PM: Military will not meddle in referendum

[Winniedapu]

"Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha has assured the public that the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) will be tasked with maintaining peace and order during the referendum, not to influence the outcome."

I beieve him. The NCPO won't try to influence the/outcome.

He's given a nudge and a wink already - someone else will do it. No shortage of people who'll be happy to do it and put a favour in the bank...

Winnie

[Rayk]

Military meddling caused this daft referendum in the first place.

Or it was caused by corrupt, thieving, vote buying, lying politicians that for many years could not stop thinking about themselves long enough to create a conditions in the country that would enable everyone to live in peace, harmony and prosperity.

And you actually think any of that has changed?

Haha. Good joke.

[Winniedapu]

Military meddling caused this daft referendum in the first place.

Or it was caused by corrupt, thieving, vote buying, lying politicians that for many years could not stop thinking about themselves long enough to create a conditions in the country that would enable everyone to live in peace, harmony and prosperity.

And you actually think any of that has changed?

Haha. Good joke.

Take no notice of the Thaksin-haters, same ole same ole.

They're nearly extinct now anyway, just a few junta-huggers around now, and generally, you'll be amused by them, rather than annoyed. That's what happened to the dinosaurs, it wasn't a meteor at all. First they lost credibility because they kept talking nonsense and blaming everything on the Jurassic period, and the great satanic pleisiosaur in Dubai. Then they just died out.

Nobody noticed, except the signal-to-noise ratio got better.

Winnie

Edited July 10, 2016 by Winniedapu

[rubl]

Military will not meddle in referendum ... tasked with maintaining peace and order.

peace_keepers.jpg

So, the soldiers are going to be a Peace-Keeping Force - Should be wearing Blue Helmets then!

The last former caretaking MoFA Surapong suggested the Military declare Martial Law so they could guard the polling stations in order for him to have his foreign based boss' election. I didn't hear much outcry at that time. So even without Martial Law having a few soldiers around shouldn't be a problem.

[heybruce]

Military will not meddle in referendum ... tasked with maintaining peace and order.

peace_keepers.jpg

So, the soldiers are going to be a Peace-Keeping Force - Should be wearing Blue Helmets then!

The last former caretaking MoFA Surapong suggested the Military declare Martial Law so they could guard the polling stations in order for him to have his foreign based boss' election. I didn't hear much outcry at that time. So even without Martial Law having a few soldiers around shouldn't be a problem.

Yes, after Suthep and fiends used violence and intimidation to disrupt the February elections, Surapong asked the military to declare limited martial law strictly for the purpose of ensuring a peaceful election in July. The military made it very clear they did not want an election.

A few soldiers along with international observers would be fine. Soldiers with no independent observers just further confirm how unfair the referendum will be.

[PattayaBoy]

What do they voting for?

Edit

Found it

https://asiancorrespondent.com/2016/07/thailand-constitution-referendum/

Edited July 14, 2016 by PattayaBoy

[rubl]

Military will not meddle in referendum ... tasked with maintaining peace and order.

peace_keepers.jpg

So, the soldiers are going to be a Peace-Keeping Force - Should be wearing Blue Helmets then!

The last former caretaking MoFA Surapong suggested the Military declare Martial Law so they could guard the polling stations in order for him to have his foreign based boss' election. I didn't hear much outcry at that time. So even without Martial Law having a few soldiers around shouldn't be a problem.

Yes, after Suthep and fiends used violence and intimidation to disrupt the February elections, Surapong asked the military to declare limited martial law strictly for the purpose of ensuring a peaceful election in July. The military made it very clear they did not want an election.

A few soldiers along with international observers would be fine. Soldiers with no independent observers just further confirm how unfair the referendum will be.

For one the whatever status M0FA Surapong didn't ask, he suggested, thought aloud only. As such it's also not clear what level of martial law he was talking about.

Of course we from democratic countries know that no government will even joke about raising martial law to be able to push through elections.

[heybruce]

Military will not meddle in referendum ... tasked with maintaining peace and order.

peace_keepers.jpg

So, the soldiers are going to be a Peace-Keeping Force - Should be wearing Blue Helmets then!

The last former caretaking MoFA Surapong suggested the Military declare Martial Law so they could guard the polling stations in order for him to have his foreign based boss' election. I didn't hear much outcry at that time. So even without Martial Law having a few soldiers around shouldn't be a problem.

Yes, after Suthep and fiends used violence and intimidation to disrupt the February elections, Surapong asked the military to declare limited martial law strictly for the purpose of ensuring a peaceful election in July. The military made it very clear they did not want an election.

A few soldiers along with international observers would be fine. Soldiers with no independent observers just further confirm how unfair the referendum will be.

For one the whatever status M0FA Surapong didn't ask, he suggested, thought aloud only. As such it's also not clear what level of martial law he was talking about.

Of course we from democratic countries know that no government will even joke about raising martial law to be able to push through elections.

"push through elections"? Interesting choice of words. I think most of us from democratic countries would support martial law in order to hold peaceful elections that are threatened by a violent minority. Especially if the alternative is to abandon democracy.

[Rayk]

"Military will not meddle in referendum"

That's like saying a fly won't land on sxxt.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Rayk

[jerojero]

Paranoia about the Referendum? Majority of the population doesn't even know about it! Predict the turnout will be so low the Referendum results will be useless regardless of outcome.

[Winniedapu]

The last former caretaking MoFA Surapong suggested the Military declare Martial Law so they could guard the polling stations in order for him to have his foreign based boss' election. I didn't hear much outcry at that time. So even without Martial Law having a few soldiers around shouldn't be a problem.

Yes, after Suthep and fiends used violence and intimidation to disrupt the February elections, Surapong asked the military to declare limited martial law strictly for the purpose of ensuring a peaceful election in July. The military made it very clear they did not want an election.

A few soldiers along with international observers would be fine. Soldiers with no independent observers just further confirm how unfair the referendum will be.

For one the whatever status M0FA Surapong didn't ask, he suggested, thought aloud only. As such it's also not clear what level of martial law he was talking about.

Of course we from democratic countries know that no government will even joke about raising martial law to be able to push through elections.

"push through elections"? Interesting choice of words. I think most of us from democratic countries would support martial law in order to hold peaceful elections that are threatened by a violent minority. Especially if the alternative is to abandon democracy.

You might be right in practice, but you are certainly wrong in principle, even without examining your 'violent minority'. If you're right in practice, it's because waaay too many people are too apathetic and tangled up in narcissism or indifference to give a damn about the society they feed from.

Winnie

[klauskunkel]

The military designs the charter draft.

The military promotes and organizes the referendum.

The military threatens, cajoles and adjusts attitudes related to the charter and referendum.

But...that's not meddling.

Edited July 18, 2016 by klauskunkel

[LannaGuy]

'Military won't meddle in Referendum' coz we have the results already and 93.3% accept it

[rubl]

For one the whatever status M0FA Surapong didn't ask, he suggested, thought aloud only. As such it's also not clear what level of martial law he was talking about.

Of course we from democratic countries know that no government will even joke about raising martial law to be able to push through elections.

"push through elections"? Interesting choice of words. I think most of us from democratic countries would support martial law in order to hold peaceful elections that are threatened by a violent minority. Especially if the alternative is to abandon democracy.

Most of us from democratic countries would not have allowed a situation where a criminal fugitive could control and rule their country.

Matter of education my dear Heybruce, even the Italians understand now.

Tell us rubl, how many of these democratic countries have applauded the coup and condemned the elected government it toppled with your enthusiasm?

Once again, the election and the government's dealings with Thaksin were legal under the constitution written at the military's direction after their 2006 coup. Apparently you don't think a democracy is legitimate unless you approve of how things are done. Not very democratic of you.

Most of us from democratic countries have not had nineteen constitutions and almost as many coups since 1932. Also, education for the majority of Thais has improved significantly since Thaksin first came to power. The junta seems inclined to reverse that trend.

Any other straws you'd like to grasp at in defense of military rule?

How many countries understand the need for education to make the population understand the rights and duties in a democracy?

AS for legally ruling a country from abroad, truly democratic.

So, no interference, not even from our favourite criminal fugitive. Ms. Yingluck urging people to vote, just like I already said many times.

[metisdead]

Posts containing off topic trolling remarks have been removed as well as the replies.

[heybruce]

"push through elections"? Interesting choice of words. I think most of us from democratic countries would support martial law in order to hold peaceful elections that are threatened by a violent minority. Especially if the alternative is to abandon democracy.

Most of us from democratic countries would not have allowed a situation where a criminal fugitive could control and rule their country.

Matter of education my dear Heybruce, even the Italians understand now.

Tell us rubl, how many of these democratic countries have applauded the coup and condemned the elected government it toppled with your enthusiasm?

Once again, the election and the government's dealings with Thaksin were legal under the constitution written at the military's direction after their 2006 coup. Apparently you don't think a democracy is legitimate unless you approve of how things are done. Not very democratic of you.

Most of us from democratic countries have not had nineteen constitutions and almost as many coups since 1932. Also, education for the majority of Thais has improved significantly since Thaksin first came to power. The junta seems inclined to reverse that trend.

Any other straws you'd like to grasp at in defense of military rule?

How many countries understand the need for education to make the population understand the rights and duties in a democracy?

AS for legally ruling a country from abroad, truly democratic.

So, no interference, not even from our favourite criminal fugitive. Ms. Yingluck urging people to vote, just like I already said many times.

"How many countries understand the need for education to make the population understand the rights and duties in a democracy?"

I assume that is a part of the education system in most democratic countries, but not Thailand. To my knowledge the only changes the junta has made to the Thai education system has been to emphasize obedience to traditional authority, not to explain democracy.

"AS for legally ruling a country from abroad, truly democratic."

Yes, in this instance it was what the voters chose, and it was legal under the constitution written for the military after the 2006 coup.

"So, no interference, not even from our favourite criminal fugitive."

My favorite? You're the one who can't resist bringing him up in every topic.

[rubl]

Most of us from democratic countries would not have allowed a situation where a criminal fugitive could control and rule their country.

Matter of education my dear Heybruce, even the Italians understand now.

Tell us rubl, how many of these democratic countries have applauded the coup and condemned the elected government it toppled with your enthusiasm?

Once again, the election and the government's dealings with Thaksin were legal under the constitution written at the military's direction after their 2006 coup. Apparently you don't think a democracy is legitimate unless you approve of how things are done. Not very democratic of you.

Most of us from democratic countries have not had nineteen constitutions and almost as many coups since 1932. Also, education for the majority of Thais has improved significantly since Thaksin first came to power. The junta seems inclined to reverse that trend.

Any other straws you'd like to grasp at in defense of military rule?

How many countries understand the need for education to make the population understand the rights and duties in a democracy?

AS for legally ruling a country from abroad, truly democratic.

So, no interference, not even from our favourite criminal fugitive. Ms. Yingluck urging people to vote, just like I already said many times.

"How many countries understand the need for education to make the population understand the rights and duties in a democracy?"

I assume that is a part of the education system in most democratic countries, but not Thailand. To my knowledge the only changes the junta has made to the Thai education system has been to emphasize obedience to traditional authority, not to explain democracy.

"AS for legally ruling a country from abroad, truly democratic."

Yes, in this instance it was what the voters chose, and it was legal under the constitution written for the military after the 2006 coup.

"So, no interference, not even from our favourite criminal fugitive."

My favorite? You're the one who can't resist bringing him up in every topic.

What the voters choose and what is democratic is not the same. Voting is just one of the aspects of a Democracy. In this case you fail, sorry. As for our favourite criminal fugitive, seems he's always in your mind as well and well defended.

So, no interference, not even from our favourite criminal fugitive. Ms. Yingluck urging people to vote, just like I already said many times.

BTW your

""push through elections"? Interesting choice of words. I think most of us from democratic countries would support martial law in order to hold peaceful elections that are threatened by a violent minority. Especially if the alternative is to abandon democracy."

is interesting watching today's developments in a 'democratic' country.

[heybruce]

How many countries understand the need for education to make the population understand the rights and duties in a democracy?

AS for legally ruling a country from abroad, truly democratic.

So, no interference, not even from our favourite criminal fugitive. Ms. Yingluck urging people to vote, just like I already said many times.

"How many countries understand the need for education to make the population understand the rights and duties in a democracy?"

I assume that is a part of the education system in most democratic countries, but not Thailand. To my knowledge the only changes the junta has made to the Thai education system has been to emphasize obedience to traditional authority, not to explain democracy.

"AS for legally ruling a country from abroad, truly democratic."

Yes, in this instance it was what the voters chose, and it was legal under the constitution written for the military after the 2006 coup.

"So, no interference, not even from our favourite criminal fugitive."

My favorite? You're the one who can't resist bringing him up in every topic.

What the voters choose and what is democratic is not the same. Voting is just one of the aspects of a Democracy. In this case you fail, sorry. As for our favourite criminal fugitive, seems he's always in your mind as well and well defended.

So, no interference, not even from our favourite criminal fugitive. Ms. Yingluck urging people to vote, just like I already said many times.

BTW your

""push through elections"? Interesting choice of words. I think most of us from democratic countries would support martial law in order to hold peaceful elections that are threatened by a violent minority. Especially if the alternative is to abandon democracy."

is interesting watching today's developments in a 'democratic' country.

"What the voters choose and what is democratic is not the same. Voting is just one of the aspects of a Democracy. In this case you fail, sorry."

I see. A legal vote that reflected the will of the voters is not democratic because you disapprove. In this case you fail the democracy test, and fail miserably. That's before we consider your preference for a government imposed at gunpoint over a government chosen in an election.

You clearly have trouble accepting this simple fact: Democracy is not the government you choose, democracy is the government the voters choose, whether you like it or not.

Regarding Thaksin, you are the one who keeps bringing him up. Over and over, regardless of how off-topic your favorite diversion is.

The current issue of the Economist addresses the issue of Thaksin and the junta reasonably well. On the subject of the junta not meddling:

"Whereas Mr Prayuth rambles self-righteously on his weekly television show, opposition parties are gagged and parliament stuffed with the junta’s allies. The regime has hauled critics to army bases for “attitude adjustment”. It has charged Thailand’s former prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, with neglect-in-office, and may hand her ten years in jail. The army’s latest ploy is a new constitution, which would allow fresh elections but keep the next government subservient to a nominated senate and a handful of junta-stacked committees. It hopes to win public approval for this plan in a referendum on August 7th. Just to make sure, it has trained bureaucrats to “explain” the charter to voters, but it forbids civilians from campaigning against it, on pain of a ten-year prison sentence."

On why the majority prefer Thaksin to military rule:

"The army had deposed him (Thaksin) in 2006, arguing that his administration was corrupt.

Indeed it was, but probably no more so than most Thai governments. The army’s excuses for seizing power are wearing thin. Thailand has seen a dozen successful coups since the 1930s and a new constitution on average every four years. The army typically installs conservative governments that favour the urban elite. That has entrenched inequality and infuriated the rural poor. Mr Thaksin won two elections by wooing poor voters with free public health care and subsidies for farmers. He may have left the scene, but his supporters are still there."

"Thailand’s middle classes may find Thaksinite populism abhorrent, but they have failed to provide poorer Thais with an alternative. The Democrat Party, the establishment’s main political outfit, has been squealing about the generals’ stifling rule. But for years it has put off the groundwork needed to win an election, betting instead that friends in the army or judiciary will help it."

Summary: Thaksin wins elections by serving the majority, the Democrats lose elections because they serve an elite minority. That's why the Democrats oppose elections and prefer to be appointed to power by the military or courts.

There are two excellent articles about Thailand in this issue of the Economist http://www.economist.com/printedition/2016-07-23 . I can't provide links directly to the articles, but you'll have no trouble finding them. You claim to be a fan of education, even though you neglected to address the fact that the junta is doing nothing to educate the Thai people about Democracy. Why don't you educate yourself? Read a couple of well researched articles from a highly respected publication that explain why continued military rule will ruin Thailand.

Edited July 25, 2016 by heybruce

[tbthailand]

How many countries understand the need for education to make the population understand the rights and duties in a democracy?

AS for legally ruling a country from abroad, truly democratic.

So, no interference, not even from our favourite criminal fugitive. Ms. Yingluck urging people to vote, just like I already said many times.

"How many countries understand the need for education to make the population understand the rights and duties in a democracy?"

I assume that is a part of the education system in most democratic countries, but not Thailand. To my knowledge the only changes the junta has made to the Thai education system has been to emphasize obedience to traditional authority, not to explain democracy.

"AS for legally ruling a country from abroad, truly democratic."

Yes, in this instance it was what the voters chose, and it was legal under the constitution written for the military after the 2006 coup.

"So, no interference, not even from our favourite criminal fugitive."

My favorite? You're the one who can't resist bringing him up in every topic.

What the voters choose and what is democratic is not the same. Voting is just one of the aspects of a Democracy. In this case you fail, sorry. As for our favourite criminal fugitive, seems he's always in your mind as well and well defended.

So, no interference, not even from our favourite criminal fugitive. Ms. Yingluck urging people to vote, just like I already said many times.

BTW your

""push through elections"? Interesting choice of words. I think most of us from democratic countries would support martial law in order to hold peaceful elections that are threatened by a violent minority. Especially if the alternative is to abandon democracy."

is interesting watching today's developments in a 'democratic' country.

"What the voters choose and what is democratic is not the same. Voting is just one of the aspects of a Democracy. In this case you fail, sorry."

I see. A legal vote that reflected the will of the voters is not democratic because you disapprove. In this case you fail the democracy test, and fail miserably. That's before we consider your preference for a government imposed at gunpoint over a government chosen in an election.

You clearly have trouble accepting this simple fact: Democracy is not the government you choose, democracy is the government the voters choose, whether you like it or not.

Regarding Thaksin, you are the one who keeps bringing him up. Over and over, regardless of how off-topic your favorite diversion is.

The current issue of the Economist addresses the issue of Thaksin and the junta reasonably well. On the subject of the junta not meddling:

"Whereas Mr Prayuth rambles self-righteously on his weekly television show, opposition parties are gagged and parliament stuffed with the junta’s allies. The regime has hauled critics to army bases for “attitude adjustment”. It has charged Thailand’s former prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, with neglect-in-office, and may hand her ten years in jail. The army’s latest ploy is a new constitution, which would allow fresh elections but keep the next government subservient to a nominated senate and a handful of junta-stacked committees. It hopes to win public approval for this plan in a referendum on August 7th. Just to make sure, it has trained bureaucrats to “explain” the charter to voters, but it forbids civilians from campaigning against it, on pain of a ten-year prison sentence."

On why the majority prefer Thaksin to military rule:

"The army had deposed him (Thaksin) in 2006, arguing that his administration was corrupt.

Indeed it was, but probably no more so than most Thai governments. The army’s excuses for seizing power are wearing thin. Thailand has seen a dozen successful coups since the 1930s and a new constitution on average every four years. The army typically installs conservative governments that favour the urban elite. That has entrenched inequality and infuriated the rural poor. Mr Thaksin won two elections by wooing poor voters with free public health care and subsidies for farmers. He may have left the scene, but his supporters are still there."

"Thailand’s middle classes may find Thaksinite populism abhorrent, but they have failed to provide poorer Thais with an alternative. The Democrat Party, the establishment’s main political outfit, has been squealing about the generals’ stifling rule. But for years it has put off the groundwork needed to win an election, betting instead that friends in the army or judiciary will help it."

Summary: Thaksin wins elections by serving the majority, the Democrats lose elections because they serve an elite minority. That's why the Democrats oppose elections and prefer to be appointed to power by the military or courts.

There are two excellent articles about Thailand in this issue of the Economist http://www.economist.com/printedition/2016-07-23 . I can't provide links directly to the articles, but you'll have no trouble finding them. You claim to be a fan of education, even though you neglected to address the fact that the junta is doing nothing to educate the Thai people about Democracy. Why don't you educate yourself? Read a couple of well researched articles from a highly respected publication that explain why continued military rule will ruin Thailand.

Why don't you educate yourself? Read a couple of well researched articles from a highly respected publication that explain why continued military rule will ruin Thailand.

Well, Heybruce, there you go p***ing into the wind...

[heybruce]

"How many countries understand the need for education to make the population understand the rights and duties in a democracy?"

I assume that is a part of the education system in most democratic countries, but not Thailand. To my knowledge the only changes the junta has made to the Thai education system has been to emphasize obedience to traditional authority, not to explain democracy.

"AS for legally ruling a country from abroad, truly democratic."

Yes, in this instance it was what the voters chose, and it was legal under the constitution written for the military after the 2006 coup.

"So, no interference, not even from our favourite criminal fugitive."

My favorite? You're the one who can't resist bringing him up in every topic.

What the voters choose and what is democratic is not the same. Voting is just one of the aspects of a Democracy. In this case you fail, sorry. As for our favourite criminal fugitive, seems he's always in your mind as well and well defended.

So, no interference, not even from our favourite criminal fugitive. Ms. Yingluck urging people to vote, just like I already said many times.

BTW your

""push through elections"? Interesting choice of words. I think most of us from democratic countries would support martial law in order to hold peaceful elections that are threatened by a violent minority. Especially if the alternative is to abandon democracy."

is interesting watching today's developments in a 'democratic' country.

"What the voters choose and what is democratic is not the same. Voting is just one of the aspects of a Democracy. In this case you fail, sorry."

I see. A legal vote that reflected the will of the voters is not democratic because you disapprove. In this case you fail the democracy test, and fail miserably. That's before we consider your preference for a government imposed at gunpoint over a government chosen in an election.

You clearly have trouble accepting this simple fact: Democracy is not the government you choose, democracy is the government the voters choose, whether you like it or not.

Regarding Thaksin, you are the one who keeps bringing him up. Over and over, regardless of how off-topic your favorite diversion is.

The current issue of the Economist addresses the issue of Thaksin and the junta reasonably well. On the subject of the junta not meddling:

"Whereas Mr Prayuth rambles self-righteously on his weekly television show, opposition parties are gagged and parliament stuffed with the junta’s allies. The regime has hauled critics to army bases for “attitude adjustment”. It has charged Thailand’s former prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, with neglect-in-office, and may hand her ten years in jail. The army’s latest ploy is a new constitution, which would allow fresh elections but keep the next government subservient to a nominated senate and a handful of junta-stacked committees. It hopes to win public approval for this plan in a referendum on August 7th. Just to make sure, it has trained bureaucrats to “explain” the charter to voters, but it forbids civilians from campaigning against it, on pain of a ten-year prison sentence."

On why the majority prefer Thaksin to military rule:

"The army had deposed him (Thaksin) in 2006, arguing that his administration was corrupt.

Indeed it was, but probably no more so than most Thai governments. The army’s excuses for seizing power are wearing thin. Thailand has seen a dozen successful coups since the 1930s and a new constitution on average every four years. The army typically installs conservative governments that favour the urban elite. That has entrenched inequality and infuriated the rural poor. Mr Thaksin won two elections by wooing poor voters with free public health care and subsidies for farmers. He may have left the scene, but his supporters are still there."

"Thailand’s middle classes may find Thaksinite populism abhorrent, but they have failed to provide poorer Thais with an alternative. The Democrat Party, the establishment’s main political outfit, has been squealing about the generals’ stifling rule. But for years it has put off the groundwork needed to win an election, betting instead that friends in the army or judiciary will help it."

Summary: Thaksin wins elections by serving the majority, the Democrats lose elections because they serve an elite minority. That's why the Democrats oppose elections and prefer to be appointed to power by the military or courts.

There are two excellent articles about Thailand in this issue of the Economist http://www.economist.com/printedition/2016-07-23 . I can't provide links directly to the articles, but you'll have no trouble finding them. You claim to be a fan of education, even though you neglected to address the fact that the junta is doing nothing to educate the Thai people about Democracy. Why don't you educate yourself? Read a couple of well researched articles from a highly respected publication that explain why continued military rule will ruin Thailand.

Why don't you educate yourself? Read a couple of well researched articles from a highly respected publication that explain why continued military rule will ruin Thailand.

Well, Heybruce, there you go p***ing into the wind...

I know. Some people live by Stephen Colbert's words: "In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."

I'm not trying to cure the actively ignorant, I'm just trying to prevent spread of the contagion.

[BSJ]

If I had a crystal ball I could tell you how many people will vote for the new constitution and how many against.....but do you want to know? And does it matter to farang?

[heybruce]

If I had a crystal ball I could tell you how many people will vote for the new constitution and how many against.....but do you want to know? And does it matter to farang?

Are you asking if farang should care about the kind of government misruling the country they live in?

[williamgeorgeallen]

If I had a crystal ball I could tell you how many people will vote for the new constitution and how many against.....but do you want to know? And does it matter to farang?

Are you asking if farang should care about the kind of government misruling the country they live in?

does any one here know what is in this referendum? i have asked a couple times and no one seems to have any idea so i guess thats how much any one cares about it. by the way none of us here actually live here. we are guests who stay temporary on year by year visas .

again i would be interested if any one does actually know what is in the referendum. wonder if any thais even know.

[waldroj]

williamgeorgeallen:

See http://www.un.or.th/2016-thailand-draft-constitution-english-translation/ for unofficial English translation from UN Thailand.

Thai version can be found on the Election Commission's web page along with details (in Thai) about the voting process - http://www.ect.go.th/th/?page_id=8583

[williamgeorgeallen]

williamgeorgeallen:

See http://www.un.or.th/2016-thailand-draft-constitution-english-translation/ for unofficial English translation from UN Thailand.

Thai version can be found on the Election Commission's web page along with details (in Thai) about the voting process - http://www.ect.go.th/th/?page_id=8583

thanks. gave it a bit of a look. 137 pages. not sure if there are any nasties hidden in there. has been re written so many times. wonder if it will achieve anything.

[MZurf]

If I had a crystal ball I could tell you how many people will vote for the new constitution and how many against.....but do you want to know? And does it matter to farang?

Are you asking if farang should care about the kind of government misruling the country they live in?

does any one here know what is in this referendum? i have asked a couple times and no one seems to have any idea so i guess thats how much any one cares about it. by the way none of us here actually live here. we are guests who stay temporary on year by year visas .

again i would be interested if any one does actually know what is in the referendum. wonder if any thais even know.

"by the way none of us here actually live here. we are guests who stay temporary on year by year visas ."

Wrong. I LIVE here. My family is here, my house is here, my car is here, I pay taxes here etc. so don't tell me I'm merely a guest!

[williamgeorgeallen]

If I had a crystal ball I could tell you how many people will vote for the new constitution and how many against.....but do you want to know? And does it matter to farang?

Are you asking if farang should care about the kind of government misruling the country they live in?

does any one here know what is in this referendum? i have asked a couple times and no one seems to have any idea so i guess thats how much any one cares about it. by the way none of us here actually live here. we are guests who stay temporary on year by year visas .

again i would be interested if any one does actually know what is in the referendum. wonder if any thais even know.

"by the way none of us here actually live here. we are guests who stay temporary on year by year visas ."

Wrong. I LIVE here. My family is here, my house is here, my car is here, I pay taxes here etc. so don't tell me I'm merely a guest!

wow me too. 9 years i have had my business, 2 half thai kids, owned several properties, paid more tax than the majority of thais. every year have to renew my one year visa. they let me stay on a year by year basis at their discretion. how did you get thai citizenship?

[MZurf]

Are you asking if farang should care about the kind of government misruling the country they live in?

does any one here know what is in this referendum? i have asked a couple times and no one seems to have any idea so i guess thats how much any one cares about it. by the way none of us here actually live here. we are guests who stay temporary on year by year visas .

again i would be interested if any one does actually know what is in the referendum. wonder if any thais even know.

"by the way none of us here actually live here. we are guests who stay temporary on year by year visas ."

Wrong. I LIVE here. My family is here, my house is here, my car is here, I pay taxes here etc. so don't tell me I'm merely a guest!

wow me too. 9 years i have had my business, 2 half thai kids, owned several properties, paid more tax than the majority of thais. every year have to renew my one year visa. they let me stay on a year by year basis at their discretion. how did you get thai citizenship?

" how did you get thai citizenship?"

I didn't, and I don't need one to live here. I've lived here for 23 years. If you had a friend coming to stay with you and he stayed for 23 years (or 5, 10, 15) would you still consider him a guest or one that lived in your house?

[williamgeorgeallen]

" how did you get thai citizenship?"

"by the way none of us here actually live here. we are guests who stay temporary on year by year visas ."

does any one here know what is in this referendum? i have asked a couple times and no one seems to have any idea so i guess thats how much any one cares about it. by the way none of us here actually live here. we are guests who stay temporary on year by year visas .

again i would be interested if any one does actually know what is in the referendum. wonder if any thais even know.

Wrong. I LIVE here. My family is here, my house is here, my car is here, I pay taxes here etc. so don't tell me I'm merely a guest!

wow me too. 9 years i have had my business, 2 half thai kids, owned several properties, paid more tax than the majority of thais. every year have to renew my one year visa. they let me stay on a year by year basis at their discretion. how did you get thai citizenship?

I didn't, and I don't need one to live here. I've lived here for 23 years. If you had a friend coming to stay with you and he stayed for 23 years (or 5, 10, 15) would you still consider him a guest or one that lived in your house?

i would consider him a tenant, and he better pay his rent on time or i would kick him out no matter how long he stayed with me.

[heybruce]

williamgeorgeallen:

See http://www.un.or.th/2016-thailand-draft-constitution-english-translation/ for unofficial English translation from UN Thailand.

Thai version can be found on the Election Commission's web page along with details (in Thai) about the voting process - http://www.ect.go.th/th/?page_id=8583

thanks. gave it a bit of a look. 137 pages. not sure if there are any nasties hidden in there. has been re written so many times. wonder if it will achieve anything.

From the current issue of the Economist, under the heading "The Poliitics of Thailand":

"The army’s latest ploy is a new constitution, which would allow fresh elections but keep the next government subservient to a nominated senate and a handful of junta-stacked committees. It hopes to win public approval for this plan in a referendum on August 7th. Just to make sure, it has trained bureaucrats to “explain” the charter to voters, but it forbids civilians from campaigning against it, on pain of a ten-year prison sentence." http://www.economist.com/printedition/2016-07-23

Edited July 26, 2016 by heybruce