EC allows several international bodies to observe referendum

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, HHTel said:

The link you give is ANFREL objecting to the ban of LOCAL Thai monitoring and not allowing free speech.  There are many posts of this nature.  The objection is not about allowing foreign observers but local ones.

 

"

BANGKOK — After waiting months for official accreditation, the head of a nonpartisan domestic election monitoring group said he was dismayed to learn Monday that no Thai organizations would be granted status for the upcoming charter referendum.

Pongsak Chan-on of We Watch said allowing foreign organizations but barring Thai groups such as his made no sense and amounted to discrimination."

This was in June.

The link: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2016/06/27/thai-elections-monitor-fumes-barred-thai-referendum/

And there are many more.

Don't get confused between allowing foreign observers and Thai monitoring teams.

 

Anfrel pulls out of poll monitoring role

Your final point, once again, if you read it, the reason they are pulling out is because they required local monitoring teams in place to make their effort at all meaningful and because of that, they cannot field enough of their own observers.

You are inaccurately describing the scope of my references as being much narrower than they are.  Why?

 

My link is about ANFREL objecting to the junta banning election monitors and banning public debate about the charter.  ANFREL considers this a human rights violation.

 

The second sources states that ANFREL declared it could not monitor the election because of the late approval from the junta, the ban on debate and the ban on local groups assisting in the monitoring.  Why do you think the final point is the only one of significance?

 

The significant points are:

 

1.  ANFREL requested approval to monitor the referendum in May.

 

2.  Approval wasn't provided until July, and it came with restrictions on public debate (essential to the democratic process) and a ban on public participation on the monitoring.

 

3.  On July 29 ANFREL publicly announced it will not be able to monitor the referendum due to the late approval, censorship, and ban on local groups assisting in the monitoring.

 

4.  The junta publicly announced ANFREL was invited to monitor the referendum on August 2, four days after ANFREL publicly stated it was impossible, and five days before the referendum.

 

There is not meaningful difference between making independent monitoring impossible and banning independent monitoring.  Don't you agree?