but the Supreme Court effectively nuked the government, a decision that could have been postponed in favor of supporting the constitutional form of government, and whatever power transfer was to take place under the Constitution. Alas, the Supreme Court has too many fingers in too many pies.

Hence, my lack of acceptance of the overall rationale for the coup, and the changes being pimped by the CDC.

[Sakeopete]

LOL the ballots are probably already marked waiting in the boxes, let the show begin.

[heybruce]

In case you've forgotten, the OP is about the government doing the political campaigning it won't allow others to do. You seem fine with that, very few others are.

Actually the topic is on the CDC explaining the draft charter as they have made it.

You are truly desperate. The CDC, the committee created by this military installed government, is "explaining" the charter they have produced in order to convince the people to approve it. In order to improve the junta's chances of getting the charter improved, all criticism the junta considers "impolite" opens the critics to ten years in prison.

Your stripped down definition of the OP is as informative as saying "Sex is about making babies." Technically correct and comically misleading.

Interesting that desperation and the making of babies.

To explain the charter you have to explain the background of a charter, the choices made, the reasoning for choices, etc., etc. Of course to write 'explain' makes a sentence fit in a topic title.

BTW there is a difference between criticism and campaigning.

"Campaigning for or against the draft is subject to nebulous rules that could land activists in prison for up to 10 years. Even the sale of a "Vote No" T-shirt is considered against the law."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/922438-thai-junta-leader-defends-crackdown-on-social-media/

Interesting that your reply to my post does not address anything in my post. Twisting and turning again.

The government will "explain" the draft constitution, which anyone of any intelligence understands to mean the government will campaign for a yes vote on the referendum. Anyone who criticizes the draft constitution risks imprisonment under the vague rules banning such activities. Most people think this is bad. You are defending the junta's actions, and attempting to provide a rational for your undemocratic views. Few people agree with your weak rational.

[rubl]

Actually the topic is on the CDC explaining the draft charter as they have made it.

Actually, it's not. The topic is on the CDC "explaining the merits of the draft". Not the same thing at all, and very deceitful.

But then Meechai's provenance is not encouraging for anyone seeking integrity or indeed, anything for the benefit of Thais in general.

He's a true believer and there are few things more dangerous anywhere. IMHO the old boy is a vicious old cur and should be put out to pasture, or better still, down.

W

Assuming the CDC didn't write the charter just for the fun of it they wrote it making choices, discussed phrasing, etc., etc.

The choosen phrasing and parts are therefore deemed to have merit above those not choosen. All part of explaining the charter.

Ah the joys of spinning.

Doesn't make anything more true or even more believable, but it's such fun to try and twist words to dupe the great unwashed. Gives you a real feeling of being important. No?

W

If I grovel around the rich and powerful, and carry thei flag, and bear their cups, then one day, I'm sure they'll notice me and throw me a bone. That's the trick... how to be noticed when all you've got is only a hunger for more and a desire to be close to power, even if it's only someone else's.

There is no joy in spinning, nor merit. Of course you might want to explain why you do think so.

[rubl]

Actually the topic is on the CDC explaining the draft charter as they have made it.

You are truly desperate. The CDC, the committee created by this military installed government, is "explaining" the charter they have produced in order to convince the people to approve it. In order to improve the junta's chances of getting the charter improved, all criticism the junta considers "impolite" opens the critics to ten years in prison.

Your stripped down definition of the OP is as informative as saying "Sex is about making babies." Technically correct and comically misleading.

Interesting that desperation and the making of babies.

To explain the charter you have to explain the background of a charter, the choices made, the reasoning for choices, etc., etc. Of course to write 'explain' makes a sentence fit in a topic title.

BTW there is a difference between criticism and campaigning.

"Campaigning for or against the draft is subject to nebulous rules that could land activists in prison for up to 10 years. Even the sale of a "Vote No" T-shirt is considered against the law."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/922438-thai-junta-leader-defends-crackdown-on-social-media/

Interesting that your reply to my post does not address anything in my post. Twisting and turning again.

The government will "explain" the draft constitution, which anyone of any intelligence understands to mean the government will campaign for a yes vote on the referendum. Anyone who criticizes the draft constitution risks imprisonment under the vague rules banning such activities. Most people think this is bad. You are defending the junta's actions, and attempting to provide a rational for your undemocratic views. Few people agree with your weak rational.

Why should I reply to your musing?

The CDC will explain the draft charter to Thai who probably didn't bother to read it like most didn't bother to read any of the previous versions. I'm defending the explanation sessions, not the ban on campaigning.

As for my 'undemocratic views' I guess you just disagree with my opinion.

BTW you seem to skip over "Campaigning FOR OR AGAINST ...", that's bad.

[rubl]

By the way, there is no need to speculate at this point regarding the thought process used by the CDC for some of the most significant aspects of the draft Charter. The Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand held a meeting, and the official spokesperson for the CDC explained the rationale. It's on youtube for all to see.

I personally don't accept some of the rationale, which goes under the general heading of "too much conflict among the politicians". Conflict among politicians is a "feature" of many democratic forms of government. We can expect that the politicians will frequently align into opposing camps, they will disagree on many matters of policy and law, and they will vilify each other. They will also engage in unethical activities, using parliamentary tricks to thwart the opposition. All of this is "normal".

What is not normal in Thailand is the selective rule of law, and the politically influenced judiciary. Therefore, when a critical stage of Thailand's experiment with democracy (circa 2013) comes to fore, the police fail to enforce simple laws regarding physical obstruction (demonstrators blocking government offices and voting locations), the Army fails to support the civilian government, and the Judiciary intervenes in the political process by hammering through a decision on abuse of power by the PM. We can argue this one on its merits, but the Supreme Court effectively nuked the government, a decision that could have been postponed in favor of supporting the constitutional form of government, and whatever power transfer was to take place under the Constitution. Alas, the Supreme Court has too many fingers in too many pies.

Hence, my lack of acceptance of the overall rationale for the coup, and the changes being pimped by the CDC.

Reasonably fair comment.

As for "I personally don't accept some of the rationale" that doesn't surprise me, others have doubts or grave objections as well although their reasoning is not always real clear.

Now as you seem to have listened to the 1-1/2 hour youtube clip of the charter session for the FCCT imagine that something similar in reasoning is done in the Thai language sessions for the Thai people. With some Thai having read the draft constitution and having prepared some questions.

Surely that would be good?

[Winniedapu]

By the way, there is no need to speculate at this point regarding the thought process used by the CDC for some of the most significant aspects of the draft Charter. The Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand held a meeting, and the official spokesperson for the CDC explained the rationale. It's on youtube for all to see.

I personally don't accept some of the rationale, which goes under the general heading of "too much conflict among the politicians". Conflict among politicians is a "feature" of many democratic forms of government. We can expect that the politicians will frequently align into opposing camps, they will disagree on many matters of policy and law, and they will vilify each other. They will also engage in unethical activities, using parliamentary tricks to thwart the opposition. All of this is "normal".

What is not normal in Thailand is the selective rule of law, and the politically influenced judiciary. Therefore, when a critical stage of Thailand's experiment with democracy (circa 2013) comes to fore, the police fail to enforce simple laws regarding physical obstruction (demonstrators blocking government offices and voting locations), the Army fails to support the civilian government, and the Judiciary intervenes in the political process by hammering through a decision on abuse of power by the PM. We can argue this one on its merits, but the Supreme Court effectively nuked the government, a decision that could have been postponed in favor of supporting the constitutional form of government, and whatever power transfer was to take place under the Constitution. Alas, the Supreme Court has too many fingers in too many pies.

Hence, my lack of acceptance of the overall rationale for the coup, and the changes being pimped by the CDC.

Reasonably fair comment.

As for "I personally don't accept some of the rationale" that doesn't surprise me, others have doubts or grave objections as well although their reasoning is not always real clear.

Now as you seem to have listened to the 1-1/2 hour youtube clip of the charter session for the FCCT imagine that something similar in reasoning is done in the Thai language sessions for the Thai people. With some Thai having read the draft constitution and having prepared some questions.

Surely that would be good?

Good, yes. Likely, no.

W

[phoenixdoglover]

By the way, there is no need to speculate at this point regarding the thought process used by the CDC for some of the most significant aspects of the draft Charter. The Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand held a meeting, and the official spokesperson for the CDC explained the rationale. It's on youtube for all to see.

I personally don't accept some of the rationale, which goes under the general heading of "too much conflict among the politicians". Conflict among politicians is a "feature" of many democratic forms of government. We can expect that the politicians will frequently align into opposing camps, they will disagree on many matters of policy and law, and they will vilify each other. They will also engage in unethical activities, using parliamentary tricks to thwart the opposition. All of this is "normal".

What is not normal in Thailand is the selective rule of law, and the politically influenced judiciary. Therefore, when a critical stage of Thailand's experiment with democracy (circa 2013) comes to fore, the police fail to enforce simple laws regarding physical obstruction (demonstrators blocking government offices and voting locations), the Army fails to support the civilian government, and the Judiciary intervenes in the political process by hammering through a decision on abuse of power by the PM. We can argue this one on its merits, but the Supreme Court effectively nuked the government, a decision that could have been postponed in favor of supporting the constitutional form of government, and whatever power transfer was to take place under the Constitution. Alas, the Supreme Court has too many fingers in too many pies.

Hence, my lack of acceptance of the overall rationale for the coup, and the changes being pimped by the CDC.

Reasonably fair comment.

As for "I personally don't accept some of the rationale" that doesn't surprise me, others have doubts or grave objections as well although their reasoning is not always real clear.

Now as you seem to have listened to the 1-1/2 hour youtube clip of the charter session for the FCCT imagine that something similar in reasoning is done in the Thai language sessions for the Thai people. With some Thai having read the draft constitution and having prepared some questions.

Surely that would be good?

Yes, with the foreign press in the room, it would be acceptable.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 Eye using Tapatalk

[heybruce]

You are truly desperate. The CDC, the committee created by this military installed government, is "explaining" the charter they have produced in order to convince the people to approve it. In order to improve the junta's chances of getting the charter improved, all criticism the junta considers "impolite" opens the critics to ten years in prison.

Your stripped down definition of the OP is as informative as saying "Sex is about making babies." Technically correct and comically misleading.

Interesting that desperation and the making of babies.

To explain the charter you have to explain the background of a charter, the choices made, the reasoning for choices, etc., etc. Of course to write 'explain' makes a sentence fit in a topic title.

BTW there is a difference between criticism and campaigning.

"Campaigning for or against the draft is subject to nebulous rules that could land activists in prison for up to 10 years. Even the sale of a "Vote No" T-shirt is considered against the law."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/922438-thai-junta-leader-defends-crackdown-on-social-media/

Interesting that your reply to my post does not address anything in my post. Twisting and turning again.

The government will "explain" the draft constitution, which anyone of any intelligence understands to mean the government will campaign for a yes vote on the referendum. Anyone who criticizes the draft constitution risks imprisonment under the vague rules banning such activities. Most people think this is bad. You are defending the junta's actions, and attempting to provide a rational for your undemocratic views. Few people agree with your weak rational.

Why should I reply to your musing?

The CDC will explain the draft charter to Thai who probably didn't bother to read it like most didn't bother to read any of the previous versions. I'm defending the explanation sessions, not the ban on campaigning.

As for my 'undemocratic views' I guess you just disagree with my opinion.

BTW you seem to skip over "Campaigning FOR OR AGAINST ...", that's bad.

"Why should I reply to your musing?"

Seriously? You don't understand how this works?

You are under no obligation to respond to my posts. If you want to post something unrelated to my posts you can start a new post.

Replying to my posts with comments unrelated to the post is the sort of thing a troll does as a distraction. I'm surprised that someone with over 20,000 posts doesn't know this.

"I'm defending the explanation sessions, not the ban on campaigning."

Do you really see nothing wrong with the junta "explaining" the draft constitution while banning other discussion? I assume you think that having junta generated propaganda is better than no information at all. Not everyone shares that view.

Also, the junta has gone beyond "explaining" the charter, they now admit they are actively promoting it:

"Chai Nat Governor Kanit Iamrahong has opened training for the promotion of the draft charter in the province with National Legislative Assembly member Lt Gen Chaiyuth Phromsuck and Constitution Drafting Committee member Theerachai Na Nakorn observing." http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/923196-teachers-across-thailand-trained-to-publicize-draft-charter/

"As for my 'undemocratic views' I guess you just disagree with my opinion."

Since you consistently defend the actions of a junta that staged an illegal coup against an elected government, suspended the constitution and all democratic institutions, suppresses basic human rights and is promoting a draft constitution while banning free discussion of the draft, I think my description of you as undemocratic is a reasonable one.

Why do you think I skipped over "Campaigning for or against"? You took the words from the quote I provided.

[baboon]

By the way, there is no need to speculate at this point regarding the thought process used by the CDC for some of the most significant aspects of the draft Charter. The Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand held a meeting, and the official spokesperson for the CDC explained the rationale. It's on youtube for all to see.

I personally don't accept some of the rationale, which goes under the general heading of "too much conflict among the politicians". Conflict among politicians is a "feature" of many democratic forms of government. We can expect that the politicians will frequently align into opposing camps, they will disagree on many matters of policy and law, and they will vilify each other. They will also engage in unethical activities, using parliamentary tricks to thwart the opposition. All of this is "normal".

What is not normal in Thailand is the selective rule of law, and the politically influenced judiciary. Therefore, when a critical stage of Thailand's experiment with democracy (circa 2013) comes to fore, the police fail to enforce simple laws regarding physical obstruction (demonstrators blocking government offices and voting locations), the Army fails to support the civilian government, and the Judiciary intervenes in the political process by hammering through a decision on abuse of power by the PM. We can argue this one on its merits, but the Supreme Court effectively nuked the government, a decision that could have been postponed in favor of supporting the constitutional form of government, and whatever power transfer was to take place under the Constitution. Alas, the Supreme Court has too many fingers in too many pies.

Hence, my lack of acceptance of the overall rationale for the coup, and the changes being pimped by the CDC.

Reasonably fair comment.

As for "I personally don't accept some of the rationale" that doesn't surprise me, others have doubts or grave objections as well although their reasoning is not always real clear.

Now as you seem to have listened to the 1-1/2 hour youtube clip of the charter session for the FCCT imagine that something similar in reasoning is done in the Thai language sessions for the Thai people. With some Thai having read the draft constitution and having prepared some questions.

Surely that would be good?

On the face of it it would. However what would first need to be addressed are matters such as where the sessions would be held, who would chair them, who would be allowed to attend, who would not be allowed to attend and for what reason, what guarantees would be provided for those against the constitution that they or members of their families would not be subject to AA and/or prosecution, what questions wold or wold not be permitted, etc.

You make it sound so straightforward but it is far from that if any meaningful public discourse would be possible.

[rubl]

By the way, there is no need to speculate at this point regarding the thought process used by the CDC for some of the most significant aspects of the draft Charter. The Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand held a meeting, and the official spokesperson for the CDC explained the rationale. It's on youtube for all to see.

I personally don't accept some of the rationale, which goes under the general heading of "too much conflict among the politicians". Conflict among politicians is a "feature" of many democratic forms of government. We can expect that the politicians will frequently align into opposing camps, they will disagree on many matters of policy and law, and they will vilify each other. They will also engage in unethical activities, using parliamentary tricks to thwart the opposition. All of this is "normal".

What is not normal in Thailand is the selective rule of law, and the politically influenced judiciary. Therefore, when a critical stage of Thailand's experiment with democracy (circa 2013) comes to fore, the police fail to enforce simple laws regarding physical obstruction (demonstrators blocking government offices and voting locations), the Army fails to support the civilian government, and the Judiciary intervenes in the political process by hammering through a decision on abuse of power by the PM. We can argue this one on its merits, but the Supreme Court effectively nuked the government, a decision that could have been postponed in favor of supporting the constitutional form of government, and whatever power transfer was to take place under the Constitution. Alas, the Supreme Court has too many fingers in too many pies.

Hence, my lack of acceptance of the overall rationale for the coup, and the changes being pimped by the CDC.

Reasonably fair comment.

As for "I personally don't accept some of the rationale" that doesn't surprise me, others have doubts or grave objections as well although their reasoning is not always real clear.

Now as you seem to have listened to the 1-1/2 hour youtube clip of the charter session for the FCCT imagine that something similar in reasoning is done in the Thai language sessions for the Thai people. With some Thai having read the draft constitution and having prepared some questions.

Surely that would be good?

Yes, with the foreign press in the room, it would be acceptable.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 Eye using Tapatalk

Why would the foreign press be required to attend a 'Thai language' only 1-1/2 hour session? That's close to torture and against human rights.

[rubl]

By the way, there is no need to speculate at this point regarding the thought process used by the CDC for some of the most significant aspects of the draft Charter. The Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand held a meeting, and the official spokesperson for the CDC explained the rationale. It's on youtube for all to see.

I personally don't accept some of the rationale, which goes under the general heading of "too much conflict among the politicians". Conflict among politicians is a "feature" of many democratic forms of government. We can expect that the politicians will frequently align into opposing camps, they will disagree on many matters of policy and law, and they will vilify each other. They will also engage in unethical activities, using parliamentary tricks to thwart the opposition. All of this is "normal".

What is not normal in Thailand is the selective rule of law, and the politically influenced judiciary. Therefore, when a critical stage of Thailand's experiment with democracy (circa 2013) comes to fore, the police fail to enforce simple laws regarding physical obstruction (demonstrators blocking government offices and voting locations), the Army fails to support the civilian government, and the Judiciary intervenes in the political process by hammering through a decision on abuse of power by the PM. We can argue this one on its merits, but the Supreme Court effectively nuked the government, a decision that could have been postponed in favor of supporting the constitutional form of government, and whatever power transfer was to take place under the Constitution. Alas, the Supreme Court has too many fingers in too many pies.

Hence, my lack of acceptance of the overall rationale for the coup, and the changes being pimped by the CDC.

Reasonably fair comment.

As for "I personally don't accept some of the rationale" that doesn't surprise me, others have doubts or grave objections as well although their reasoning is not always real clear.

Now as you seem to have listened to the 1-1/2 hour youtube clip of the charter session for the FCCT imagine that something similar in reasoning is done in the Thai language sessions for the Thai people. With some Thai having read the draft constitution and having prepared some questions.

Surely that would be good?

On the face of it it would. However what would first need to be addressed are matters such as where the sessions would be held, who would chair them, who would be allowed to attend, who would not be allowed to attend and for what reason, what guarantees would be provided for those against the constitution that they or members of their families would not be subject to AA and/or prosecution, what questions wold or wold not be permitted, etc.

You make it sound so straightforward but it is far from that if any meaningful public discourse would be possible.

Absolutely, my dear Baboon.

This needs to be carefully planned. First we need to elect/appoint a commission to discuss the framework under which the investigations into setting up sessions are to be approached. Next te commission studies here and abroad and crafts a draft framework paper for discussion. Etc., etc.

One may be excused to wonder how come things move in real democracies.

[rubl]

"Why should I reply to your musing?"

Seriously? You don't understand how this works?

You are under no obligation to respond to my posts. If you want to post something unrelated to my posts you can start a new post.

Replying to my posts with comments unrelated to the post is the sort of thing a troll does as a distraction. I'm surprised that someone with over 20,000 posts doesn't know this.

"I'm defending the explanation sessions, not the ban on campaigning."

Do you really see nothing wrong with the junta "explaining" the draft constitution while banning other discussion? I assume you think that having junta generated propaganda is better than no information at all. Not everyone shares that view.

Also, the junta has gone beyond "explaining" the charter, they now admit they are actively promoting it:

"Chai Nat Governor Kanit Iamrahong has opened training for the promotion of the draft charter in the province with National Legislative Assembly member Lt Gen Chaiyuth Phromsuck and Constitution Drafting Committee member Theerachai Na Nakorn observing." http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/923196-teachers-across-thailand-trained-to-publicize-draft-charter/

"As for my 'undemocratic views' I guess you just disagree with my opinion."

Since you consistently defend the actions of a junta that staged an illegal coup against an elected government, suspended the constitution and all democratic institutions, suppresses basic human rights and is promoting a draft constitution while banning free discussion of the draft, I think my description of you as undemocratic is a reasonable one.

Why do you think I skipped over "Campaigning for or against"? You took the words from the quote I provided.

So why do you reply with such rubbish?

[baboon]

By the way, there is no need to speculate at this point regarding the thought process used by the CDC for some of the most significant aspects of the draft Charter. The Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand held a meeting, and the official spokesperson for the CDC explained the rationale. It's on youtube for all to see.

I personally don't accept some of the rationale, which goes under the general heading of "too much conflict among the politicians". Conflict among politicians is a "feature" of many democratic forms of government. We can expect that the politicians will frequently align into opposing camps, they will disagree on many matters of policy and law, and they will vilify each other. They will also engage in unethical activities, using parliamentary tricks to thwart the opposition. All of this is "normal".

What is not normal in Thailand is the selective rule of law, and the politically influenced judiciary. Therefore, when a critical stage of Thailand's experiment with democracy (circa 2013) comes to fore, the police fail to enforce simple laws regarding physical obstruction (demonstrators blocking government offices and voting locations), the Army fails to support the civilian government, and the Judiciary intervenes in the political process by hammering through a decision on abuse of power by the PM. We can argue this one on its merits, but the Supreme Court effectively nuked the government, a decision that could have been postponed in favor of supporting the constitutional form of government, and whatever power transfer was to take place under the Constitution. Alas, the Supreme Court has too many fingers in too many pies.

Hence, my lack of acceptance of the overall rationale for the coup, and the changes being pimped by the CDC.

Reasonably fair comment.

As for "I personally don't accept some of the rationale" that doesn't surprise me, others have doubts or grave objections as well although their reasoning is not always real clear.

Now as you seem to have listened to the 1-1/2 hour youtube clip of the charter session for the FCCT imagine that something similar in reasoning is done in the Thai language sessions for the Thai people. With some Thai having read the draft constitution and having prepared some questions.

Surely that would be good?

On the face of it it would. However what would first need to be addressed are matters such as where the sessions would be held, who would chair them, who would be allowed to attend, who would not be allowed to attend and for what reason, what guarantees would be provided for those against the constitution that they or members of their families would not be subject to AA and/or prosecution, what questions wold or wold not be permitted, etc.

You make it sound so straightforward but it is far from that if any meaningful public discourse would be possible.

Absolutely, my dear Baboon.

This needs to be carefully planned. First we need to elect/appoint a commission to discuss the framework under which the investigations into setting up sessions are to be approached. Next te commission studies here and abroad and crafts a draft framework paper for discussion. Etc., etc.

One may be excused to wonder how come things move in real democracies.

So we finally agree on something. Wonders never cease...

[rubl]

Reasonably fair comment.

As for "I personally don't accept some of the rationale" that doesn't surprise me, others have doubts or grave objections as well although their reasoning is not always real clear.

Now as you seem to have listened to the 1-1/2 hour youtube clip of the charter session for the FCCT imagine that something similar in reasoning is done in the Thai language sessions for the Thai people. With some Thai having read the draft constitution and having prepared some questions.

Surely that would be good?

On the face of it it would. However what would first need to be addressed are matters such as where the sessions would be held, who would chair them, who would be allowed to attend, who would not be allowed to attend and for what reason, what guarantees would be provided for those against the constitution that they or members of their families would not be subject to AA and/or prosecution, what questions wold or wold not be permitted, etc.

You make it sound so straightforward but it is far from that if any meaningful public discourse would be possible.

Absolutely, my dear Baboon.

This needs to be carefully planned. First we need to elect/appoint a commission to discuss the framework under which the investigations into setting up sessions are to be approached. Next te commission studies here and abroad and crafts a draft framework paper for discussion. Etc., etc.

One may be excused to wonder how come things move in real democracies.

So we finally agree on something. Wonders never cease...

My dear Baboon, when you're right you're right.

PS look up "Pyrrhic victory"

[baboon]

Good ol' rubl. Ever the snide, bless him.