Thailand Constitutional Referendum

[europtimiste]

While Myanmar is going forward to a democracy, Thailand is going backwards,

[StevePIraq]

Why are people saying the new constitution was not voted for democratically. The Thai people where given the opportunity to say yes or no. They chose Yes so it is democratic. Whether the new constitution is not democratic in Western eyes does not really matter. This is Thailand. Are we really to believe that western countries really operate on democratic principles, I think not.

The Thai people have voted and said yes. While a substantial proportion of the Thai population is poorly educated and most likely had not read the proposed constitution or not understood it they did vote for it and that is democracy.

In my opinion the Military have brought relative stability to this Third World country and most certainly have got things moving.

[Felipesed1]

Spot on, StevePiraq.
Most European governments are afraid of "democracy", and certainly do not reflect the views of their population, yet have the temerity to criticize the Thai government.

[caller]

It was clearly undemocratic. When only one side can campaign for 'their' vote and those that tried to for the no vote facing or even suffering arrest and when there is no independent monitoring allowed and we hear of such stories as what happened at the polling booths as the one relayed here, it ain't democratic and I would suggest it's just storing up trouble for the future.

As for corruption, in view of the fact even the army won't take on the police, yet alone allow independent monitoring of their own dirty washing, I'd suggest it's little more than window dressing against those that are expendable.

[handdrummer]

when democracy is spoken of which of the 15 types are you referring to?

[oakdale160]

Mostly number 7 witha little numberr 11

[europtimiste]

I had the opportunity to speak with Thais and even a civil servant working in a government office. They all told me that they don't really understand the text of this constitution. So the vote is a result of: they got paid for a YES or they were suggested to vote YES.

[Felipesed1]

How many of the electorate in Western "democracies" read the manifestos of the various political parties standing for election?

[aragon]

The result of the referendum on Thailand's new constitution has left many observers around the world baffled.

Why would an electorate, denied any say over who governs them since a coup two years ago, vote to approve a charter which offers them only a semi-democracy?

A charter which was condemned by human rights groups and by the two largest political parties as a means to entrench military rule for many years to come?

Unofficial results of the referendum showed more than 61% of those who voted approved the charter.

More than 58% also approved a controversial second proposal to give the now unelected Senate to right to help choose a potentially unelected prime minister. Turnout was low at around 54%.

But it was enough to give the military government, which has been losing popularity because of its erratic performance, a green light to implement its controlled return to a democratic form of governance.

Many factors have been cited for the result. The repressive climate that preceded it is one. All campaigning was banned, and dozens of activists who tried to criticise the constitution were detained and charged.

That meant that very few Thais were exposed to arguments about the charter's flaws and merits: few even saw a copy, and those that did were hardly likely to wade through its 279 articles.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37013950

[StevePIraq]

If the people of Thailand thought it undemocratic then they would have voted NO, they didn't they voted YES so it was democratic as far as Thailand is concerned.

Foreigners should learn to stop condemning the way Thais do business and accept it or if you don't like it then get out.

[caller]

If the people of Thailand thought it undemocratic then they would have voted NO, they didn't they voted YES so it was democratic as far as Thailand is concerned.

Foreigners should learn to stop condemning the way Thais do business and accept it or if you don't like it then get out.

Pretty dumb comment on several levels. Just try doing a bit of research, even just by browsing the passive Bangkok Post and you will find numerous reasons why any resemblance to democracy was entirely coincidental and probably not what the generals wanted.

So no, it wasn't democratic, not by a million miles but hey, that wasn't a surprise, there was little or no pretence it really was,

As for your old chestnut of 'get out if you don't like the way Thai's do business', well they didn't did they, not by a long chalk. This was business conducted by a few old men with guns. Nothing to do with the vast majority of Thais.

[oakdale160]

ASa Thai lady rild me, "It is OK which govt we have, we have no problems inThailand"

[StevePIraq]

The Thais voted, that is democracy.

[centermid7]

^ 555 They "vote" in North Korea

How child-like. Just because someone votes they have a democracy?

[StevePIraq]

Yes it is one of the main principles of Democracy, the right to vote. Thais are happy with what they voted for. Leave them to it.

And yes they vote in NK.