Public anger wells up over EC’s failures

[webfact]

Public anger wells up over EC’s failures 

By KAS CHANWANPEN 
THE NATION

 

Scores of protesters gather near the Victory Monument to demonstrate against the Election Commission, accusing it of failing to transparently report the vote results even days after the election.

 

THE ELECTION Commission (EC) continued to navigate troubled waters yesterday after protests were staged over its performance and the number of people demanding its members’ resignations neared one million.
 

Former commissioner Sodsri Satayathum called on the agency to clear up all issues immediately before citizens launch an impeachment process, while also warning that the commissioners’ removal from office could postpone endorsement of the final vote results.

 

University students and other citizens expressed their impatience with the EC’s inability to declare the credible full tally a full week after the election. Discrepancies in numbers provided by the EC have raised suspicions and it has been unable to provide credible explanations to allay public frustration.

 

The EC has also failed to combat false news and misunderstanding spread over the internet. Every statement it issues on its Facebook page has met only more cynicism.

 

 

More than 820,000 people have signed a petition at change.org to impeach the seven commissioners. University students across the country defied school and state officials in setting up tables to gather signatures on petitions with a similar message.

 

Demonstrators in Bangkok gathered yesterday on the skywalk above the Victory Monument and around the Ratchaprasong intersection to protest the alleged lack of transparency in the election and the performance of the EC.

 

 

However, the public disaffection might have no real legal impact, according to rights and legislation watchdog iLaw.

 

The current Constitution rejects public petitions against independent agencies, iLaw said, adding that the complaints should instead be taken to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which could determine whether there was cause to submit the case to court.

 

While the public is seething and wants the EC held accountable for its perceived ineffectiveness and lack of transparency, former commissioner Sodsri doubted that impeachment would be a sound option at this stage.

 

“It is possible for the people to bring the case to the NACC,” Sodsri said. “However, if the NACC takes it up and sends it to the court, the commissioners might have to be suspended from duty.” The investigation could take considerable time before the NACC and the court reach their conclusions, she added. The matter might not invalidate the election altogether, the expert said, but the suspension could interrupt endorsement of the final results and delay other post-election processes. 

 

With growing public pressure on the EC, Sodsri said she was also concerned it might become another political issue. Some parties could demand a fresh election. Others could call for street protests with the aim of justifying another coup. 

 

It would be best if the EC “came clean” about everything, Sodsri said. In constituencies where results are in question, the agency should reopen the ballot boxes and clear all doubts, she suggested.

 

Sodsri warned that impeachment of the commissioners would stall post-election activities and the junta would continue to hold the reins of power.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30366884

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2019-04-01

[Thaiwrath]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

THE ELECTION Commission (EC)

Couldn't organise a piss up in

[Samui Bodoh]

"...However, the public disaffection might have no real legal impact, according to rights and legislation watchdog iLaw. 

The current Constitution rejects public petitions against independent agencies, iLaw said, adding that the complaints should instead be taken to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which could determine whether there was cause to submit the case to court..."

 

This is a disturbing time in Thailand; dissatisfaction with the election and the results appear to be mounting, but there are few institutions left which have the public trust to deal with the issue.

 

The quoted bit from the article above mentions that Thais would have to go through the NACC for any meaningful resolution of this dispute, but who would trust the NACC after the events surrounding General Rolex? Could Prayut be believed and trusted to deal with this? While it pains me to admit that he does have some public popularity and trust, he is certainly NOT seen as a neutral arbiter in an election dispute; he was a candidate (no matter what he claims) and he appointed the people who are causing the problems. Could the Supreme Court step in? It could, but sadly there is some disagreement as to their neutrality in Thailand, and thus any decision might not be widely accepted. Further, there isn't a particularly strong tradition for "Rule of Law" in Thailand, is there? Finally, they would have to base their decision on the constitution, and there isn't a lot of respect for constitutions in Thailand due to the sheer number of them. Could the Monks/Temples play a role? It is not really their purview and even if it were, there have been too many stories in the last while about Monks... er... behaving badly. The Army? It is merely my opinion, but I don't believe that they would be seen as a fair arbiter.

 

Thailand's history of coups followed by new constitution followed by coup again (rinse and repeat) means that there aren't really any public bodies that retain widespread respect and could act as an arbiter.

 

When societies are in conflict and there isn't a widely agreed upon dispute-resolution mechanism, bad things happen.

 

 

[YetAnother]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

accusing it of failing to transparently report the vote results even days after the election.

Get over it, super imposing first world expectations on a third world country just leads to excess frustration if that third world country just isn't ready for that progress yet

[Briggsy]

Hotting up, massacre perpetrated by the military in Bangkok due later this year if the "rinse and repeat" history theory is anything to go by.

[mikebell]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

independent agencies,

The EC is not independent.

[malibukid]

just the beginning. 

[malibukid]

2 hours ago, YetAnother said:

Get over it, super imposing first world expectations on a third world country just leads to excess frustration if that third world country just isn't ready for that progress yet

this is the view of the military, the Thai people are children and are not capable of governing themselves.

[Eric Loh]

I thought the coup was to quell civil unrest not create one. 

[kotsak]

13 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I thought the coup was to quell civil unrest not create one. 

Well, they need to justify their existence ????

[TKDfella]

15 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I thought the coup was to quell civil unrest not create one. 

Ha, wait for it eh?

[Pedrogaz]

Another Thai institution not for for purpose. 

[Pedrogaz]

3 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"...However, the public disaffection might have no real legal impact, according to rights and legislation watchdog iLaw. 

The current Constitution rejects public petitions against independent agencies, iLaw said, adding that the complaints should instead be taken to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which could determine whether there was cause to submit the case to court..."

 

This is a disturbing time in Thailand; dissatisfaction with the election and the results appear to be mounting, but there are few institutions left which have the public trust to deal with the issue.

 

The quoted bit from the article above mentions that Thais would have to go through the NACC for any meaningful resolution of this dispute, but who would trust the NACC after the events surrounding General Rolex? Could Prayut be believed and trusted to deal with this? While it pains me to admit that he does have some public popularity and trust, he is certainly NOT seen as a neutral arbiter in an election dispute; he was a candidate (no matter what he claims) and he appointed the people who are causing the problems. Could the Supreme Court step in? It could, but sadly there is some disagreement as to their neutrality in Thailand, and thus any decision might not be widely accepted. Further, there isn't a particularly strong tradition for "Rule of Law" in Thailand, is there? Finally, they would have to base their decision on the constitution, and there isn't a lot of respect for constitutions in Thailand due to the sheer number of them. Could the Monks/Temples play a role? It is not really their purview and even if it were, there have been too many stories in the last while about Monks... er... behaving badly. The Army? It is merely my opinion, but I don't believe that they would be seen as a fair arbiter.

 

Thailand's history of coups followed by new constitution followed by coup again (rinse and repeat) means that there aren't really any public bodies that retain widespread respect and could act as an arbiter.

 

When societies are in conflict and there isn't a widely agreed upon dispute-resolution mechanism, bad things happen.

 

 

How can people have faith institutions that do not earn trust. Appointed bodies owe their allegiance to the person that appointed them. There are no ordinary folk on the EC, they are all drawn from the elite, handpicked to serve the interests of the Thai elite. Election commissioners should not have such vested interests, they should be impartial, but we saw from the ruling that Prayut is not a 'public official' before the election contrasted with the harshness of actions taken against likely regime opponents that the EC is far from impartial. Having said that impeachment will do no good as the same people who appointed these commissioners will appoint their successors. One thing I have learned in my long life is that people given power, invariably abuse it. This institution has been given the power to rig elections, it is inconceivable to me that they will not rig this one if the result goes the wrong way.

[connda]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Scores of protesters gather near the Victory Monument to demonstrate against the Election Commission, accusing it of failing to transparently report the vote results even days after the election.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that it was originally stated that election results would take a full two month to be verified and reported. I was pretty sure I read that awhile back as it caused a 'raised eyebrow' moment for me.  Anyway, given events starting in 2014 and given Thailand's history since June 24, 1932 onward, well, what should the average Thai expect? Really?

 

 

[Briggsy]

34 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I thought the coup was to quell civil unrest not create one. 

Yes, they never know when to stop though. It is the addictive nature of power.

 

As I stated earlier, it is a cycle that Thailand remains locked into of military intervention in national politics. I see little chance of them ever escaping this cycle for any protracted period.

[MaxLee]

NEW beginning of a NEW end coming soon.

[yellowboat]

Thailand is broken, and nobody has the tools or the interest to fix it.  Should it become more dire, things might change.   Until then it will be election, coup, election, coup ........   Would love to get one of Generalissimo's posters though.  They are hilarious.    

[JMonroe]

46 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I thought the coup was to quell civil unrest not create one. 

It did. It's the election and how it was administered that is causing civil unrest.

[Krataiboy]

3 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"...However, the public disaffection might have no real legal impact, according to rights and legislation watchdog iLaw. 

The current Constitution rejects public petitions against independent agencies, iLaw said, adding that the complaints should instead be taken to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which could determine whether there was cause to submit the case to court..."

 

This is a disturbing time in Thailand; dissatisfaction with the election and the results appear to be mounting, but there are few institutions left which have the public trust to deal with the issue.

 

The quoted bit from the article above mentions that Thais would have to go through the NACC for any meaningful resolution of this dispute, but who would trust the NACC after the events surrounding General Rolex? Could Prayut be believed and trusted to deal with this? While it pains me to admit that he does have some public popularity and trust, he is certainly NOT seen as a neutral arbiter in an election dispute; he was a candidate (no matter what he claims) and he appointed the people who are causing the problems. Could the Supreme Court step in? It could, but sadly there is some disagreement as to their neutrality in Thailand, and thus any decision might not be widely accepted. Further, there isn't a particularly strong tradition for "Rule of Law" in Thailand, is there? Finally, they would have to base their decision on the constitution, and there isn't a lot of respect for constitutions in Thailand due to the sheer number of them. Could the Monks/Temples play a role? It is not really their purview and even if it were, there have been too many stories in the last while about Monks... er... behaving badly. The Army? It is merely my opinion, but I don't believe that they would be seen as a fair arbiter.

 

Thailand's history of coups followed by new constitution followed by coup again (rinse and repeat) means that there aren't really any public bodies that retain widespread respect and could act as an arbiter.

 

When societies are in conflict and there isn't a widely agreed upon dispute-resolution mechanism, bad things happen.

 

 

Or, in a nutshell, the place is rotten to the core - and everybody knows it. Mirrors the situation over Brexit in the UK, where public disenchantment with an elite self-serving establishment is also at boiling point. Turbulent times ahead, both there and here.

[Thingamabob]

I think we all sense serious trouble may result from this. Thai people, especially the younger element, are far more aware of what is going on in their country than previous generations. 

[StefanBBK]

Looks to me that the discrepancies are really minor and would not change the outcome of the elections. Leaving the result as is would probably be the easiest way forward. Anything else will just delay the country's move to a democratically elected government. 

[Eric Loh]

12 minutes ago, RobertH said:

It did. It's the election and how it was administered that is causing civil unrest.

So it didn’t. Semantic don’t count. 

[Maejo Man]

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

I think we all sense serious trouble may result from this. Thai people, especially the younger element, are far more aware of what is going on in their country than previous generations. 

As mentioned here, the new wave of students and far more aware of what is going on, and the will become the "Red Shirts" of yesteryear. I can only see a sad future for this lovely land.

[GinBoy2]

Put coup Generals in orange jumpsuits, and trim the military to what is appropriate for a country the size of Thailand, and put it under direct civilian rule, like in most countries.

Create a true independent judiciary.

Pay police a decent wage that discourages corruption and actually enforces laws

Purge the 'independent' commissions of military and political stooges

 

Then you just might get somewhere.

 

......alright I'm waking up from my fantasy dream.

 

Game on to the next riot, coup, who knows

[JMonroe]

So how many people actually turned out for these two protests? The article does not even give an estimate. And the photos are all close-cropped so there is no way to judge the size of the crowd. it could have been 30 or 50 people, which is really nothing. It could have been more. But something tells me it was quite small. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

[JMonroe]

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

So it didn’t. Semantic don’t count. 

Not semantics. Facts. The coup most certainly did not end divisions in the country. But through heavy-handed measures it did stop civil unrest. The election and how it was administered, and its purported results, has brought back civil unrest. 

[pornprong]

24 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Or, in a nutshell, the place is rotten to the core - and everybody knows it. Mirrors the situation over Brexit in the UK, where public disenchantment with an elite self-serving establishment is also at boiling point. Turbulent times ahead, both there and here.

In no way at all does the situation mirror Brexit.

 

In Thailand, the citizenry simply want a return to democracy.

 

In the UK, a bunch of racist want to shoot country in the foot whilst the sane majority want to correct an obvious mistake.

[Jimbo in Thailand]

3 hours ago, YetAnother said:

Get over it, super imposing first world expectations on a third world country just leads to excess frustration if that third world country just isn't ready for that progress yet

So TRUE.  The sad part is that prior to May 2014 Thailand was perceived internationally as a promising 'developing nation'.  Oh my, how times have changed.

[unamazedloso]

1 hour ago, malibukid said:

this is the view of the military, the Thai people are children and are not capable of governing themselves.

hypocrites!

[Jimbo1964]

Is anyone really surprised at the result ! It's not like the establishment listens or even cares anymore what the results are. They just continue to do what they want.