Charter referendum to continue despite doubts from Ombudsman

BANGKOK, 9 June 2016 (NNT) - The Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) will continue with its draft constitution PR program across the country, despite the Constitutional Court’s decision to examine Paragraph 2 of Section 61 in the Public Referendum Act.

CDC Spokesperson Udom Ratamarit said the referendum on the draft constitution would remained unaffected, although the Constitutional Court has agreed to look into the contentious clause at the request of the Office of the Ombudsman.

Paragraph 2 of Article 61 states that anyone disseminating a message, image or audio information regarding the draft charter in a way that deviates from fact, shows aggression, arouses public outcry, or threatens the public in order to deter eligible voters from casting their ballots will be considered obstructors of the referendum. The Office of the Ombudsman considers the clause ambiguous and might cause public confusion.

Mr. Udom affirmed there was no need for the Election Commission or the CDC to suspend the PR program, as there is no issue with the remaining sections of the Act. He insisted that those trying to hinder the referendum would still face legal action in accordance with the order by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).

The CDC Spokesperson reported that ongoing efforts to educate local-level PR volunteers on the draft charter and the referendum have yielded satisfactory results in most areas. CDC members will travel to various provinces to observe the draft constitution PR campaign and answer questions posed by PR volunteers.

-- NNT 2016-06-09

or threatens the public in order to deter eligible voters from casting their ballots will be considered obstructors of the referendum

Only junta sanctioned troublemakers (Suthep) are allowed to obstruct voting.

The Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) will continue with its draft constitution PR program across the country

sham

play

noun \ˈsham\

Popularity: Top 30% of words

Simple Definition of sham

• : something that is not what it appears to be and that is meant to trick or deceive people
• : someone who deceives people by pretending to be a particular kind of person, to have a particular skill, etc.
• : words or actions that are not sincere or honest

The Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) will continue with its draft constitution PR program across the country

sham

play

noun \ˈsham\

Popularity: Top 30% of words

Simple Definition of sham

• : something that is not what it appears to be and that is meant to trick or deceive people
• : someone who deceives people by pretending to be a particular kind of person, to have a particular skill, etc.
• : words or actions that are not sincere or honest

You forgot ... the Thai military, the CDC, anything the PM or his cohorts mutter, the mad monk, buddism, RTP, Thai democracy.

or threatens the public in order to deter eligible voters from casting their ballots will be considered obstructors of the referendum

Only junta sanctioned troublemakers (Suthep) are allowed to obstruct voting.

So was blocking and obstructing people voting not written in the previous constitutional law before?

I find it hard to believe there was no law preventing such behavior and tactics.

And some here still think their threats of violence the beatings bashings mobs blocking voting centers, chains and locking gates all their behavior was ok.

It's these people that are a threat to freedom and democracy and the peoples choice what ever it may be...

or threatens the public in order to deter eligible voters from casting their ballots will be considered obstructors of the referendum

Only junta sanctioned troublemakers (Suthep) are allowed to obstruct voting.

So was blocking and obstructing people voting not written in the previous constitutional law before?

I find it hard to believe there was no law preventing such behavior and tactics.

And some here still think their threats of violence the beatings bashings mobs blocking voting centers, chains and locking gates all their behavior was ok.

It's these people that are a threat to freedom and democracy and the peoples choice what ever it may be...

These events certainly weren't legal and as I have said before if the law was carried out properly by both major parties, the coup wouldn't happened , the police duty to up hold the law , they shouldn't have to be directed by parliament or wait for instructions although Tarit was DSI at the time , that say it all.

Whilst there is a verdict to be made by the constitutional court on 61 ala 4 , no charges can be laid , until this matter has been resolved , so they may have to take a deep breath and count to 10 , because a case just finished took 15 years to concluded, I rest my case...............................

the Constitutional Court has agreed to look into the contentious clause

Ruling expected on/after 8 August 2016.

or threatens the public in order to deter eligible voters from casting their ballots will be considered obstructors of the referendum

Only junta sanctioned troublemakers (Suthep) are allowed to obstruct voting.

So was blocking and obstructing people voting not written in the previous constitutional law before?

I find it hard to believe there was no law preventing such behavior and tactics.

And some here still think their threats of violence the beatings bashings mobs blocking voting centers, chains and locking gates all their behavior was ok.

It's these people that are a threat to freedom and democracy and the peoples choice what ever it may be...

These events certainly weren't legal and as I have said before if the law was carried out properly by both major parties, the coup wouldn't happened , the police duty to up hold the law , they shouldn't have to be directed by parliament or wait for instructions although Tarit was DSI at the time , that say it all.

So you mean to tell me which I and many already know that constitutional laws were indeed breached but those who instigated this are free and declared hero's of democracy... what a stain on the country

or threatens the public in order to deter eligible voters from casting their ballots will be considered obstructors of the referendum

Only junta sanctioned troublemakers (Suthep) are allowed to obstruct voting.

So was blocking and obstructing people voting not written in the previous constitutional law before?

I find it hard to believe there was no law preventing such behavior and tactics.

And some here still think their threats of violence the beatings bashings mobs blocking voting centers, chains and locking gates all their behavior was ok.

It's these people that are a threat to freedom and democracy and the peoples choice what ever it may be...

It was OK.

It prevented the"wrong sort of people" from being elected!

I'm being ironic, but actually there are some who do believe that...

the Constitutional Court has agreed to look into the contentious clause

Ruling expected on/after 8 August 2016.

No way, 2026 is more likely

Why don't they just say "we will do what we want, and if you can stop us, then try". That would save a lot of time and money.

"PR Program".

Well, that's fairly honest.