Boycott camp rejects results of 'fake' referendum

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, baboon said:

You and scorecard brought colours into this. I didn't. Nor am I questioning the result or why the slaves voted for chains. None of us know for certain and anyway, what happens next is far more important. 

 

 

I did not bring any colors into this you started about evil Bangkok people and then my reply came. 

 

Your right, what happens next is important. I hope for a speedy election though i find november 2017 a bit far away. 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

 

Even if that vote was not fair and campaigning for the other side was illegal? 

Even though campaigning was not done (and that is bad though spreading outright lies is bad too) people could still vote no and it was known that people were against the new constitution. It was known that the PTP was against it but even so their own did not vote against it. 

 

Do you think that people did not know PTP was against the vote, they were certainly in the news opposing it. Then why did their own followers did not vote NO. 

[baboon]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

 

 

I did not bring any colors into this you started about evil Bangkok people and then my reply came. 

 

Your right, what happens next is important. I hope for a speedy election though i find november 2017 a bit far away. 

November 2018 is even further away, but time will tell... No point in slinging buckets of sh!t over each other's heads until we know something concrete.

[johng]

19 minutes ago, robblok said:

Could you tell me what database would be used ?

 

Thai National ID card database ?

[Confuscious]

39 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes a few Thais and I don't speak Thai fluently (speak enough but politics is a hard topic and my Thai is not good enough to discuss that) but there are quite a few Thais that speak decent English.  I used to be married to a Thai lady who graduated from a University.  Guess we just move in different circles.  As for being hansum I have no clue about that I do know I am not fat or old. 

 

Why be so humble. Robblok?
 

You are a great ThaiVisa member.
 

You not only manage to speak with Thais about politics in Thai (a topic that you not master well enough) but you manage as well to push "quite a few Thais that speak decent English" to discuss about the referendum vote knowing very well that this can put them in jail for the next few years.

You are an amazing personality.

Did you every thought to apply for a job at the Junta?

[baboon]

9 minutes ago, robblok said:

Even though campaigning was not done (and that is bad though spreading outright lies is bad too) people could still vote no and it was known that people were against the new constitution. It was known that the PTP was against it but even so their own did not vote against it. 

 

Do you think that people did not know PTP was against the vote, they were certainly in the news opposing it. Then why did their own followers did not vote NO. 

Agreed. I suspect that even if campaigning had been allowed, Yes would have still won. That does not mean that I think the banning of a 'No' campaign was in any way acceptable...

Edited August 10, 2016 by baboon

[ddavidovsky]

Can someone explain what mechanism was in place to prevent the collating officers at mission control from simply announcing whatever result they wanted once all the thousands of sub-totals had been sent in? If there is no satisfactory answer to this, the result is simply invalid, end of discussion.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Confuscious said:

 

Why be so humble. Robblok?
 

You are a great ThaiVisa member.
 

You not only manage to speak with Thais about politics in Thai (a topic that you not master well enough) but you manage as well to push "quite a few Thais that speak decent English" to discuss about the referendum vote knowing very well that this can put them in jail for the next few years.

You are an amazing personality.

Did you every thought to apply for a job at the Junta?

 

your a great LIAR

 

I said i spoke to a few Thais (look it up) and i said quite a few Thais speak English (totally different from having spoken with quite a few about the politics). So don't start your lies. I also said my Thai is not good Enough to discuss politics (look it its in this topic). So the discussion would be in English. Now any more things to lie about ?

 

Now explain to me how a private conversation in English in my home could put someone in jail ? For that to happen it would have to be recorded or overheard (unlikely in my home) and then brought and translated to the police. 

 

I think you should apply for a job with Thaksin he was know to lie a lot just like you and be caught out on it.

 

Is it so strange to have spoken with a few Thai about politics in English ?  

 

 

 

 

[williamgeorgeallen]

well i am sure this is just the start of the next cycle. 80 years and 20 referendums would suggest that. got to admit that it appears that current powers that be have done a pretty good job at cementing themselves in power for a long time despite being in the minority. will be interesting to see how the reds part plays their next move. ball is in their court.

[robblok]

17 minutes ago, johng said:

 

Thai National ID card database ?

Can you confirm that the Thai national ID card has fingerprints ? That would mean EVERYONE in Thailand is fingerprinted  (i really don't know).

 

But if this is the case then it would be so easy to catch all the criminals and so on and I doubt this has been done.  Plus running fingerprints costs time. Can you imagine how much time it would cost with 65 million in a database.. Then going through thousands of them to find out who they are.

 

Its just highly unlikely plus it would come out for sure. 

Below a bit more real info about how its done in the USA and how it takes 2 hours to run just one set of prints that then gives multiple possible matches that have to be then manually by an expert confirmed.  So it would be safe to say its an task that cant be done with millions of NO votes

 

http://www.livescience.com/4843-reality-fingerprinting-tv-crime-labs.html

[robblok]

14 minutes ago, baboon said:

Agreed. I suspect that even if campaigning had been allowed, Yes would have still won. That does not mean that I think the banning of a 'No' campaign was in any way acceptable...

 

No it was not acceptable I agree, however I doubt that the people wanting a NO vote would be honest about the charter. I am for saying its stupid / dangerous / not democratic to have so many elected senators. But not for lies like the 30 baht system will be discontinued.  

[johng]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

Can you confirm that the Thai national ID card has fingerprints ? That would mean EVERYONE in Thailand is fingerprinted  (i really don't know).

 

Yes when they go to get the ID card made at the amphur office fingerprints are taken   and I believe are storerd in the new cards with microcips on them. 

[robblok]

14 minutes ago, johng said:

 

Yes when they go to get the ID card made at the amphur office fingerprints are taken   and I believe are storerd in the new cards with microcips on them. 

 

 

Ok have you read the rest of my post and the linked atricle.. making it an impossible task to go after the no voters because of the time it takes to just run one print and then manually confirm it by an expert (also not that many experts available). So its impossible from a time point of view and impossible from the fact that it could not stay secret and everyone would condemn it. 

 

Just running the NO voters prints would cost YEARS alone as it takes 2 hours in the US to run a print it would be slower here. Now there are millions of NO voters.  (then I am not even talking about the experts that have to confirm the prints manually because the system wont give 100% matches)

 

http://www.livescience.com/4843-reality-fingerprinting-tv-crime-labs.html

Edited August 10, 2016 by robblok

[johng]

They don't have to  check the fingerprints  its the mere fact that they could check  and  see which way  someone voted  that would lead to abstention. 

[Shawn0000]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

 

It was not me who posted first about villages not wanting to vote because no money was offered. It was a member here just copying what he said.  But it sounds about right that some people would only vote if they get paid.

 

 My first paragraph was in response to baboon with his evil BKK people, while in fact the red PTP is far more evil. Killing children and rousing their supporters to burn BKK. The yellows are no angels (popcorn man who is now in jail is a good example of yellow violence though it was in response of night after night attacks by the Isarn Rambo near chang wattana). But the reds have always been the more violent party. I stick with that opinion.

 

I dont like the chosen senators much either but right now and given the history of Thailand its worth a shot. But I stick with my opinion that the only way to clean politics is to make corruption impossible. As long as its so profitable to be in government both sides will do whatever it takes to get in power. 

 

The good thing about the new constitution is that there is now no statute of limitations on corruption and harsher punishment for corrupt politicians (now lets hope that this works and that unlike before everyone gets procecuted. Not just the people who are the enemies of those in power. (during red times they go after yellow and vice versa). Though now with no statute of limitations it suddenly becomes a lot more dangerous to be corrupt on either side.

 

 

 

Yes, it amazing what people will do to enforce their right to democracy, isnt it?  But I find it much more surprising what people will do to prevent them having it, there were two sides fighting in Bangkok, one side had one simple demand, an election, the other was only fighting to deny them that right.

[smedly]

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Take heart as only 33% of eligible voters approved. Seem majority does reject the fake referendum.

am I missing something

 

Those that voted "no" rejected the charter

Those that voted "yes" (the majority of those that voted) approved the charter

and

Those that didn't vote couldn't care either way and it is a bit late to voice any such nonsense after the event

 

Oh and people were not prevented from voicing opinion prior to the vote they were however told not to distort its contents and spread lies 

 

Seems very simple for most people to understand

[smedly]

2 hours ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

 

That is certainly not the case. 

 

By abstaining to vote that sent a clear message that they have no confidence in this constitution.

 

Especially so after all the campaigning and the fact a no campaign was both illegal and practically non-existent.

well - there is a very clear message indeed, don't vote and it will be accepted as "no"

 

seriously lol

[smedly]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Even though campaigning was not done (and that is bad though spreading outright lies is bad too) people could still vote no and it was known that people were against the new constitution. It was known that the PTP was against it but even so their own did not vote against it. 

 

Do you think that people did not know PTP was against the vote, they were certainly in the news opposing it. Then why did their own followers did not vote NO. 

someone will be along soon to explain lol

[Eric Loh]

9 minutes ago, smedly said:

am I missing something

 

Those that voted "no" rejected the charter

Those that voted "yes" (the majority of those that voted) approved the charter

and

Those that didn't vote couldn't care either way and it is a bit late to voice any such nonsense after the event

 

Oh and people were not prevented from voicing opinion prior to the vote they were however told not to distort its contents and spread lies 

 

Seems very simple for most people to understand

 

To answer you, I will quote an extract of Khun Surin Pitsuwan's article. He is establishment and a staunch Dem Party leader, you may know that.

 

"But with deeper analysis, the fragility of the support base is quite alarming. Only 0ne third, 33.5% of all eligible voters approved the draft constitution. The other 66.5% did not bother to participate, rejected it outright or rendered their ballots invalid in one way or another. Since the requirement for the passage was only a simple majority of the votes cast, it begs the question as to what would be the outcome had the process been more open and transparent with full engagement in a fuller debate prior to the referendum".

 

So you wrong to say that people were not prevented from voicing their opinions.

[robblok]

46 minutes ago, johng said:

They don't have to  check the fingerprints  its the mere fact that they could check  and  see which way  someone voted  that would lead to abstention. 

 

I just explained that they could not check everyone and its implausible. The reds could also kill you if you vote yes (implausible but it could be done) just as implausible as the finger print thing like i just explained.  Technically its highly improbable and if it was done the condemnation would have been so fierce. Just would not be done.

[MrJohnson]

The cycle of polarization will continue. Even at 60% for and 40% against it is clear there are deep divisions within Thai society.What is also clear is that the divisions are based on (perceptions of) an unequal share of wealth in this country and unequal representation, something that will soon be enshrined in the constitution.  Until this is dealt with the divisions will continue. The referendum simply kicks the can further down the road a little and gives those in power (with the guns) a little more breathing time. Even though the new charter gives the military the power to veto any government or PM appointment this will eventually be challenged. This challenge will most likely take the form of the most recent challenges - street protests. So more of the same to come.

[johng]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

I just explained that they could not check everyone and its implausible

 

And I just explained that there is no need to check all the fingerprints,    just the threat of being able to do so is enough.

[smedly]

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

 

To answer you, I will quote an extract of Khun Surin Pitsuwan's article. He is establishment and a staunch Dem Party leader, you may know that.

 

 

 

So you wrong to say that people were not prevented from voicing their opinions.

politicians have been told to remain silent these last two years which quite frankly I am very happy about, they are a major part of the problem that needs fixed in this country, I would rather all of them were banned from taking office for at least 10 years and those that can be proven to have broken the law arrested and jailed.

 

Thailand needs a totally new political landscape free from all these old dino's that have  abused power  and self served their own pockets for decades....get rid of the lot of them and ban organisations like the UUD who spread hatred terror murder and do nothing but divide Thailand at the behest of one very divisive individual who will now stop at nothing short of civil war - a very evil criminal on the run

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, johng said:

 

And I just explained that there is no need to check all the fingerprints,    just the threat of being able to do so is enough.

Just as likely is that a red shirt death squad finds out people voted yes and will hunt them down. (possible just highly unlikely just like the government running prints and keeping this secret and then punishing people)

 

See what I mean a threat has to be likely else its hollow. I just showed how hollow the tread is.. it would take YEARS to check the fingerprints thus its an unlikely threat. 

 

But I guess you will keep believing this else it will be hard to accept that the vote turned out to be YES by a big margin. 

[elgordo38]

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

 

Ignore your top 2 paragraphs which is your usual OTP and higher bigoted, rest I agree with you. The business side of me like the stability but morally wrong to have democracy on hold and lorded by the military.

Sadly the business side is winning the world over today. Morality is  gone. Greed is paramount. 

[Eric Loh]

18 minutes ago, elgordo38 said:

Sadly the business side is winning the world over today. Morality is  gone. Greed is paramount. 

 

Right and it was strictly business when the military seized power. The military is big business and generals got wealthy not from their wages. Matter of who is more greedy and has the most power to dictate. 

[than]

These academic said they are "democraty defender", but when the People express their voice against their ideas, they act as anti-democrats

[dcnx]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

You mean like the people telling their supporters to take benzine to BKK to burn it down (and did burn a few buildings down)

 

Fact is in this referendum everyone was free to vote no they just did not do it. The fact that it was possible to vote no shows in Chaing Mai.  I hear about people telling about villages that did not vote because they were not paid.. that is how important the people think it was. Nobody forced them to not vote or vote yes. 

 

The remarks about not being able to campaign for NO is correct but still it was in the news that the PTP wanted a NO vote That Abisith wanted a no vote.. so people could have followed that.. but they did not. 

 

I had fully expected a NO vote myself but it seems the Thais preferred the fact that there was no red / yellow violence.  I have spoken with a few Thais they might not like the junta but they did like that there was no violence and they could go on with their lives. That was reason enough to vote yes. 

 

You get the government you deserve.

 

If people didn't vote because they were not paid, then there is nothing else to say about that.

[ramrod711]

BANGKOK — Activists who boycotted the referendum called Tuesday for annulling the results of the junta-backed plebiscite, saying it was neither free nor fair from the start.

 

There is an old saying where I come from; "Don't vote, don't complain". How can a non-vote be better than a no vote, which is the clearer statement. As the Rolling Stones would say "but it's all over now". I'm sure we can all find something else to disagree on.

[Winniedapu]

2 hours ago, smedly said:

am I missing something

 

Those that voted "no" rejected the charter

Those that voted "yes" (the majority of those that voted) approved the charter

and

Those that didn't vote couldn't care either way and it is a bit late to voice any such nonsense after the event

 

Oh and people were not prevented from voicing opinion prior to the vote they were however told not to distort its contents and spread lies 

 

Seems very simple for most people to understand

 

If you read what the OP actually said, he used the words "eligible voters' which is a more reliable measure.

 

Not that complicated really...

 

Winnie