Jump to content

Call To 'abort' Constitution Changes Spurs Debate, Warning: Thailand


webfact

Recommended Posts

CHARTER AMENDMENT

Call to 'abort' constitution changes spurs debate, warning

The Nation

30196334-01_big.jpg

EC commissioner warns it's illegal to tell people not to vote in referendum

BANGKOK: -- Opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva's call for eligible voters to "abort" a planned national referendum on amending the constitution sparked a widespread debate yesterday.

The ruling Pheu Thai Party accused Abhisit of failing to adhere to the democratic principle of respect for the majority voice.

An election commissioner also warned that any move to deceive, intimidate, or influence eligible voters to not exercise their voting right was against the Public Referendum Act. This was a criminal offence punishable by up to 10 years in jail and a fine of up to Bt200,000.

Abhisit clarified his statement yesterday, saying he meant people should help abort the government attempt to write an entirely new constitution in order to help former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra out of legal problems.

"I did not mean the referendum should be blocked," said Abhisit, who is the Democrat Party leader and the former prime minister.

A Democrat legal expert, MP Wiratana Kalayasiri, said yesterday he believed eligible voters who oppose the government's move to rewrite the charter have the right to stage "civil disobedience" by not going to vote, as well as simply voting against it. He said that unlike a general election, when eligible voters have a duty to vote, people have the right to choose whether to vote in a referendum.

The Constitution states that in order for a public referendum to become effective, at least half of the eligible voters must come out to exercise their voting right.

"The most effective way [against the charter rewrite move] is not to turn out to vote. When the turnout is high, it is unlikely there will be more No votes than Yes votes," Wiratana said.

He added, however, that the idea was not a resolution by the party. He said the matter would be discussed at a Democrat meeting in Hua Hin today.

In an open letter he posted on his Facebook page on Sunday, Abhisit accused the Yingluck government of attempting to write a new constitution so that Article 309 of the current charter would be removed for Thaksin's interest.

"Everybody can help by aborting the referendum. … Let's come together to abort the referendum that will allow constitutional amendment for a fugitive. Let's move past Thaksin and bring the country forward," Abhisit said.

The final clause of the charter guarantees all acts recognised by the post-coup Interim Constitution of 2006 are lawful and constitutional. These include moves by the coup makers and orders against the Thaksin government, which they described as corrupt.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra yesterday denied her government's charter move aimed to help her brother Thaksin. "The constitutional amendment will be for the interest of the country and the people," she said.

Senior Democrat MP Ong-art Klampaiboon said yesterday the party would not try to obstruct the planned public referendum. "The Democrat Party will never take any action that is illegal," he said.

Election commissioner Sodsri Satayathum, when asked to comment on the campaign for no-show of eligible voters, warned yesterday that it was against the law for anyone to deceive, intimidate or influence eligible voters not to exercise their right. People opposed to a rewrite of the Constitution should instead call for opponents to vote No.

Pheu Thai deputy spokesman Jirayu Huangsap said yesterday that Abhisit's call showed he failed to adhere to democratic principles, as he ignored the majority voice.

He said the Democrat Party should campaign for supporters of their cause to vote No in the plebiscite instead.

Meanwhile, PM's Office Minister Varathep Ratanakorn said Justice Minister Police Gen Pracha Promnok was prepared to put a proposal to hold a referendum to the Cabinet today.

He said he worried that Abhisit's remark would confuse people as the government was about to propose holding a referendum but the content and specific question had yet to be discussed.

Abhisit seemed to be opposed to any amendment of the charter. His statement was against democracy, but at least it did not promote people not exercising their voting right, Varathep said.

Conditions for public hearing

A number of votes are required to hold a referendum. According to the Constitution and Referendum Act, two figures are involved in conducting a national referendum.

Since the country has 46 million eligible voters, a referendum will be legitimate only if over 23 million people participate.

Article 9 of the Referendum Act, an organic law, states that a referendum requires more than half of eligible voters to come to vote and the resolution of the referendum must come from the majority of the turnout.

The charter rewrite as proposed by the government can be deemed as receiving support from the people only if more than 11.5 million people out of over 23 million vote for it.

nationlogo.jpg

-- The Nation 2012-12-18

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Abhisit up to his normal modus-operandi.....that is 'change the conversation' . In this case seeking to divert attention away from reform of a coup-based charter from which he was the ultimate beneficiary, to talking about simplistic motives by its' supporters. Supporters who happen to be the electoral majority, considering the election of Ms. Y's Govt, who made no secret during the election campaign of favoring constitution reform.

When one couples this with his oft "change of conversation" from R'song deaths to "Men In Black", it is no wonder that he is despised by a large block of the electorate. When mentioning Abhisit to this majority electoral block, it is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

It puzzles me why the Democrat Party continues to think it can achieve electoral objectives with him at the helm. Other Democracies would have dumped such a leader long ago.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the bare facts of it, what is the difference between the amendment of the constitution to provide those that undertook the coup immunity from prosecution, and the fact they now want to amend it again to null the conviction against Thaksin.

Personally i think they should just forget about changing the constitution but they are obviously hell bent on doing it. I would imagine it is going to be difficult to stop it given it has happened so many times in the past, and no doubt it will in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the EC rules are being taken out of context here - they are there to prevent intimidation and protect peoples right to choose, I hardly think AV's comments are infringing on either, it's not as if he's threatening anyone

more stupidity

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Abhisit up to his normal modus-operandi.....that is 'change the conversation' . In this case seeking to divert attention away from reform of a coup-based charter from which he was the ultimate beneficiary, to talking about simplistic motives by its' supporters. Supporters who happen to be the electoral majority, considering the election of Ms. Y's Govt, who made no secret during the election campaign of favoring constitution reform.

When one couples this with his oft "change of conversation" from R'song deaths to "Men In Black", it is no wonder that he is despised by a large block of the electorate. When mentioning Abhisit to this majority electoral block, it is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

It puzzles me why the Democrat Party continues to think it can achieve electoral objectives with him at the helm. Other Democracies would have dumped such a leader long ago.

How can anyone take you seriously? Yesterday you were on here saying the red shirts had nothing against Abhisit, that they just wanted an election and here you are saying they despise him!

>Yes, I did say that yesterday Moruya. At R'song, their target was not Abhisit or the Democrat led Government at the time. Their objective was to reverse the coup that put an electoral minority Govt. in place, and seek to rectify the matter via an election. The subsequent election did that. So no anti-Abhisit-Govt-Democrat Party.

>Getting back to Abhisit, I really think he is retarding the advance of the Democrat Party. I happen to be a firm believer in at least a two-party system. Forget about those non-ideological minority parties which are merely fiefdoms of individuals masquerading as political parties.

>His biggest impediment is never having won a national, popular election. His only elevation to prominence has been via Parliamentary machinations. As much as his supporters try to characterize them as normative, and try to amplify and imbue those shenanigans with electoral validity, it just doesn't fly. Anyone in the know, know what happened.

>But is there a leader within the Democrat Party who could lead them out of this political morass and move their political orientation to the middle of the political spectrum? I hope so, and that they find him/her soon. A competitive election is in everyone's interests.

Edited by righteous
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Yes, I did say that yesterday Moruya. At R'song, their target was not Abhisit or the Democrat led Government at the time. Their objective was to reverse the coup that put an electoral minority Govt. in place, and seek to rectify the matter via an election. The subsequent election did that. So no anti-Abhisit-Govt-Democrat Party.

You should have heard some of the vile filth being spouted from the stage then, not to mention the various images etc shown during that time around the protest area...

The Reds were very much against Abhisit and wanted him dead - in fact as i remember they attacked his car and wounded his driver when they discovered he wasn't inside the car....

Do you still believe the 2010 Ratchaprasong protests were not against Abhisit, really?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Abhisit up to his normal modus-operandi.....that is 'change the conversation' . In this case seeking to divert attention away from reform of a coup-based charter from which he was the ultimate beneficiary, to talking about simplistic motives by its' supporters. Supporters who happen to be the electoral majority, considering the election of Ms. Y's Govt, who made no secret during the election campaign of favoring constitution reform.

When one couples this with his oft "change of conversation" from R'song deaths to "Men In Black", it is no wonder that he is despised by a large block of the electorate. When mentioning Abhisit to this majority electoral block, it is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

It puzzles me why the Democrat Party continues to think it can achieve electoral objectives with him at the helm. Other Democracies would have dumped such a leader long ago.

How can anyone take you seriously? Yesterday you were on here saying the red shirts had nothing against Abhisit, that they just wanted an election and here you are saying they despise him!

>Yes, I did say that yesterday Moruya. At R'song, their target was not Abhisit or the Democrat led Government at the time. Their objective was to reverse the coup that put an electoral minority Govt. in place, and seek to rectify the matter via an election. The subsequent election did that. So no anti-Abhisit-Govt-Democrat Party.

>Getting back to Abhisit, I really think he is retarding the advance of the Democrat Party. I happen to be a firm believer in at least a two-party system. Forget about those non-ideological minority parties which are merely fiefdoms of individuals masquerading as political parties.

>His biggest impediment is never having won a national, popular election. His only elevation to prominence has been via Parliamentary machinations. As much as his supporters try to characterize them as normative, and try to amplify and imbue those shenanigans with electoral validity, it just doesn't fly. Anyone in the know, know what happened.

>But is there a leader within the Democrat Party who could lead them out of this political morass and move their political orientation to the middle of the political spectrum? I hope so, and that they find him/her soon. A competitive election is in everyone's interests.

I think you've skipped a bit of history. The coup put in place a junta government, then I believe shortly after, an appointed "civilian" (but still effectively junta) government. The part that you forgot is that there were then elections. The minority PPP formed a coalition government. Is that the government that the red shirts were protesting against?

"Parliamentary machinations" is the way that the TRT first got into power, and the way that the PPP got into power. Is it OK when your own side does it??

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pheu Thai deputy spokesman Jirayu Huangsap said yesterday that Abhisit's call showed he failed to adhere to democratic principles, as he ignored the majority voice.

That's an interesting interpretation of

Since the country has 46 million eligible voters, a referendum will be legitimate only if over 23 million people participate.

Article 9 of the Referendum Act, an organic law, states that a referendum requires more than half of eligible voters to come to vote and the resolution of the referendum must come from the majority of the turnout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than being encouraged not to vote, they should be encouraged to vote No.

Encouraging the No voters not to vote will only lead to a win for the Yes side.

The above works only if more voters against than for the referendum turn-out to vote.

To vote or not to vote is a two edged sword.

If less than 50% turn out to vote, what ever the count is it is null and void - end of story.

If 51% turn out and the yes vote gets 1 vote more than the no votes - then it is a yes decision, therefore the no voters would have been better staying at home or vice versa depending on your views of the referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Yes, I did say that yesterday Moruya. At R'song, their target was not Abhisit or the Democrat led Government at the time. Their objective was to reverse the coup that put an electoral minority Govt. in place, and seek to rectify the matter via an election. The subsequent election did that. So no anti-Abhisit-Govt-Democrat Party.

You should have heard some of the vile filth being spouted from the stage then, not to mention the various images etc shown during that time around the protest area...

The Reds were very much against Abhisit and wanted him dead - in fact as i remember they attacked his car and wounded his driver when they discovered he wasn't inside the car....

Do you still believe the 2010 Ratchaprasong protests were not against Abhisit, really?

You're absolutely right he wasn't in the car!

But, he kept claiming he was. Bigging himself up.

He fibbed.

Returning to topic abhisit seems to be calling for a boycott on this proposed vote much as his party boycotted the election before the coup.

Reason then given that Thailand was an elective dictatorship. What claptrap.

What he wants is a low turnout so that the coup charter cannot be changed.

He may be disappointed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than being encouraged not to vote, they should be encouraged to vote No.

Encouraging the No voters not to vote will only lead to a win for the Yes side.

The above works only if more voters against than for the referendum turn-out to vote.

To vote or not to vote is a two edged sword.

If less than 50% turn out to vote, what ever the count is it is null and void - end of story.

If 51% turn out and the yes vote gets 1 vote more than the no votes - then it is a yes decision, therefore the no voters would have been better staying at home or vice versa depending on your views of the referendum.

The election had a 66% voter turnout. So the Democrats would have to convince more than 16% not to turn up. If they don't, then they've lost. If they run a good vote No campaign, there would be a good chance of winning. I just don't think they can convince enough people not to vote, even if they are voting No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are assuming that the 66% who voted in the General Election would all vote yes for the charter change - i think that is highly unlikely to be honest.

In my view, the Red Government has quite a battle ahead of them to get the whole-sale rewrite of the charter through, but then if they fail to win this vote they are just going to change it piece by piece anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are assuming that the 66% who voted in the General Election would all vote yes for the charter change - i think that is highly unlikely to be honest.

In my view, the Red Government has quite a battle ahead of them to get the whole-sale rewrite of the charter through, but then if they fail to win this vote they are just going to change it piece by piece anyway...

No. I am not assuming that at all.

What I am saying is that there will still be No voters that vote (ie Vote No). That will be enough to make the referendum valid.

For example, 46 million eligible voters, so 23 million votes required for the referendum to be valid. Lets say 30 million vote, and 15 million each way. So a good No campaign might push that to a No win. If they run a Don't Vote campaign, there would still be 15 million Yes votes, but they have to make sure half the No voters don't actually vote. If they don't get half not to vote, then Yes would win 15 million to 8 million.

Edited by whybother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are assuming that the 66% who voted in the General Election would all vote yes for the charter change - i think that is highly unlikely to be honest.

In my view, the Red Government has quite a battle ahead of them to get the whole-sale rewrite of the charter through, but then if they fail to win this vote they are just going to change it piece by piece anyway...

Yup!

As currently constituted (pardon the pun), the charter is an existential threat to them. It was formulated by their Political opposites following a coup which unseated their elected Govt....As the UDD/Red Shirts have often reiterated to the PTP..."You let the current constitution stand, you will only have yourself to blame for what will follow. We can't save you from that"......Watch UDD/Red Shirt support for Ms. Y. and company fade, if they don't have the "B...." to address this crucial issue, one of the major planks on which they ran in the last election.

Edited by righteous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are assuming that the 66% who voted in the General Election would all vote yes for the charter change - i think that is highly unlikely to be honest.

In my view, the Red Government has quite a battle ahead of them to get the whole-sale rewrite of the charter through, but then if they fail to win this vote they are just going to change it piece by piece anyway...

Yup!

As currently constituted (pardon the pun), the charter is an existential threat to them. It was formulated by their Political opposites following a coup which unseated their elected Govt....As the UDD/Red Shirts have often reiterated to the PTP..."You let the current constitution stand, you will only have yourself to blame for what will follow. We can't save you from that"......Watch UDD/Red Shirt support for Ms. Y. and company fade, if they don't have the "B...." to address this crucial issue, one of the major planks on which they ran in the last election.

Once again, changing history. The coup didn't unseat any elected government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Thaksin says he feels happy and secure living abroad, making money, running the country by remote control and playing golf........ must be all those bunkers around that make him feel safe..... and so all PTP has to do is to rewrite the constitution so that it doesn't include immunity for anyone convicted for by the due process of law in the courts. That way no one can say it's all for one man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are assuming that the 66% who voted in the General Election would all vote yes for the charter change - i think that is highly unlikely to be honest.

In my view, the Red Government has quite a battle ahead of them to get the whole-sale rewrite of the charter through, but then if they fail to win this vote they are just going to change it piece by piece anyway...

Yup!

As currently constituted (pardon the pun), the charter is an existential threat to them. It was formulated by their Political opposites following a coup which unseated their elected Govt....As the UDD/Red Shirts have often reiterated to the PTP..."You let the current constitution stand, you will only have yourself to blame for what will follow. We can't save you from that"......Watch UDD/Red Shirt support for Ms. Y. and company fade, if they don't have the "B...." to address this crucial issue, one of the major planks on which they ran in the last election.

Once again, changing history. The coup didn't unseat any elected government.

What on earth are you talking about? The illegal coup unseated a legally elected government and was anti-democratic. The coup leaders changed the constitution post hoc to legalize their actions and organized a referendum to ratify the constitution. The referendum was widely criticized by international organizations as it was made illegal to campaign against the constitution. The whole thing was a farce. Whatever the merits or not of the the currently proposed changes or whatever the motives behind the proposals, the last constitution is recognized by people that actually know about these things as a farce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are assuming that the 66% who voted in the General Election would all vote yes for the charter change - i think that is highly unlikely to be honest.

In my view, the Red Government has quite a battle ahead of them to get the whole-sale rewrite of the charter through, but then if they fail to win this vote they are just going to change it piece by piece anyway...

Well yes and no.

It depends, up to a point, on the 'education campaign' about to be mounted by pt / the reds, and they have already said the 'lectures' will not be open / will not be available for open scrutiny.

So you can guess what the content will be - more hate messages and untruths, and they have large prior experience at both.

All this of course running counter to the most important pillars of democracy.

A few Baht tossed in wouldn't be a surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What on earth are you talking about? The illegal coup unseated a legally elected government and was anti-democratic. The coup leaders changed the constitution post hoc to legalize their actions and organized a referendum to ratify the constitution. The referendum was widely criticized by international organizations as it was made illegal to campaign against the constitution. The whole thing was a farce. Whatever the merits or not of the the currently proposed changes or whatever the motives behind the proposals, the last constitution is recognized by people that actually know about these things as a farce.

Err.. wrong... check your facts again matey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What on earth are you talking about? The illegal coup unseated a legally elected government and was anti-democratic. The coup leaders changed the constitution post hoc to legalize their actions and organized a referendum to ratify the constitution. The referendum was widely criticized by international organizations as it was made illegal to campaign against the constitution. The whole thing was a farce. Whatever the merits or not of the the currently proposed changes or whatever the motives behind the proposals, the last constitution is recognized by people that actually know about these things as a farce.

Check your history. There was no elected government in power at the time of the coup.

I am not talking about the legality of the coup, or anything that the coup junta did. I am just stating the fact that there wasn't an elected government in power at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than being encouraged not to vote, they should be encouraged to vote No.

Encouraging the No voters not to vote will only lead to a win for the Yes side.

The above works only if more voters against than for the referendum turn-out to vote.

To vote or not to vote is a two edged sword.

If less than 50% turn out to vote, what ever the count is it is null and void - end of story.

If 51% turn out and the yes vote gets 1 vote more than the no votes - then it is a yes decision, therefore the no voters would have been better staying at home or vice versa depending on your views of the referendum.

The election had a 66% voter turnout. So the Democrats would have to convince more than 16% not to turn up. If they don't, then they've lost. If they run a good vote No campaign, there would be a good chance of winning. I just don't think they can convince enough people not to vote, even if they are voting No.

The electoral turnout in 2010 was actually 75% of registered eligible voters which is the number that counts. But the comparison with the 2007 is referendum where turnout was 57% is more apt because voting in referendums is not compulsory and voters are a lot more apathetic about them. Hardly any Thais have ever read the Constitution or have much clue what it means. In 2007 both sides had an interest in voting in favour in order to have elections and have a chance to get back into power. Even though the reds didn't like the military inspired constitution, if they had voted it down they would have had to put up with the military installed govt for longer. Today things are completely different as there is side that benefits from a Yes voted being carried and another that doesn't.

Clearly the Dems best strategy is going to be to campaign for a No vote while subliminally suggesting that the best way to go about this is to stay away completely.

Edited by Arkady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The electoral turnout in 2010 was actually 75% of registered eligible voters which is the number that counts. But the comparison with the 2007 is referendum where turnout was 57% is more apt because voting in referendums is not compulsory and voters are a lot more apathetic about them. Hardly any Thais have ever read the Constitution or have much clue what it means. In 2007 both sides had an interest in voting in favour in order to have elections and have a chance to get back into power. Even though the reds didn't like the military inspired constitution, if they had voted it down they would have had to put up with the military installed govt for longer. Today things are completely different as there is side that benefits from a Yes voted being carried and another that doesn't.

Clearly the Dems best strategy is going to be to campaign for a No vote while subliminally suggesting that the best way to go about this is to stay away completely.

Yep, sorry, 75%. Which means they need to convince 25% of the eligible voters not to vote.

The Dems best strategy is to campaign for a No vote and make sure they all vote.

If they convince a chunk of No voters to stay away, they're just shooting themselves in the foot. If they can convince No voters to stay away, then they should be able to convince No voters to vote No. Having half the No voters not voting will be a loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether to vote to not to vote largely depends on the likely turn-out which is unpredictable. However, if all no voters stay away, then 50% + 1 of the population have to be yes voters, and if this were the case (unlikely) with that many yes votes, it doesn't matter how many of the remaining 50% -1 vote no, the result is a win for yes.

Edited by Artisi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...